Risk perception and coping response to COVID-19 mediated by positive and negative emotions: A study on Chinese college students.

This study aimed to assess the mediating roles of positive and negative emotions on the relationship between COVID-19-related risk perception and coping behaviours adopted by Chinese college students in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted an internet-based questionnaire survey from mid February-late October 2020, among 1038 college students, from six Chinese universities (females = 73.41%), ranging within 17-26 years. The survey questionnaire included three major components-the COVID-19-Related Risk Perception Scale (CRPS), the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS-Revision), and Coping Response of COVID-19 Scale (CRCS). Descriptive statistics and a mediated model were used to analyse the collected data. A partial mediation relationship was found between COVID-19-related risk perception and 1) active-response behaviour (β = 0.05, 95% Confidence Interval [CI: 0.03, 0.08]), 2) self-protection behaviour through positive emotions (β = 0.03, CI [0.01, 0.04]), and 3) risk-taking behaviour through negative emotions (β = -0.04, CI [-0.07, -0.02]). This study's double-mediation model has been shown to detect the effect coping mechanisms to COVID-19. Furthermore, it implies that public health managers should consider the differences in coping mechanisms and the diverse mediating roles of positive and negative emotions for coping with public health emergencies.

Introduction

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first detected on December 2019 in Wuhan, the Hubei Province of China [1]. Patients with COVID-19 developed fever, cough, breathlessness, diarrhoea, and fatigue. Initially, patients died from complications of renal insufficiency, pneumonia, and severe respiratory problems [2]. COVID-19 was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) in late January 2020. This declaration led to stringent restrictions worldwide and indicated serious consequences like the global spread of the disease or infection [3].

There is an expansive body of research on the public’s coping response and risk perception [4,5]. In general, people tend to judge risk by their perception of risk [3], intuitively evaluating the danger faced by them [6], including potential negative consequences they may associate with it [7]. Surveys on how people accept and respond to public health risks were proposed by Slovic [8], holding the departments responsible for assessing and managing public health and safety needs. Researchers explored the explanations underlying the cultural and social perspectives and the risk reality in the sociological field; however, they explored the individual factors associated with the risk perception and its assessment with a cognitive perspective in the psychological field [9]. Recently, researchers from both lines of enquiry came together to investigate these issues at a deeper level. The groundwork for studies exploring the public response has been laid by the research regarding risk perception. Shi et al. [10] observed that a positive coping behaviour positively affected risk perception. Therefore, to prevent the public from acting irrationally, the risk perception needs to be maintained at a reasonable level, as noted by Drace [11]. In a study programme in China, Wang et al. [12] observed that the attitudinal awareness, knowledge, and behaviour regarding emergencies could be strengthened through participatory training on emergency response preparedness.

Billings and Moos [13] divided the coping methods into active behavioural, active cognitive, and avoidance. Nonetheless, earlier research observing local residents and COVID-19 characteristics found that the coping responses to COVID-19 were segregated into: 1) active-response behaviour (ARB), involving measures for reducing the possibility of risk occurrence and their harm; 2) self-protection behaviour (SPB), that is, reducing COVID-19 risk through a healthy diet, green food, and physical exercise; and 3) risk-taking behaviour (RTB), that is, ignoring the risky situation one is in and showing behaviours that may threaten one’s safety.

Moreover, people tend to feel threatened by the disease, resulting in added stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms, which lead to further psychological problems and emotional drainage [14,15]. Emotions could be divided into negative and positive from the perspective of valence. The physiological changes observed while experiencing various emotions have been the subject matter of recent studies. Systematic literature reviews in countries such as China, Iran, Italy, and Nepal suggest that depression, anxiety, and stress presented themselves in various elevated levels during the pandemic? Fear of COVID-19 is widespread and experienced within different populations [16-20]. In one specific study, under various situations like being happy, distressed, or being emotionally neutral, the diameter of infants’ pupils was measured. The authors found that both negative emotions (NE) and positive emotions (PE) were displayed in 6–12-month-old babies [21]. Recent studies have shown that prolonged running accentuated the PE and dampened the NE in the prefrontal cortex, though it could not be considered an ultimate success [22].

In the human body, the change of emotions could directly affect the different behavioural and physiological responses, as revealed by the results of medical research [23,24]. People’s cognitive abilities are expanded by PE resulting in enhanced intellectual, social, and physical resources. The overall health and quality of life of an individual could be highly improved by reducing their stress or pressure by instilling PE. In contrast, NE can affect the individual’s physiological functioning, interfere with the immune system, and induce various psychosomatic and mental illnesses. Increased fear levels toward COVID-19 were associated with decreased job satisfaction, prevalence of sleep problems, increased psychological distress, and increased organizational and professional turnover intentions [16,17].

During COVID-19, college students face various major life challenges such as decreased efficiency of study time and the effort expended by studying, and they are under constant pressure. If they cannot adapt to the changes brought by these life events, they will be prone to anxiety, loneliness, feelings of worthlessness, and other NE. If these resulting NE are not curbed, they will seriously affect the physical and mental health of the students.

Numerous studies have explored the emotional activities involved in the negative and positive emotional responses relating to social behaviours or psychological symptoms [21]. Cho et al. [25] explained that schizophrenic patients indicated similar experiences to stimuli that elicit PE or NE. In terms of social behaviour, social anxiety affects the strategy of emotional regulation in terms of its result, type, and frequency [26]. Recent studies have indicated the coexistence of negative and PE of self-consciousness related to the risk of transmission after HIV diagnosis [27].

The more college students are willing to reduce the pressure or threat of COVID-19 through their behaviours, the higher their risk perception. In contrast, those who do not think COVID-19 has risks, such as college students with low COVID-related risk perception (CRP), may ignore their situation and attempt to live and work as normal [28].

Although previous studies have paid attention to risk perception in education institutions, limited research has been conducted on the impact of CRP among student members in universities, or the mediating roles of PE and NE. Hence, this study aims to determine how NE and PE mediate the relationship between CRP and the coping responses to COVID-19 (CRC) of students in Chinese colleges.

Therefore, in accordance with previous research, CRP may also predict PE, NE, and CRC. Thus, this study hypothesized that PE and NE would mediate the associations between CRP and three categories of CRC (i.e. ARB, SPB, and ATB) among Chinese college students.

In the light of the literature reviews and hypothesis, this study presented a theoretical model, which has been presented in Fig 1.

Fig 1

Concept model.

SPB = Self-protection behaviour, PE = positive emotion, NE = negative emotion, ARB = Active-response behaviour, SPB = Self-protection behaviour, CRP = COVID-19-related risk perception, RTB = Risk-taking behaviour.

Materials and methods

This descriptive correlational study quantitatively examined how PE and NE mediated the relationship between CRP and CRC among college students in China. The survey was conducted with six universities in three provinces (Guangdong, Hubei, and Shandong) of China. All participants completed and submitted the questionnaires during the data collection period (17 February to 10 March 2020).

Data collection

First, the universities in the Hubei, Guangdong, and Shandong Provinces were sent an invitation e-mail with the study purpose information and a link to an online survey. Six universities responded and agreed to enrol their students in the study. The questionnaire covered the following domains: sociodemographic details, CRC, negative and positive emotions, and self-reported CRP. Subsequently, the link, www.wenjuan.com was disseminated by our colleagues to all the eligible college students through a QQ group and a WeChat group—two of the most widely used social media platforms in China. To ensure valid results, we imposed the following inclusion criteria for partipants: 1) They should be currently studying in universities and 2) Participants could only respond to the questionnaire once to avoid repetition/redundant data. The questionnaire was modified accordingly after conducting a pilot study on 09 February using 30 respondents. Later, during the data collection period, the participants completed and submitted the formal questionnaires (17 February to 10 March 2020). During this period, all higher education institutions were closed for 5–7 weeks. Before responding to the questionnaire, all participants provided written informed consent form to gain access to the research process. Of the 1322 completed questionnaires, those with too many default values or missing values were excluded from the analysis; consequently, 1038 valid responses were considered.

Research ethics

This study was approved by Research Ethics Committee of the Shantou University medical college (SUMC-2020-80). Participants provided written informed consent before participating in the study. The informed consent form presented two options (I agree/I disagree). Participants who chose the ‘I agree’ option were allowed to fill the questionnaire, and participants were informed that they could withdraw their participation at any time during the process. College students’ participation in the research was voluntary and anonymous. The data analysis has also been guided by the principals of impartiality they are, and aiming to transformation of open and online learning without any preconditions.

Independent variables

COVID-19-Related Risk Perception Scale (CRPS)

The CRP level was evaluated by the COVID-19-Related Risk Perception Scale (CRPS), which is based on the SARS Risk Perception Questionnaire (SRPQ) [29]; Chinese SARS Risk Perception Questionnaire (CSPPQ) [30], and Typhoon Controllability and Familiarity Scale (TCFS) [31]. Shi et al. [30] developed the CSPPQ based on Slovic’s study [8]. Li [31] developed the TCFS based on the CSPPQ. Thirty participants were involved in a pilot study. To test the CRPS we used the exploratory factor analysis. Along with the preventive measures, the infection of COVID-19, the route of transmission of COVID-19, and the risk of transmission related to the symptoms of COVID-19 were obtained. ‘To what extent do you think you are familiar with the symptoms of COVID-19?’ and ‘To what extent do you think it is possible to control the spread of COVID-19?’ are sample questions included in the questionnaire. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the formal CRPS showed that the scale had good structural validity: χ2/df = 3.86, CFI (comparative fit index) = 0.90, RMSEA (root–mean–square error of approximation) = 0.066, SRMR (standardized root–mean–square residual) = 0.048. The results of CRP showed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.76 (pilot study) and 0.86 (main study). Responses were given on a 5-point Likert-type scale (0 = not at all to 5 = absolutely yes).

Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS-Revision). Watson et al. [32] developed the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) based on a two-dimensional structure of emotion. Huang et al. [33] developed the Chinese version of the PANAS in 2003 and showed good reliability and validity in the community. Responses were given on a 5-point Likert-type scale (0 = not at all to 5 = absolutely yes).

