Risk perception and optimism during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic

Online rumors during the COVID-19 pandemic: co-evolution of themes and emotions

Introduction

During public health emergencies, online rumors spread widely on social media, causing public information anxiety and emotional fluctuations. Analyzing the co-evolution patterns of online rumor themes and emotions is essential for implementing proactive and precise governance of online rumors during such events.

Methods

Rumor texts from mainstream fact-checking platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic were collected and analyzed in phases based on the crisis lifecycle theory. The LDA topic model was applied to analyze the distribution of rumor themes at different stages. The Baidu AI Sentiment Analysis API was used to study the emotional tendencies of rumors at different stages. Line graphs were utilized to analyze the co-evolution characteristics of rumor themes and emotions.

Results

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the themes of online rumors can be categorized into five types: epidemic prevention and control, panic-inducing, production and livelihood, virus dissemination, and social figures. These themes exhibited repetition and fluctuation at different stages of the pandemic. The emotions embedded in pandemic-related online rumors evolved with the progression of the pandemic. Panic-inducing rumors co-evolved with negative emotions, while epidemic prevention and control rumors co-evolved with positive emotions.

Conclusion

The study results help to understand the public's focus and emotional tendencies at different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby enabling targeted public opinion guidance and crisis management.

Large environmental changes reduce valence-dependent belief updating

When updating beliefs, humans tend to integrate more desirable information than undesirable information. In stable environments (low uncertainty and high predictability), this asymmetry favors motivation towards action and perceived self-efficacy. However, in changing environments (high uncertainty and low predictability), this process can lead to risk underestimation and increase unwanted costs. Here, we examine how people (n = 388) integrate threatening information during an abrupt environmental change (mandatory quarantine during the COVID-19 pandemic). Given that anxiety levels are associated with the magnitude of the updating belief asymmetry; we explore its relationship during this particular context. We report a significant reduction in asymmetrical belief updating during a large environmental change as individuals integrated desirable and undesirable information to the same extent. Moreover, this result was supported by computational modeling of the belief update task. However, we found that the reduction in asymmetrical belief updating was not homogeneous among people with different levels of Trait-anxiety. Individuals with higher levels of Trait-anxiety maintained a valence-dependent updating, as it occurs in stable environments. On the other hand, updating behavior was not associated with acute anxiety (State-Anxiety), health concerns (Health-Anxiety), or having positive expectations (Trait-Optimism). These results suggest that highly uncertain environments can generate adaptive changes in information integration. At the same time, it reveals the vulnerabilities of individuals with higher levels of anxiety to adapt the way they learn.

Contrasting Objective and Perceived Risk: Predicting COVID-19 Health Behaviors in a Nationally Representative U.S. Sample

BACKGROUND

Individuals confronting health threats may display an optimistic bias such that judgments of their risk for illness or death are unrealistically positive given their objective circumstances.

PURPOSE

We explored optimistic bias for health risks using k-means clustering in the context of COVID-19. We identified risk profiles using subjective and objective indicators of severity and susceptibility risk for COVID-19.

METHODS

Between 3/18/2020-4/18/2020, a national probability sample of 6,514 U.S. residents reported both their subjective risk perceptions (e.g., perceived likelihood of illness or death) and objective risk indices (e.g., age, weight, pre-existing conditions) of COVID-19-related susceptibility and severity, alongside other pandemic-related experiences. Six months later, a subsample (N = 5,661) completed a follow-up survey with questions about their frequency of engagement in recommended health protective behaviors (social distancing, mask wearing, risk behaviors, vaccination intentions).

RESULTS

The k-means clustering procedure identified five risk profiles in the Wave 1 sample; two of these demonstrated aspects of optimistic bias, representing almost 44% of the sample. In OLS regression models predicting health protective behavior adoption at Wave 2, clusters representing individuals with high perceived severity risk were most likely to report engagement in social distancing, but many individuals who were objectively at high risk for illness and death did not report engaging in self-protective behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS

Objective risk of disease severity only inconsistently predicted health protective behavior. Risk profiles may help identify groups that need more targeted interventions to increase their support for public health policy and health enhancing recommendations more broadly.

The pandemic body: the lived body during the COVID-19 pandemic

In this study, we conduct a detailed analysis of qualitative survey data focusing on adult populations in the UK, Japan and Mexico to address the following question: How has the COVID-19 pandemic changed people's lived experience of their bodies, other people's bodies and the world? We identify five themes: (i) fear and danger, (ii) bodily doubt and hypervigilance, (iii) risk and trust, (iv) adapting and enduring and (v) changes in perspective. We use two theoretical frameworks: first, Mary Douglas' anthropological work on purity, risk, danger and symbolism is applied to understand how social and cultural meanings attached to the body have changed during the pandemic. Second, we use the concept of bodily doubt developed by Havi Carel to interpret how people experience their bodies and other people's bodies differently during the pandemic. While we recognise the significant variation in people's embodied experience of the pandemic, our findings suggest there are commonalities that span different countries and cultures. Specifically, we look at responses to COVID-19 protective countermeasures such as national lockdowns and physical distancing which we suggest have reduced people's ability to put faith in their own bodies, trust other people and trust the political leadership. We conclude by proposing that the changes to our lived experience during the COVID-19 pandemic have prompted changes in perspective and a renewed focus on what people consider important in life from a social, moral, cultural and political point of view.

'Turbulence even in a bubble': a reflexive thematic analysis with family caregivers of people with dementia in the United Kingdom during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to understand how family caregivers of people with dementia managed changes caused by COVID-19 restrictions and how they adjusted to the lifting of restrictions. A particular focus of the study was on understanding the impact of social isolation, a reduction of social interactions, and reduced access to healthcare services.

METHODS AND MEASURES

Fourteen voluntary caregivers (nine women) were interviewed using a semi-structured interview schedule.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified based on reflexive thematic analysis: (i) Outlets to cope with lockdown; (ii) 'Not all doom and gloom': A silver lining amid COVID-19; (iii) Optimism helps provide resilience; (iv) The challenges and joys of reopening; and (v) Caregiving toward a new normality.

CONCLUSION

The research highlighted difficulties reported by family caregivers and people with dementia during COVID-19, while also showing how such carers coped. Interviews also identified ways that family caregivers often used optimism to help navigate through lockdown and to tackle the reopening stage. Family caregivers in this study reported coping well overall, but welcomed the lifting of restrictions.

Seroconversion rate of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies and dating behaviour in HIV-PrEP users in a German metropolis during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, when mortality was high, social distance was the only option to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and prohibit uncontrolled spreading. As the impact of social distancing on sexual behavior was unclear, we aimed to assess the influence of sexual risk behavior on SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion in HIV pre-exposition prophylaxis (PrEP) users after declaration of the pandemic.

METHODS

Prospective study on SARS-CoV-2 IgG-antibody seroconversion rate over time in men having sex with men (MSM) using PrEP at a single tertiary university hospital in Munich, Germany, during quarterly (Q) routine HIV-PrEP visits over 1 year per participant (May 2020 - September 2021). Seroconversion was defined as at least one positive anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody test as surrogate for past infection. In addition, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), personal estimated risk behavior and sexual contacts were assessed.

RESULTS

Seroconversion rate during the full observation period was 7.3% (9/124 subjects) by September 2021. Percentage of subjects with symptomatic STIs (T. pallidum, N. gonorrhoeae, C. trachomatis and M. genitalium) was 18.7% in Q3-20, 8.1% in Q4-20, 11.1% in Q1-21, 11.6% in Q2-21 and 9.5% in Q3-21. Perception of subjective threat of SARS-CoV-2 infection and adequacy of preventive measures decreased during the observation period. However, self-reported sex behavior remained stable during the observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

Our cohort showed low proportion of PrEP-users with anti-N IgG by September 2021, comparable to the local incidence. Sexual behavior in this cohort did not change, despite local recommendations for social distancing.

The Best-Case Heuristic: Relative Optimism in Relationships, Politics, and a Global Health Pandemic

In four experiments covering three different life domains, participants made future predictions in what they considered the most realistic scenario, an optimistic best-case scenario, or a pessimistic worst-case scenario (N = 2,900 Americans). Consistent with a best-case heuristic, participants made "realistic" predictions that were much closer to their best-case scenario than to their worst-case scenario. We found the same best-case asymmetry in health-related predictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, for romantic relationships, and a future presidential election. In a fully between-subject design (Experiment 4), realistic and best-case predictions were practically identical, and they were naturally made faster than the worst-case predictions. At least in the current study domains, the findings suggest that people generate "realistic" predictions by leaning toward their best-case scenario and largely ignoring their worst-case scenario. Although political conservatism was correlated with lower covid-related risk perception and lower support of early public-health interventions, the best-case prediction heuristic was ideologically symmetric.

Factors influencing the update of beliefs regarding controversial political issues

Selectively integrating new information contributes to belief polarization and compromises public discourse. To better understand factors that underlie biased belief updating, I conducted three pre-registered studies covering different controversial political issues. The main hypothesis was that cognitively devaluing new information hinders belief updating. Support for this hypothesis was found in only one of the three issues. The only factor that consistently influenced belief updating across issues was the discrepancy between prior beliefs and new information. These results suggest that usually people do use evidence to correct their beliefs, but may refuse to do so if doubts about its generalizability arise.

Self-reported interoception, worries and protective behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

Protective behaviors were essential for minimizing the spread of the virus during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. It is often assumed that awareness of bodily sensations (interoception) can improve decision-making and facilitate adaptive behavior.

OBJECTIVE

This paper investigates cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships between different aspects of self-reported interoception, trait anxiety, COVID-related worry, and health protective behaviors.

METHODS

The study was conducted on a community sample of 265 adults. The two data collection phases took place online, before (baseline) and during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Hungary.

RESULTS

Contrary to our expectations, neither cross-sectional nor longitudinal associations were found between protective behaviors and indicators of self-reported interoception. However, worry at baseline predicted protective behaviors during the second wave, even after controlling for socio-economical characteristics and protective behaviors at baseline.

CONCLUSION

Our results highlight the adaptivity of health-related worry when behavioral steps to avoid threats are known and available. Also, higher level of perceived interoception did not appear to be health protective under these circumstances.

Do unbiased people act more rationally?-The case of comparative realism and vaccine intention

Within different populations and at various stages of the pandemic, it has been demonstrated that individuals believe they are less likely to become infected than their average peer. This is known as comparative optimism and it has been one of the reproducible effects in social psychology. However, in previous and even the most recent studies, researchers often neglected to consider unbiased individuals and inspect the differences between biased and unbiased individuals. In a mini meta-analysis of six studies (Study 1), we discovered that unbiased individuals have lower vaccine intention than biased ones. In two pre-registered, follow-up studies, we aimed at testing the reproducibility of this phenomenon and its explanations. In Study 2 we replicated the main effect and found no evidence for differences in psychological control between biased and unbiased groups. In Study 3 we also replicated the effect and found that realists hold more centric views on the trade-offs between threats from getting vaccinated and getting ill. We discuss the interpretation and implication of our results in the context of the academic and lay-persons' views on rationality. We also put forward empirical and theoretical arguments for considering unbiased individuals as a separate phenomenon in the domain of self-others comparisons.

"I'm luckier than everybody else!": Optimistic bias, COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, vaccination status, and the link with the time spent online, anticipated regret, and the perceived threat

The catastrophic wave in the fall of 2021 drove Romania to the top of the list of dangerous COVID-19 infections, with the highest mortality rate in Europe. At the same time, Romania had one of the lowest vaccination rates. In this context, the present research aimed to explore the link between vaccination intention/status, optimistic bias, COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, the time spent online, and vaccination (anticipated) regret. Our convenience sample was formed by 408 adults aged 18-63 years (M = 22.11, SD = 6.18, 69.9 % females), who were distributed into four groups: (1) non-vaccinated who definitely refused COVID-19 vaccination, (2) non-vaccinated who considered COVID-19 vaccination, (3) non-vaccinated who reported their absolute willingness to COVID-19 vaccination, and (4) people who were COVID-19 vaccinated. We conducted our analyses separately, depending on these groups (i.e., vaccination intentions/status). Data were collected using an online questionnaire between November 10, 2021, and January 03, 2022. In our cross-sectional approach, following correlation and ANOVA analyses, among the observed patterns were (1) the significant negative relation between optimism bias and the perceived COVID-19 threat; (2) the positive link between anticipated regret, post-vaccination regret, age, and conspiracy beliefs. We discuss our findings considering their contribution to health policies and practices.

Motivational factors were more important than perceived risk or optimism for compliance to infection control measures in the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic

Compliance to infection control measures may be influenced both by the fear of negative consequences of a pandemic, but also by the expectation to be able to handle the pandemic's challenges. We performed a survey on a representative sample for Norway (N = 4,083) in the first weeks of the COVID-19 lock-down in March 2020. We had preregistered hypotheses to test the effect of optimism and perceived risk on compliance. Perceived risk had small effects on increasing compliance and on leading to more careful information gathering. The expected negative association between optimism and compliance was not supported, and there was instead a small positive association. We found a small effect that optimism was associated with seeing less risk from the pandemic and with a larger optimistic bias. Finally, an exploratory analysis showed that seeing the infection control measures as being effective in protecting others explained a substantial proportion of the variation in compliance. The study indicates that how we think about pandemic risk has complex and non-intuitive relationships with compliance. Our beliefs and motivations toward infection control measures appears to be important for compliance.

The Mental Health Impact of Daily News Exposure During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Ecological Momentary Assessment Study

BACKGROUND

Consumption of distressing news media, which substantially increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, has demonstrable negative effects on mental health.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the proximal impact of daily exposure to news about COVID-19 on mental health in the first year of the pandemic.

METHODS

A sample of 546 college students completed daily ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) for 8 weeks, measuring exposure to news about COVID-19, worry and optimism specifically related to COVID-19, hopelessness, and general worry.

RESULTS

Participants completed >80,000 surveys. Multilevel mediation models indicated that greater daily exposure to news about COVID-19 is associated with higher same-day and next-day worry about the pandemic. Elevations in worry specifically about COVID-19 were in turn associated with greater next-day hopelessness and general worry. Optimism about COVID-19 mediated the relationship between daily exposure to COVID-19 news and next-day general worry but was not related to hopelessness.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the mental health impact of daily exposure to COVID-19 news and highlights how worry about the pandemic contributes over time to hopelessness and general worry.

Fear, Hope, and COVID-19: Emotional Elite Rhetoric and Its Impact on the Public During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Research shows that emotions matter in politics, and they matter during a public health crisis. Yet, a comprehensive analysis of emotional political rhetoric during the COVID-19 crisis is still missing. Based on parties' position in the political arena (government versus populist radical parties), I expect differences in how specific emotions are employed and in how these messages actually influence the public. To test my hypotheses, I use word embeddings and neural network classifiers to measure fear and hope appeals in social media messages of political parties in four European countries. Furthermore, I rely on more than 1,400,000 public tweets of random citizens to estimate the impact of party messages. To do so, I employ vector autoregression (VAR) analysis to compare retweet volumes of political messages to emotional expressions in public tweets. Results indicate two main findings, (1) populist radical parties communicate less about the pandemic and decrease fear and increase hope appeals while COVID case numbers are rising whereas government parties exhibit the opposite pattern; (2) increased diffusion of party tweets consistently precedes change in partisans' emotional expressions the following day. The findings can carry important implications for (affective) polarization and the level of protective behavior among the population.

A Review of the MINDSPACE Framework for Nudging Health Promotion During Early Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the link between individual behavior and public health, along with the importance of evidence-based efforts to promote prosocial individual behavior. Insights from behavioral science can inform the design of effective behavior change techniques, or nudges, to influence individual behavior. The MINDSPACE framework organizes 9 behavioral science principles that can be used to guide policy design: Messenger, Incentives, Norms, Defaults, Salience, Priming, Affect, Commitments, and Ego. Using MINDSPACE as an organizing framework, this article provides a review of the literature on nudges to influence prosocial behaviors relevant during a pandemic: handwashing, avoidance of social gatherings, self-isolation and social distancing, and sharing public health messages. Additionally, empirical evidence on the use of nudges during the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 is summarized. Recommendations regarding the use of nudges to achieve public health policy goals during pandemics are provided. Organizational leaders, policymakers, and practitioners can use nudges to promote public health when mandates are not politically feasible or enforceable.

Self-reported mental well-being of mothers with young children during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: A mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

Mothers of young children have been identified as a particularly vulnerable group during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to explore how occupational, psychosocial and partnership-related factors were associated with their self-reported mental well-being during the first COVID-19 wave.

METHODS

Five hundred fifty participants of the BaBi cohort study (est. 2013, Bielefeld, North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany) were invited to complete an online survey and to take part in email interviews (April-May 2020). With survey data, we assessed self-reported mental well-being through validated instruments (eight-item Patient Health Questionnaire; short version of the Symptom Checklist) and ran linear regression models for occupational, psychosocial and partnership-related factors. We performed content analysis on the interviews' data to further understand the determinants of the women's mental well-being.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-four women participated in the survey; of which 17 also participated in the interviews. A perceived lack of support in childcare was associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms, while having a higher internal locus of control was associated with lower levels. Psychological distress was higher in those reporting lack of emotional or childcare support. Interviews confirmed the interplay of potential stressors and highlighted the difficulties to reconcile different expectations of motherhood.

DISCUSSION

Occupational, psychosocial and partner-related factors can act (to varying degree) both as resources and stressors to the self-reported mental well-being of mothers of young children. These impacts took different forms and created opportunities or challenges, depending on specific life circumstances, such as work or family situations, relationships and own psychosocial resources. Although not representative, our study contributes to building the COVID-19 evidence base, delineating the mental health toll of the pandemic on mothers of young children and the factors that contribute to it.

Are People Optimistically Biased about the Risk of COVID-19 Infection? Lessons from the First Wave of the Pandemic in Europe

Unrealistic optimism, the underestimation of one's risk of experiencing harm, has been investigated extensively to understand better and predict behavioural responses to health threats. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, a relative dearth of research existed in this domain regarding epidemics, which is surprising considering that this optimistic bias has been associated with a lack of engagement in protective behaviours critical in fighting twenty-first-century, emergent, infectious diseases. The current study addresses this gap in the literature by investigating whether people demonstrated optimism bias during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, how this changed over time, and whether unrealistic optimism was negatively associated with protective measures. Taking advantage of a pre-existing international participative influenza surveillance network (n = 12,378), absolute and comparative unrealistic optimism were measured at three epidemic stages (pre-, early, peak), and across four countries-France, Italy, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Despite differences in culture and health response, similar patterns were observed across all four countries. The prevalence of unrealistic optimism appears to be influenced by the particular epidemic context. Paradoxically, whereas absolute unrealistic optimism decreased over time, comparative unrealistic optimism increased, suggesting that whilst people became increasingly accurate in assessing their personal risk, they nonetheless overestimated that for others. Comparative unrealistic optimism was negatively associated with the adoption of protective behaviours, which is worrying, given that these preventive measures are critical in tackling the spread and health burden of COVID-19. It is hoped these findings will inspire further research into sociocognitive mechanisms involved in risk appraisal.

Quantifying the role of the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 U.S. presidential elections

In the media, a prevalent narrative is that the incumbent United States President Donald J. Trump lost the 2020 elections because of the way he handled the COVID-19 pandemic. Quantitative evidence to support this narrative is, however, limited. We put forward a spatial, information-theoretic approach to critically examine the link between voting behavior and COVID-19 incidence in the 2020 presidential elections. The approach overcomes classical limitations of traditional regression analysis, where it does not require an underlying mathematical model and it can capture nonlinear interactions. From the analysis of county-level data, we uncovered a robust association between voting behavior and prevalence of COVID-19 cases. Surprisingly, such an association points in the opposite direction from the accepted narrative: in counties that experienced less COVID-19 cases, the incumbent President lost more ground to his opponent, now President Joseph R. Biden Jr. A tenable explanation of this observation is the different attitude of liberal and conservative voters toward the pandemic, which led to more COVID-19 spreading in counties with a larger share of republican voters.