In the shadow of a global health crisis, how do human beings recalibrate their perception of risk? A new study emerging from Gengma, a border town in Yunnan Province, China, sheds unprecedented light on how stringent epidemic prevention policies, exemplified by COVID-19 lockdowns, can dramatically alter individuals’ risk attitudes. Leveraging the sophisticated framework of prospect theory—specifically, the nuanced fourfold risk attitude model—researchers meticulously conducted a two-wave experimental design that spans the pre-pandemic period and the immediate aftermath of lockdown release. The findings not only challenge conventional assumptions about risk preference stability but also offer a crucial vantage point for understanding behavioral economics in times of crisis.
Prospect theory, pioneered by Kahneman and Tversky, revolutionized the understanding of decision-making under uncertainty by incorporating psychological biases into economic models. The fourfold risk attitude framework refines this theory by predicting distinct risk behaviors dependent on the probability and domain of outcomes, distinguishing between gains and losses. Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, the subjects in this study conformed neatly to these theoretical expectations: they exhibited risk-seeking behavior in lotteries offering low-probability, high-payoff gains, and moderate-probability, low-payoff losses. Conversely, they were risk-averse toward moderate-probability gains and low-probability, high-payoff losses, aligning well with classical prospect theory insights.
The second wave of the experiment, however, delivered strikingly counterintuitive results. Conducted only three days after quarantine measures were lifted in November 2020—when pandemic-related pressures registered at their peak—the data revealed a reversal in risk attitudes within the medium-probability gain and loss domains. Individuals became markedly more risk-seeking for gains that previously elicited caution and more risk-averse towards losses that had formerly been approached with greater risk tolerance. This phenomenon underscores how extreme external shocks, such as a prolonged lockdown, can fundamentally disrupt individuals’ probabilistic evaluation mechanisms and decision heuristics.
This pivot in risk preferences is particularly compelling because it conflicts with traditional economic rationality, reinforcing the notion that human decision-making is profoundly influenced by environmental context and emotional states. The unprecedented stress, fear, and uncertainty induced by the pandemic environment evidently amplified loss aversion behaviors and heightened the appeal of riskier gain prospects. The psychological toll of lockdown—characterized by isolation, economic uncertainty, and health fears—can be seen as a catalyst reshaping the cognitive weighting of probabilities and outcomes that govern decision-making.
The repercussions of this transformation extend beyond academic curiosity. As governments worldwide contemplate post-pandemic recovery, understanding shifts in public risk tolerance becomes critical for effective policy design. For instance, insurance frameworks and social welfare programs must adapt to accommodate a populace with increased aversion to losses, ensuring that protective measures resonate with altered risk perceptions. Similarly, economic stimulus strategies fostering entrepreneurship and innovation should recognize that a populace conditioned by lockdown may demonstrate atypical risk appetites, necessitating tailored support mechanisms to spur productive risk-taking.
Intriguingly, the evolution of risk attitudes during the pandemic does not appear uniform across all probability domains. While low-probability gains retained their appeal—indicating persistent risk-seeking tendencies—the mid-probability spectrum revealed the most dynamic shifts. This specificity hints at a layered cognitive recalibration, where individuals recalibrate not just the magnitude of risk tolerance but its probabilistic sensitivity. From a neurological standpoint, this may reflect altered activation patterns in brain areas responsible for reward evaluation and risk processing, such as the amygdala and prefrontal cortex, triggered by sustained stress and uncertainty.
Further, this research illuminates the temporal dimension of behavioral adaptation. The timing of the second experimental wave—immediately after lockdown lift—captures a snapshot of risk attitude under acute psychological strain, potentially distinct from chronic pandemic fatigue effects. The acute phase likely heightens cognitive alertness to threats and opportunities, accentuating risk-related biases. Whether these altered attitudes revert as societies normalize or persist, embedding long-term behavioral change, remains an open question demanding longitudinal scrutiny.
The methodology employed by this study deserves emphasis. The dual temporal framework, comparing pre-pandemic real-world baseline data with immediate post-lockdown responses, allows for causal inferences about the impact of strict public health policies on risk preferences. This quasi-natural experimental setup, seldom achievable in behavioral economics, provides robust evidence linking public policy interventions with measurable shifts in human cognition and choice patterns. Such empirical rigor is vital to transcend speculative assertions about pandemic-induced behavioral changes.
Moreover, the geographic and sociocultural context enriches the dataset’s relevance. Conducting this investigation in Gengma— a bordering town in Yunnan Province —captures the intersection of localized pandemic management and culturally embedded risk attitudes. Diversity in risk responses worldwide underscores the importance of contextualized studies; findings here add a critical voice toward building a global mosaic of pandemic behavioral economics.
The study’s implications also ripple into mental health considerations. Heightened risk aversion in loss domains post-lockdown may reflect, or even exacerbate, anxiety and stress-related disorders. Recognizing this intertwining of cognitive biases and psychological wellbeing is vital for integrated public health responses that address not only infectious threat containment but also the aftermath of behavioral and emotional shifts.
Policy formulations emerging from these insights must balance public safety with fostering resilient risk-related decision-making. Community support initiatives, mental health services, and economic incentives designed to recalibrate risk preferences toward conventional baselines could serve as counterweights to the distortions wrought by lockdown-induced trauma. Encouragingly, the study invites multidisciplinary collaboration to identify mechanisms enabling the restoration of adaptive risk attitudes, essential for societal recovery and growth.
While offering groundbreaking perspectives, the researchers prudently acknowledge limitations inherent in their design. The immediacy of the post-lockdown experiment makes disentangling acute lockdown impact from the protracted psychological burden of the pandemic challenging. Future research trajectories may deploy longitudinal approaches, integrating neuroeconomic techniques and physiological stress markers, to unravel the temporal dynamics of risk attitude evolution in pandemic contexts.
Altogether, this investigation stands as a pioneering contribution to understanding how unprecedented public health measures can ripple through cognitive terrains, reshaping fundamental aspects of decision-making. It challenges the assumption of stable risk preferences and spotlights the profound ways environmental stressors modulate economic behavior. As the world grapples with pandemic aftermaths and contemplates prepping for future global crises, such insights become invaluable tools guiding the confluence of behavioral science, public policy, and societal resilience.
These findings also provoke profound philosophical reflection on human agency under duress. The power of external shocks to invert risk perceptions underscores our inherent vulnerability and adaptability—a duality that shapes collective survival strategies. The delicate interplay between risk and uncertainty, so fundamental to life itself, is thus refracted anew through the prism of contemporary crisis, offering fertile ground for ongoing inquiry.
In the broader context of behavioral economics, this study exemplifies the necessity of integrating psychological realism into predictive models. Purely rational frameworks fail to capture the volatility of human choices under extraordinary circumstances. As such, policy architectures and economic models must evolve to encompass dynamic risk attitudes shaped by social and environmental upheavals, thereby enhancing their explanatory and prescriptive potency.
Finally, the work calls attention to the potential role of technological tools—such as AI-enabled behavioral monitoring and adaptive policy algorithms—in detecting and responding to emergent risk attitude shifts. The fusion of empirical behavioral insights with advanced data analytics holds promise for real-time, fine-grained public health and economic interventions, marking a transformative evolution in societal governance amid uncertainty.
Subject of Research: The study investigates how strict epidemic prevention policies, specifically COVID-19 lockdowns, influence individuals’ risk attitudes based on the fourfold risk attitude framework of prospect theory.
Article Title: Does a strict COVID-19 lockdown policy change risk attitudes? Evidence from a bordering town, Gengma, in Yunnan Province, China.
Article References:
Tan, L., Yang, F., Li, X. et al. Does a strict COVID-19 lockdown policy change risk attitudes? Evidence from a bordering town, Gengma, in Yunnan Province, China. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 611 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04901-0
Image Credits: AI Generated
