One Hundred and Sixty-One Days in the Life of the Homopandemicus in Serbia: The Contribution of Information Credibility and Alertness in Predicting Engagement in Protective Behaviors

Abstract

COVID-19 pandemic is a long-lasting process associated with dynamic changes within society and in individual psychological responses. Effective communication of measures by credible sources throughout the epidemic is one of the crucial factors for the containment of the disease, and the official communication about pandemics is straightforwardly directed toward changes in behavior via engagement in (self-)protective measures. Calls for the adherence to these measures are aimed at the general population, but people's reactions to these calls vary depending on, for example, their individual differences in cognitive and emotional responses to the situation. The focus of our study was the general narrative about the epidemic as conveyed by both state officials and media outlets in times of decreased social contacts due to the quarantine, in which relying on these sources of information is even more pivotal. Our aim was to explore the stability of the proposed mediational model during the course of the epidemic in Serbia. In the model, we tested the relationship between perceived credibility of information (PCI) and two types of protective behavior—the actual self-protective behavior (ASPB) and the hypothetical protective behavior (HPB), as well as the potential mediating role of alertness in these relationships time-wise. A cross-sectional study (N = 10,782, female = 79.1%) was being administered daily during the first epidemic wave and in three more 2-week time frames during the second wave. Based on the variability of these measures during the first epidemic wave, three stages of psychological responses were mapped (acute, adaptation, and relaxation stage), which were observed, with some deviations, also in the second wave. The mediational model was relatively robust after the initial few weeks, but the strength of pairwise relationships was more changeable. With both types of protective behaviors, the predictive power of PCI was partially mediated through alertness. This suggests that, while individual differences in cognitive and affective responses are important, so is coherent, focused, and credible communication in all stages of the epidemic, which emphasizes the communality aspect of the social containment of the infection. Our findings can thus be valuable in informing the planning of effective future communication.

Emerging Vaccination Stance in Adolescents, and Emerging Adults: The Role of Trust and Knowledge

“…In addition, extremely low trust in communication sources and politicians or governmental institutions was present among young people, which is in line with the results of previous research (Džamonja Ignjatović et al, 2019). Previous research has shown that trust in these official sources of information in our country declined during the pandemic, which confirmed the assumption about the dynamic nature of trust in institutions and official sources of information during the outbreak (Lep et al, 2021). Contrary to the results of our study, a cross-national online survey conducted on representative samples from six jurisdictions in Asian and Western societies, showed that institutional trust (e.g., trust in government) may increase vaccine willingness and uptake, and reduce the negative impact of misinformation on vaccine willingness and uptake (Chen et al, 2022).…”

“…Adolescents and emerging adults perceive the pandemic and behave differently during the pandemic, while simultaneously facing the developmentally-specific challenges (Ilić et al;Lep et al, 2021). They were disadvantaged in terms of their education (Petrovic, 2021;Viner et al, 2020), impending changes in the economy (Lep & Zupančič, 2020), mental health issues (Power et al, 2020;Radanović et al, 2021;Racine et al, 2021), and social relationships (Orben et al, 2020), all of which were confirmed in the systematic review by Panchal et al (2021).…”

“…Research has continuously shown that trust, generalized or particularized, to some extent shapes individuals' behavioral responses to pandemics (eg. Gvozden et al, 2021;Han et al, 2021a;Lep et al, 2021). Trust can serve as a heuristic decision-rule, in situations and relations in which a decision can not be reached solely based on relevant information (Lewicki & Brinsfield, 2011) Researchers distinguish generalized social trust -toward a relatively large circle of unfamiliar others (e.g., governments, healthcare system...), and particularized trust -in a particular situation, relationship or a person (e.g., parent, friend, healthcare provider) (Shilke et al, 2021).…”

Women’s Trust in the Healthcare System in Serbia: Validation of the Women’s Trust and Confidence in Healthcare System (Witch) Scale

“…The positive relation between mistrust in the system and desirable high involvement implies two novel notions on trust. First, the trust in the system, or the generalised trust could be observed as secondary to interpersonal trust, meaning that when generalised trust deteriorates, as our findings show it did during the pandemic (e.g., Han et al, 2021;Lep et al, 2021), the interpersonal trust (trust in physicians in the present study) can still be a resource for building up women's agency in the medical context. However, both the physician and the patient are social roles, and the stability of the healthcare system should not be reduced to or leaning on personal trust toward a particular physician.…”

Promotive and Risk Psychological Factors of Intention to Vaccinate in Health-Care Providers, Parents, and Laypeople: To Be Safe Is to Trust?

“…For this policy to be effective cooperation from its recipients (mostly laypeople) is necessary. The distinctive feature of vaccines as a medical procedure is that vaccines act at both the individual and community level, making the decision to vaccinate inherently social (Arnesen et al, 2018;Goldenberg, 2021), further (Lau et al, 2015), perceived social consensus and norms and others (De Visser et al, 2011;Oraby et al, 2014), perceived vaccine safety and efficacy (Lazarus et al, 2022), knowledge and subjective knowledge (Lep et al, 2021;Zingg & Siegrist, 2012). Behavioral frameworks were developed to highlight the importance of psychological factors for vaccination intention.…”