ABSTRACT This study investigated the influence of different emotions and social consensus on moral decision-making using a mixed 2 × 2 experimental design. The results showed that the main effect of social consensus was significant: the moral decision-making level of participants under the condition of low social consensus was lower than that of participants under the condition of high social consensus, while no main effect of emotion emerged. Second, the results showed that emotion and social consensus have interactive effects on (...) moral decision-making. When social consensus was high, there was no significant difference in moral decision-making between individuals with positive emotions and individuals with negative emotions. When social consensus was low, individuals with negative emotions were more likely to make immoral decisions than individuals with positive emotions. These results reveal that emotion and social consensus work together in affecting moral decision-making. (shrink)

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has been regarded as a public health emergency that caused a considerable degree of public panic during its early stage. Some irrational behaviors were also triggered as a result of such panic. Although there has been plenty of news coverage on public panic due to the outbreak, research on this phenomenon has been limited. Since panic is the main psychological reaction in the early stage of the pandemic, which largely determines the level of psychological adaptation, (...) time of psychological recovery, and the incidence of PTSD, there exists a demand to conduct investigation on it. From a public governance perspective, the government’s assessment of public panic may affect the efficiency and effectiveness of pandemic prevention and control. Therefore, it is of obvious practical significance to investigate public panic during the COVID-19 pandemic and analyze its influential factors. The self-compiled COVID-19 Social Mentality Questionnaire was used to collect data from a total of 16,616 participants online, and 13,511 valid responses were received. The results from the chi-square test showed that there were differences in gender, educational level, age, pandemic-related knowledge, self-efficacy, risk level, and objective social support. Furthermore, multiple linear regression analysis results showed that self-efficacy, gender, educational level, age, risk level, pandemic-related knowledge, and objective social support were significant predictors of public panic. Among the research variables, self-efficacy, gender, educational level, and age were negative predictors of panic while risk level, pandemic-related knowledge, and objective social support were positive predictors of panic. (shrink)