Risk perception, illusory superiority and personal responsibility during COVID‐19: An experimental study of attitudes to staying home.
Saved in:
| Title: | Risk perception, illusory superiority and personal responsibility during COVID‐19: An experimental study of attitudes to staying home. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | van Baal, Simon T., Walasek, Lukasz, Karanfilovska, Daniela, Cheng, Allen C., Hohwy, Jakob |
| Source: | British Journal of Psychology. Aug2022, Vol. 113 Issue 3, p608-629. 22p. 1 Diagram, 3 Charts, 7 Graphs. |
| Subjects: | Experimental design, Attitude (Psychology), Age distribution, Risk perception, Responsibility, Infectious disease transmission, Communication, Stay-at-home orders, Social distancing, COVID-19 pandemic, Public opinion |
| Abstract: | Little is known about how different government communication strategies may systematically affect people's attitudes to staying home or going out during the COVID‐19 pandemic, nor how people perceive and process the risk of viral transmission in different scenarios. In this study, we report results from two experiments that examine the degree to which people's attitudes regarding the permissibility of leaving one's home are (1) sensitive to different levels of risk of viral transmission in specific scenarios, (2) sensitive to communication framings that are either imperative or that emphasize personal responsibility, or (3) creating 'loopholes' for themselves, enabling a more permissive approach to their own compliance. We find that the level of risk influences attitudes to going out, and that participants report less permissive attitudes to going out when prompted with messages framed in imperative terms, rather than messages emphasizing personal responsibility; for self‐loopholes, we find no evidence that participants' attitudes towards going out in specific scenarios are more permissive for themselves than for others. However, participants report they are more rigorous in staying home than others, which may cause moral licensing. Additionally, we find that age is negatively associated with permissive attitudes, and that male participants are more permissive to going out. Thus, during phases where it is important to promote staying home for all scenarios, including those perceived to be low‐risk, imperative communication may be best suited to increase compliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of British Journal of Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Little is known about how different government communication strategies may systematically affect people's attitudes to staying home or going out during the COVID‐19 pandemic, nor how people perceive and process the risk of viral transmission in different scenarios. In this study, we report results from two experiments that examine the degree to which people's attitudes regarding the permissibility of leaving one's home are (1) sensitive to different levels of risk of viral transmission in specific scenarios, (2) sensitive to communication framings that are either imperative or that emphasize personal responsibility, or (3) creating 'loopholes' for themselves, enabling a more permissive approach to their own compliance. We find that the level of risk influences attitudes to going out, and that participants report less permissive attitudes to going out when prompted with messages framed in imperative terms, rather than messages emphasizing personal responsibility; for self‐loopholes, we find no evidence that participants' attitudes towards going out in specific scenarios are more permissive for themselves than for others. However, participants report they are more rigorous in staying home than others, which may cause moral licensing. Additionally, we find that age is negatively associated with permissive attitudes, and that male participants are more permissive to going out. Thus, during phases where it is important to promote staying home for all scenarios, including those perceived to be low‐risk, imperative communication may be best suited to increase compliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00071269 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/bjop.12554 |
