Optimism Bias during the Covid-19 Pandemic: Empirical Evidence from Romania and Italy

Do first responders and populations perceive risks similarly? A comparative study of seven countries

Introduction

Risk perception illustrates the subjective evaluation of individuals concerning the characteristics, severity, and capacity to cope with potential hazards. Risk perception influences attitudes and actions individuals take to protect themselves from future threats. Risk perceptions might change among different stakeholder groups such as society and first responders. Identifying risk perceptions of stakeholders is essential to establish effective protective measures.

Method

This study investigated the commonalities and diversities in risk perception among first responders and the public, within and between seven European and beyond countries. A self-administered questionnaire was used to gather data from both first responders and civilians. They were asked to assess their risk perception level for five categories of risks (Extreme weather-related events, nature-related events, social disruptions, critical services dependencies, and pandemics).

Results

Using Univariate Analysis of Variance showed disparity concerning both the levels of risk perception between the public and first responders, as well as their relative ranking. For example, concerning extreme weather-related and nature-related events, risk perception levels of the first responders is higher than that of the population in six out of the seven studied countries. In contrast, the population's risk perception is higher compared to the first responders in six out of the seven countries, concerning critical infrastructure dependencies and pandemics.

Discussion

The relative gaps between the first responders versus the population, within each country, vary considerably. Norway for example presents significant differences between the two internal populations concerning all risks (except for extreme weather), while in Sweden, no significant gaps were identified, concerning all five risks.

Hedonic Risk Preference Associated with High-Risk Behaviors under COVID-19 Pandemic among Medical Students in Japan

BACKGROUND

Public health measures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 have focused on raising awareness and disseminating knowledge. Few considered people's risk preferences and no measurement was adapted to the context of COVID-19. This study aims (1) to investigate the association between risk preference and risk behaviors and (2) to compare a novel hedonic preference question with traditional risk preference assessment tools in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic among medical students in Japan.

METHODS

An online survey of fourth-year medical students was conducted. Logistic regression analysis adjusted for gender, age, household income, and the overconfidence effect were performed to investigate the association.

RESULTS

We observed significantly higher odds of high-risk behaviors in general risk preference (odds ratio (OR): 4.04; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05-15.50) and hedonic preference (OR: 6.58; 95% CI: 1.86-23.28) when adjusted, whereas monetary preference showed no significant association. Concerning specific risky behaviors, hedonic preference were significantly associated with four items after adjusting for covariates ("dine out" (OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.13-6.85), "go out" (OR: 4.35, 95% CI: 1.65-11.46), "not practicing safety precautions" (OR: 2.79, 95% CI: 1.11-7.04) and "travel" (OR: 4.36, 95% CI: 1.42-13.44)), and general preference in two ("dine out" (OR: 4.82, 95% CI: 1.66-14.00) and "go out" (OR: 6.48, 95% CI: 2.07-20.24)).

CONCLUSION

Hedonic and general risk preferences were significantly associated with high-risk behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future application of the novel risk-for-pleasure-seeking preference question is warranted.

Heuristics and biases in medical decision-making under uncertainty: The case of neuropronostication for consciousness disorders

Neuropronostication for consciousness disorders can be very complex and prone to high uncertainty. Despite notable advancements in the development of dedicated scales and physiological markers using innovative paradigms, these technical progressions are often overshadowed by factors intrinsic to the medical environment. Beyond the scarcity of objective data guiding medical decisions, factors like time pressure, fatigue, multitasking, and emotional load can drive clinicians to rely more on heuristic-based clinical reasoning. Such an approach, albeit beneficial under certain circumstances, may lead to systematic error judgments and impair medical decisions, especially in complex and uncertain environments. After a brief review of the main theoretical frameworks, this paper explores the influence of clinicians' cognitive biases on clinical reasoning and decision-making in the challenging context of neuroprognostication for consciousness disorders. The discussion further revolves around developing and implementing various strategies designed to mitigate these biases and their impact, aiming to enhance the quality of care and the patient safety.

