This research characterizes risk perceptions of the COVID‐19 pandemic and the COVID‐19 vaccines based on the dread and unknown dimensions of the psychometric paradigm. We examine if mental risk comparisons of these two risk objects influence risk mitigation behaviors (vaccination intention; vaccine acceptance; preventive behaviors) and emotional responses among unvaccinated and vaccinated Americans. A survey (N = 1532) was conducted based on a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults in May 2021. Results reveal considerable impact of risk comparison, especially along the dread dimension, on the outcomes of interest. In essence, this research reveals critical insights regarding vaccine hesitancy and risk communication about vaccination.

This research focuses on three factors that influence how individuals cognitively process information related to the coronavirus outbreak. Guided by dual‐process theories of information processing, we establish how the two different information processing modes (system 1: heuristic processing; system 2: systematic processing) are influenced by individuals’ responsibility attribution, discrete negative emotions, and risk perception. In an experiment, participants were exposed to a news article that either blames China ( n = 445) or does not blame China ( n = 498) for the pandemic. Results reveal that exposure to the responsibility attribution frame led individuals to engage in more heuristic processing, but it did not influence systematic processing. Discrete negative emotions and risk perception mediated the relationship between responsibility attribution and information processing. The indirect relationships suggest a more intricate process underlying heuristic processing and systematic processing. In particular, information processing styles seem to be determined by social judgment surrounding the coronavirus pandemic.

Employing a nationally representative sample (N ¼ 1009), this research examines Americans' support for coronavirus response measures influenced by three psychological factors-compassionate goals, affect heuristic, and risk perception. Results indicate that Republicans, Independents, and Democrats are equally prone to experiencing compassionate goals. Further, two socially oriented emotions (solidarity and sympathy) and risk perception mediate the relationship between compassionate goals and support for government response measures, but only the emotions mediate the relationship between compassionate goals and donation intention. Since compassionate goals promote cooperative behaviors, effective communication messaging highlighting compassionate goals may help alleviate political polarization during crises.

No abstract

No abstract