Reactance, morality, and disgust: the relationship between affective dispositions and compliance with official health recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic

Díaz, Rodrigo; Cova, Florián

doi:10.1080/02699931.2021.1941783

Cited by 51 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Inconsistent with previous research (Chan, 2021;Ekici et al, 2021;Pagliaro et al, 2021), we did not see that individualizing foundations predicted more self-reported COVID-19 prevention behaviors, but we did see that binding foundations were related to reporting fewer prevention behaviors such as hand-washing, masking, and social-distancing. This is contrary to recent research in a French population that found that endorsing the binding foundations of authority and purity were associated with increased prevention behaviors (Díaz and Cova, 2021), suggesting that the effects we found may be unique to the U.S. American population. Indeed, the COVID-19 pandemic is more politicized and polarized in the United States than other countries (Mordecai and Connaughton, 2020).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…For example, participants who endorsed the moral foundations of care, fairness, and purity were more likely to rate a target who missed a sibling's wedding more favorably if they did so to minimize COVID-19 exposure than for another reason. Additionally, research has found that endorsement of care (Díaz and Cova, 2021) and fairness foundations (Chan, 2021) predicted more COVID-19 prevention behaviors. Some evidence suggests that this is because individualizing foundations predict a greater trust in science (Pagliaro et al, 2021).…”

Section: Moral Foundations and Covid-19mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Moral Foundations Predict Perceptions of Moral Permissibility of COVID-19 Public Health Guideline Violations in United States University Students

Bruchmann

LaPierre

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the United States, the COVID-19 pandemic has become highly politicized and highly moralized. The current study explored whether participants’ (N = 118) endorsements of binding (promoting group cohesion) versus individualizing (promoting care for individuals) moral foundations explained partisan differences in views and behaviors regarding COVID-19. Participants completed the Moral Foundations Questionnaire before they indicated how morally permissible they thought it was to violate COVID-19 mandates, report others’ violations, or not get vaccinated. Additionally, they indicated their own prevention behaviors. Results show that endorsement of both individualizing and binding foundations explain partisan differences in moral permissibility ratings. Political conservatism predicted greater endorsement of binding foundations which in turn predicted seeing COVID-19 violations and not getting vaccinated as more morally permissible, and predicted fewer self-reported prevention behaviors. Endorsement of individualizing foundations predicted seeing violations as less morally permissible and reporting others’ violations as more morally permissible.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Moral Foundations and Covid-19mentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral Foundations Predict Perceptions of Moral Permissibility of COVID-19 Public Health Guideline Violations in United States University Students

Bruchmann

LaPierre

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, in a study investigating empathic emotional reactions to others affected by COVID-19, participants with higher empathic concern for others, or those who were exposed to an elderly person affected by COVID-19, reported increased intended and actual behaviors related to physical distancing and mask wearing [ 59 ]. In another study, measures of perspective taking and empathic concern were found to significantly predict adherence to guidelines ([ 56 ]; for similar findings regarding perspective taking, see [ 60 ]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Predicting attitudes towards easing COVID-19 restrictions in the United States of America: The role of health concerns, demographic, political, and individual difference factors

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite rising cases of COVID-19 in the United States of America, several states are easing restrictions (e.g., relaxing physical distancing requirements, reopening businesses) that were imposed to limit community transmission of the virus. Individuals hold differing opinions regarding whether restrictions should continue to be imposed or lifted, evidenced, for example, by debate and protests regarding reopening of businesses and venues. Health and social psychological research suggest that perceptions of COVID-19related risk, experiences of the virus, and individual difference factors can help explain individuals’ attitudes towards health initiatives and their tendency to be persuaded towards a specific course of action. The purpose of this study was to investigate what factors influence support or opposition to easing COVID-19-related restrictions. A sample of 350 United States citizens, responding to an anonymous survey, were asked about the extent to which they support/oppose easing of COVID-19-related restrictions, both generally and in relation to specific restrictions. Respondents completed measures of their experiences of COVID-19, individual difference factors, and demographic variables, including political affiliation and degree of social and economic conservatism. In a series of regression analyses, significant demographic predictors of support or opposition for easing restrictions were gender, age, ethnicity, and education, with political affiliation and degree of social and economic conservatism also predicting attitudes. Experiences related to COVID-19 that predicted attitudes were concerns for self and family, perceptions of threat posed by the virus, perceived ability to adhere to restrictions, willingness to take government direction, and belief in COVID-19-related conspiracy theories. At an individual differences level, uncertainty avoidance, collectivism, long-term orientation, masculinity, empathic concern, personal distress, reactance, and general conspiracy theory beliefs all significantly precited attitudes to easing restrictions. Understanding the factors that help explain attitudes towards COVID-19 restrictions can inform how best to position health messaging and initiatives going forward, particularly as states or countries open borders.

show abstract

“…In particular, an internal locus of control appears to buffer COVID-related stress [ 37 ] and mental burden [ 38 ], additionally promoting medication compliance and health-related behaviour [ 39 , 40 ]. Previous evidence on the relation between COVID-19 disease concern and sensitivity to moral wrongdoing [ 41 ] suggests that adherence to containment measures is also driven by moral values [ 42 ]. Finally, personality traits have been shown to reflect adaptive decision-making drivers such as obtaining rewards, avoiding punishments, and managing uncertainty.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk perception and behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic: Predicting variables of compliance with lockdown measures

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic and the measures to counteract it have highlighted the role of individual differences in evaluating and reacting to emergencies, and the challenges inherent in promoting precautionary behaviours. We aimed to explore the psychological and cognitive factors modulating behaviour and intentions during the national lockdown in Italy. We administered an online questionnaire (N = 244) that included tests for assessing personality traits (Temperament and Character Inventory; Locus of Control of Behaviour) and moral judgment (Moral Foundations Questionnaire), alongside behavioural economics tasks addressing different facets of risk attitude (loss aversion, risk aversion and delay discounting). We then assessed the extent to which individual variations in these dimensions modulated participants’ compliance with the lockdown norms. When assessing their joint contribution via multiple regressions, lockdown adherence was mostly predicted by internal locus of control, psycho-economic dimensions suggestive of long-sighted and loss-averse attitudes, as well as personality traits related to cautionary behaviour, such as harm avoidance, and the authority moral concern. These findings show that a multi-domain assessment of the factors underlying personal intentions, and thus driving compliance with government measures, can help predict individuals’ actions during health emergencies. This evidence points to factors that should be considered when developing interventions and communication strategies to promote precautionary behaviours.

show abstract

Reactance, morality, and disgust: the relationship between affective dispositions and compliance with official health recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic

Cited by 51 publications

References 42 publications

Moral Foundations Predict Perceptions of Moral Permissibility of COVID-19 Public Health Guideline Violations in United States University Students

Moral Foundations Predict Perceptions of Moral Permissibility of COVID-19 Public Health Guideline Violations in United States University Students

Predicting attitudes towards easing COVID-19 restrictions in the United States of America: The role of health concerns, demographic, political, and individual difference factors

Risk perception and behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic: Predicting variables of compliance with lockdown measures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About