How can we effectively promote the public’s prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 infection? Jordan et al. found with United States samples that emphasizing either self-interest or collective-interest of prevention behaviors could promote the public’s prevention intention. Moreover, prosocially framed messaging was more effective in motivating prevention intention than self-interested messaging. A dual consideration of both cultural psychology and the literature on personalized matching suggests the findings of Jordan et al. are counterintuitive, because persuasion is most effective when the frame of (...) the message delivered and the recipient of the message are culturally congruent. In order to better understand the potential influence of culture, the current research aimed to replicate and extend Jordan et al. findings in the Japanese context. Specifically, we examined the question whether the relative effectiveness of the prosocial appeal is culturally universal and robust, which types of ‘others’ especially promote prevention intention, and which psychological mechanisms can explain the impact of messaging on prevention intention. In Study 1, we confirmed that self-interested framed, prosocially framed, and the combination of both types of messaging were equally effective in motivating prevention intention. In Study 2, we found that family-framed messaging also had a promoting effect similar to that from self-interested and prosocial appeals. However, the relative advantage of prosocial appeals was not observed. Further, a psychological propensity relevant to sensitivity to social rejection did not moderate the impact of messaging on prevention intention in both studies. These results suggest that since engaging in the infection control itself was regarded as critical by citizens after public awareness of COVID-19 prevention has been sufficiently heightened, for whom we should act might not have mattered. Further, concerns for social rejection might have had less impact on the prevention intentions under these circumstances. These results suggest that the relative advantage of a prosocial appeal might not be either culturally universal or prominent in a collectivistic culture. Instead, they suggest that the advantages of such an appeal depends on the more dynamic influence of COVID-19 infection. (shrink)

In this exploratory research study, we developed an instrument to investigate people’s confidence in safeguarding measures [Confidence in Safeguards Scale ] and we adapted an instrument measuring perceived risk of coronavirus [perceived risk of coronavirus scale ] that was originally based on a perceived risk of HIV measure. We then explored the effect of public confidence in safeguarding measures designed to halt the spread of the coronavirus on perceived risk, controlling for related covariates. The sample consisted of N = 565 (...) respondents; 119 were males and 446 were females. Mean age was 35.42, range was 18–77 years. We used convenience sampling to gather the data at the end of March 2020 via social media in Slovakia. The CSS showed good reliability levels and a three-factor structure: Confidence in Institutions, Confidence in Personal and Family Behaviors, and Confidence in Others’ Behaviors. The PRCS showed good reliability levels and a two-factor structure: Fear of Contraction and Perceived Likelihood of Contraction. Participants with higher levels of Confidence in Others’ Behaviors perceived the spread of the coronavirus to be less threatening, both cognitively and affectively. This finding could be used when designing public health policy and emergency communication. Enhancing confidence in others’ behaviors could encourage individual responsibility, social responsibility, and solidarity through social bonds extending beyond the family. In future research we plan to replicate the data collection using the same instruments in different countries so the results are comparable across cultures and can be used to improve emergency communication. (shrink)

The aim of this study was to explore the effects of prosocial and antisocial personality tendencies and context-related state factors on compliance with protective behaviors to prevent the spread of coronavirus infections. Six types of prosocial tendencies and selfishness as the antisocial tendency were included as personality factors, while fear related to the pandemic and empathy toward vulnerable groups were context-related factors. Furthermore, mediation effect of empathy and moderation effect of fear were explored in relations between personality factors and protective (...) behaviors. The sample included 581 participants. The data were collected from March 28 to April 6, 2020, during the emergency state and curfew in Serbia. The results showed that tendency to help anonymously had a positive effect and selfishness had a negative effect on protective behaviors, over and above demographic characteristics and context-related factors. Among context-related factors, only fear related to the pandemic had a significant unique positive effect on protective behaviors, but it had no moderator effect in the relationship between personality traits and protective behaviors. However, empathy acted as a mediator and partly accounted for the negative effect of selfishness and positive effect of tendency to help anonymously on protective behaviors. The results revealed that compliance with protective measures could be seen as prosocial and unselfish form of behavior. Furthermore, these findings have practical implications for shaping public messages and they can help effectively promote health-responsible behaviors. (shrink)