ABSTRACT
Five hundred adults indicated their preferences about the fairness and ethics of allocating scarce medical interventions. They also completed an IQ test, a measure of self-esteem and the extent to which they believed in a Just World, as well as General Conspiracy Theories. Results confirmed previous studies which showed a strong preference for the Utilitarian "saves most lives," followed by the Prioritization "sickest first" and "youngest first," preferences. Correlations and regressions indicated relatively few significant individual difference correlates of allocation preferences, with IQ being the major exception. Implications and limitations are discussed.
ABSTRACT
The aim of this paper was to study how individual differences in personality shape reactions to authorities' health advice during the COVID-19 pandemic and how such reactions can be modified. Three studies, with between 249 and 407 participants, investigated this. Study 1 used a longitudinal design, and included measures of personality (NEO-FFI3, SCATI), political orientation, age and gender as predictors of reactions toward COVID-19 advice and regulations. Studies 2 and 3 were randomised experiments testing effects of principles for behaviour modification on such reactions. In study 1, we found that being female, older, or having liberal political views, as well as neuroticism, agreeableness and conscientiousness in the higher ranges, were associated with constructive reactions. Externalising personality disorders were related to opposite reactions. In study 2, we found that the experimental instructions had a significant positive impact on such reactions. These results were replicated in study 3. Implications and limitations are discussed.
ABSTRACT
This study concerns what lay people believe is the best way to allocate scarce medical resources. A sample of 515 individuals completed a short questionnaire asking them to rank-order eight different ethical positions with respect to the allocation of scarce resources. They showed a strong preference for the 'saves most lives' and 'sickest first' options, with 'reciprocity' and a 'lottery' being least favoured. There was a reasonable degree of unanimity amongst respondents and comparatively few correlations with individual difference factors such as demography. The preference results are compared to expert recommendations (Emanuel et al., 2020, N. Engl. J. Med., 382, 2049) made in light of the current coronavirus pandemic, and differences are highlighted. Implications for scare medical resource allocations are discussed, and limitations of the study acknowledged.