ArticleScientific reports2025
A social network perspective on social cues for COVID risk perception.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lay perceptions of risks are often at odds with their empirical assessments, particularly regarding risks of peers. Going beyond only considering perceived peer risks, this study explored whether the actual social environment of a person informs their individual COVID risk perception. A cohort of Psychology freshmen (N = 88; academic year 2021/22) was surveyed about their COVID infection status in the past year, prevalence estimates within their cohort, and their social relationships. They were further queried on their expected susceptibility for a COVID infection within the forthcoming month and the potential severity of such an infection. Average student estimation of 1-year prevalence rates (71.8%) were in line with the self-reported prevalence of the cohort (69.8%, p = .110) and took infection prevalence in their social circle into account (β = 0.24, p = .025). This social circle prevalence also contributed to the individual assessment of COVID susceptibility (β = 0.24, p = .031), but not the severity of the disease (β = 0.05, p = .671). These results indicate that the perception of prevalence among peers is not necessarily biased and that social cues of prevalence in the environment are considered when estimating individual susceptibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.