Decision-Making during the Pandemic: Compassion, Trust, and the Altruistic Paradox

The occurrence of breakthrough infections with SARS-CoV-2 in vaccinated individuals argues against abandoning mitigation efforts such as social distancing. Some public health messages, however, promote vaccination by increasing psychological distress, which interferes with social distancing. Prosocial messages present an alternative approach that may avoid this problem. Accordingly, the present study examined the relation of pandemic mitigation with scores on prosocial personality traits (i.e., altruism, sympathy, and trust) and vaccination intentions. Regression analyses indicated that while vaccination intentions increased significantly with an increase in trust, distancing increased significantly with increases in altruism and sympathy. Because older adults are much more vulnerable to COVID-19 than younger adults, these findings reveal an altruistic paradox, in which older adults, perhaps the most altruistic portion of the population, may be dependent on the altruistic behavior of younger adults, who may be the least altruistic portion. The challenge for public health messaging will be to motivate younger adults to take the consequences of their mitigation decisions for others into account. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of COVID is the property of MDPI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This 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 . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Distress Signals: Age Differences in Psychological Distress before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Psychological distress reached historically high levels in 2020, but why, and why were there pronounced age differences? We address these questions using a relatively novel, multipronged approach, part narrative review and part new data analyses. We first updated previous analyses of national surveys that showed distress was increasing in the US and Australia through 2017 and then re-analyzed data from the UK, comparing periods with and without lockdowns. We also analyzed the effects of age and personality on distress in the US during the pandemic. Results showed distress levels and age differences in distress were still increasing through 2019 in the US, UK, and Australia. The effects of lockdowns in 2020 revealed the roles of social deprivation and fear of infection. Finally, age-related differences in emotional stability accounted for the observed age differences in distress. These findings reveal the limitations of analyses comparing pre-pandemic and pandemic periods without accounting for ongoing trends. They also suggest that differences in personality traits such as emotional stability modulate responses to stressors. This could explain age and individual differences in both increases and decreases in distress in response to changes in the level of stressors such as those occurring prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Differential effects of psychological distress on mitigation and vaccination: A public health conundrum.

CDC-recommended mitigation behaviors and vaccination status were assessed in an online sample (N = 810; ages 18-80). Results were consistent with a differential distress hypothesis positing that whereas psychological distress, which is induced in part by social deprivation, interferes with mitigation behaviors involving social distancing, it motivates vaccination, in part because it, in turn, can increase social interaction. Age modulated these effects. Despite the greater risk of severe consequences, older adults not only showed less distress, but compared to younger participants with equivalent levels of distress, the older adults showed less effect of distress on both social distancing and vaccination status. Together these findings highlight a conundrum faced in public health messaging. Traditional "fear messages" may be less effective for older adults, who are most in danger, whereas in younger adults, the distress induced by fear messages may motivate vaccination but diminish mitigation behaviors needed to prevent subsequent "breakthrough" infections.

Individual differences in COVID-19 mitigation behaviors: The roles of age, gender, psychological state, and financial status.

The present study examined individual characteristics potentially associated with changes in mitigation behaviors (social distancing and hygiene) recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Analysis of online survey responses from 361 adults, ages 20-78, with US IP addresses, identified significant correlates of adaptive behavioral changes, with implications for preventive strategies and mental health needs. The extent to which individuals changed their mitigation behaviors was unrelated to self-rated health or concern regarding the personal effects of COVID-19 but was related to concern regarding the effects of the pandemic on others. Thus, mitigation behaviors do not appear to be primarily motivated by self-protection. Importantly, adaptive changes in mitigation behaviors increased with age. However, these changes, particularly those related to the frequency of close proximity encounters, appear to be due to age-related decreases in anxiety and depression. Taken together, the present results argue against over-reliance on 'fear appeals' in public health messages as they may increase anxiety and depression. Instead, the present findings argue for more appeals to people's concern for others to motivate mitigation as well as indicating an immediate need to address individual mental health concerns for the sake of society as a whole.