Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40301579›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

A social network perspective on social cues for COVID risk perception.

Helge Giese, F Marijn Stok, Wolfgang Gaissmaier, Odette Wegwarth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Helge GieseHeisenberg Chair for Medical Risk Literacy and Evidence-based Decisions, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. helge.giese@charite.de.
F Marijn StokDepartment of Interdisciplinary Social Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Wolfgang GaissmaierDepartment of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.
Odette WegwarthHeisenberg Chair for Medical Risk Literacy and Evidence-based Decisions, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19Social NetworkingAdolescentAdultCuesFemaleHumansMalePeer GroupPerceptionPrevalenceSARS-CoV-2StudentsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultAvailability by recallOptimistic biasSocial amplification of riskSocial judgementSocial networks

Identifiers

PMID40301579
PMCPMC12041499

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.