Determinants of adoption and rejection of protective measures during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: A longitudinal study in Germany’s second wave

Q2 Psychology Social Psychological Bulletin Pub Date : 2022-07-04 DOI:10.32872/spb.7515
Pia Ochel, S. Eitze, Regina Siegers, C. Betsch, Anna Seufert
{"title":"Determinants of adoption and rejection of protective measures during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: A longitudinal study in Germany’s second wave","authors":"Pia Ochel, S. Eitze, Regina Siegers, C. Betsch, Anna Seufert","doi":"10.32872/spb.7515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The adoption and acceptance of protective measures are crucial for containing the ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. In a recent article in this journal, Dohle et al. (https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.4315) investigated the influence of risk perceptions and trust in politics and science on those constructs in March/April 2020. Since then, the pandemic has undergone several dynamic changes. We analyzed longitudinal data (N = 800) to investigate whether trust and risk were relevant predictors for pandemic measures at a later stage (October 2020/January 2021). The concept of risk perception was supplemented by risk attitude and affective risk to produce a more comprehensive picture of the risk component. We found that greater trust in science at time point 1 predicted less rejection and more adoption of measures at time point 2. Moreover, trust in politics predicted less rejection of measures. From all aspects of cognitive risk perception, only higher severity predicted lower rejection. All other cognitive aspects were non-significant. However, affective risk was shown to be a major predictor: the more the coronavirus was perceived as frightening and worrisome, the lower the rejection and more frequent the adoption of measures. Also, the higher the risk attitude related to health topics, the less frequent the implementation of measures. We replicated the analysis with predictors from time point 2 and deviations are discussed. Our results indicate that affective risk and general attitude toward health risk are more predictive of taking up measures in the context of COVID-19 than cognitive risk.","PeriodicalId":32922,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychological Bulletin","volume":"107 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Psychological Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.7515","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The adoption and acceptance of protective measures are crucial for containing the ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. In a recent article in this journal, Dohle et al. (https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.4315) investigated the influence of risk perceptions and trust in politics and science on those constructs in March/April 2020. Since then, the pandemic has undergone several dynamic changes. We analyzed longitudinal data (N = 800) to investigate whether trust and risk were relevant predictors for pandemic measures at a later stage (October 2020/January 2021). The concept of risk perception was supplemented by risk attitude and affective risk to produce a more comprehensive picture of the risk component. We found that greater trust in science at time point 1 predicted less rejection and more adoption of measures at time point 2. Moreover, trust in politics predicted less rejection of measures. From all aspects of cognitive risk perception, only higher severity predicted lower rejection. All other cognitive aspects were non-significant. However, affective risk was shown to be a major predictor: the more the coronavirus was perceived as frightening and worrisome, the lower the rejection and more frequent the adoption of measures. Also, the higher the risk attitude related to health topics, the less frequent the implementation of measures. We replicated the analysis with predictors from time point 2 and deviations are discussed. Our results indicate that affective risk and general attitude toward health risk are more predictive of taking up measures in the context of COVID-19 than cognitive risk.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在SARS-CoV-2大流行期间采取和拒绝保护措施的决定因素:德国第二波的纵向研究
采取和接受保护措施对于遏制正在进行的冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行至关重要。在本杂志最近的一篇文章中,Dohle等人(https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.4315)在2020年3月/ 4月调查了风险感知和对政治和科学的信任对这些结构的影响。自那时以来,这一流行病经历了若干动态变化。我们分析了纵向数据(N = 800),以调查信任和风险是否是后期(2020年10月/ 2021年1月)大流行措施的相关预测因素。风险感知的概念由风险态度和情感风险补充,以产生更全面的风险组成部分。我们发现,在时间点1对科学的更大信任预示着在时间点2更少的拒绝和更多的采取措施。此外,对政治的信任预示着对措施的抵制会减少。从认知风险感知的各个方面来看,只有严重程度越高,排异反应越低。所有其他认知方面都不显著。然而,情感风险被证明是一个主要的预测因素:冠状病毒越被认为是可怕和令人担忧的,拒绝率就越低,采取措施的频率也越高。此外,与健康主题有关的风险态度越高,实施措施的频率就越低。我们用时间点2的预测器重复了分析,并讨论了偏差。我们的研究结果表明,情感风险和对健康风险的总体态度比认知风险更能预测在COVID-19背景下采取措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Correction of Paulina Banaszkiewicz (2022). Biological sex and psychological gender differences in the experience and expression of romantic jealousy Correction of Nathan Vidal et al. (2023). Assessing the reliability of an infrared thermography protocol to assess cold-induced brown adipose tissue activation in French psychology students Willingness to use moral reframing: Support comes from perceived effectiveness, opposition comes from integrity concerns Feeling bad about feeling good? how avengers and observers evaluate the hedonic pleasure of taking revenge Anticipated and achieved individual mobility amongst Portuguese immigrants in Switzerland: Social identity adjustment and inter-minority relations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1