“涟漪效应”与“心理台风眼效应”：不同程度COVID-19疫情地区民众风险认知与焦虑的双视角检验

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.01087

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在因防控COVID-19疫情武汉“封城”后的一个半月内, 对全国34个省(区市)4833名民众的风险认知与焦虑进行了当事人视角和旁观者视角的调查研究。结果表明, (1)基于当事人视角时, 不同程度疫情地区民众的风险认知和焦虑存在类似“涟漪效应”的趋势, 疫情严重地区大于其他地区; (2)基于旁观者视角, 民众对武汉居民的焦虑和对所需心理咨询工作者和医生数量的评估存在“心理台风眼效应”; (3)基于旁观者视角, 在风险认知上, 低风险地区民众对武汉居民的评估显著低于高、中高及中风险地区的评估, 部分支持“涟漪效应”; 研究还发现了“边缘带效应”和“心理可控阈限”的存在。本研究一方面为“心理台风眼效应”研究的“当事人与旁观者”视角知觉差异提供了更为丰富的直接证据, 另一方面为突发公共卫生事件应急管理提供了有针对性的心理依据。

关键词: 新冠肺炎疫情, 风险认知, 焦虑, 心理台风眼效应, 涟漪效应, 边缘带效应

Abstract:

COVID-19 has greatly affected the psychological state of Chinese people. This study carried out a dynamic follow-up survey of the psychological state of Chinese people and their evaluation of Wuhan residents during the epidemic period since the day of Wuhan’s citywide lockdown. The purpose of this work was to explore differences in degree of concern, risk perception, and anxiety response among regions affected by COVID-19 to different degrees. Our findings have important practical value for future crisis emergency management.

This work included a large-scale survey covering 4833 Chinese residents, and it was conducted after Wuhan was closed. Its purpose was to assess whether COVID-19 invoked the psychological typhoon eye effect of a disaster event. The survey involved two angles, the “actor” angle, in which participants evaluated their own psychological states, and the “bystander” angle, in which participants evaluated other Wuhan citizens’ psychological states. We called these Study 1 and Study 2. Study1 explored the psychological state of residents themselves and the results were consistent with the ripple effect to some extent within the epidemic period, which is the opposite pattern of the psychological typhoon eye. The residents who lived near the hardest-hit areas showed significantly higher risk perception and anxiety. Study 2 explored how people from different areas evaluated Wuhan residents’ psychological state. The results of Study 2 did show a replicated psychological typhoon eye effect in terms of anxiety, and number of psychological workers and doctors residents needed. However, when it came to risk cognition, residents in low-risk areas rated Wuhan citizens’ risk cognition as significantly lower than people in high-risk areas did, which generally manifested as a ripple effect.

This study also showed a marginal zone effect and a psychological controllable threshold. The concave effect means there was a phenomenon in which risk perception was lower in the middle zone or middle-risk area than at either end. The psychological controllable threshold is one of the sub-scales of risk cognition. That is, uncontrollability did not show the psychological typhoon eye effect in the bystander portion of our study.

This paper further expands and enriches the boundary conditions of the psychological typhoon eye effect of public risk events, provides more abundant and direct research evidence for the perception difference between actor and bystander angle in the study of psychological typhoon eye effect, and has important implications for a deeper understanding of the psychological evolution of public health emergencies and public crisis management.

Key words: COVID-19, Psychological Typhoon Eye Effect, Ripple Effect, risk perception, anxiety, marginal zone effect

中图分类号:

B849:C91

温芳芳, 马书瀚, 叶含雪, 齐玥, 佐斌. (2020). “涟漪效应”与“心理台风眼效应”：不同程度COVID-19疫情地区民众风险认知与焦虑的双视角检验. 心理学报, 52(9), 1087-1104.

WEN Fangfang, MA Shuhan, YE Hanxue, QI Yue, ZUO Bin. (2020). “Psychological Typhoon Eye Effect” and “Ripple Effect”: Double perspective test of risk perception and anxiety characteristics of people in different COVID-19severityregions. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(9), 1087-1104.

图/表 11

参考文献 46

[1]	Burns W. J., & Slovic, P. (2012). Risk perception and behaviors: anticipating and responding to crises. Risk Analysis, 32(4), 579-582. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01791.x URL pmid: 22500649
[2]	Chen, Y. Q., & He, Y. S. (2008). Research on the difference between the Internet survey and the traditional paper survey. Statistic and Decision Making, (16), 32-34.
	[ 陈永泰, 何有世. (2008). 网络调查和传统纸质调查的差异性研究. 统计与决策, (16), 32-34.]
[3]	Cho, J., & Lee, J. (2006). An integrated model of risk and risk-reducing strategies. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 112-120. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.03.006 URL
[4]	Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (2004). Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 191-198. doi: 10.1086/383434 URL
[5]	Forsythe, S. M., & Shi, B. (2003). Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in Internet shopping. Journal of Business Research, 56(11), 867-875. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00273-9 URL
[6]	Guedeney, C., & Mendel, G. (1973). L'angoisse atomique et les centrales nucléaires: Contribution psychanalytique et sociopsychanalytique à l’ étude d’ un phenomena collecti. Paris, Payot.
[7]	Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1972) The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones et al. (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press.
[8]	Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., … Ratick, S. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177-187. doi: 10.1111/risk.1988.8.issue-2 URL
[9]	Li, H. Q., Wang, H. S., Jia, J. M., & Fan, C. M. (2008). Demand survey and satisfaction analysis of Dujiangyan victims in Wenchuan earthquake. Journal of Huazhong University of science and Technology (Social Science Edition), 22(6), 49-53.
	[ 李华强, 王顺洪, 贾建民, 范春梅. (2008). 汶川地震都江堰灾民需求调研及满意度分析. 华中科技大学学报(社会科学版), 22(6), 49-53.]
[10]	Li, S., Liu, H., Bai, X. W., Ren, X. P., Zheng, R., Li, J. Z., … Wang, Z. J. (2009). Psychological typhoon eye in 2008 Wenchuan earthquake of May 12. Science of Technology, 27(903), 87-89. doi: 10.1021/es00038a008 URL
	[ 李纾, 刘欢, 白新文, 仁孝鹏, 郑蕊, 李金珍, … 汪祚军. (2009). 汶川“5.12”地震中的“心理台风眼”效应. 科技导报, 27(903), 87-89.]
[11]	Li, S., Rao, L.-L., Bai, X.-W., Zheng, R., Ren, X.-P., Li, J.-Z. … Zhang, K. (2010) Progression of the “Psychological Typhoon Eye” and variations since the Wenchuan earthquake. PLoS ONE, 5(3), e9727. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0009727 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009727 URL pmid: 20305817
[12]	Li, S., Rao, L.-L., Ren, X.-P., Bai, X.-W., Zheng, R., Li, J.-Z., … Liu, H. (2009). Psychological typhoon eye in the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. PLoS ONE, 4(3), e4964. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004964 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004964 URL pmid: 19305501
[13]	Li, W. J. (2016). Study on Psychological typhoon eye effect in avoiding group events. Learning Forum, 32(1), 73-77.
	[ 李文姣. (2016). 邻避型群体性事件中的心理台风眼效应研究. 学习论坛, 32(1), 73-77.]
[14]	Liang, Z., Xu, J. H., LI, S., Sun, Y., Liu, C. J., & Ye, X. B. (2008). Perplexing problems in risk communication of emergent public security events: A psychological perspective. Journal of Natural Disasters, 17(2), 25-30.
	[ 梁哲, 许洁虹, 李纾, 孙彦, 刘长江, 叶先宝. (2008). 突发公共安全事件的风险沟通难题—— 从心理学角度的观察. 自然灾害学报, 17(2), 25-30.]
[15]	Lima, M. L. (2004). On the influence of risk perception on mental health: Living near an incinerator. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 71-84. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00026-4 URL
[16]	Lindell, M. K., & Earle, T. C. (1983). How close is close enough: public perceptions of the risks of industrial facilities. Risk Analysis, 3(4), 245-253. doi: 10.1111/risk.1983.3.issue-4 URL
[17]	Maderthaner, R., Guttman, G., Swaton, E., & Otway, H. J. (1978). Effect of distance upon risk perception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(3), 380-382. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.63.3.380 URL
[18]	Melber, B. D., Nealey, S. M., Hammersla, J., & Rankin, W. L. (1977). Nuclear power and the public: Analysis of collected survey research. Seattle: Battelle Memorial Institute, Human Affairs Research Center.
[19]	Okeke, C. U., Armour, A. (2000). Post-landfill siting perceptions of nearby residents: A case study of Halton landfill. Applied Geography, 20(2), 137-154. doi: 10.1016/S0143-6228(00)00003-5 URL
[20]	Otway, H. J., & von Winterfeldt, D. (1982). Beyond acceptable risk: On the social acceptability of technologies. Policy Sciences, 14(3), 247-256. doi: 10.1007/BF00136399 URL
[21]	Pidgeon, N. I. C. K., Turner, B. A. R. R. Y., Toft, B. R. I. A. N., & Blockley, D. A. V. I. D. (1992). Hazard management and safety culture. In D. J. Parker & J. W. Handmer (Eds) Hazard Management and Emergency Planning: Perspectives on Britain. James and James, London.
[22]	Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285. doi: 10.1126/science.3563507 URL pmid: 3563507
[23]	Slovic, P. (2000). What does it mean to know a cumulative risk? Adolescents' perceptions of short‐term and long‐term consequences of smoking. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(2), 259-266. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771 URL
[24]	Shi, K., Chen, X. F., Hu, W. P., Jia, J. M., Gao, J., Li, W. D. … Zhang, L. H. (2003). A study on the risk cognitive characteristics of SARS epidemic in Beijing citizens. Population Research, 27(4), 42-46.
	[ 时勘, 陈雪峰, 胡卫鹏, 贾建民, 高晶, 李文东, … 张丽红. (2003). 北京市民对SARS疫情的风险认知特征. 人口研究, 27(4), 42-46.]
[25]	Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 9-38. doi: 10.5465/amr.1992.4279564 URL
[26]	Tversky, A., & Griffin, D. (1991). 12 Endowment and contrast in judgments of well-being. Strategy and Choice, 21, 297-318.
[27]	Wang, L., & Jia, J. M. (2014). Dynamic characteristics of risk perception of sudden disaster events -- Evidence from Internet search. Management Review, 26(5), 169.
	[ 王炼, 贾建民. (2014). 突发性灾害事件风险感知的动态特征——来自网络搜索的证据. 管理评论, 26(5), 169.]
[28]	Wiegman, O, Gutteling, J. M., Boer, H. (1991). Verification of information through direct experiences with an Industrial hazard. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 12(3), 325-339.
[29]	Wu, L., & Zhang, X. (2012). Psychometric paradigm in risk perception research. Journal of Nanjing Normal University (Social Sciences), (2), 95-102.
	[ 伍麟, 张璇. (2012). 风险感知研究中的心理测量范式. 南京师大学报(社会科学版), (2), 95-102.]
[30]	Xie, J. Q., Xie, X. F., Gan, Y. Q. (2011). Psychological typhoon eye effect in the Wenchuan earthquake. Acta Scicentiarum Naturalum Universitis Pekinesis, 47(5), 944-952.
	[ 谢佳秋, 谢晓非, 甘怡群. (2011). 汶川地震中的心理台风眼效应. 北京大学学报 (自然科学版), 47(5), 944-952.]
[31]	Xie, X. F. (1995). Research of risk decision-making mode of company managers. Research of Scientific Management, 1(6), 1.
	[ 谢晓非. (1995). 企业管理人员的风险决策模式研究. 科学管理研究, 1(6), 1.]
[32]	Xie, X. F., & Lin, J. (2012). Review of psychological typhoon eye effect. China Emergency Management, 21-25.
	[ 谢晓非, 林靖. (2012). 心理台风眼效应研究综述. 中国应急管理, 21-25.]
[33]	Xie, X. F., Stone, E., Zheng, R., & Zhang, R. G. (2011). The “Typhoon Eye Effect”: Determinants of distress during the SARS epidemic. Journal of Risk Research, 14(9), 1091-1107. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2011.571790 URL
[34]	Xie, X. F., Xie, D. M., Zheng, R. & Zhang, L. S. (2003). First exploration on the characteristics of public reason in the SARS crisis. Management Review, 15(4), 8-14+65.]
	[ 谢晓非, 谢冬梅, 郑蕊, 张利沙. (2003). SARS危机中公众理性特征初探. 管理评论, 15(4), 8-14+65.]
[35]	Xie, X. F., & Xu, L. C. (1996). Public bias in risk cognition. Journal of Developments in Psychology, 14(2), 23-26.
	[ 谢晓非, 徐联仓. (1996). 公众在风险认知中的偏差. 心理学动态, 14(2), 23-26.]
[36]	Xie, X. F., & Xu, L. C. (2000). Research of risk cognition of managers in work condition. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 32(1), 115-120.
	[ 谢晓非, 徐联仓. (2000). 工作情景中管理人员的风险认知研究. 心理学报, 32(1), 115-120.]
[37]	Xie, X. F., Zheng, R., Xie, D. M. Wang, H. (2005). Analysis of psychological panic in SARS. Acta Scicentiarum Naturalum Universitis Pekinesis, 41(4), 628-638.
	[ 谢晓非, 郑蕊, 谢冬梅, 王惠. (2005). SARS中的心理恐慌现象分析. 北京大学学报: 自然科学版, 41(4), 628-638.]
[38]	Xu, M. X., Zheng, R., Rao, L. L., Kuang, Y., Yang, S. W., Ding, Y., … Li, S. (2020). The “psychological typhoon eye effect” in the epidemic situation should be properly dealt with. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 35(3), 273-282.
	[ 许明星, 郑蕊, 饶俪琳, 匡仪, 杨舒雯, 丁阳, … 李纾. (2020). 疫情中的“心理台风眼效应”要妥善应对. 中国科学院院刊, 35(3), 273-282.]
[39]	Xue, L., & Zhong, K. B. (2005). Classification, grading, and staging of public emergencies: The management foundation of an emergency system. China Administration, (2), 102-107.
	[ 薛澜, 钟开斌. (2005). 突发公共事件分类、分级与分期: 应急体制的管理基础. 中国行政管理, (2), 102-107.]
[40]	Yu, H. Y., & Huang, X. Z. (2011). The difference between written survey and online survey -- A comparison of two data collection methods. Statistics & Information Forum, 26(10), 97-103.
	[ 于洪彦, 黄晓治. (2011). 书面调查和网络调查的区别——两种数据收集方法的比较. 统计与信息论坛, 26(10), 97-103.]
[41]	Yu, Q. Y., & Xie, X. F. (2006). The cognitive characteristics of risk in environment. Journal of Psychological Science, 29(2), 362-365.
	[ 于清源, 谢晓非. (2006). 环境中的风险认知特征. 心理科学, 29(2), 362-365.]
[42]	Zhang, S. X., Huang, H., Wei, F. (2020). Geographical distance to the epicenter of Covid-19 predicts the burnout of the working population: Ripple effect or typhoon eye effect?. Psychiatry Research, 288. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.psychres.2020.112998.
[43]	Zheng, R., Rao, L. L., Zheng, X. L., Cai, C., Wei, Z. H., Xuan, Y. H., & Li, S. (2015). The more involved in lead-zinc mining risk the less frightened: A psychological typhoon eye perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 44, 126-134. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.10.002 URL pmid: 32287833
[44]	Zung, W. W. (1971). A rating instrument for anxiety disorders. Psychosom, 12(6), 371-379. doi: 10.1016/S0033-3182(71)71479-0 URL
[45]	Zuo, B. (2009). Social psychology. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
	[ 佐斌. (2009). 社会心理学. 北京: 高等教育出版社.]
[46]	Zuo, B., Zhang, X., Wen, F. F., & Zhao, Y. (2020). The influence of stressful life events on depression among Chinese university students: Multiple mediating roles of fatalism and core self-evaluations. Journal of Affective Disorders, 260, 84-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2019.08.083 URL pmid: 31493644