Following the introductions, all the participants finished an emotional report form [34], where they rated themselves on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all to 4 = extremely) by evaluating the degree to which they experienced particular emotions (amusement, anger, anxiety, disgust, energy, industriousness, enthusiasm, determination, attentiveness, dynamism, restlessness, hostility, irritability, nervousness, fidgeting, fearfulness, engagement, joy, interest, and sadness). We used CFA to test PE and NE. In the pilot study, PE had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87, and NE had a Cronbach’s alpha = 0.76. The composite formal measures of PE found Cronbach’s alpha of 0.90, and for NE, 0.89.

Dependent variables

Coping Response of COVID-19 Scale (CRCS)

We evaluated the CRC using a 12-item scale based on the Chinese Coping Response to SARS Scale (CCRSS) [10] and Chinese Coping Behavior Scale (CCBS) [31]. Shi et al. [10] developed the CSPPQ based on Billings and Moos’ [1] study [13]. Li’s [31] CCBS translated and adapted Moos’ Coping Response Inventory (CRI) [35]. In the CRCS, the items were grouped into three categories of coping response: active coping behaviour items, self-protection items from the CCRSS, and risk-taking behaviour items from the CCBS. Regarding active coping behaviour, a sample item is ‘You take the initiative to reduce the frequency of going out; for self-protection behaviour, ‘Do you exercise every day?’ and for risk-taking behaviour, ‘You go out without a mask’. CFA showed that the formal scale had good structural validity: χ2/df = 5.23, CFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.067, SRMR = 0.035. The reliability of this scale was measured. The results of CRC showed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.78 (pilot study) and 0.84 (main study).

Data analysis

First, we computed the descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients for the data collected. Second, we specified and tested six mediation models for each of the three categories of CRC. In these models, the mediating hypothesis was tested by regressing CRP on PE and NE, which were regressed on ARB, SPB, or ATB. Prior to the analyses, all predictor variables (i.e. CRP, PE, and NE) and the dependent variable (i.e. ARB) were standardized. The mediation models were tested using Mplus (v. 8.3). Maximum likelihood estimator (ML) was used to estimate model parameters and bootstrap method (n = 1000) was implemented to test the statistical significance of the indirect and the bias-corrected bootstrapped standard errors. While examining the 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals [CIs] around the standardised indirect correlations, the results regarding the mediating effects were based on whether the indirect pathways were statistically significant. The model fit was measured using the RMSEA, CFI, SRMR, the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and χ2/df values.

Results

Current study was cross-sectional, collected the data online, and comprised 1038 valid responses were collected from six universities in three provinces of China. Of these, 762 (73.41%) were females, and 276 (26.59%) were males. Regarding their academic year, 101 (9.73%) were seniors, 235 (22.64%) were sophomores, 274 (26.40%) were juniors, and 428 (41.23%) were freshmen. Their ages ranged from 17 to 26 years (Mean [M] = 20.5, Standard Deviation [SD] = 2.69). The sample is consistent with the local population distribution characteristics. Further, 20 (1.90%) participants lived in Wuhan (capital of Hubei province), 124 (11.95%) were from other areas in Hubei, and 894 (86.10%) were from various areas in China. Among them, 268 (25.82%) were from COVID-19 high-risk areas (CHRAs), 291 (28.03%) were from COVID-19 medium-risk areas (CMRAs), and 438 (42.20%) were from COVID-19 low-risk areas (CLRAs); one had missing data.

A Pearson correlation test was performed using IBM SPSS 21.0 to check the construct validity of each dimension; good correlations were found, as presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Descriptive statistical analysis and correlation analysis results among the variables.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. CRP	3.162	0.810	-
2. PE	3.221	0.803	.302**	-
3. NE	2.054	0.762	-.136**	0.018	-
4. ARB	4.45	1.190	.592**	.330**	-.087**	-
5. SPB	3.534	0.503	.508**	.189**	-.075*	.394**	-
6. RTB	2.020	0.758	-.105**	0.009	.272**	-.101**	-.076*	-

** p < 0.01 (two-tailed),

* p < 0.05 (two-tailed).

M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation, CRP = COVID-19-related risk perception, PE = Positive emotion, NE = Negative emotion, ARB = Active-response behaviour, SPB = Self-protection behaviour, RTB = Risk-taking behaviour. n = 1038.

Significant differences in familiarity of the four types of risk events (F = 0.73, p<0.001) were observed in the variance test, from the perspective of the known risk. The route of transmission, the preventive measures, the infection of COVID-19, and the symptoms of COVID-19, were the four events found from the multiple comparisons of the most known to the most unknown. Significant differences in the degree of control for risk events (F = 13.128, p<0.001) were seen from the perspective of the risk control, in order from controllable to uncontrollable, preventive measures, infection of COVID-19, symptoms of COVID-19, and route of transmission.

Table 2 shows COVID-19-related risk in early March 2020 in China tended to be perceived as known and controllable. However, the transmission route was seen as uncontrollable and unfamiliar; that is to say, the college students felt the most vulnerable concerning route-of-transmission problems with COVID-19. This was followed by the infection of COVID-19, which was familiar and uncontrollable; that is, although people felt certainty regarding the infection of COVID-19, they still could not control it. Other events (preventive measures) were known and controllable for relatively low risk.

