Acceptance and Adherence to COVID-19 Preventive Measures are Shaped Predominantly by Conspiracy Beliefs, Mistrust in Science and Fear – A Comparison of More than 20 Psychological Variables

Abstract

The global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic sparked a great interest in psychological factors that determine or explain peoples' responses to the novel threatening situation and the preventive measures (e.g. wearing masks, social distancing). In this study, we focused on contaminated mindware (conspiracy and paranormal beliefs) and investigated its relationship with both acceptance of and adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures, along with other variables from the domains of emotion (trait anxiety, fear), traditional personality traits (Big 5, locus of control, optimism/pessimism) and motivation (self-control, dispositional regulatory focus). A total of 22 variables were measured in an online survey ( N = 374) that took place during the second wave of COVID-19 (Nov. 2020 – March 2021) in Switzerland. Of all variables, the endorsement of specific COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs was most strongly associated with lower acceptance and adherence to the preventive measures, together with mistrust in science and a more right-wing political orientation. In contrast, fear of COVID-19 and prevention regulatory focus were positively associated with acceptance and adherence. Our results therefore highlight the importance of fighting (conspiratorial) misinformation and of increasing the perceived credibility of science in reducing the spread of the coronavirus. Moreover, when acceptance was used as predictor for adherence, agreeableness and dispositional prevention regulatory focus still explained unique variance in adherence, suggesting that such personality and motivational variables play an important role in adhering and regulating preventive behaviour independent from the attitude towards the preventive measures themselves.

Motivational factors were more important than perceived risk or optimism for compliance to infection control measures in the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic

“…As suggested above, optimism can have both positive and negative effects for health and well-being, and it may have particular effects for risk assessment and motivation factors during a specific threat such as a pandemic. The literature is not yet clear on this, and a recent study on a convenience sample in Switzerland [24] did not find an association between optimism and compliance. In the current manuscript we will explore these potentially complex relationships between optimism and compliance during the initial stage of a pandemic.…”

Social Network Analysis of COVID-19 Sentiments: 10 Metropolitan Cities in Italy

“…Other scholars have examined sentiments evoked in tweets only with the judgment of some emerging keywords about COVID-19, examining the top trending topics over time [14]. Furthermore, scholars have presented an issue surrounding public sentiment, leading to the testimony of growth in fear sentiment and negative sentiment [15].…”

Predictors of Health-Protective and Helping Behaviors during the Covid-19 Pandemic: The Role of Social Support and Resilience

“…These studies evidence the positive relation between consciousness and neuroticism with risk avoidance, agreeableness with prosociality (Wilkowski et al, 2006), and more compliance with governmental restrictions (Zajenkowski et al, 2020). Hartmann and Müller (2022) also found that prevention regulatory focus was essential in adhering to and regulating preventive behavior besides agreeableness. Like Vaughn et al (2020), these authors applied the regulatory focus theory to how people respond to COVID-19, distinguishing promotion from prevention regulatory focus.…”

“…Other researchers focused on the psychological factors behind the individual responses to preventive measures (Hartmann & Müller, 2022;Zajenkowski et al, 2020), namely personality traits. These studies evidence the positive relation between consciousness and neuroticism with risk avoidance, agreeableness with prosociality (Wilkowski et al, 2006), and more compliance with governmental restrictions (Zajenkowski et al, 2020).…”