Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Feb 25:12:589800.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.589800. eCollection 2021.

Cognitive Predictors of Precautionary Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Affiliations

Cognitive Predictors of Precautionary Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Volker Thoma et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

The attempts to mitigate the unprecedented health, economic, and social disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic are largely dependent on establishing compliance to behavioral guidelines and rules that reduce the risk of infection. Here, by conducting an online survey that tested participants' knowledge about the disease and measured demographic, attitudinal, and cognitive variables, we identify predictors of self-reported social distancing and hygiene behavior. To investigate the cognitive processes underlying health-prevention behavior in the pandemic, we co-opted the dual-process model of thinking to measure participants' propensities for automatic and intuitive thinking vs. controlled and reflective thinking. Self-reports of 17 precautionary behaviors, including regular hand washing, social distancing, and wearing a face mask, served as a dependent measure. The results of hierarchical regressions showed that age, risk-taking propensity, and concern about the pandemic predicted adoption of precautionary behavior. Variance in cognitive processes also predicted precautionary behavior: participants with higher scores for controlled thinking (measured with the Cognitive Reflection Test) reported less adherence to specific guidelines, as did respondents with a poor understanding of the infection and transmission mechanism of the COVID-19 virus. The predictive power of this model was comparable to an approach (Theory of Planned Behavior) based on attitudes to health behavior. Given these results, we propose the inclusion of measures of cognitive reflection and mental model variables in predictive models of compliance, and future studies of precautionary behavior to establish how cognitive variables are linked with people's information processing and social norms.

Keywords: COVID-19; cognitive failures; cognitive reflection; infection precaution; planned behavior; risk-taking.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A tripartite model of thinking processes (A) adapted from Stanovich (2011) and its application in the current study (B).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Visual representation of the correlations between the DV and all the IVs in both models (dual-process theory, DPT and Theory of Planned Behavior, TPB), similar to a network plot. Only correlations greater than 0.1 are plotted. Black lines indicate positive correlations and red lines indicate negative correlations. The darkness and thickness of the lines represent the strength of the correlation. The spatial location and proximity of the variables are determined by classical multidimensional scaling based on the absolute values of the correlations.

References

    1. Ajzen I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211. 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T - DOI
    1. Allcott H., Boxell L., Conway J., Gentzkow M., Thaler M., Yang D. (2020). Polarization and public health: partisan differences in social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic. J. Public Econ. 191:104254. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104254, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Anderson R. M., Heesterbeek H., Klinkenberg D., Hollingsworth T. D. (2020). How will country-based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19 epidemic? Lancet 395, 931–934. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30567-5, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Armitage C. J., Conner M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 471–499. 10.1348/014466601164939, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baron J. (1993). Why teach thinking?-An essay. Appl. Psychol. 42, 191–214. 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1993.tb00731.x - DOI