The COVID-19 pandemic has increased negative emotions and decreased positive emotions globally. Left unchecked, these emotional changes might have a wide array of adverse impacts. To reduce negative emotions and increase positive emotions, we tested the effectiveness of reappraisal, an emotion-regulation strategy that modifies how one thinks about a situation. Participants from 87 countries and regions (n = 21,644) were randomly assigned to one of two brief reappraisal interventions (reconstrual or repurposing) or one of two control conditions (active or passive). Results revealed that both reappraisal interventions (vesus both control conditions) consistently reduced negative emotions and increased positive emotions across different measures. Reconstrual and repurposing interventions had similar effects. Importantly, planned exploratory analyses indicated that reappraisal interventions did not reduce intentions to practice preventive health behaviours. The findings demonstrate the viability of creating scalable, low-cost interventions for use around the world.

Significance Communicating in ways that motivate engagement in social distancing remains a critical global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study tested motivational qualities of messages about social distancing (those that promoted choice and agency vs. those that were forceful and shaming) in 25,718 people in 89 countries. The autonomy-supportive message decreased feelings of defying social distancing recommendations relative to the controlling message, and the controlling message increased controlled motivation, a less effective form of motivation, relative to no message. Message type did not impact intentions to socially distance, but people’s existing motivations were related to intentions. Findings were generalizable across a geographically diverse sample and may inform public health communication strategies in this and future global health emergencies.

This study aimed to investigate age differences in risk-taking concerning the coronavirus pandemic, while disentangling the contribution of risk attitude, objective risk and numeracy. We tested (i) whether older and younger adults differed in taking coronavirus-related health risks, (ii) whether there are age differences in coronavirus risk, risk attitude and numerical ability and (iii) whether these age differences in coronavirus risk, attitude and numerical ability are related to coronavirus risk-taking. The study was observational, with measures presented to all participants in random order. A sample of 469 participants reported their coronavirus-related risk-taking behaviour, objective risk, risk attitude towards health and safety risks, numerical ability and risk perception. Our findings show that age was significantly related to coronavirus risk-taking, with younger adults taking more risk, and that this was partially mediated by higher numeracy, but not objective risk or risk attitude. Exploratory analyses suggest that risk perception for self and others partially mediated age differences in coronavirus risk-taking. The findings of this study may better our understanding of why age groups differ in their adoption of protective behaviours during a pandemic and contribute to the debate whether age differences in risk-taking occur due to decline in abilities or changes in risk attitude.

No abstract