ABSTRACT
How do we resolve conflicting ideas about how to protect our health during a pandemic? Prior knowledge influences our decisions, potentially creating implicit cognitive conflict with new, correct information. COVID-19 provides a natural condition for investigating how an individual's health-specific knowledge (e.g., understanding mask efficacy) and their personal context (e.g., outbreak proximity) influence their protective health behavior endorsement, as information about the virus, its spread, and lethality has changed over time. Using a dual-process-model framework, we investigated the role cognitive conflict has on health decision-making. We used a computer mouse-tracking paradigm alongside geographical information systems (GIS) as a proxy for context. The results support a contextualized-deficit-model framework in which relevant knowledge and context-based factors help individuals override cognitive conflict to make more preventative health decisions. Findings from this study may provide evidence for a more effective way for experts to combat non-adherence due to conflicting health information.
