The ongoing pandemic of COVID-19 has already had serious worldwide health, socio-economic, political, and educational consequences. In the present study, we investigated what factors can motivate young adults to comply with the recommended preventive measures against coronavirus infection. Even though young people are less likely to suffer severe medical consequences from the virus, they can still transmit it to more vulnerable individuals. Surprisingly, we found no significant effects of previously successful experimental manipulations (e.g., enhancing self-efficacy, and visual aids) that aimed to improve risk understanding and impact COVID-19 related behavioral intentions. Instead, intentions toward preventive behaviors were predicted by self-reported worry, perceived controllability of the pandemic, and risk perception. Interestingly, worry about health, and worry about restricting personal freedom predicted behavioral intentions in diverging directions. In particular, participants who were worried about health, were more willing to obey strict hygiene and social distancing restrictions. In contrast, participants who were worried about personal restrictions, were less ready to adopt these preventive actions.
The ongoing pandemic of COVID-19 has already had serious worldwide health, socio-economic, political, and educational consequences. In the present study, we investigated what factors can motivate young adults to comply with the recommended preventive measures against coronavirus infection. Even though young people are less likely to suffer severe medical consequences from the virus, they can still transmit it to more vulnerable individuals. Surprisingly, we found no significant effects of previously successful experimental manipulations (e.g., enhancing self-efficacy, and visual aids) that aimed to improve risk understanding and impact COVID-19 related behavioral intentions. Instead, intentions toward preventive behaviors were predicted by self-reported worry, perceived controllability of the pandemic, and risk perception. Interestingly, worry about health, and worry about restricting personal freedom predicted behavioral intentions in diverging directions. In particular, participants who were worried about health, were more willing to obey strict hygiene and social distancing restrictions. In contrast, participants who were worried about personal restrictions, were less ready to adopt these preventive actions. ; This work was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland (Grant Nos. 2018/31/D/HS6/02899 and 2019/33/B/HS6/01920). The current research was also partially funded by the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Spain) (PSI2014-51842-R). ; Yes
AbstractWe introduce a brief instrument specifically validated for measuring positive and negative feelings about risks—the Berlin Emotional Responses to Risk Instrument (BERRI). Based on seven studies involving diverse adults from three countries (n = 2120), the BERRI was found to robustly estimate anticipatory affective reactions derived from subjective evaluations of positive (i.e., assured, hopeful, and relieved) and negative emotions (i.e., anxious, afraid, and worried). The brief BERRI outperformed a 14‐item assessment, uniquely tracking costs/benefits associated with cancer screening among men and women (Studies 1 and 2). Predictive validity was further documented in paradigmatic risky choice studies wherein options varied over probabilities and severities across six contexts (health, social, financial, technological, ethical, and environmental; Study 3). Studies 4–6, conducted during the Ebola epidemic and COVID‐19 pandemic, indicated BERRI responses were sensitive to subtle effects caused by emotion‐related framing manipulations presented in different cultures and languages (the United States, Spain, and Poland). Study 7 indicated BERRI responses remained stable for 2 weeks. Although the BERRI can provide an estimate of overall affect, choices were generally better explained by the unique influences of positive and negative affect. Overall, results suggest the novel, brief instrument can be an efficient tool for high‐stakes research on decision making and risk communication.
In: Klein , R A , Vianello , M , Hasselman , F , Adams , B G , Adams , R B , Alper , S , Aveyard , M , Axt , J R , Babalola , M T , Bahník , Š , Batra , R , Berkics , M , Bernstein , M J , Berry , D R , Bialobrzeska , O , Binan , E D , Bocian , K , Brandt , M J , Busching , R , Rédei , A C , Cai , H , Cambier , F , Cantarero , K , Carmichael , C L , Ceric , F , Chandler , J , Chang , J-H , Chatard , A , Chen , E E , Cheong , W , Cicero , D C , Coen , S , Coleman , J A , Collisson , B , Conway , M A , Corker , K S , Curran , P G , Cushman , F , Dagona , Z K , Dalgar , I , Dalla Rosa , A , Davis , W E , de Bruijn , M , De Schutter , L , Devos , T , de Vries , M , Doğulu , C , Dozo , N , Dukes , K N , Dunham , Y , Durrheim , K , Ebersole , C R , Edlund , J E , Eller , A , English , A S , Finck , C , Frankowska , N , Freyre , M , Friedman , M , Galliani , E M , Gandi , J C , Ghoshal , T , Giessner , S R , Gill , T , Gnambs , T , Gómez , Á , González , R , Graham , J , Grahe , J E , Grahek , I , Green , E G T , Hai , K , Haigh , M , Haines , E L , Hall , M P , Heffernan , M E , Hicks , J A , Houdek , P , Huntsinger , J R , Huynh , H P , Ijzerman , H , Inbar , Y , Innes-ker , Å H , Jiménez-leal , W , John , M , Joy-gaba , J A , Kamiloğlu , R G , Kappes , H B , Karabati , S , Karick , H , Keller , V N , Kende , A , Kervyn , N , Knežević , G , Kovacs , C , Krueger , L E , Kurapov , G , Kurtz , J , Lakens , D , Lazarević , L B , Levitan , C A , Lewis , N A , Lins , S , Lipsey , N P , Losee , J E , Maassen , E , Maitner , A T , Malingumu , W , Mallett , R K , Marotta , S A , Međedović , J , Mena-pacheco , F , Milfont , T L , Morris , W L , Murphy , S C , Myachykov , A , Neave , N , Neijenhuijs , K , Nelson , A J , Neto , F , Lee Nichols , A , Ocampo , A , O'donnell , S L , Oikawa , H , Oikawa , M , Ong , E , Orosz , G , Osowiecka , M , Packard , G , Pérez-sánchez , R , Petrović , B , Pilati , R , Pinter , B , Podesta , L , Pogge , G , Pollmann , M M H , Rutchick , A M , Saavedra , P , Saeri , A K , Salomon , E , Schmidt , K , Schönbrodt , F D , Sekerdej , M B , Sirlopú , D , Skorinko , J L M , Smith , M A , Smith-castro , V , Smolders , K C H J , Sobkow , A , Sowden , W , Spachtholz , P , Srivastava , M , Steiner , T G , Stouten , J , Street , C N H , Sundfelt , O K , Szeto , S , Szumowska , E , Tang , A C W , Tanzer , N , Tear , M J , Theriault , J , Thomae , M , Torres , D , Traczyk , J , Tybur , J M , Ujhelyi , A , Van Aert , R C M , Van Assen , M A L M , Van Der Hulst , M , Van Lange , P A M , Van 't Veer , A E , Vásquez- Echeverría , A , Ann Vaughn , L , Vázquez , A , Vega , L D , Verniers , C , Verschoor , M , Voermans , I P J , Vranka , M A , Welch , C , Wichman , A L , Williams , L A , Wood , M , Woodzicka , J A , Wronska , M K , Young , L , Zelenski , J M , Zhijia , Z & Nosek , B A 2018 , ' Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings ' , Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science , vol. 1 , no. 4 , pp. 443-490 . https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810225
We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance (p < .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p < .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely high-powered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen's ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (< 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied.