When and Why People Conceal Infectious Disease.

People sick with infectious illnesses face negative social outcomes, like exclusion, and may take steps to conceal their illnesses from others. In 10 studies of past, current, and projected illness, we examined the prevalence and predictors of infection concealment in adult samples of U.S. university students, health-care employees, and online crowdsourced workers (total N = 4,110). About 75% reported concealing illness in interpersonal interactions, possibly placing others in harm's way. Concealment motives were largely social (e.g., wanting to attend events like parties) and achievement oriented (e.g., completing work objectives). Disease characteristics, including potential harm and illness immediacy, also influenced concealment decisions. People imagining harmful (vs. mild) infections concealed illness less frequently, whereas participants who were actually sick concealed frequently regardless of illness harm, suggesting state-specific biases underlying concealment decisions. Disease concealment appears to be a widely prevalent behavior by which concealers trade off risks to others in favor of their own goals, creating potentially important public-health consequences.

Keep your distance: Different roles for knowledge and affect in predicting social distancing behavior.

The current study examines predictors of social distancing behavior across populations (students and community members) and across time in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on two factors commonly associated with risk perception and prevention: knowledge and affect. Results showed that, despite similar levels of social distancing, student distancing was predicted only by feelings of threat about COVID-19, whereas community distancing was predicted by both feeling informed and threatened. Examining longitudinal effects, which were limited to students only, students became more informed about COVID-19 over time, and increases in being informed (but not feeling threatened) predicted more distancing.

What people believe about detecting infectious disease using the senses.

Do you believe you can tell if people are sick with infectious diseases by looking at, listening to, or smelling them? Research on pathogen detection and avoidance suggests that perceivers respond with caution both to true signs of infection and to cues only heuristically associated with infection threat. But what do perceivers actually believe about the effectiveness and use of specific sensory modalities for infection detection? In several studies, U.S. participants reported perceptions of effectiveness and likelihood of using each of the major senses to identify infection threat in two types of targets: people and food. Results revealed prioritization of sight and sound with person targets and prioritization of sight and smell with food targets. These patterns appear consistent with the use of "safe senses" (avoidance of cues involving high perceived transmission risk). Beliefs about sensory use also varied depending on the specific feature being examined, with different patterns of sensory beliefs associated with evaluation of pathogenic danger than with evaluation of desirability and fit with normative standards. We discuss these lay beliefs in the context of recent calls for descriptive research in psychology as well as their implications for current and future work on the behavioral immune system.