How and why do people comply with protective behaviours during COVID-19? The emerging literature employs a variable-centered approach, typically using a narrow selection of constructs within a study. This study is the first to adopt a person-centred approach to identify complex patterns of compliance, and holistically examine underlying psychological differences, integrating multiple psychology paradigms and epidemiology. 1575 participants from Australia, US, UK, and Canada indicated their behaviours, attitudes, personality, cognitive/decision-making ability, resilience, adaptability, coping, political and cultural factors, and information consumption during the pandemic’s first wave. Using Latent Profile Analysis, two broad groups were identified. The compliant group (90%) reported greater worries, and perceived protective measures as effective, whilst the non-compliant group (about 10%) perceived them as problematic. The non-compliant group were lower on agreeableness and cultural tightness-looseness, but more extraverted, and reactant. They utilised more maladaptive coping strategies, checked/trusted the news less, and used official sources less. Females showed greater compliance than males. By promoting greater appreciation of the complexity of behaviour during COVID-19, this research provides a critical platform to inform future studies, public health policy, and targeted behaviour change interventions during pandemics. The results also challenge age-related stereotypes and assumptions.

This research aimed to investigate the changes in judgment accuracy, confidence, control thresholds, and decision outcomes when people act in two‐person groups (dyads) compared with acting individually. First, we used interacting dyads to determine the metacognitive and behavioral outcomes of collective decision making and compared them with those of individuals. Second, we examined whether these changes were related to the trait‐confidence and bias of individuals working together. Using a within‐person design, undergraduate psychology students (N = 116) completed a General‐knowledge Test individually, then together as a dyad. Each question was accompanied by a confidence rating and a decision to bet $10 on the answer. Dyads had significantly higher confidence and lower control thresholds than individuals. They were also significantly more decisive (made more bets) and reckless (lost a higher rate of bets) than when working alone. Thus, we observed a higher rate of decision errors for groups than individuals. The results also demonstrated the important role of individual differences: Overconfident individuals became even more confident, decisive, and reckless when working together compared with less confident or underconfident individuals working together. These findings have important theoretical and applied implications for collective decision making; metacognitive bias and potentially control thresholds may be targeted to alleviate the larger error rates and guide the formation of more effective groups.

No abstract

COVID-19 booster vaccinations have been recommended as a primary line of defence against serious illness and hospitalisation. This study identifies and characterises distinct profiles of attitudes towards vaccination, particularly the willingness to get a booster dose. A sample of 582 adults from Australia completed an online survey capturing COVID-related behaviours, beliefs and attitudes and a range of sociodemographic, psychological, political, social and cultural variables. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) identified three subgroups: Acceptant (61%), Hesitant (30%) and Resistant (9%). Compared to the Acceptant group, the Hesitant and Resistant groups were less worried about catching COVID-19, used fewer official COVID-19 information sources, checked the news less, were lower on the agreeableness personality dimension and reported more conservatism, persecutory thinking, amoral attitudes and need for chaos. The Hesitant group also reported checking the legitimacy of information sources less, scored lower on the openness to new experiences personality dimension and were more likely than the Resistant and Acceptant groups to report regaining freedoms (e.g., travel) and work requirements or external pressures as reasons to get a booster. The Resistant group were higher on reactance, held more conspiratorial beliefs and rated their culture as being less tolerant of deviance than the Hesitant and Acceptant groups. This research can inform tailored approaches to increasing booster uptake and optimal strategies for public health messaging.

Modern technologies have enabled the development of dynamic game- and simulation-based assessments to measure psychological constructs. This has highlighted their potential for supplementing other assessment modalities, such as self-report. This study describes the development, design, and preliminary validation of a simulation-based assessment methodology to measure psychological resilience—an important construct for multiple life domains. The design was guided by theories of resilience, and principles of evidence-centered design and stealth assessment. The system analyzed log files from a simulated task to derive individual trajectories in response to stressors. Using slope analyses, these trajectories were indicative of four types of responses to stressors: thriving, recovery, surviving, and succumbing. Using Machine Learning, the trajectories were predictive of self-reported resilience (Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale) with high accuracy, supporting construct validity of the simulation-based assessment. These findings add to the growing evidence supporting the utility of gamified assessment of psychological constructs. Importantly, these findings address theoretical debates about the construct of resilience, adding to its theory, supporting the combination of the “trait” and “process” approaches to its operationalization.

IntroductionCollective decisions in dynamic tasks can be influenced by multiple factors, including the operational conditions, quality and quantity of communication, and individual differences. These factors may influence whether two heads perform better than one. This study examined the “two heads are better than one” effect (2HBT1) in distributed two-person driver-navigator teams with asymmetrical roles performing a challenging simulated driving task. We also examined the influence of communication quality and quantity on team performance under different operational conditions. In addition to traditional measures of communication volume (duration and speaking turns), patterns of communication quality (optimality of timing and accuracy of instructions) were captured.MethodsParticipants completed a simulated driving task under two operational conditions (normal and fog) either as individual drivers (N = 134; 87 females, mean age = 19.80, SD = 3.35) or two-person teams (driver and navigator; N = 80; 109 females, mean age = 19.70, SD = 4.69). The normal condition was characterized by high visibility for both driver and navigator. The fog condition was characterized by reduced visibility for the driver but not for the navigator. Participants were also measured on a range of cognitive and personality constructs.ResultsTeams had fewer collisions than individuals during normal conditions but not during fog conditions when teams had an informational advantage over individuals. Furthermore, teams drove slower than individuals during fog conditions but not during normal conditions. Communication that was poorly timed and/or inaccurate was a positive predictor of accuracy (i.e., collisions) during the normal condition and communication that was well timed and accurate was a negative predictor of speed during the fog condition. Our novel measure of communication quality (i.e., content of communication) was a stronger predictor of accuracy, but volume of communication was a stronger predictor of time (i.e., speed).DiscussionResults indicate when team performance thrives and succumbs compared with individual performance and informs theory about the 2HBT1 effect and team communication.