Table 2

The results of COVID-19-related risk perception.

Categories of Risk	Familiar		Controllable
	M	SD	M	SD
Risk transmission in relation to symptoms of COVID-19	3.64	0.97	2.62	0.62
Route of transmission	2.58	0.48	2.38	0.61
Infection of COVID-19	3.42	0.78	2.78	0.70
Preventive measure	3.26	0.69	4.56	1.26
Overall COVID-19-related risk perception	3.23	0.83	3.09	0.80

M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation.

For testing the model of the CRC–CRP relationship mediated by NE and PE, the SEM was adopted (Fig 2). Regarding the RMSEA statistics, CFI, SRMR, (TLI), and the χ2/df, the fit indices were satisfactory, χ2/df = CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.94. Bootstrapping tests indicated that the indirect influences for the mediating paths were different from zero and were small to medium in magnitude (Table 3). The mediated model included six indirect effects: Ind1: X➔W1➔Y1; Ind2: X➔W2➔Y1; Ind3: X➔W1➔Y2; Ind4: X➔W2➔Y2; Ind5: X➔W1➔Y3; Ind6: X➔W2➔Y3. Among them, three mediating effects were statistically significant: X➔W2➔Y1, X➔W2➔Y2, and X➔W1➔Y3 (Table 3). Hence, our hypotheses were partly supported.

Fig 2

The mediating effect of PE and NE on the relationship between CRP and CRC.

SPB = Self-protection behaviour, PE = positive emotion, NE = negative emotion, ARB = Active-response behaviour, SPB = Self-protection behaviour, CRP = COVID-19-related risk perception, RTB = Risk-taking behaviour. X = CRP, W1 = NE, W2 = PE, Y1 = ARB, Y2 = SPB, Y3 = RTB. Non-significant coefficients were not presented. Demographic variables controlled; n = 1038.

Table 3

Mediation model: Indirect effect between CRP and CRC through PE and NE.

Effect from CRP to ARB
	β	SE	95%CI
Total Effect	0.60**	0.02	[0.53, 0.66]
Indirect Effect	0.05**	0.01	[0.03, 0.08]
Direct Effect	0.54**	0.03	[0.47, 0.60]
Ind1: X➔W1➔Y1	0.00	0.00	[-0.01, 0.01]
Ind2: X➔W2➔Y1	0.05**	0.01	[0.03, 0.08]
Effect from CRP to SPB
Total effect	0.51**	0.03	[0.42, 0.59]
Indirect Effect	0.03*	0.01	[0.01, 0.04]
Direct Effect	0.48**	0.04	[0.40, 0.58]
Ind3: X➔W1➔Y2	0.00	0.00	[-0.01, 0.01]
Ind4: X➔W2➔Y2	0.03*	0.01	[0.01, 0.04]
Effect from CRP to ATB
Total effect	-0.11**	0.03	[-0.19, -0.02]
Indirect Effect	-0.03*	0.02	[-0.05, -0.01]
Direct Effect	-0.08**	0.03	[-0.16, 0.03]
Ind5: X➔W1➔Y3	-0.04**	0.01	[-0.07, -0.02]
Ind6: X➔W2➔Y3	0.01	0.01	[-0.02, 0.04]

Bootstrap resample = 1000, β is a standardized coefficient, SE is a Std. Error, and CI is a confidence interval. With respect to effect sizes, standardized indirect effects around 0.01 were interpreted as small, effects ~0.09 were considered medium, and effects ~0.25 were considered large. PE = positive emotion, NE = negative emotion, ARB = Active-response behaviour, SPB = Self-protection behaviour, CRP = COVID-19-related risk perception, RTB = Risk-taking behaviour. X = CRP, W1 = NE, W2 = PE, Y1 = ARB, Y2 = SPB, Y3 = RTB, n = 1038,

**p < 0.01,

*p < 0.05 (two-tailed).

Discussion

Perception of familiar and controllable COVID-19-related risk

The respondents reported a greater sense of control over the preventive measures than their sense of control over COVID-19 infection. They perceived the risk events to be uncontrollable despite knowing the symptoms well. Albeit being mediated, the risk perception among the college students would have been further reduced if the Chinese government strengthened the public information efforts on the infectious, curative, and preventive aspects of COVID-19 since March 2020. Finding the COVID-19-related route of transmission problems as being unknown and uncontrollable was a noteworthy issue. People tend to be more afraid of an issue if the uncertainty surrounding a specific risk is high, as confirmed by research on perceptions of risks. Only providing information about the risk could restore hope and improve people’s risk assessment [36].

The relationship between COVID-19-related risk perception and coping response to COVID-19

In the general analysis based on structured modelling, three categories of CRC among college students were significantly correlated with CRP, namely risk-taking behaviour, self-protection behaviour, and active coping behaviour. This finding aligned with the research results indicating that the perception of risk related to terrorism differed by the type of coping to them. Regarding coping behaviour, risk perception is a crucial predictive variable [5,8]. Further, in predicting adaptive behaviours, the perception of health risk could be considered a critical psychological element, as stated by Ye et al. [37]. People with a higher level of risk perception are inclined to accept information about warnings more easily and earlier, as revealed by earlier studies [37-39].

