A global experiment on motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic

Finding communication strategies that effectively motivate social distancing continues to be a global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This cross-country, preregistered experiment (n = 25,718 from 89 countries) tested hypotheses concerning generalizable positive and negative outcomes of social distancing messages that promoted personal agency and reflective choices (i.e., an autonomy-supportive message) or were restrictive and shaming (i.e., a controlling message) compared with no message at all. Results partially supported experimental hypotheses in that the controlling message increased controlled motivation (a poorly internalized form of motivation relying on shame, guilt, and fear of social consequences) relative to no message. On the other hand, the autonomy-supportive message lowered feelings of defiance compared with the controlling message, but the controlling message did not differ from receiving no message at all. Unexpectedly, messages did not influence autonomous motivation (a highly internalized form of motivation relying on one’s core values) or behavioral intentions. Results supported hypothesized associations between people’s existing autonomous and controlled motivations and self-reported behavioral intentions to engage in social distancing. Controlled motivation was associated with more defiance and less long-term behavioral intention to engage in social distancing, whereas autonomous motivation was associated with less defiance and more short- and long-term intentions to social distance. Overall, this work highlights the potential harm of using shaming and pressuring language in public health communication, with implications for the current and future global health challenges

A multi-country test of brief reappraisal interventions on emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased negative emotions and decreased positive emotions globally. Left unchecked, these emotional changes might have a wide array of adverse impacts. To reduce negative emotions and increase positive emotions, we tested the effectiveness of reappraisal, an emotion-regulation strategy that modifies how one thinks about a situation. Participants from 87 countries and regions (n = 21,644) were randomly assigned to one of two brief reappraisal interventions (reconstrual or repurposing) or one of two control conditions (active or passive). Results revealed that both reappraisal interventions (vesus both control conditions) consistently reduced negative emotions and increased positive emotions across different measures. Reconstrual and repurposing interventions had similar effects. Importantly, planned exploratory analyses indicated that reappraisal interventions did not reduce intentions to practice preventive health behaviours. The findings demonstrate the viability of creating scalable, low-cost interventions for use around the world

Effects of Construal Level on Responses to Ambiguous Health Information about Alcohol Consumption

Information about the health effects of alcohol consumption can be ambiguous (i.e., lacking in reliability, credibility, or adequacy) and thus may promote maladaptive health behavior. Guided by Construal Level Theory and a conceptual taxonomy of uncertainty in health care, we tested the hypothesis that manipulating construal level would promote adaptive responses to ambiguous health information. We examined the effects of ambiguous health information about alcohol on health cognitions, message responses, and intentions, as well as whether manipulating construal moderated these effects. Alcohol users (n = 135, M-ag(e) = 20.15, 68.9% female) were randomly assigned to either a high-level or low-level construal task and then to read either an ambiguous or unambiguous health communication about the health effects of alcohol. Participants responded similarly to ambiguous health information as they did to unambiguous health information and participants in a high-level construal did not generally report differences compared with those in a low-level construal. Findings suggest that ambiguous health information might not always lead to maladaptive effects. More research is needed to examine moderators of the relationship between ambiguous health information and health outcomes, as well as to understand how and when using construal manipulations are effective in different health contexts.</p

Uncertainty in healthcare and health decision making: Five methodological and conceptual research recommendations from an interdisciplinary team

Uncertainty is prevalent in various health contexts. It is imperative to understand how health-related uncertainty can impact individuals’ healthcare experiences and health decision making. The purpose of the present paper is to provide five overarching recommendations from an interdisciplinary team of experts to address gaps in the literature on health-related uncertainty. We present a case study of health-related uncertainty within the specific context of alcohol use to demonstrate these gaps and provide context for the recommendations. The five recommendations concerning health-related uncertainty include: (1) use common, consistent terminology to discuss uncertainty, (2) clarify measures of individual differences in response to uncertainty, (3) increase research on uncertainty and affect, (4) investigate the impact of the channel through which uncertainty is communicated, and (5) develop theory-driven interventions to improve uncertainty management. We conclude by reviewing health contexts in which health-related uncertainty exists and note how our recommendations complement existing reviews and data.</p

What Drives Preventive Health Behavior During a Global Pandemic? Emotion and Worry

Background &amp; Purpose: Primary prevention of COVID-19 has focused on encouraging compliance with specific behaviors that restrict contagion. This investigation sought to characterize engagement in these behaviors in U.S. adults early during the pandemic and to build explanatory models of the psychological processes that drive them. Methods: US adults were recruited through Qualtrics Research Panels (N = 324; 55% female; Mage = 50.91, SD = 15.98) and completed 10 days of online reports of emotion, COVID-19 perceived susceptibility and worry, and recommended behaviors (social distancing, hand washing, etc.). Factor analysis revealed behaviors loaded on two factors suggesting distinct motivational orientations: approach and avoidance. Results: Changes in approach and avoidance behaviors over the 10 days indicated large individual differences consistent with three types of participants. Discrete emotions, including fear, guilt/shame, and happiness were associated with more recommended behaviors. Fear and COVID-19 worry indirectly influenced each other to facilitate more behavioral engagement. While emotions and worry strongly predicted individual differences in behavior across the 10 days, they did not predict as well why behaviors occurred on one day versus another. Conclusions: These findings suggest how daily affective processes motivate behavior, improving the understanding of compliance and efforts to target behaviors as primary prevention of disease.</p

Math matters: A novel, brief educational intervention decreases whole number bias when reasoning about COVID-19

At the onset of the&nbsp;coronavirus&nbsp;disease (COVID-19) global&nbsp;pandemic, our interdisciplinary team hypothesized that a mathematical misconception-whole number bias (WNB)-contributed to beliefs that&nbsp;COVID-19&nbsp;was less fatal than the flu. We created a brief online educational intervention for adults, leveraging evidence-based cognitive science research, to promote accurate understanding of rational numbers related to&nbsp;COVID-19. Participants from a Qualtrics panel (N = 1,297; 75% White) were randomly assigned to an intervention or control condition, solved health-related math problems, and subsequently completed 10 days of daily diaries in which health cognitions and affect were assessed. Participants who engaged with the intervention, relative to those in the control condition, were more accurate and less likely to explicitly mention WNB errors in their strategy reports as they solved&nbsp;COVID-19-related math problems. Math anxiety was positively associated with risk perceptions, worry, and negative affect immediately after the intervention and across the daily diaries. These results extend the benefits of worked examples in a practically relevant domain. Ameliorating WNB errors could not only help people think more accurately about&nbsp;COVID-19&nbsp;statistics expressed as rational numbers, but also about novel future health crises, or any other context that involves information expressed as rational numbers.</p