作者/年份	突发事件性质	具体测量时间	测量指标	评价视角	心理台风眼
Guedeney & Mandel (1973)	邻避设施关联	潜在风险中	忧虑水平	当事人	√
Maderthaner等(1978)	邻避设施关联	潜在风险中	风险认知	当事人	部分√
Okeke & Armour (2000)	邻避设施关联	潜在风险中	忧虑水平	当事人	×
时勘等(2003)	SARS关联	灾难中、后	疫情风险认知, 心理紧张度, 疫情发展预期, 应对行为, 心理健康, 经济发展预期	旁观者	√
谢晓非等(2005)	SARS关联	灾难后	焦虑水平, 生活受干扰程度	当事人	√
李纾等(2009)	地震关联	灾难后	所需恢复时间, 所需资金	旁观者	√
Li et al. (2009)	地震关联	灾难后	灾后疫情发生概率, 灾区急救措施需要量, 每一千名灾区居民所需的(心理)医生数量, 灾区居民所需药物量	当事人(或想像自己是当事人)	√
Li et al. (2010)	地震关联	灾难后	同Li et al. (2009)	当事人(或想像自己是当事人)	√
谢佳秋等(2011)	地震关联	灾难后	购买保险的意愿, 撤离原居住地的意愿	当事人(或想像自己是当事人)	√
			对余震的风险认知	当事人(或想像自己是当事人)	√
			焦虑水平(采用状态-特质焦虑问卷中文版)	当事人(或想像自己是当事人)	×
Xie等(2011)	SARS关联	灾难后	焦虑水平(采用状态-特质焦虑问卷中文版)	当事人	√
Zheng等(2015)	邻避设施相关	潜在风险中	风险认知, 感知到的好处与伤害	当事人	√
许明星等(2020)	COVID-19 疫情关联	灾难中	2个主观害怕心理指标(估计武汉人购买口罩愿意出的最高价钱; 估计武汉地区大中小学2020年开学推迟天数)	旁观者	√

作者/年份	突发事件性质	具体测量时间	测量指标	评价视角	心理台风眼
Guedeney & Mandel (1973)	邻避设施关联	潜在风险中	忧虑水平	当事人	√
Maderthaner等(1978)	邻避设施关联	潜在风险中	风险认知	当事人	部分√
Okeke & Armour (2000)	邻避设施关联	潜在风险中	忧虑水平	当事人	×
时勘等(2003)	SARS关联	灾难中、后	疫情风险认知, 心理紧张度, 疫情发展预期, 应对行为, 心理健康, 经济发展预期	旁观者	√
谢晓非等(2005)	SARS关联	灾难后	焦虑水平, 生活受干扰程度	当事人	√
李纾等(2009)	地震关联	灾难后	所需恢复时间, 所需资金	旁观者	√
Li et al. (2009)	地震关联	灾难后	灾后疫情发生概率, 灾区急救措施需要量, 每一千名灾区居民所需的(心理)医生数量, 灾区居民所需药物量	当事人(或想像自己是当事人)	√
Li et al. (2010)	地震关联	灾难后	同Li et al. (2009)	当事人(或想像自己是当事人)	√
谢佳秋等(2011)	地震关联	灾难后	购买保险的意愿, 撤离原居住地的意愿	当事人(或想像自己是当事人)	√
			对余震的风险认知	当事人(或想像自己是当事人)	√
			焦虑水平(采用状态-特质焦虑问卷中文版)	当事人(或想像自己是当事人)	×
Xie等(2011)	SARS关联	灾难后	焦虑水平(采用状态-特质焦虑问卷中文版)	当事人	√
Zheng等(2015)	邻避设施相关	潜在风险中	风险认知, 感知到的好处与伤害	当事人	√
许明星等(2020)	COVID-19 疫情关联	灾难中	2个主观害怕心理指标(估计武汉人购买口罩愿意出的最高价钱; 估计武汉地区大中小学2020年开学推迟天数)	旁观者	√

