The role of perceived level of threat, reactance proneness, political orientation, and coronavirus salience on health behavior intentions

Do Italian people still wear masks? Analysis of personality and dispositional correlates of facemask use in post Covid-19 scenario

Face mask wearing is a low-cost preventative measure for the Covid-19 pandemic. In Italy, face masks are no longer mandatory indoors from the 1st of May 2022. Some research focused on factors that influence the choice of using masks, but less is known about mask-wearing when non-mandatory. The present study aims to compare those who were still wearing masks indoors when non-mandatory and those who were not, in personality traits, anxiety, depression, and trust in healthcare professions, in Italy, in 2022. Furthermore, we analyze if resilience, reactance, political orientation, and Covid-19 vaccinations moderate between negative affectivity and the choice of wearing masks. 1151 adults, aged 18-64, were recruited. Using the Qualtrics platform, participants filled in a socio-demographic interview, and self-report questionnaires. Results showed that people who were still wearing a mask indoors had higher levels of psychoticism and negative affectivity, worse mental health, greater trust in healthcare professions, and worries about the pandemic. Moreover, resilience partially moderates the relationship between negative affectivity and the choice of wearing a mask. These findings provide a better understanding of individuals' responses to post-pandemic changes, identifying the personal and contextual aspects that can make people struggle with the process of returning to normality.

Psychosocial Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and the Mediating Role of Various Attitudes towards Science

This study examined the way attitudes towards science in the U.S. mediate the relationship between COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and psychosocial predictors, such as political ideology, religiosity, reactance proneness, dogmatism, perceived communal ostracism, education, and socioeconomic status. We analyzed the structure of people's attitudes towards science, revealing four distinct factors: epistemic confidence, belief that science and technology are beneficial, trust in science in general, and trust in medical science. With all four factors included as mediators in a saturated path analysis, low levels of trust in medical science and low epistemic confidence fully mediated the relationships between nearly all of the psychosocial predictors and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Political conservativism's negative association with vaccine hesitancy was partially mediated by the same two facets of people's attitudes towards science. Adding nuance to existing research, we found that trust in science in general was not a significant mediator once all four facets were included in the model. These findings are discussed with a focus on their implications for understanding attitudes towards science and their substantial and complex role in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Perceived risk, political polarization, and the willingness to follow COVID-19 mitigation guidelines

OBJECTIVE

Risk assessment and response is important for understanding human behavior. The divisive context surrounding the coronavirus pandemic inspires our exploration of risk perceptions and the polarization of mitigation practices (i.e., the degree to which the behaviors of people on the political "Left" diverge from those on the "Right"). Specifically, we investigate the extent to which the political polarization of willingness to comply with mitigation behaviors changes with risk perceptions.

METHOD

Analyses use data from two sources: an original dataset of Twitter posts and a nationally-representative survey. In the Twitter data, negative binomial regression models are used to predict mitigation intent measured using tweet counts. In the survey data, logit models predict self-reported mitigation behavior (vaccination, masking, and social distancing).

RESULTS

Findings converged across both datasets, supporting the idea that the links between political orientation and willingness to follow mitigation guidelines depend on perceived risk. People on the Left are more inclined than their Right-oriented colleagues to follow guidelines, but this polarization tends to decrease as the perceived risk of COVID-19 intensifies. Additionally, we find evidence that exposure to COVID-19 infections sends ambiguous signals about the risk of the virus while COVID-19 related deaths have a more consistent impact on mitigation behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS

Pandemic-related risks can create opportunities for perceived "common ground," between the political "Right" and "Left." Risk perceptions and politics interact in their links to intended COVID-19 mitigation behavior (as measured both on Twitter and in a national survey). Our results invite a more complex interpretation of political polarization than those stemming from simplistic analyses of partisanship and ideology.