Integrated factors affecting intention of COVID-19 preventive behaviours including vaccination in Korea

AIM

The aim of the study was to determine the multiple potential contributing factors in preventive behaviours, including COVID-19 vaccination for an effective campaign strategy.

DESIGN

This is a descriptive correlation study to examine the effects of the behavioural outcome, attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control, optimistic bias and social stigma on the intention of preventive behaviour, based on Ajen's Theory of Planned Behaviour.

METHODS

The survey was performed by a professional research company online from 16-19 July 2021. Two hundred and thirty-three participants who had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 at the time of data collection completed the survey.

RESULTS

Perceived benefit, perceived behavioural control and social stigma are significantly associated with intention of preventive behaviours. The factors engaging in preventive behaviour presents us that our society is strongly influenced by social groups. Social groups influence decision-making in intention of preventing behaviour. Public education using social networks can increase such desirable behaviour.

Effects of media on preventive behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic

The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic required implementation of a variety of measures. In addition to pharmaceutical measures, such as vaccines, changing individuals' nonpharmaceutical preventive behaviour is essential to prevent the spread of infection. In uncertain situations, such as a pandemic, media sources are important for guiding individuals' decision-making behaviour. In this study, we examined the effects of media use on preventive behaviour during COVID-19. Earlier studies have shown that social networking service (SNS) browsing promotes preventive behaviour. However, those studies only assessed a single point during the early stages of the pandemic; therefore, the effects on ongoing preventive behaviour are unclear. Thus, a two-wave panel survey was conducted in 2020 and 2021 for an exploratory analysis of changes in the effects of media on individuals' preventive behaviour over time. The results show that the effect of SNS browsing on preventing going out was confirmed only during the early stage of the pandemic and was not observed 1 year later. It is also shown that those who shifted from self-restraint to going out within 1 year were not affected by the type of media use, but by cognitive factors. As the situation changes during a pandemic, analyses that consider time-series changes are essential for gaining insights about the effects of media on the promotion and maintenance of continuous prevention behaviours.

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.

It Matters to Whom You Compare Yourself: The Case of Unrealistic Optimism and Gender-Specific Comparisons

Unrealistic Optimism (UO) appears when comparing participants' risk estimates for themselves with an average peer, which typically results in lower risk estimates for the self. This article reports nuanced effects when comparison varies in terms of the gender of the peer. In three studies (total N = 2,468, representative sample), we assessed people's risk estimates for COVID-19 infections for peers with the same or other gender. If a peer's gender is not taken into account, previous studies were replicated: Compared with others, participants perceived themselves as less likely to get infected with COVID-19. Interestingly, this effect was qualified by gender: Respondents perceived women as less threatened than men because women are perceived as more cautious and compliant with medical guidelines.

Multiple Group Membership, Optimistic Bias, and Infection Risk in the Context of Emerging Infectious Diseases

Abstract. Background: Understanding psychosocial factors which impact responses to emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) is vital in managing epidemics and pandemics. Two under-researched areas in this field are the interactive roles of optimistic bias (underestimation of the likelihood of negative events occurring to the self, relative to others) and group membership (a factor observed to be psychologically protective, but infection risk enhancing). Aims: The current study aimed to test the relationships between optimistic bias and membership of multiple groups upon EID-related emotional and psychological responses and behavioral intentions. Methods: Participants from the UK and US ( N = 360) rated how they would evaluate and respond to a fictitious EID immediately before the 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns in a correlational study. Results: Negative relationships were observed between optimistic bias and perceived infection vulnerability, infection prevention strategies, and perceived EID severity. Multiple group membership correlated negatively with germ avoidance, but positively with emotional responses such as disgust and increased perceived vulnerability to infection – factors linked to avoiding infection. Multiple group memberships and optimistic bias were unrelated. Limitations: The study focussed on a fictitious disease and relies on cross-sectional data and behavioral intentions. Conclusions: These findings build upon the small evidence base on the role of optimistic bias in EID management and suggest that multiple group membership is unlikely to increase optimistic bias. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings for EID management are discussed.

Generational differences in the relationship between media exposure and health behaviors during COVID-19 pandemic

Based on a questionnaire survey (N = 857), this study analyzed generational differences in the public health behaviors of COVID-19 and provided an explanation for generational differences from the perspective of media exposure. There are significant differences in media exposure and health behaviors between the Mesozoic generation (35-55) and the young generation (18-34) during the lull. The Mesozoic generation paid greater attention to information on pandemics. Consequently, their health behaviors surpass that of the young generation. On the basis of social cognitive theory and protection motivation theory, this study develops a mediating model of media exposure on health behaviors, demonstrating that media exposure can influence health behaviors through the mediating effects of perceived severity, self-efficacy, and response efficacy, but not via perceived susceptibility. Moreover, a moderated mediation study found that generation moderates the indirect effect of media exposure on health behaviors via perceived susceptibility. Media exposure influences Mesozoic healthy behaviors positively by decreasing their perceived susceptibility. The implication of this study is that the development of health communication theory must account for generational differences and disease-specific characteristics.

Temporal aspects of unrealistic optimism and robustness of this bias: A longitudinal study in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

Numerous studies on unrealistic optimism (UO) have shown that people claim they are less exposed to COVID-19 infection than others. Yet, it has not been assessed if this bias evolves; does it escalate or diminish when the information about the threat changes? The present paper fills this gap. For 12 months 120 participants estimated their own and their peers' risk of COVID-19 infection. Results show that UO regarding COVID-19 infection is an enduring phenomenon-It was the dominant tendency throughout almost the entire study and was never substituted by Unrealistic Pessimism. While the presence of UO-bias was constant, its magnitude changed. We tested possible predictors of these changes: the daily new cases/deaths, the changes in governmental restrictions and the mobility of participants' community. Out of these predictors, only changes in governmental restrictions proved to be significant- when the restrictions tightened, UO increased.

Asymmetrical friendships? People are willing to risk COVID-19 infection from friends but are reluctant to pass it on to them

Although most protective behaviors related to the COVID-19 pandemic come with personal costs, they will produce the largest benefit if everybody cooperates. This study explores two interacting factors that drive cooperation in this tension between private and collective interests. A preregistered experiment (N = 299) examined (a) how the quality of the relation among interacting partners (social proximity), and (b) how focusing on the risk of self-infection versus onward transmission affected intentions to engage in protective behaviors. The results suggested that risk focus was an important moderator of the relation between social proximity and protection intentions. Specifically, participants were more willing to accept the risk of self-infection from close others than from strangers, resulting in less caution toward a friend than toward a distant other. However, when onward transmission was the primary concern, participants were more reluctant to effect transmission to close others, resulting in more caution toward friends than strangers. These findings inform the debate about effective nonclinical measures against the pandemic. Practical implications for risk communication are discussed.

Biased Social Comparison in the Moment of Crisis

Abstract. The better-than-average effect (BTAE) is a mechanism where people perceive oneself as better than others. The BTAE could be one of the phenomena explaining why people follow – in the moment of a global health crisis – guidelines (“I am superior to others, and I [will]) take extra precautions, e.g., a vaccine shot”). In this paper, we investigate the BTAE with 3,066 respondents. In Study 1, in all countries, across two measurements in time, the BTAE was present: Participants rated their involvement in self-protection as greater in comparison to others. Study 2 replicated this effect, proving its robustness. Participants estimated their willingness to vaccinate as higher than others. The BTAE was a significant predictor of willingness to vaccinate.

Approaches related to the effects of Covid-19 pandemics on financing of the healthcare system in Romania

Background

The healthcare financial system faced a significant disturbance of the budget balance after the outbreak of the pandemic, amid government measures to combat the disease. These measures have led to shifts in funding weights within the income and expenditure budget structure, with a focus on prevention and treatment of patients infected with SARS-COV 2. The purpose of this research is to analyse the financial balance of the healthcare system and the related modelling to support decision-makers in adopting and implementing appropriate financing measures for the pandemic.

Methods

The working hypotheses of this study were tested using an econometric linear regression model based on the financing budgetary function, which matches funding to the specific need for each expenditure heading. SPSS 25 statistical software was used to define the model and to test the homogeneity of the data and their statistical relevance to the phenomenon under analysis.

Results

The proposed model showed that there is a significant correlation of the dependent variable, Dynamics of budget revenues in the healthcare sector (TIM), with the regressors. We believe that a problem-solving rebalancing of allocations could help to eliminate the synergy in health. This redistribution should take into account the impact that economic and budgetary factors have on healthcare factors and vice versa, so that at some point after successive adjustments the minimum distance between forecast and realisation or between need and financing of need can be reached. The used data were analysed dynamically to assess changes in trend as absolute data do not allow the construction of an overall picture. Relative data captures changes in financing from year to year and can be linked to events such as pandemics, financial crises or inflation.

Conclusions

In relation to the objectives of the research, it emerges that, under the impact of pandemic stress, measures to improve healthcare management, increase performance and streamline financial allocation are vulnerable and cannot counteract the effects that the pandemic has on the healthcare of the population as reflected in the morbidity and mortality indicators collected during the pandemic. In this regard, it is necessary a rethinking of the strategic healthcare management, a better planning of the procurement of medicines and healthcare supplies, a rethinking of the partnerships with the European Commission and other global entities. This approach can effectively improve the impact of the pandemic on the healthcare status of the population, a rebalancing of the demand-supply balance in healthcare and a maintenance of the strategic programmes, according to the objectives assumed in the planning, given that these programmes protect categories of people already medically affected.

Whistling Through the COVID-19 Pandemic: Optimism Bias and Political Beliefs in the United States

Utilizing a nationally representative survey of Americans from December 2020, we consider the degree to which COVID-19 risk perceptions are related to political factors. We examine the likelihood that one believes they will be infected with COVID-19, the likelihood that a peer will be infected, and the difference between the individual and peer perceived risks, known as optimism bias, and compare these perceptions across partisan characteristics. Results show that Trump voting category is the most important contributor to perceived COVID-19 risks. We find similar partisan differences as prior research, note that these differences persisted through the end of 2020, despite the post-Thanksgiving surge with high and growing rates of COVID in all regions of the United States. Contrary to prior expectations, partisanship does not strongly predict the level of optimism bias, as both assessed personal and general health risks track closely with one another by both political party and ideology.

COVID-19 Pandemic, Risk, and Blame Attributions: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated psychological distress led people to engage in attributing several health-related behaviors and consequences at the community and international levels. A scoping review was conducted to explore the existing literature on the use of attribution theory in understanding the psychological phenomena underlying health-related behavior and consequences during the pandemic.

METHODS

We conducted the literature review using Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework for scoping review. Studies were identified through a comprehensive search of the following six databases: MEDLINE through PubMed, ProQuest, JSTOR, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. All databases were searched for entries in English from September 2019 to September 2021 to correspond to the advent of the pandemic.

RESULTS

Several elements influence attributions and the influences of the attributions on people's responses to information and the consequences of attributions in influencing people's responses to information and behavior changes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The importance of attribution errors leading to stigmatization and responsibility framing, both crucial for implementing pandemic control measures and enhancing psychological well-being, were also highlighted.

CONCLUSION

More research is needed in this field to inform people-centered policies and pandemic preparedness plans to mitigate the potentially devastating psychosocial consequence of the pandemic or other public health emergencies.

Unrealistic pessimism and obsessive-compulsive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic: Two longitudinal studies

Objective

Unrealistic pessimism (UP) is an aspect of overestimation of threat (OET) that has been associated with obsessive‐compulsive disorder/symptoms (OCD/OCS). During the COVID‐19 pandemic, UP may have played an important role in the course of OCD. To investigate the relationship, we conducted two longitudinal studies assuming that higher UP predicts an increase in OCS.

