ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Cognitive risk figures prominently in models predicting health behaviors, but affective risk is also important. We examined the interplay between cognitive risk (personal likelihood of COVID-19 infection or death) and affective risk (worry about COVID-19) in predicting COVID-19 precautionary behaviors. We also examined how outbreak severity bias (overestimation of the severity of COVID-19 in one's community) predicted these outcomes. DESIGN: In a representative sample of U.S. adults (N = 738; Mage = 46.8; 52% women; 78% white), participants who had not had COVID-19 took two online surveys two weeks apart in April 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed cognitive risk, affective risk, and outbreak severity bias at baseline and at follow-up two precaution variables: prevention behaviors (e.g. social distancing) and behavioral willingness (e.g. vaccinations). RESULTS: Overall, affective risk better predicted precautions than cognitive risk. Moreover, overestimating the severity of the outbreak predicted more affective risk (but not cognitive risk) and in turn more precautions. Additional analyses showed that when affective risk was lower (as opposed to higher) greater cognitive risk and outbreak severity bias both predicted more precautions. CONCLUSION: These findings illustrate the importance of affective risk and outbreak severity bias in understanding COVID-19 precautionary behavior.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, prevention behavior adoption occurred in a rapidly changing context. In contrast to expectancy-value theories, the Prototype Willingness Model (PWM) is well-suited for investigating novel and socially informed behaviors. PURPOSE: We explored whether PWM social cognitions predicted coronavirus prevention behaviors. METHOD: A representative sample of United States adults (N = 738; Mage = 46.8; 51.8% women; 78% white; April 2020) who had not had COVID-19 reported PWM predictor variables (perceived vulnerability, prevention descriptive norms, prototypes engaging in prevention behavior, and prevention behavioral intentions). Two weeks later, participants reported their prevention behaviors (handwashing, mask-wearing, social distancing, etc.) and future public health behavioral willingness (contact tracing, temperature checks, etc.). RESULTS: Controlling for putative demographic, past behavior, and coronavirus-contextual (e.g., local infection rates) covariates, mediation models indicated that higher norms and favorable prototypes were associated with greater prevention behavioral intentions, which in turn predicted increased prevention behavior, F(18, 705) = 92.20, p < .001, R2 = .70. Higher norms and favorable prototypes associated both directly and indirectly (through greater prevention behavioral intention) with greater willingness to engage in emerging public health behaviors, F(15, 715) = 21.49, p < .001, R2 = .31. CONCLUSIONS: Greater descriptive norms and favorable prototypes for prevention behavior predicted: (a) future prevention behaviors through increases in behavioral intentions and (b) willingness to participate in emerging public health behaviors. These results held across demographic groups, political affiliation, and severity of regional outbreaks. Public health efforts to curb pandemics should highlight normative prevention participation and enhance positive prototypes.