We examined the effects of anticipatory emotions induced by episodic future thinking on the basic decision‐process of delay discounting and preventive behaviors during the most stringent COVID‐19 “lockdown” period in China. We define anticipatory emotions as any discrete emotions induced from anticipating decision outcomes and felt during decision‐making. In an online study conducted with healthy volunteers, anticipatory emotions were induced and appraised by asking participants to rate various emotions they feel when thinking they may be infected by COVID‐19 ( N = 246). The participants in the control group reported their present emotions during the COVID‐19 pandemic ( N = 245). Compared with the control group, the participants in the anticipatory emotion group had a higher future‐oriented preference for monetary rewards, with a significantly lower delay discounting rate. These participants also had a higher intention to engage in proactive, preventive behaviors. The likelihood estimate of being infected by COVID‐19 mediated these effects. Moreover, anticipatory disgust increased the preference for larger‐and‐later rewards. Anticipatory emotions induced by future thinking guide fast and rational decision‐making in a health crisis.

We synthesized life history theory and the antagonistic pleiotropy hypothesis to form an integrative framework for understanding delay discounting (DD). We distinguished between fundamental and longitudinal life history trade-offs to explain individual and age differences of DD. Fundamental life history trade-offs are characterized by life history strategies (LHS), describing how individuals adjust reproductive timing according to childhood environments, while longitudinal life history trade-offs characterize how individuals make trade-offs between early- vs. late-life reproduction as a function of age. Results of a life-span sample (242 Chinese participants) supported several theoretical predictions: (a) slower LHS predicted lower DD; (b) the relationship between chronological age and DD was U-shaped; (c) the effects of age and LHS were differential. Mechanisms underlying fundamental and longitudinal trade-offs were explored. Regarding fundamental trade-offs, LHS mediated the effects of childhood environment on DD. Regarding longitudinal trade-offs, the U-shaped relationship was more evident between physical age and DD: older adults who were in poorer physical health felt older and exhibited a higher DD. Neither the time perspective nor anticipatory time perception mediated the effect of life history trade-offs. We concluded that DD was a product of two distinct life history trade-offs, reflecting both the trait-like quality and age-related development.

People vary in the extent to which they embrace their society’s traditions, impacting a range of social and political phenomena. People also vary in the degree to which they perceive disparate dangers as salient and necessitating a response. Over evolutionary time, traditions likely regularly offered direct and indirect avenues for addressing hazards; consequently, via multiple possible pathways, orientations toward tradition and toward danger may have become associated. Emerging research documents connections between individual differences in traditionalism and variation in threat responsivity in general, and pathogen-avoidance motivations in particular. Importantly, because threat-mitigating behaviors can conflict with competing priorities, the precise associations between traditionalism and pathogen avoidance likely depend on contextually contingent costs and benefits. The COVID-19 pandemic requires individuals to make decisions about consequential and costly pathogen-avoidance behaviors that can clash with other priorities. The pandemic therefore provides a real-world setting in which to test the posited relationship between traditionalism and pathogen avoidance across socio-political contexts. Across 27 societies (N = 7,844), we find that costly COVID-19-avoidance behaviors positively correlate with greater endorsement of traditional norms and values in a majority of countries. Accounting for the conflict that arises in some societies between public health precautions and competing priorities, such as the exercise of personal liberties, reveals a consistent relationship between traditionalism and COVID-19 precautions across an even wider range of social and cultural contexts. These findings support the thesis that traditionalism is associated with an enhanced tendency to attend to hazards.

People vary both in their embrace of their society’s traditions, and in their perception of hazards as salient and necessitating a response. Over evolutionary time, traditions have offered avenues for addressing hazards, plausibly resulting in linkages between orientations toward tradition and orientations toward danger. Emerging research documents connections between traditionalism and threat responsivity, including pathogen-avoidance motivations. Additionally, because hazard-mitigating behaviors can conflict with competing priorities, associations between traditionalism and pathogen avoidance may hinge on contextually contingent tradeoffs. The COVID-19 pandemic provides a real-world test of the posited relationship between traditionalism and hazard avoidance. Across 27 societies (N = 7844), we find that, in a majority of countries, individuals’ endorsement of tradition positively correlates with their adherence to costly COVID-19-avoidance behaviors; accounting for some of the conflicts that arise between public health precautions and other objectives further strengthens this evidence that traditionalism is associated with greater attention to hazards.

Meaning-making systems underlie perceptions of the efficacy of threat-mitigating behaviors. Religion and science both offer threat mitigation, yet these two meaning-making systems are often considered incompatible. Do such epistemological conflicts swamp the desire to employ diverse precautions against threats? Or do individuals – particularly individuals who are highly reactive to threats – hedge their bets by using multiple threat-mitigating practices despite their potential epistemological incompatibility? Complicating this question, perceptions of conflict between religion and science likely vary across cultures; likewise, pragmatic features of precautions prescribed by some religions make them incompatible with some scientifically-based precautions. The COVID-19 pandemic elicited diverse precautionary behaviors, and thus provided an opportunity to investigate these questions. Across 27 societies from five continents (N = 7,844), in the majority of countries, individuals’ practice of religious precautions such as prayer correlates positively with their use of scientifically-based precautions. Prior work indicates that greater adherence to tradition likely reflects greater reactivity to threats. Unsurprisingly given associations between many traditions and religion, we find that valuing tradition is predictive of employing religious precautions. However, consonant with its association with threat reactivity, we also find that traditionalism predicts adherence to public health precautions – a pattern that underscores threat-avoidant individuals’ apparent tolerance for epistemological conflict in pursuit of safety.