The COVID-19 pandemic presented a unique opportunity to study how risk attitudes influence human behavior on a global scale. While mortality rates varied across demographics, the behavioral response to the pandemic was not solely determined by objective risk assessment. This research investigates the role of individual risk attitudes in shaping mobility patterns during the early stages of the pandemic. The authors posit that risk aversion is a significant predictor of compliance with social distancing and lockdown measures. Examining this at the regional level is crucial as risk behavior is influenced by individual, collective actions, and the broader social environment. Existing research highlights the importance of risk perception in managing epidemics, particularly concerning HIV/AIDS, but less is understood about how general risk attitudes influence broader societal responses to pandemics. This research aims to bridge this gap, considering the interplay of risk attitudes, individual behavior, and regional contexts to understand mobility patterns during a pandemic. This is particularly relevant given the globalized and urbanized nature of modern society, which exacerbates the vulnerability of populations to pandemic diseases.

The paper reviews existing literature on risk-taking attitudes and their influence on various behaviors. It cites studies focusing on risk aversion in the context of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, modelling the effects of risk perception on the spread of epidemics, and the impact of risk attitudes in disaster situations and extreme circumstances. The Global Preferences Survey is highlighted as a key instrument for assessing individual risk preferences, combining experimental lottery choices and self-assessment. Existing literature is also reviewed on the various biases and heuristics used in risk assessment, highlighting bounded rationality and the influence of emotions such as fear. The concept of risk as a feeling, less driven by actual probabilities and more by intuitive reactions to danger, is discussed. The authors note that although risk-taking is often considered a stable personality trait, situational factors also significantly impact it. Finally, the literature on framing biases and their influence on risk-taking behavior is reviewed.

The study examined the relationship between changes in human mobility and average risk preferences in 58 countries, encompassing 776 regions. Data on human mobility was obtained from Google’s COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports, covering six location types (Retail & Recreation, Grocery & Pharmacy, Parks, Transit Stations, Workplaces, and Residential) between February 15 and May 9, 2020. Risk preferences were sourced from the Global Preferences Survey (2012) and aggregated at the regional level. The study employed a random-effects linear model, regressing the daily percentage change in location visits (compared to a pre-pandemic baseline) on risk-taking preference and a range of control variables. These control variables included: day of the week (weekday/weekend), a dummy variable indicating the date of the WHO’s pandemic declaration, confirmed cases per 1000 people, days since the first death, percentage of population over 65, population density, percentage of urban population, average household size, unemployment rate, per capita income, daily average temperature, and seven indicators of government responses. The inclusion of these controls allowed the researchers to isolate the effect of risk attitudes on mobility independent of government-imposed restrictions. The analysis also explored interaction effects between risk preference and other covariates, such as the pandemic declaration and the proportion of the elderly population. Robustness checks were conducted to account for potential biases due to censored values in the mobility data. The data and code for the study are available on the Open Science Framework.

The study found an overall reduction in visits to all locations except residential areas, particularly in the initial weeks after the pandemic declaration. Risk-taking attitudes showed a positive association with visits to retail and recreation places and parks, suggesting that risk-tolerant individuals were less likely to reduce their visits to these locations. However, there was no apparent relationship between risk preference and changes in mobility to grocery and pharmacy, transit stations, workplaces, and residential areas. The pandemic declaration acted as a strong moderator of the risk-mobility relationship. Pre-declaration, mobility changes showed some variation related to risk attitudes, but this varied across locations. Post-declaration, the effect of risk-taking on mobility changed dramatically, especially for retail and recreation, transit stations, and workplaces. The reduction in mobility was more significant for risk-tolerant individuals after the pandemic declaration. A comparison of weekday and weekend mobility showed a larger reduction in visits to non-residential locations on weekends compared to weekdays. Risk-averse regions exhibited a greater reduction in mobility on weekends compared to risk-tolerant regions. This effect was particularly pronounced after the pandemic declaration. Areas with a larger elderly population had a greater reduction in mobility to grocery and pharmacy, transit stations, and workplaces. Interestingly, this relationship was independent of government lockdown measures.

The study's findings demonstrate the significant impact of risk attitudes on human mobility during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results highlight that risk aversion plays a substantial role in shaping behavioral responses, even in the absence of explicit government mandates. The difference in mobility patterns between risk-averse and risk-tolerant individuals underscores the complex interaction between personal characteristics and societal responses to public health crises. The observed shifts in the risk-mobility relationship before and after the WHO's pandemic declaration emphasize the dynamic nature of risk perception and behavioral adaptation. The differing responses on weekdays versus weekends suggest that opportunity costs associated with social distancing also play a role. The interaction of risk attitudes and the proportion of the elderly population further illustrates the heterogeneity of behavioral responses. These findings have significant implications for public health policy, suggesting that tailoring interventions to individual risk profiles could enhance compliance with public health measures.

This study shows risk attitudes significantly shaped human mobility during the early COVID-19 pandemic, independent of government interventions. Risk-averse individuals demonstrated greater compliance with social distancing, while risk-tolerant individuals showed less responsiveness to the pandemic declaration. Future research should explore individual-level data to better understand the underlying mechanisms driving these differences and consider other factors, such as information dissemination and media reporting. Moreover, longitudinal studies are needed to observe long-term behavioral changes and habit formation related to the experience of this pandemic.

The study's primary limitation is the use of regionally aggregated data, which masks individual-level heterogeneity. Future research using individual-level data could provide deeper insights into the role of age, gender, and other psychological factors. Additionally, the lack of baseline data on social mobility limits a complete understanding of pre-pandemic activity levels and its relation to mobility changes during the pandemic. Finally, the reliance on Google mobility data introduces potential biases related to data collection methodology and geographic coverage.