How people respond to health threats can influence their own health and, when people are facing communal risks, even their community’s health. We propose that people commonly respond to health threats by managing their emotions with cognitive strategies such as reappraisal, which can reduce fear and protect mental health. However, because fear can also motivate health behaviors, reducing fear may also jeopardize health behaviors. In two diverse U.S. samples ( N = 1,241) tracked across 3 months, sequential and cross-lagged panel mediation models indicated that reappraisal predicted lower fear about an ongoing health threat (COVID-19) and, in turn, better mental health but fewer recommended physical health behaviors. This trade-off was not inevitable, however: The use of reappraisal to increase socially oriented positive emotions predicted better mental health without jeopardizing physical health behaviors. Examining the costs and benefits of how people cope with health threats is essential for promoting better health outcomes for individuals and communities.

How people respond to health threats can influence their own health and, when facing communal risks, even their community's health. We propose that people commonly respond to health threats by managing their emotions with cognitive strategies like reappraisal, which can reduce fear and protect mental health. However, because fear can also motivate health behaviors, reducing fear may also jeopardize health behaviors. In two diverse U.S. samples (N=1,241) tracked across three months, sequential and cross-lag panel mediation models indicated that reappraisal predicted lower fear about an ongoing health threat (COVID-19), and in turn, better mental health, but fewer recommended physical health behaviors. This trade-off was not inevitable, however: using reappraisal to increase socially-oriented positive emotions predicted better mental health without jeopardizing physical health behaviors. Examining the costs and benefits of how people cope with health threats is essential for promoting better health outcomes for individuals and communities.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended behavioral measures to slow the spread of COVID-19. Here, we report a pre-registered longitudinal study which investigated personality predictors of compliance with CDC recommendations in diverse U.S. adults across five waves from March through August, 2020 (N=596) and cross-sectionally in August, 2020 (N=405). Agreeableness—characterized by compassion—was a strong predictor of compliance, above and beyond other traits and demographic predictors. The effect of agreeableness was robust across two diverse samples, three sets of sensitivity analyses, and was not moderated by time or demographic variables. These findings highlight the strong theoretical and practical utility of testing long-standing psychological theories using rigorous methods during real-world crises. We discuss implications of these findings for the health behavior model of personality and make recommendations for combining current health-behavior messaging with alternative appeals that are more likely to reach less agreeable individuals.

No abstract

Major stressors often challenge emotional well-being—increasing negative emotions and decreasing positive emotions. But how long do these emotional hits last? Prior theory and research contain conflicting views. Some research suggests that most individuals’ emotional well-being will return to, or even surpass, baseline levels relatively quickly. Others have challenged this view, arguing that this type of resilient response is uncommon. The present research provides a strong test of resilience theory by examining emotional trajectories over the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic. In two pre-registered longitudinal studies conducted in diverse U.S. samples (total N =1,147), we examined overall emotional trajectories and predictors of individual differences in emotional trajectories across 13 waves of data from February through September 2020. The pandemic had immediate detrimental effects on emotional well-being. Negative emotions decreased across six months, with the greatest improvements occurring almost immediately. Yet, positive emotions remained depleted relative to baseline levels, illustrating the limits of resilience. Individuals also differed substantially around these normative emotional trajectories and these individual differences were predicted by socio-demographic characteristics and stress exposure. We discuss three theoretical implications of the present investigation: (1) The extent to which resilience is normative depends on the outcome and the context. (2) Individual differences in resilience are large and complex, suggesting that broad claims that resilience is “ubiquitous” or “rare” may not be useful. (3) Resilience is multiply-determined and embedded within societal contexts that influence who experiences stress as well as who has access to resources to respond to stress.