CRP influences active coping and self-protection behaviours; therefore, numerous scholars reveal that the CRP of college students positively influences their self-protective behaviour, and active coping behaviour has not been surprising as per the relevant research [40]. The impact of risk perceptions on risk-related activities of teenagers was examined, and indices were developed in earlier research [41]. Active response to self-protection and coping behaviour is seen in students with a high-risk perception of the preventive measures of COVID-19, the infection, the route of transmission, and the symptoms of COVID-19, than students with lower levels of CRP. Our findings that greater levels of risk perception were likely to enhance the willingness of people to deal with environmental risks were consistent with the findings of Dominicis et al. [42].

PE and NE mediate the relationship between CRP and CRC

Emotion affected coping strategies, supporting many previous researchers [23,24,26,43]. Our hypotheses four to nine were that PE and NE would mediate the relationship between CRP and CRC; our results partly supported these hypotheses. The mediating effect of PE on CRP and positive coping behaviour (ARB and SPB) was significant (Ind2: X➔W2➔Y1, β = 0.05, CI [0.03, 0.08]; Ind4: X➔W2➔Y2,β = 0.03,CI [0.01, 0.04]), but it cannot predict risk-taking behaviour, and there was no mediating effect between CRP and risk-taking behaviour (Ind6: X➔W2➔Y3, β = 0.01, CI [-0.02, 0.04]), while NE could positively predict risk-taking behaviour in public health crisis events (Ind5: X➔W1➔Y3, β = -0.04, CI [-0.07, -0.02]). However, there was no mediating effect of NE on the correlation between CRP and positive coping behaviour (Ind1: X➔W1➔Y1, β = 0.00, CI [-0.01, 0.01]; Ind3: X➔W1➔Y2, β = 0.00, CI [-0.01, 0.01]). The ARB to COVID-19 could be enhanced by CRP as implied. Nonetheless, the coping response of college students to COVID-19 was influenced by the mediation of NE/PE in the relationship with CRP. The degree to which the CRP increased the CRC amongst the students with high PE was superior to those with low PE. Additionally, greater positive coping responses were displayed by students with higher positive emotions than the other study participants. Few studies have explored the influence of interacting and mediating variables on the relationship between the CRP and the CRC, despite several earlier studies on CRP and CRC.

Students from the universities in China had higher levels of PE than their peers besides possessing superior psychological resources and ARB, as revered by our study. Previous related reports showed that more frequent use of emotion-oriented coping at the peak of SARS relieved the sadness and anger that people of all ages experienced throughout the outbreak, and more frequent use of problem-oriented coping relieved adults’ sadness [44]. Moreover, students with high levels of PE exhibited engagement in COVID-19 response as they had more psychological capital than others did. However, our findings also indicated that NE significantly mediated CRP and RTB. Research has established a close association between emotion and public coping response [24,43,44]. As participants’ emotions cause more engagement in coping with COVID-19, students who perceive that they are exposed to risk events will experience negative emotions [24].

Compared with NE, PE plays a greater mediating role between CRP and college students’ coping behaviour to COVID-19. This result is similar to Kong and Zhao’s study [45], which found that the mediating effect of positive emotions is greater than that of negative emotions. Researchers believe that this may be because positive emotions are the main source of people’s power, which can pre-process individual cognition, emotion, and behaviour to establish and expand individual and social resources [45]. A higher level of CRP may help college students transform NE into PE and increase and maintain the frequency of PE so that they can experience more frequent PE and less frequent NE; consequently, they would demonstrate a higher degree of positive coping behaviours and relatively low RTB. However, in the current study, PE and NE played a partial mediating role between CRP and coping response. PE partially mediated positive coping behaviours (ARB and SPB) of COVID-19, while NE partially mediated CRP and RTB, and the difference was statistically significant. The existing literature and data make it difficult to determine the underlying reasons that necessitate further exploration.

Conclusion

We posit that PE and NE partially mediated the relationship between risk perception and coping response adopted by Chinese college students in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We built a model composed of nine hypotheses and partly verified it with a sample of 1038 valid responses. We have confirmed that CRP directly affects the coping behaviour of college students and indirectly affects their coping behaviour toward COVID-19 through PE and NE. Significant CRP effects were found, predicting all three coping strategies of CRC. In analyses, after controlling for demographic variables, the data empirically confirmed that PE partially mediated the relationship between CRP and ARB and between CRP and SPB, while NE partly mediated the relationship between CRP and RTB. It was partly verified that PE and NE played a mediating role in CRP and CRC. These findings contribute to the literature on COVID-19-related risk perception illuminating how NE and PE mediate COVID-19-related risk perception in university students.

Our research is novel overall; with very little information on the relationship between PE/NE and different coping responses to COVID-19 amongst the college students in China, certain studies have focused exclusively on college students. Regarding COVID-19, the PE/NE could have potential associations with specific coping behaviours, as confirmed by our research. Leading further to an improvement in the coping response of the college students to COVID-19, by determining the mode in which the PE and NE mediate the pertinent risk perception, these could be considered crucial contributions to the research field to understand the students and the higher education system. Our study results could help expand the limited literature in terms of the higher education system and students. Hence, this study could enrich the theory of earlier research by providing public health management suggestions.

Implications

In the face of an emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic, this study illustrated a theoretical framework for risk perception and its correlation with public responses. However, this relationship alone does not adequately explain which monitoring and warning mechanisms are required for effective communication with the public and for equitable intervention strategies to cope with a public health emergency such as COVID-19.

Along with the awakening of the public’s PE, the government should pay attention to the mediating effects of the relationship, the predictive effect of NE on the risk-taking behaviour, and the differentiation of the emotional types regarding public health management. The risk perceptions are impacted by the degree of control and the various factors of information by the government department in public health emergencies. As a group sensitive to information, college students could enlarge their risk perception, leading to rational group behaviour, under the joint action of these factors. Hence, the importance of effective risk communication could hardly be emphasized [8]. Through public health crisis preparation and management, the communication of risk needs to be meticulously calibrated.

Our results suggest that students with high CRP reserves will exhibit increased active coping behaviour, self-protective behaviour, and lower risk-taking behaviour. Moreover, the awareness of the need for independent exercise and establishing the concept of lifelong exercise need to be cultivated in the college students by improving the daily activities for the students like sports competitions and lectures, through important CRP interventions as proposed by Liu et al. [40]. To reduce RTB while improving their self-protective and ARB, we recommend enhancing Chinese college students’ CRP. Our findings suggest focusing on CRP, with fewer NE and more PE to reduce the RTB in the Chinese college students and improve ARB. Therefore, enhancing college students’ awareness of the need for independent physical exercise is an important measure for disease prevention.

Study limitations

The relatively limited role of the mediator variables has been a major limitation of the pertinent study. In the future, more sensitive indicators of mediator variables need to be found, and the development of the measurement tools for coping behaviour needs to be improved with the quest for more sensitive indicators of the mediator variables.

Introducing the issues of subjectivity and predictive validity to a certain extent, the collection of data was self-reported. Integrated assessment mechanisms like interviews to overcome limitations, observations, and teacher ratings would be needed in future research. Besides, sampling was performed regionally, so the regional differences and the small sample size could affect the generalizability of the results, as the sampling was done regionally; hence, a large-scale study needs to be carried out. Additionally, female students accounted for 73.4% of respondents in this study; however, whether gender differences affect the relationship between variables in college students is still unclear; in future research, proportionally, more male students should be invited to participate.

13 Sep 2021

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Amir H. Pakpour, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Title: Risk perception and coping response to COVID-19 is mediated by positive and negative emotions: a study on Chinese college students

Abstract: Study time, Study measures, Sampling procedure and main statistical tests should be explained in abstract. main numerical findings should be reported in the abstract. Conclusion should be provided based on study findings.

Introduction: Some recent literature can be helpful for authors to enhance the introduction DOI: 10.4103/shb.shb_9_21, DOI: 10.4103/shb.shb_32_21, DOI: 10.4103/shb.shb_1_21, DOI: 10.4103/shb.shb_24_21, 10.1111/jsr.13432, /doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100916. Introduction is too long in current format, please shorten this section as possible.

Methods: Please correct the study design as cross sectional. Please provide the ethics code provided for this study. Please move demographic characteristics of participants to first paragraph of results (detailed be provided in table 1 as demographic characteristics and summary in text). How target universities were selected?

Discussion, conclusion, study implication and limitations are well explained.

Reviewer #2: The study entitled “Risk perception and coping response to COVID-19 is mediated by positive and negative emotions: a study on Chinese college students” used 1038 university students’ data to investigate the relationships between risk perception of COVID-19, coping response to COVID-19, positive emotions, and negative emotions. The authors used regression models and structural equation modeling to test their hypotheses, including the mediated effects of positive and negative emotions. The results indicated that both types of emotions are significant mediators in the association between risk perception to COVID-19 and coping response to COVID-19. Although the study reports some new information to the current literature, the manuscript suffers from some drawbacks and I would encourage the authors substantially revise their work.

1. In general, the readability of the present manuscript is poor. Specifically, typos (e.g., standardized coefficient instead of standard coefficient), unexplained abbreviations (e.g., Table 1) with a lot of abbreviations in the main text, awkward and lengthy sentences (e.g., This research attempted to develop a two-mediator model to comprehend the effect mechanism of COVID-19-related risk perception on coping responses to COVID-19; we recommend that public health managers should consider differences in coping response behaviours and address the different mediating roles of positive and negative emotions in coping with public health emergencies) hugely disrupt one’s reading in the manuscript. The author should consult native English speakers who are experienced in scientific writing to substantially improve the manuscript’s quality.

2. The Introduction should use some systematic reviews to strengthen the issue of psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Olashore AA, Akanni OO, Fela-Thomas AL, Khutsafalo K. The psychological impact of COVID-19 on health-care workers in African Countries: A systematic review. Asian J Soc Health Behav 2021;4:85-9

Rajabimajd N, Alimoradi Z, Griffiths MD. Impact of COVID-19-related fear and anxiety on job attributes: A systematic review. Asian J Soc Health Behav 2021;4:51-5

Alimoradi Z, Broström A, Tsang HWH, et al. Sleep problems during COVID-19 pandemic and its' association to psychological distress: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;36:100916. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100916

3. The authors should remove all the publication year when they cite a reference in the main text. For example, it should be Shi et al. observed instead of Shi et al. (2003) observed.

4. There are too many hypotheses in the manuscript, and thus one cannot capture the main purpose of the present study.

5. The authors should have a paragraph to clearly explain their entire model. In the present manuscript, the authors only provide scattered and fragment information for readers. This cannot give the readers a full picture of what the present study was doing.

6. The Results section is not concise and it includes information that should is not belonged in the Results section. For example, (1) the Results section should be citation free; (2) how to construct the stepwise regression should be described in the Data analysis section; (3) how the model tested in the structural equation modeling should also be described in the Data analysis section.

7. I wonder why the authors want to conduct the regression models given that all their hypotheses can be answered by the structural equation model.

8. The authors should provide detailed information in their structural equation modeling. For example, what is the estimator? How did the authors construct the model (did the authors consider latent construct and measurement model in the structural equation modeling)?

9. The study is a cross-sectional design; therefore, the authors should explicitly indicate the causality cannot be concluded using the present study’s findings. Moreover, the authors should be aware of their language use in the present study to avoid implying causality (e.g., while NE could positively predict risk-taking behaviour in public health crisis events).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

20 Nov 2021

Dear Dr. Pakpour:

We appreciate the reviewers’ comments regarding our manuscript “Risk perception and coping response to COVID-19 mediated by positive and negative emotions: a study on Chinese college students.”

We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive comments and suggestions. Overall, the comments are fair, encouraging, and insightful. We have learned a great deal from them. After carefully studying the reviewers’ comments, we made several substantial changes to the paper to incorporate the recommendations, responding to the feedback as much as possible. The revised parts are highlighted in red font in the new draft. Moreover, various grammar and spelling errors were corrected throughout the paper. We have included a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments below.

If you have any further questions about the paper, please do not hesitate to let us know.

Sincerely yours,

Authors

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1:

We greatly appreciate your careful review of our manuscript and your invaluable suggestions. We have carefully considered each of the comments and revised the manuscript accordingly.

1.Title: Risk perception and coping response to COVID-19 is mediated by positive and negative emotions: a study on Chinese college students

Abstract: Study time, Study measures, Sampling procedure and main statistical tests should be explained in abstract. main numerical findings should be reported in the abstract. Conclusion should be provided based on study findings.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out.We have include the study duration and measures, sampling procedure, and the main statistical tests have been explained in the Abstract. We have also incorporated the numerical findings revised the conclusion as per your suggestion.

2.Introduction: Some recent literature can be helpful for authors to enhance the introduction DOI: 10.4103/shb.shb_9_21, DOI: 10.4103/shb.shb_32_21, DOI: 10.4103/shb.shb_1_21, DOI: 10.4103/shb.shb_24_21, 10.1111/jsr.13432, /doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100916.

Introduction is too long in current format, please shorten this section as possible.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out and providing the literature resources. We have downloaded these six papers. We hope our Introduction section is more updated.

3.Methods: Please correct the study design as cross sectional. Please provide the ethics code provided for this study. Please move demographic characteristics of participants to first paragraph of results (detailed be provided in table 1 as demographic characteristics and summary in text). How target universities were selected?

Response: Thank you for pointing this out! We have addressed these issues as follows:

1) We have corrected the study to a cross-sectional design as you have suggested;

2) We have provided the ethics approval number in this study on P7.

“This study was approved by Research Ethics Committee of the Shantou University medical college (SUMC-2020-80).”

3) We have moved demographic characteristics of the participants to the first paragraph of the Results section.

4) First, the universities in the Hubei, Guangdong, and Shandong Provinces were sent an invitation e-mail with the study purpose information and a link to an online survey. Six universities responded and agreed to enrol their students in the study.

4.Discussion, conclusion, study implication and limitations are well explained.

Response: Thank you!

Reviewer #2:

We greatly appreciate your careful review of our manuscript and your invaluable suggestions. We have carefully considered the comments and revised the manuscript accordingly.

The study entitled “Risk perception and coping response to COVID-19 is mediated by positive and negative emotions: a study on Chinese college students” used 1038 university students’ data to investigate the relationships between risk perception of COVID-19, coping response to COVID-19, positive emotions, and negative emotions. The authors used regression models and structural equation modeling to test their hypotheses, including the mediated effects of positive and negative emotions. The results indicated that both types of emotions are significant mediators in the association between risk perception to COVID-19 and coping response to COVID-19. Although the study reports some new information to the current literature, the manuscript suffers from some drawbacks and I would encourage the authors substantially revise their work.

1. In general, the readability of the present manuscript is poor. Specifically, typos (e.g., standardized coefficient instead of standard coefficient), unexplained abbreviations (e.g., Table 1) with a lot of abbreviations in the main text, awkward and lengthy sentences (e.g., This research attempted to develop a two-mediator model to comprehend the effect mechanism of COVID-19-related risk perception on coping responses to COVID-19; we recommend that public health managers should consider differences in coping response behaviours and address the different mediating roles of positive and negative emotions in coping with public health emergencies) hugely disrupt one’s reading in the manuscript. The author should consult native English speakers who are experienced in scientific writing to substantially improve the manuscript’s quality.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have reorganized the manuscript and submitted it to Editage (www.editage.com.cn) for language editing; we expect that it will therefore be more readable and well-written.

