Ambivalence and Self-Reported Adherence to Recommendations to Reduce the Spread of COVID-19

Abstract

Abstract. Governments worldwide still, to some extent, rely on behavioral recommendations to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We examine the role of ambivalence toward both the specific recommendations (micro-ambivalence) and the pandemic as a whole (macro-ambivalence) about compliance. We predict that micro ambivalence relates negatively, whereas macro ambivalence relates positively to self-reported adherence to recommendations. We present two studies ( N = 691) supporting our hypotheses: the more ambivalent people are toward the behavioral recommendations (micro-level), the less they report following them. Conversely, the more ambivalent people are about the pandemic as a whole (macro-level), the more they report following recommendations. Our findings were replicated in a US sample and a representative German sample.

Ambivalence Toward the Implementation of Preventive Measures in (Un-)Vaccinated German Citizens

“…For example, there are multiple formulae to combine positivity and negativity into an ambivalence index (Thompson et al., 1995). The SIM-Index is the most used (e.g., Buttlar et al, 2023; Schneider et al, 2021; Schneider & Mattes, 2021) and recommended index (Thompson et al., 1995), however, it has also been associated with producing moderator effects that are statistical artifacts (Ullrich et al, 2008). Additionally, people often think in bipolar terms (Thompson et al, 1995) – they view positivity and negativity as complementary to each other.…”

“…Thus, the decision of whether to undertake an operation or not might lead to ambivalence (Kuhn et al., 1989). From ambivalence toward condom use (Kane, 1990) and cancer (Abhyankar et al, 2011) to ambivalence toward a global pandemic (Schneider et al, 2021), ambivalence seems to be omnipresent in the health-related context.…”

“…The most commonly used index is the similarity intensity model index (SIM-Index; e.g., Thompson et al, 1995) and is calculated with the following formula where P = positivity and N = negativity: Thus, it is conceptualized as the intensity of the components (i.e., (P + N)/2) corrected by the polarization (i.e., |P − N|). With this measuring method, it is possible to differentiate between rather neutral, rather univalent, and rather ambivalent attitudes (Buttlar et al, 2021, 2023; Schneider et al, 2021; Schneider & Mattes, 2021). Ambivalence is characterized by high intensity and low polarization – in other words, high ratings on the positivity and negativity scale.…”

“…Ambivalence also seems to influence behavior directly. Regarding COVID-19, Schneider and colleagues (2021) found ambivalence regarding the pandemic as well as ambivalence regarding the behavior recommendations to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Their findings showed that ambivalence toward preventive behavior was negatively related to self-reported adherence to preventive behavior whereas ambivalence regarding the pandemic was positively related to self-reported adherence to preventive behavior.…”

A Qualitative Evaluation of the Barriers and Enablers for Implementation of an Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Testing Service at the University of Nottingham: A Multi-Site Higher Education Setting in England

“…Furthermore, COVID-19 and testing ambivalence was observed by ATS personnel in some students. Prior research has noted that the more ambivalent people are toward the behavioural recommendations associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, the less they report following them [ 58 ].…”