Method

In Study 1, we investigated UP in the general population (N = 1,184) at the start of the pandemic asking about overall vulnerability to infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 and UP regarding infection and outcome of severe illness. Further, OCS status (OCS+/−) was assessed at the start of the pandemic and 3 months later. In Study 2, we investigated UP in individuals with OCD (N = 268) regarding the likelihood of getting infected, recovering, or dying from an infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 at the start of the pandemic and re‐assessed OCS 3 months later.

Results

In Study 1, UP was higher in the OCS+ compared to the OCS− group, and estimates of a higher overall vulnerability for an infection predicted a decrease in OCS over time. UP regarding severe illness predicted an increase in symptoms over time. In Study 2, UP was found for a recovery and death after an infection with SARS‐CoV‐2, but not for infection itself.

Conclusions

Exaggeration of one’s personal vulnerability rather than OET per se seems pivotal in OCD, with UP being associated with OCD/OCS+ as well as a more negative course of symptomatology over the pandemic in a nonclinical sample.

Practitioner points

Unrealistic optimism, a bias common in healthy individuals, is thought to be a coping mechanism promoting well‐being in the face of danger or uncertainty.

The current study extends findings that its inversion, unrealistic pessimism, may play an important role in obsessive‐compulsive disorder and may also be involved in the development of the disorder.

This study highlights the importance that prevention programs during a pandemic should include targeting unrealistic pessimism.

Social and psychological resources moderate the relation between anxiety, fatigue, compliance and turnover intention during the COVID-19 pandemic

Purpose

The workplace health management lessons to be learned from the pandemic are important. However, few studies have examined the relationship between workplace anxiety, resources and behaviors during the pandemic. Therefore, this paper aims to investigate the relationship between anxiety, fatigue, compliance, turnover intention and social and psychological resources during the COVID-19 pandemic by applying the conservation of resources (COR) theory.

Design/methodology/approach

Path analysis was carried out using data obtained from a questionnaire survey conducted on 2,973 Chinese employees of Japanese companies in China.

Findings

The analysis showed that anxiety had a positive correlation with compliance, but simultaneously had a positive correlation with fatigue and turnover intention; psychological resources moderated to weaken the relationships between anxiety and compliance/fatigue; social resources moderated to strengthen the negative correlation between compliance and willingness to leave.

Research limitations/implications

This study targeted employees of Japanese companies in China. Therefore, in the future, it is necessary to verify generalizability as to whether it applies to employees of companies of other nationalities in other countries. Also, the authors used newly developed scales instead of the general psychological scales. Therefore, it is necessary to verify the reproducibility using a more general scale.

Practical implications

Anxiety encourages compliance practices but also increases fatigue and willingness to leave. Therefore, a method of inciting anxiety and making employees follow rules reduces the strength of an organization. To overcome this dilemma, managers need to provide psychological and social resources.

Originality/value

This study is the first to show how effective social and psychological resources are in the management of anxiety and fatigue in achieving high performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study was conducted in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic with the cooperation of employees working for Japanese companies in China. However, the importance of utilizing resources in a crisis revealed by this study can be applied to all kinds of disasters.

Highlights:

-The current study is the result of a survey conducted on employees of Japanese companies in China in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

-Anxiety had a positive effect of promoting compliance and a negative effect of increasing fatigue and willingness to leave the job.

-Psychological resources mitigated these effects of anxiety and, as a result, reduced fatigue and willingness to leave.

-Social resources enhanced the effect of compliance on reducing willingness to leave.

-Workplace health problems caused by the COVID-19 pandemic should be addressed by increasing employee resources on a regular basis, rather than aggravating anxiety.

COVID-19 and a biased public mentality toward infection and vaccination: A case of unrealistic optimism and social comparisons between the vaccinated and unvaccinated

Unrealistic Optimism in the context of COVID-19 is described as the tendency to perceive peers as being more at risk of infection. To date, however, no research has proposed more specific comparisons. The present article not only replicates the most recent body of literature showing that people perceive themselves as less prone to COVID-19 infection than their peers, but fills the aforementioned gap by providing additional and more specific comparisons between those vaccinated and unvaccinated against COVID-19. Such comparisons may be crucial to curb the possibility of resurgence of COVID-19 by assessing how unvaccinated individuals perceive the probability of being infected by coronavirus. Some 622 Prolific—(un)vaccinated against COVID-19—users participated in an online quasi-experiment. Participants estimated the risk of COVID-19 infection for themselves, their peers or the average (un)vaccinated peer, which is a new addition to the literature. Results showed that there was an unrealistic optimism effect. Participants estimated their risk for infection as lower in comparison to others. Surprisingly, results showed that for unvaccinated people, vaccines seem to be an effective tool to reduce the risk of infection, but not for themselves.

Media intervention program for reducing unrealistic optimism bias: The link between unrealistic optimism, well-being, and health

Unrealistic optimism is the tendency to perceive oneself as safer than others in situations that equally threaten everybody. By reducing fear, this bias boosts one's well-being; however, it is also a deterrent to one's health. Three experiments were run in a mixed-design on 1831 participants to eliminate unrealistic optimism (measured by two items-probability of COVID-19 infection for oneself and for others; within-subjects) toward the probability of COVID-19 infection via articles/videos. A between-subject factor was created by manipulation. Ostensibly, daily newspaper articles describing other people diligently following medical recommendations (experiment 1) and videos showing people who did not follow these recommendations (experiment 2) reduced unrealistic optimism. The third experiment, which included both articles and videos, replicated these results. These results can be applied to strategies for written and video communications that can be used by governments and public health agencies as best practices concerning not only COVID-19 but also any subsequent public health threat while promoting proactive, optimal, and healthy functioning of the individual.

Smoking Behaviors, Mental Health, and Risk Perceptions during the Beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic among Mexican Adult Smokers

Mexico is one of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Studies have found that smoking behaviors have been impacted by the pandemic as well; however, results have varied across studies, and it remains unclear what is causing the changes. This study of an open cohort of smokers recruited from a consumer panel (n = 2753) examined changes in cigarettes per day (CPD), daily vs. non-daily smoking, recent quit attempts, perceived stress, depression, and perceived severity of COVID-19 at two points during the pandemic: March and July 2020. Differences in CPD between waves were estimated with Poisson regression using generalized estimating equations (GEE). Differences in perceived stress were estimated with linear regression using GEE, and differences in recent quit attempts, depression, and perceived severity of COVID-19 were estimated using separate logistic regression GEE models. Rates of depression were higher in July compared to March (AOR = 1.55, 95% C.I. 1.31-1.85), and the likelihood of recent quit attempt was lower in July compared to March (AOR = 0.85, 95% C.I. 0.75-0.98). There was no statistically significant change in CPD, daily smoking, or perceived stress. Perceived COVID-19 severity for oneself increased significantly (AOR: 1.24, 95% C.I. 1.02-1.52); however, the perceived COVID-19 severity for smokers remained constant. Our study suggests that as the COVID-19 pandemic expanded in Mexico, smoking frequency remained stable, and quit attempts decreased, even as adult smokers increasingly perceived infection with COVID-19 for themselves as severe. These results can aid in the development of health communication strategies to educate smokers about their risk for COVID-19, potentially capitalizing on concerns that stem from this syndemic of communicable and smoking-related non-communicable disease.

Understanding Consumer Stockpiling during the COVID-19 Outbreak through the Theory of Planned Behavior

We use the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to investigate determinants of stockpiling behavior during the COVID-19 lockdown. We analyzed 518 responses to an online survey and used Partial Least Squares Path Modeling (PLS-PM) techniques to estimate relationships between variables. Negative attitude (perceived barriers) and others’ behavior (descriptive social norms) were revealed as significant predictors for both intention to over-purchase and the actual stockpiling behavior. The lack of significance obtained for perceived behavioral control (PBC) is also an important result, strengthening the evidence that factors’ contribution to TPB’s predictive power is strongly context-dependent, respectively that PBC is less relevant in settings dominated by uncertainty. The lack of significance is especially compelling when stockpiling behavior is regarded as deviant conduct from effective consumption. Our findings expand the understanding on the applicability of TPB and offer informed practical suggestions for improving managerial strategies, public and private ones, during extreme events when self-regulation and cognitive control are expedient but hard to achieve.

Perceived Vulnerability and Severity Predict Adherence to COVID-19 Protection Measures: The Mediating Role of Instrumental Coping

The COVID-19 disease has caused thousands of deaths worldwide and required the rapid and drastic adoption of various protective measures as main resources in the fight to reduce the spread of the disease. In the present study we aimed to identify socio cognitive factors that may influence adherence to protective measures toward COVID-19 in a Spanish sample. This longitudinal study analyzes the predictive value of perceived severity and vulnerability of infection, self-efficacy, direct exposure to the virus, and instrumental focused coping style for adhering to infection protection behaviors during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also tests sex and age differences in these factors and changes over time. A two-wave longitudinal study (N = 757) was conducted in March and April 2020 starting the day after a strict national lockdown was decreed in Spain. A path analysis was used to test direct and indirect effects between vulnerability and the adherence to protective behaviors. Results suggest that individuals' perceived severity and vulnerability to COVID-19 and instrumental coping strategies are related to the use of more protective behaviors. This coping strategy mediates the effect of perceived vulnerability on engaging in protective behaviors, and this effect depends on direct exposure to COVID-19 and perceived self-efficacy moderators. Results suggest that recognizing one's own abilities to engage in instrumental actions may facilitate adherence to protective measures in people who had not been directly exposed to COVID-19. Therefore, adopting instrumental coping strategies to manage an individual's perceived vulnerability to infection may positively impact the adherence to protective behaviors, especially during the onset of an unexpected threat and when there is no prior direct experience with the situation.

eHealth literacy during the COVID-19 pandemic: seeking, sharing, suspicion amongst older and younger UK populations

The containment of infectious diseases is most successful when at-risk populations have a high level of relevant health literacy (HL). To achieve this both literacy needs and patterns of knowledge sharing must be understood within the context of the disease being studied. It is also important to understand these processes from both offline (HL) and online (eHL) perspectives and amongst demographics with access to different types of information and social capital, and who have different levels of vulnerability. This paper discusses the insights gained over a series of 30 interviews with the UK residents aged either 19 − 30 years of age or older than 70 years—focussing on how they seek, understand, evaluate and convey information about COVID-19 during the current pandemic. Using thematic analysis, we identified themes around motivations to seek information, the information journey, digital choice and engagement, dilemmas and challenges of managing and appraising information, and sharing information. There was little difference in the eHL between the two age groups who both had high levels of education and were sophisticated digital citizens. The COVID-19 pandemic highlights three dominant processes in managing complex and uncertain information: some individuals may suffer from information fatigue but there was no evidence of any impact on their behaviours; others seek and share information across many networks; and there were strikingly high levels of distrust leading to complex processes of meaning-making demanding critical health literacy skills.

Leveraging COVID-19 Outbreak for Shaping a More Sustainable Consumer Behavior

Consumption has lately been under the microscope facing pressure from all stakeholders as principles of sustainability have gained more popularity. In this context, a new sustainable consumer model was born, referring to major shifts in buying and consumption habits. Nevertheless, these shifts were lagging as consumers resisted change in the comfort of old habits. This comfort was shaken up by the COVID-19 outbreak that forced us to rethink every aspect of our lives. Therefore, this crisis context seems the perfect opportunity to shift towards the sustainable consumer model. People’s openness towards embracing new consumption habits was evaluated in a quantitative study where data was collected in two different moments: May 2020 and December 2020. Major results of our research show that people’s lives were dominated in 2020 by uncertainty, especially when referring to their financial situation. Further on, consumers have already started to bring major shifts in their consumption habits because of this uncertainty. Among the most important shifts, there were more prudent purchase decisions, rising interest for discounted prices, increased likelihood of buying local and enhanced preference in buy fresh products instead of processed or semi-processed ones.

