Psychological factors shaping public responses to COVID-19 digital contact tracing technologies in Germany.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 09 2021
21 09 2021
Historique:
received:
13
05
2021
accepted:
01
09
2021
entrez:
22
9
2021
pubmed:
23
9
2021
medline:
1
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The COVID-19 pandemic has seen one of the first large-scale uses of digital contact tracing to track a chain of infection and contain the spread of a virus. The new technology has posed challenges both for governments aiming at high and effective uptake and for citizens weighing its benefits (e.g., protecting others' health) against the potential risks (e.g., loss of data privacy). Our cross-sectional survey with repeated measures across four samples in Germany ([Formula: see text]) focused on psychological factors contributing to the public adoption of digital contact tracing. We found that public acceptance of privacy-encroaching measures (e.g., granting the government emergency access to people's medical records or location tracking data) decreased over the course of the pandemic. Intentions to use contact tracing apps-hypothetical ones or the Corona-Warn-App launched in Germany in June 2020-were high. Users and non-users of the Corona-Warn-App differed in their assessment of its risks and benefits, in their knowledge of the underlying technology, and in their reasons to download or not to download the app. Trust in the app's perceived security and belief in its effectiveness emerged as psychological factors playing a key role in its adoption. We incorporate our findings into a behavioral framework for digital contact tracing and provide policy recommendations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34548550
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-98249-5
pii: 10.1038/s41598-021-98249-5
pmc: PMC8455538
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
18716Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Psychol Med. 2021 Mar 26;:1-11
pubmed: 33769242
PLoS One. 2021 Jan 22;16(1):e0245740
pubmed: 33481877
Nat Hum Behav. 2020 Jul;4(7):677-687
pubmed: 32581299
Science. 2020 May 8;368(6491):
pubmed: 32234805
Public Health. 2020 Nov;188:21-31
pubmed: 33059232
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Feb 02;18(3):
pubmed: 33540628
Science. 1987 Apr 17;236(4799):280-5
pubmed: 3563507
Risk Anal. 2021 Mar;41(3):480-490
pubmed: 31046144
BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Sep 18;19(1):810
pubmed: 31533659
J Hosp Med. 2020 Jun 17;15(7):431-433
pubmed: 32584250
Nat Commun. 2021 Jan 26;12(1):587
pubmed: 33500407
PLoS One. 2021 Jan 22;16(1):e0244827
pubmed: 33481841
Sci Adv. 2020 Jun 05;6(23):eabc0764
pubmed: 32548274
Nat Med. 2021 Mar;27(3):361-362
pubmed: 33589822
Implement Sci. 2011 Apr 23;6:42
pubmed: 21513547
Risk Anal. 2000 Apr;20(2):195-203
pubmed: 10859780
Lancet Digit Health. 2020 Aug;2(8):e435-e440
pubmed: 32835201
Stat Med. 2008 Jul 10;27(15):2865-73
pubmed: 17960576
Nat Hum Behav. 2020 Sep;4(9):964-971
pubmed: 32759985
Nat Commun. 2020 Sep 30;11(1):4961
pubmed: 32999287
Nature. 2021 Jun;594(7863):408-412
pubmed: 33979832
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Feb;5(2):247-255
pubmed: 33479505
PLoS One. 2020 Dec 23;15(12):e0242652
pubmed: 33362218
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 02;8(10):e75637
pubmed: 24098391