Without a mask: Judgments of corona virus exposure as a function of inter personal distance

5Citations
Citations of this article
20Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

In order to minimize the risk of infection during the Covid-19 pandemic, people are recommended to keep interpersonal distance (e.g., 1 m, 2 m, 6 feet), wash their hands frequently, limit social contacts and sometimes to wear a face mask. We investigated how people judge the protective effect of interpersonal distance against the Corona virus. The REM model, based on earlier empirical studies, describes how a person’s virus exposure decreases with the square of the distance to another person emitting a virus in a face to face situation. In a comparison with model predictions, most participants underestimated the protective effect of moving further away from another person. Correspondingly, most participants were not aware of how much their exposure would increase if they moved closer to the other person. Spectral analysis of judgments showed that a linear ratio model with the independent variable = (initial distance)/(distance to which a person moves) was the most frequently used judgment rule. It leads to insensitivity to change in exposure compared with the REM model. The present study indicated a need for information about the effects of keeping interpersonal distance and about the importance of virus carrying aerosols in environments with insufficient air ventilation. Longer conversations emitting aerosols in a closed environment may lead to ambient concentrations of aerosols in the air that no distance can compensate for. The results of the study are important for risk communications in countries where people do not wear a mask and when authorities consider removal of a recommendation or a requirement to wear a face mask.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Svenson, O., Appelbom, S., Mayorga, M., & Öjmyr, T. L. (2020). Without a mask: Judgments of corona virus exposure as a function of inter personal distance. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(6), 881–888. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500008111

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free