2. The Introduction should use some systematic reviews to strengthen the issue of psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Olashore AA, Akanni OO, Fela-Thomas AL, Khutsafalo K. The psychological impact of COVID-19 on health-care workers in African Countries: A systematic review. Asian J Soc Health Behav 2021;4:85-9

Rajabimajd N, Alimoradi Z, Griffiths MD. Impact of COVID-19-related fear and anxiety on job attributes: A systematic review. Asian J Soc Health Behav 2021;4:51-5

Alimoradi Z, Broström A, Tsang HWH, et al. Sleep problems during COVID-19 pandemic and its' association to psychological distress: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;36:100916. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100916

Response: Thank you for pointing this out and providing the literature resources. We have downloaded these three papers. We hope our Introduction section is more updated.

3. The authors should remove all the publication year when they cite a reference in the main text. For example, it should be Shi et al. observed instead of Shi et al. (2003) observed.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised this as per your suggestion .Although publication years have been removed, the citation numbers have been placed next to the author names as per the Vancouver format recommended by the journal.

4. There are too many hypotheses in the manuscript, and thus one cannot capture the main purpose of the present study.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the hypotheses on P5 as follows:

Therefore, in accordance with previous research, CRP may also predict PE, NE, and CRC. Thus, this study hypothesized that PE and NE would mediate the associations between CRP and three categories of CRC (i.e., ARB, SPB, and ATB).

5. The authors should have a paragraph to clearly explain their entire model. In the present manuscript, the authors only provide scattered and fragment information for readers. This cannot give the readers a full picture of what the present study was doing.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have addressed this issue as follows:

(1)We have explained the entire model in the Data Analysis section on P9: “Second, we specified and tested six mediation models for each of the three categories of CRC. In these models, the mediating hypothesis was tested by regressing CRP on PE and NE, which were regressed on ARB, SPB, or ATB. Prior to the analyses, all predictor variables (i.e., CRP, PE, and NE) and the dependent variable (i.e., ARB) were standardized.”

(2)We modified the Independent variables and Dependent variables section in the “Materials and Methods” section on P7-8

(3)We have added the concept model (Figure 1)on P5

6. The Results section is not concise and it includes information that should is not belonged in the Results section. For example, (1) the Results section should be citation free [2]; how to construct the stepwise regression should be described in the Data analysis section [3]; how the model tested in the structural equation modeling should also be described in the Data analysis section.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out.We have addressed this issue as follows:

(1)We have deleted the citations in the Results section;

(2)In accordance with your comment 7, we have deleted the stepwise regression model description;

(3)We have added the description of the structural equation model in the Data analysis section on P9 as follows:

“Second, we specified and tested six mediation models for each of the three categories of CRC. In these models, the mediating hypothesis was tested by regressing CRP on PE and NE, which were regressed on ARB, SPB, or ATB. Prior to the analyses, all predictor variables (i.e., CRP, PE, and NE) and the dependent variable (i.e., ARB) were standardized. The mediation models were tested using Mplus (v. 8.3). Maximum likelihood estimator (ML) was used to estimate model parameters and bootstrap method (n = 1000) was implemented to test the statistical significance of the indirect and the bias-corrected bootstrapped standard errors. While examining the 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals [CIs] around the standardised indirect correlations, the results regarding the mediating effects were based on whether the indirect pathways were statistically significant. The model fit was measured using the RMSEA, CFI, SRMR, the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and χ2/df values.”.

7. I wonder why the authors want to conduct the regression models given that all their hypotheses can be answered by the structural equation model.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We wished to provide further information relevant to our study; thus, we computed and analyzed the regression models. However, you are correct, so we have deleted the regression models and retained only the structural equation model to make the manuscript more concise.

8. The authors should provide detailed information in their structural equation modeling. For example, what is the estimator? How did the authors construct the model (did the authors consider latent construct and measurement model in the structural equation modeling)?

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have addressed this issue as follows:

(1) We have added the structural equation estimator information in the Data analysis section on P9.

(2) We have not considered the latent constructs in the structural equation modeling as this model involves too many variables, but we have provided the fit indices of measurement model in the Materials and Methods section (Independent variables and Dependent variable) and the Results section.

9. The study is a cross-sectional design; therefore, the authors should explicitly indicate the causality cannot be concluded using the present study’s findings. Moreover, the authors should be aware of their language use in the present study to avoid implying causality (e.g., while NE could positively predict risk-taking behaviour in public health crisis events).

Response: Thank you for pointing this out.We have revised the manuscript to incorporate your suggestion.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviews.doc

Click here for additional data file.

19 Dec 2021

Risk perception and coping response to COVID-19 is mediated by positive and negative emotions: a study on Chinese college students

PONE-D-21-24157R1

Dear Dr. Fu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Amir H. Pakpour, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

24 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-24157R1

Risk perception and coping response to COVID-19 mediated by positive and negative emotions: a study on Chinese college students

Dear Dr. Fu:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Amir H. Pakpour

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE