Dataset Information

Self-controlled responses to COVID-19: Self-control and uncertainty predict responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT: Two online studies (Total N = 331) tested the hypothesis that individual differences in self-control and responses to uncertainty would predict adherence to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2020a) guidelines, reported stockpiling, and intentions to engage in hedonic behavior in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Trait self-control (b = 0.27, p = .015), desire for self-control (Study 1: b = 0.28, p = .001; Study 2: b = 0.27, p = .005), and cognitive uncertainty (b = 0.73, p < .001) predicted more CDC adherence. State self-control (Study 1: b = -0.15, p = .012; Study 2: b = -0.26, p < .001) predicted less stockpiling, whereas emotional uncertainty (b = 0.56, p < .001) and cognitive uncertainty (b = 0.61, p < .001) predicted more stockpiling. State self-control (b = -0.18, p = .003) predicted less hedonic behavior, whereas desire for self-control (b = 0.42, p < .001) and emotional uncertainty (b = 0.26, p = .018) predicted more hedonic behavior. Study 2 (pre-registered) also found that emotional uncertainty predicted more stockpiling and hedonic behavior for participants low in state self-control (stockpiling: b = -0.31, p < .001; hedonic behavior: b = 0.28, p = .025), but not for participants high in state self-control (stockpiling: b = 0.03, p = .795; hedonic behavior: b = -0.24, p = .066). These findings provide evidence that some forms of self-control and uncertainty influenced compliance with behavioral recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-021-02066-y.

SUBMITTER: Rodriguez JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8272611 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCommunicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats such as COVID-19 is an ethically desirable task endorsed by expert guidelines on crisis communication. However, the communication of scientific uncertainty is challenging because of its potential to promote ambiguity aversion-a well-described syndrome of negative psychological responses consisting of heightened risk perceptions, emotional distress, and decision avoidance. Communication strategies that can inform the public about scientific uncertainty while mitigating ambiguity aversion are a critical unmet need.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate whether an "uncertainty-normalizing" communication strategy-aimed at reinforcing the expected nature of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic-can reduce ambiguity aversion, and to compare its effectiveness to conventional public communication strategies aimed at promoting hope and prosocial values.MethodsIn an online factorial experiment conducted from May to June 2020, a national sample of 1497 US adults read one of five versions of an informational message describing the nature, transmission, prevention, and treatment of COVID-19; the versions varied in level of expressed scientific uncertainty and supplemental focus (ie, uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial). Participants then completed measures of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral manifestations of ambiguity aversion (ie, perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19, COVID-19 worry, and intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and vaccination). Analyses assessed (1) the extent to which communicating uncertainty produced ambiguity-averse psychological responses; (2) the comparative effectiveness of uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial communication strategies in reducing ambiguity-averse responses; and (3) potential moderators of the effects of alternative uncertainty communication strategies.ResultsThe communication of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic increased perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19, consistent with ambiguity aversion. However, it did not affect intentions for risk-reducing behaviors or vaccination. The uncertainty-normalizing strategy reduced these aversive effects of communicating scientific uncertainty, resulting in levels of both perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19 that did not differ from the control message that did not communicate uncertainty. In contrast, the hope-promoting and prosocial strategies did not decrease ambiguity-averse responses to scientific uncertainty. Age and political affiliation, respectively, moderated the effects of uncertainty communication strategies on intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and worry about COVID-19.ConclusionsCommunicating scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic produces ambiguity-averse cognitive and emotional, but not behavioral, responses among the general public, and an uncertainty-normalizing communication strategy reduces these responses. Normalizing uncertainty may be an effective strategy for mitigating ambiguity aversion in crisis communication efforts. More research is needed to test uncertainty-normalizing communication strategies and to elucidate the factors that moderate their effectiveness.

Dataset Information

Self-controlled responses to COVID-19: Self-control and uncertainty predict responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Supplementary information

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets