Math matters: A novel, brief educational intervention decreases whole number bias when reasoning about COVID-19.

At the onset of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) global pandemic, our interdisciplinary team hypothesized that a mathematical misconception-whole number bias (WNB)-contributed to beliefs that COVID-19 was less fatal than the flu. We created a brief online educational intervention for adults, leveraging evidence-based cognitive science research, to promote accurate understanding of rational numbers related to COVID-19. Participants from a Qualtrics panel (N = 1,297; 75% White) were randomly assigned to an intervention or control condition, solved health-related math problems, and subsequently completed 10 days of daily diaries in which health cognitions and affect were assessed. Participants who engaged with the intervention, relative to those in the control condition, were more accurate and less likely to explicitly mention WNB errors in their strategy reports as they solved COVID-19-related math problems. Math anxiety was positively associated with risk perceptions, worry, and negative affect immediately after the intervention and across the daily diaries. These results extend the benefits of worked examples in a practically relevant domain. Ameliorating WNB errors could not only help people think more accurately about COVID-19 statistics expressed as rational numbers, but also about novel future health crises, or any other context that involves information expressed as rational numbers. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Psychological Impact of Ambiguous Health Messages about COVID-19.

Perceiving ambiguity in health information-that is, uncertainty elicited from believing information lacks credibility, reliability, or adequacy-is typically associated with pessimistic appraisals (e.g., high perceived disease risk) and behavioral avoidance. We examined the effect of ambiguous health information about COVID-19 on health cognitions and vaccination intentions, and tested a "normalized-uncertainty" intervention. Two studies with identical methodology (online adult sample: n = 299, undergraduate sample: n = 150) were conducted in March to April 2020. Participants were randomly assigned to read one of three health messages about COVID-19 that emphasized what was currently unknown (ambiguity condition), what was currently unknown but that scientific uncertainty is expected (intervention condition), or what was currently known (control condition). The ambiguity condition led to greater perceived ambiguity than the control condition and perceived ambiguity in the intervention condition was comparable to the ambiguity condition. There were few differences in health cognitions, and no differences in vaccination intentions, when examining pairwise comparisons across the three conditions. Correlational analyses collapsing across condition indicated evidence of pessimistic appraisal but not behavioral avoidance among individuals who perceived greater ambiguity. Future research should examine longer, more detailed normalized-uncertainty interventions.

What Drives Preventive Health Behavior During a Global Pandemic? Emotion and Worry.

BACKGROUND & PURPOSE: Primary prevention of COVID-19 has focused on encouraging compliance with specific behaviors that restrict contagion. This investigation sought to characterize engagement in these behaviors in U.S. adults early during the pandemic and to build explanatory models of the psychological processes that drive them. METHODS: US adults were recruited through Qualtrics Research Panels (N = 324; 55% female; Mage = 50.91, SD = 15.98) and completed 10 days of online reports of emotion, COVID-19 perceived susceptibility and worry, and recommended behaviors (social distancing, hand washing, etc.). Factor analysis revealed behaviors loaded on two factors suggesting distinct motivational orientations: approach and avoidance. RESULTS: Changes in approach and avoidance behaviors over the 10 days indicated large individual differences consistent with three types of participants. Discrete emotions, including fear, guilt/shame, and happiness were associated with more recommended behaviors. Fear and COVID-19 worry indirectly influenced each other to facilitate more behavioral engagement. While emotions and worry strongly predicted individual differences in behavior across the 10 days, they did not predict as well why behaviors occurred on one day versus another. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest how daily affective processes motivate behavior, improving the understanding of compliance and efforts to target behaviors as primary prevention of disease.