Pandemic related changes in social interaction are associated with changes in automatic approach-avoidance behaviour.

People's natural tendencies to either approach or avoid different stimuli in their environment are considered fundamental motivators of human behaviour. There is a wealth of research exploring how changes in approach and avoidance motivational orientations impact behaviour with consequences for wellbeing. However, research has seldom explored this relationship in reverse. The COVID-19 pandemic offered a unique opportunity to explore whether widespread changes in social behaviour are associated with changes in automatic approach-avoidance tendencies over time. We gathered online survey data on people's adherence to 7 of the prescribed social restrictions set out by the UK government and people's automatic approach-avoidance tendencies in response to different stimuli (sad/happy faces and social scenes) at three time points during the COVID-19 pandemic. Reduced-overall-interaction (digital and in person) was found to be significantly associated with faster avoidance relative to approach of sad faces. The results suggest that automatic approach-avoidance tendencies may function to protect people against the typically negative experience of reduced social interaction, with important implications for understanding public resilience during times of crisis, and beyond.

Exploring the need for external input through the prism of social, material and sensation seeking input.

External input is any kind of physical stimulation created by an individual's surroundings that can be detected by the senses. The present research established a novel conceptualization of this construct by investigating it in relation to the needs for material, social and sensation seeking input, and by testing whether these needs predict psychological functioning during long- and short-term input deprivation. It was established that the three needs constitute different dimensions of an overarching construct (i.e. need for external input). The research also suggested that the needs for social and sensation seeking input are negatively linked to people's experiences of long-term input deprivation (i.e. COVID-19 restrictions), and that the need for material input may negatively predict the experiences of short-term input deprivation (i.e. sitting in a chair without doing anything else but thinking). Overall, this research indicates that the needs for social, material and sensation seeking input may have fundamental implications for experiences and actions in a range of different contexts.

You Must Stay at Home! The Impact of Commands on Behaviors During COVID-19

You must stay at home! This is how the UK Prime Minister announced lockdown in March 2020. Many countries implemented similarly assertive messages. Research, however, suggests that authoritative language can backfire by inciting psychological reactance (i.e., feelings of anger arising from threats to one's autonomy). In a series of three studies, we therefore tested whether commanding versus control and noncommanding messages influence several cognitive and affective indicators of reactance, intentions to comply with COVID-19 recommendations, and the compliance behavior itself. Although people found commanding messages threatening and felt angry and negative toward them, these messages impacted only intentions, but there was no evidence of behavioral reactance. Overall, our research constitutes the most comprehensive examination of cognitive?affective and behavioral indicators of reactance regarding commands to date and offers new insights into both reactance theory and COVID-19 communication.

When behavioural science can make a difference in times of COVID-19

In a large study that involved 2637 participants recruited from a representative UK and US sample, we tested the influence of four behavioural interventions (versus control) on a range of behaviours important for reducing the spread of COVID-19 a day after the interventions were administered. Even if people largely complied with social distancing measures, our analyses showed that for certain subgroups of the population the interventions made a positive difference. More specifically, for those who started practising social distancing relatively recently, an information-based intervention increased general compliance with social distancing and reduced both the number of times people went out and the number of hours they spent outside. However, for people who started practising social distancing relatively early, the interventions tended to backfire and, in some cases, reduced compliance with social distancing. Overall, this research has various policy implications and shows that, although behavioural interventions can positively impact compliance with social distancing, their effect may depend on personal circumstances.