Risk-taking unmasked: Using risky choice and temporal discounting to explain COVID-19 preventative behaviors

To reduce the spread of COVID-19 transmission, government agencies in the United States (US) recommended precautionary guidelines, including wearing masks and social distancing to encourage the prevention of the disease. However, compliance with these guidelines has been inconsistent. This correlational study examined whether individual differences in risky decision-making and motivational propensities predicted compliance with COVID-19 preventative behaviors in a sample of US adults (N = 404). Participants completed an online study from September through December 2020 that included a risky choice decision-making task, temporal discounting task, and measures of appropriate mask-wearing, social distancing, and perceived risk of engaging in public activities. Linear regression results indicated that greater temporal discounting and risky decision-making were associated with less appropriate mask-wearing behavior and social distancing. Additionally, demographic factors, including personal experience with COVID-19 and financial difficulties due to COVID-19, were also associated with differences in COVID-19 preventative behaviors. Path analysis results showed that risky decision-making behavior, temporal discounting, and risk perception collectively predicted 55% of the variance in appropriate mask-wearing behavior. Individual differences in general decision-making patterns are therefore highly predictive of who complies with COVID-19 prevention guidelines.

Optimism and Social Resilience: Social Isolation, Meaninglessness, Trust, and Empathy in Times of COVID-19

Using the COVID-19 pandemic as an example of an existential threat, we conducted a nationwide survey in March 2020 asking 445 Americans about their hopes and fears, their opinions about the coronavirus pandemic, and their attitudes for getting through the public health crisis. In the present research, we examine the coronavirus pandemic as a complex problem and explore its effects on respondents’ levels of optimism to resolve the public health crisis. While much existing research examines the influence of risk perception on optimism, we specifically measure how respondents’ levels of empathy and trust affect social resilience and relate to hopes and fears for their personal health and public health in the United States. Specifically, we examine respondents’ levels of trust in government and their neighbors as well as their levels of empathy, alienation, and social isolation. Our research confirmed the importance of empathy to counter the spread of the virus while preventing economic collapse. In addition, we found that relational factors such as alienation and trust affect individuals’ levels of optimism or pessimism for getting through the public health crisis.

Are older adults more optimistic? Evidence from China, Israel and the US

Objectives

Optimistic bias refers to the phenomenon that individuals believe bad things are less likely to happen to themselves than to others. However, whether optimistic bias could vary across age and culture is unknown. The present study aims to investigate: 1) whether individuals exhibit optimistic bias in the context of COVID-19 pandemic; 2) and whether age and culture would moderate such bias.

Method

1051 participants recruited from China, Israel and the US took the online survey. Risk perceptions consists of three questions: estimating the infected probability of different social distance groups (i.e., self, close others, and non-close others), the days that it would take for the number of new infections to decrease to zero and the trend of infections in regions of different geographical distances (i.e., local place, other places inside participants’ country and other countries). Participants in China and the US also reported their personal communal values measured by Schwartz’s Value Survey.

Results

Results from HLM generally confirmed that 1) all participants exhibited optimistic bias to some extent, and 2) with age, Chinese participants had a higher level of optimistic bias than Israeli and US participants. Compared to their younger counterparts, older Chinese are more likely to believe that local communities are at lower risk of COVID-19 than other countries.

Discussion

These findings support the hypothesis that age differences in risk perceptions might be influenced by cultural context. Further analysis indicated that such cultural and age variations in optimistic bias were likely to be driven by age-related increase in internalized cultural values.