Implicit intertemporal trajectories in cognitive representations of the self and nation.

Individual selves and the collectives to which people belong can be mentally represented as following intertemporal trajectories-progress, decline, or stasis. These studies examined the relation between intertemporal trajectories for the self and nation in American and British samples collected at the beginning and end of major COVID-19 restrictions. Implicit temporal trajectories can be inferred from asymmetries in the cognitive availability of positive and negative events across different mentally represented temporal periods (e.g., memory for the past and the imagined future). At the beginning of COVID-19 restrictions, both personal and collective temporal thought demonstrated implicit temporal trajectories of decline, in which future thought was less positive than memory. The usually reliable positivity biases in personal temporal thought may be reversable by major public events. This implicit trajectory of decline attenuated in personal temporal thought after the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions. However, collective temporal thought demonstrated a pervasive negativity bias across temporal domains at both data collection points, with the collective future more strongly negative than collective memory. Explicit beliefs concerning collective progress, decline, and hope for the national future corresponded to asymmetries in the cognitive availability of positive and negative events within collective temporal thought.

How COVID-19 News Affect Older Adults' Mental Health-Evidence of a Positivity Bias.

BACKGROUND: Media affects the trajectory of many individuals' mental health-with media news, individuals experience negative bias more than positive bias. However, there is also evidence of an age-related positivity effect, with negativity bias generally fading with age. With the rise of COVID-19 cases, older adults (aged 55 years and older) who consume media frequently are at a high risk for declining mental health. To date, there has been no research on the positivity vs. negativity bias of media news on older adults. Here, we investigated whether positivity or negativity bias plays a larger role in affecting how older adults react to COVID-19 news. METHODS: Sixty-nine older adults (aged 55-95) answered questions about their weekly media consumption and how closely they followed news relating to COVID-19. They also completed a general health questionnaire. They were then randomly assigned to read either positive or negative COVID-19 news (n = 35 and 34, respectively). The adults were asked if the news made them feel happy or fearful, and if they wanted to read more about the news or ignore the news. RESULTS: An analysis revealed that the more often older adults consumed media and the more closely they followed COVID-19 news, the more they felt unhappy and depressed. Importantly, older adults who read positive news reported stronger responses than those who read negative news. Older adults appeared to have a strong positivity bias for COVID-19 news, reporting feeling happy and wanting to read about positive news. In contrast, negative COVID-19 news did not evoke similar levels of response from the older adults. CONCLUSIONS: Media consumption of COVID-19 news does negatively impact the mental well-being of older adults, but older adults appear to have a strong positivity bias and a lack of negativity bias for COVID-19 news. These findings suggest that older adults can remain hopeful and positive during periods of public health crises and intense stress, which is essential to sustaining their mental well-being during difficult times.

Limited investor attention and biased reactions to information: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic

We find that the COVID-19 pandemic increases (decreases) stock return sensitivity to market -wide (firm-specific) news, which is associated with return reversals (delayed reactions). These results are consistent with limited investor attention and investors paying heightened (reduced) attention to macro (micro) information after the outbreak. There are more biased reactions when the epidemic spread is higher, to good news than bad news, for firms headquartered in pandemic epicenters, and for larger stocks. We also find higher (lower) imbalanced trading, information flow, and price efficiency associated with market-wide (firm-specific) news during the pandemic.

Reappraisal-but not Suppression-Tendencies Determine Negativity Bias After Laboratory and Real-World Stress Exposure.

Higher reactivity to stress exposure is associated with an increased tendency to appraise ambiguous stimuli as negative. However, it remains unknown whether tendencies to use emotion regulation strategies-such as cognitive reappraisal, which involves altering the meaning or relevance of affective stimuli-can shape individual differences regarding how stress affects perceptions of ambiguity. Here, we examined whether increased reappraisal use is one factor that can determine whether stress exposure induces increased negativity bias. In Study 1, healthy participants (n = 43) rated the valence of emotionally ambiguous (surprised) faces before and after an acute stress or control manipulation and reported reappraisal habits. Increased negativity ratings were milder for stressed individuals that reported more habitual reappraisal use. In Study 2 (n = 97), we extended this investigation to real-world perceived stress before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that reappraisal tendency moderates the relationship between perceived stress and increased negativity bias. Collectively, these findings suggest that the propensity to reappraise determines negativity bias when evaluating ambiguity under stress. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42761-021-00059-5.

Continued influence of misinformation in times of COVID-19.

Health-related misinformation, especially in times of a global health crisis, can have severe negative consequences on public health. In the current studies, we investigated the persuasive impact of COVID-19-related misinformation, and whether the valence of the misinformation and recipients' degree of overconfidence affect this impact. In two pre-registered experimental studies, participants (N = 403; N = 437) were exposed to either a positive or a negative news article describing a fictional hospital's high COVID-19 recovery/mortality rates. Half of the participants subsequently received a correction. Attitudes towards the hospital were measured before and after exposure. Results of both studies showed that, as expected, corrections reduced the persuasive impact of misinformation. But whereas some persuasive impact remained for corrected negative misinformation (a continued influence effect), it reversed for corrected positive information, causing people to have more negative attitudes towards the hospital than before exposure to any information (a backfire effect). These results corroborate prior suggestions that continued influence effects are asymmetric: negative misinformation is harder to neutralise than positive misinformation. Participants' overconfidence degrees did not have a moderating role in misinformation effects. Even though corrections decrease the persuasive impact of health-related misinformation, continued influence remains for negative misinformation.

Source Trust and COVID-19 Information Sharing: The Mediating Roles of Emotions and Beliefs About Sharing.

Health information sharing has become especially important during the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic because people need to learn about the disease and then act accordingly. This study examines the perceived trust of different COVID-19 information sources (health professionals, academic institutions, government agencies, news media, social media, family, and friends) and sharing of COVID-19 information in China. Specifically, it investigates how beliefs about sharing and emotions mediate the effects of perceived source trust on source-specific information sharing intentions. Results suggest that health professionals, academic institutions, and government agencies are trusted sources of information and that people share information from these sources because they think doing so will increase disease awareness and promote disease prevention. People may also choose to share COVID-19 information from news media, social media, and family as they cope with anxiety, anger, and fear. Taken together, a better understanding of the distinct psychological mechanisms underlying health information sharing from different sources can help contribute to more effective sharing of information about COVID-19 prevention and to manage negative emotion contagion during the pandemic.

Does Internet Use Affect Individuals' Medical Service Satisfaction? Evidence from China.

Empirical evidence that combines traditional factors and information technology factors to predict public attitudes toward to medical services is inadequate. To fill this gap, this study investigates the impact of Internet use on people's satisfaction with medical services by employing the Chinese Social Survey for 2013, 2015 and 2017 (including 28,239 samples in total). Estimation results under the ordered probit reveal that Internet use is negatively correlated with individuals' medical services satisfaction. The results support the negativity bias theory, namely, compared with positive information, netizens pay more attention to negative medical-related information on the Internet. The results are still reliable by adopting substitution variable methods, subdividing the samples, employing other estimation methods and carrying out placebo tests to conduct robustness checks. This study further enriches the literature on public attitudes toward medical services and provides additional policy implications for medical risk management in the digital era.