不同程度疫情分类	地区划分	数量	性别(男/女)	年龄(M ± SD)
不同风险程度地区 (与重灾区地理空间距离)	武汉地区	468	134/334	35.74 ± 12.28
	湖北其他地区	867	317/550	33.13 ± 11.78
	湖北接壤省市	327	110/217	28.82 ± 10.33
	全国其他省市	1019	278/741	31.46 ± 10.89
不同风险程度地区 (每日累计确诊病例)	高风险地区	231	97/134	33.17 ± 12.14
	中高风险地区	1145	372/773	34.00 ± 11.95
	中风险地区	251	72/179	29.68 ± 10.57
	低风险地区	1054	298/756	31.20 ± 10.91

不同程度疫情分类	地区划分	数量	性别(男/女)	年龄(M ± SD)
不同风险程度地区 (与重灾区地理空间距离)	武汉地区	468	134/334	35.74 ± 12.28
	湖北其他地区	867	317/550	33.13 ± 11.78
	湖北接壤省市	327	110/217	28.82 ± 10.33
	全国其他省市	1019	278/741	31.46 ± 10.89
不同风险程度地区 (每日累计确诊病例)	高风险地区	231	97/134	33.17 ± 12.14
	中高风险地区	1145	372/773	34.00 ± 11.95
	中风险地区	251	72/179	29.68 ± 10.57
	低风险地区	1054	298/756	31.20 ± 10.91

不同疫情程度划分	地区	风险认知	可能性	严重性	未知性	不可控性	焦虑
不同风险程度地区 (与重灾区地理空间距离)	武汉地区	30.20 ± 5.32	2.29 ± 1.04	12.22 ± 2.26	8.78 ± 1.58	6.91 ± 2.04	20.37 ± 5.40
	湖北其他地区	29.05 ± 5.76	1.91 ± 0.88	11.84 ± 2.63	8.64 ± 1.78	6.66 ± 2.24	19.27 ± 4.87
	湖北接壤省市	28.59 ± 5.35	1.99 ± 0.78	11.61 ± 2.35	8.28 ± 1.70	6.71 ± 2.03	19.30 ± 4.94
	全国其他省市	28.79 ± 5.45	1.92 ± 0.78	11.62 ± 2.47	8.38 ± 1.74	6.86 ± 2.00	19.07 ± 5.12
不同风险程度地区 (每日累计确诊病例)	高风险地区	29.73 ± 5.32	2.01 ± 0.94	11.92 ± 2.42	8.75 ± 1.56	7.04 ± 2.19	19.06 ± 5.25
	中高风险地区	29.32 ± 5.67	2.03 ± 0.95	11.95 ± 2.52	8.65 ± 1.74	6.69 ± 2.15	19.72 ± 5.02
	中风险地区	28.28 ± 5.53	1.90 ± 0.76	11.42 ± 2.60	8.31 ± 1.80	6.64 ± 1.98	18.29 ± 4.87
	低风险地区	28.91 ± 5.42	1.96 ± 0.79	11.70 ± 2.41	8.38 ± 1.72	6.87 ± 2.02	19.37 ± 5.14