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.