Information Sources, Risk Perception, and Efficacy Appraisal’s Prediction of Engagement in Protective Behaviors Against COVID-19 in China: Repeated Cross-sectional Survey

BACKGROUND: As the COVID-19 pandemic has become a major public health threat worldwide, it is critical to understand what factors affect individual engagement in protective actions. Because of its authoritarian political system and state-owned media system, how Chinese individuals engaged in protective actions against COVID-19 might be different compared to other countries. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to examine how the source of information about COVID-19, Chinese individuals’ risk perception of COVID-19 (ie, perceived severity and perceived susceptibility), and their efficacy appraisal in controlling COVID-19 (ie, response efficacy and self-efficacy) affected their engagement in protective actions. Additionally, this study aims to investigate whether there is any difference in these relationships throughout the duration of this pandemic. METHODS: A six-wave repeated cross-sectional survey (N=1942) was conducted in six major cities in China between February 7 and April 23, 2020. Participants’ reliance on expert versus inexpert sources for information about COVID-19, their perceived severity of and susceptibility to COVID-19, their response efficacy and self-efficacy, and their engagement in protective actions (staying at home, wearing a face mask, and washing hands) were measured. Demographic variables (sex, age, income, education, and city of residence), knowledge of COVID-19, and self-rated health condition were controlled. RESULTS: Reliance on expert sources did not become the major factor that motivated these actions until wave 3, and the negative effect of inexpert sources on these actions was limited to wave 2. Perceived severity encouraged some protective behaviors but its effect varied depending on the specific behavior. In addition, perceived severity exhibited a stronger effect on these behaviors compared to perceived susceptibility. The positive effect of response efficacy was only significant at waves 1 and 2, and limited to certain behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Chinese individuals’ engagement in protective behaviors might not entirely be their autonomous decision but a result of compliance with executive orders. After the early outbreak, expert sources started to facilitate protective behaviors, suggesting that it might take time to develop trust in these sources. The facilitating effect of perceived severity lasted throughout the duration of the pandemic, but that of response efficacy was limited to the early stage.