What can we learn about our risk behaviour as we step into a new normal?

As Singapore enters a transition period and gradually lifts the safety measures to minimise the spread of COVID-19, we can look back at the numbers and consider the government’s response as effective. In a rapidly evolving situation with deep uncertainty, many would agree that the Singapore government demonstrated competence and leadership in coordinating the nation’s response to COVID-19.

However, trust in a competent government should not lead one to assume that little or no individual action is required to manage risks. This was according to Dr Catherine Wong, IPUR Expert Affiliate, and Dr Olivia Jensen, Lead Scientist (Environment and Climate), at IPUR.

In a study published in April 2020, Wong and Jensen examined the interactions between trust in government, risk perceptions and public compliance in Singapore at the height of the COVID-19 response period between January and April 2020¹. They found that high levels of public trust in Singapore during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with low levels of compliance among some groups and a belief that individual action was not required for effective risk management.

Defensive pessimism

The authors observed that much of the government communication effort during the pandemic was presented in way that showed seriousness and that COVID-19 should not be under-estimated. The purpose of this form of risk communication was not to make people feel safer but rather to prepare them mentally for future risks – “Risk communication was applied with the inverse objective of heightening risk perceptions and raising public concern in order to prepare the public for future government interventions.”

Wong and Jensen found that this mode of risk communication to prime the population’s expectations was consistent with the findings of studies on risk management behaviours by the public in Singapore and Hong Kong during the 2003 SARS crisis, where individuals who were more anxious about the disease were more likely to take individual action and adopt risk management behaviours.

Paradox of trust

People want to feel safe. Most would prefer to live in a safe environment where they can trust and rely on the government to take actions to mitigate and manage risks. During the COVID-19 period however, high-levels of public trust reduced some people’s motivations to comply with government guidance.

Focus group participants interviewed had varied understandings of acceptable social distancing. Instead of staying away from gatherings, they felt that by limiting get-togethers to a small group of close friends, they were managing health risks. When the possibility that one of their close friends may have had the virus was raised, they said it was a risk they were willing to take. As a result, stricter measures were inevitably imposed and thus a more natural compliance with rules formed, away from the compliance with guidance notion that was the focus of the study.

The circuit breaker was introduced by the government on April 7 and lasted about 8 weeks before it was lifted on June 1. It saw most workplaces closed, except for those providing essential services, and schools moved to full home-based learning. During that period, infection rates saw a steady decline besides the foreign worker population, which have accounted for about 94% of all COVID-19 cases in Singapore. Infections in the foreign worker population have since dropped with new measures introduced such as quarantine and testing for all foreign workers staying in dormitories.

A united front

An effective pandemic response hinges on society’s collective participation and self-adherence to measures implemented. The study of Singapore’s COVID-19 experience revealed that a delicate balance between public confidence and trust, and individual self-reliance must be struck. Although not every responsibility should be placed on the public to mitigate risks in times of uncertainty, Wong and Jensen offered a different lens – one which focuses on the role of the public in building trust and its relationship with risk perception and management.

Furthermore, they broach the question of what alternatives for risk communication can be used which build trust and at the same time, maintain a high level of readiness and competency on the part of individual action. This leaves us with much food for thought on actions required on the government, societal and individual level. Regardless of the type of crisis faced, solutions should be a united one.

Read the full journal article here.