Risk perception as a motivational resource during the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of vaccination status and emerging variants.

BACKGROUND: People's perceived risk of being infected and having severe illness was conceived as a motivational source of adherence to behavioral measures during the COVID-19 crisis. METHODS: We used online self-reported data, spanning 20 months of the COVID-19 crisis in Belgium (n = 221,791; 34.4% vaccinated; July 2020 - March 2022) to study the association between risk perception and motivation. RESULTS: Both perceived infection probability and severity fluctuated across time as a function of the characteristics of emerging variants, with unvaccinated persons perceiving decreasingly less risk compared to vaccinated ones. Perceived severity (and not perceived probability) was the most critical predictor of autonomous motivation for adherence to health-protective measures, a pattern observed at both the between-day and between-person level among both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. An integrated process model further indicated that on days with higher hospitalization load, participants reported being more adherent because risk severity and autonomous motivation for adherence were more elevated on these days. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that risk severity served as a critical and dynamic resource for adherence to behavioral measures because it fostered greater autonomous regulation.

Predicting health behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal study.

We investigated the social, emotional, and cognitive predictors of adherence to four health behaviors (handwashing, mask wearing, social contact limitations, and physical distancing) during one critical phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. We collected data (N = 5803, mean age = 53; 57% women) in Belgium at five time points between April and July 2021, a time during which infections evolved from high (third wave of the pandemic) to low numbers of COVID-19 cases. The results show that the social, emotional, and cognitive predictors achieved high levels of explained variance (R2 > .60). In particular, the central components of behavioral change (attitudes, intentions, control, habits, norms, and risk) were the strongest and most consistent predictors of health behaviors over time. Likewise, autonomous motivation and empathetic emotions (e.g., attentive, compassionate) had a positive impact on health behavior adherence, whereas it was the opposite for lively emotions (e.g., active, enthusiastic). These results offer policymakers actionable insights into the most potent and stable factors associated with health behaviors, equipping them with effective strategies to curtail the spread of future infectious diseases.

Who is motivated to accept a booster and annual dose? A dimensional and person-centered approach.

The transmissibility of new COVID-19 variants and decreasing efficacy of vaccines led authorities to recommend a booster and even an annual dose. However, people's willingness to accept new doses varied considerably. Using two independent longitudinal samples of 4596 (Mean age = 53.6) and 514 (Mean age = 55.9) vaccinated participants, we examined how people's (lack of) vaccination motivation for their first dose was associated with their intention to get a booster (Sample 1) and an annual dose (Sample 2) several months later (Aim 1). We also aimed to capture the impact of the motivational heterogeneity on these intentions by capitalizing on participants' different motivational profiles collected at baseline (Aim 2). Across both samples, autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, and distrust-based amotivation were uniquely related to, respectively, higher, lower, and even lower booster and annual dose intentions. Further, a two-step clustering procedure revealed five profiles, with the profiles characterized by higher autonomous motivation (i.e. Good Quality and High Quantity profiles) reporting the highest vaccination intentions and the profile characterized by the highest number of obstacles (i.e. Global Amotivated profile) yielding the lowest vaccination intentions. These results stress the critical need to support citizens' volitional endorsement of vaccination to harvest long-term benefits with respect to COVID-19.

Psychological need fulfillment as a source of resilience: Its protective role in concerns and symptoms of anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The essential role of the psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness in well-being has been demonstrated convincingly. Yet whether their fulfillment also serves as a source of resilience in the face of adversity has received limited attention. A longitudinal sample of Belgian citizens (N = 1869; Mage = 56.23, 68% female) completed an online questionnaire on 13 occasions between April 2020 and April 2022 during the COVID-19 crisis. Multilevel analyses showed that need fulfillment, both at the between- and within-person level, related negatively to concerns, even after controlling for exposure to personal risks. Further, the association between concerns and changes in symptoms of depression and anxiety was dampened when people reported higher need fulfillment compared with others (i.e. between-person level) or when they reported periodically more need fulfillment than usual (i.e. within-person level). This moderation effect occurred on top of the systematic negative main effect of need fulfillment on symptoms of anxiety and depression. Psychological need fulfillment serves as a resilience factor (a) by reducing concerns in the face of adverse events (i.e. an appraisal effect) and (b) by mobilizing resources that help individuals to deal better with concerns (i.e. a coping effect). Theoretical and practical implications of the resilience effect of need fulfillment are discussed.

How the Stringency of the COVID-19 Restrictions Influences Motivation for Adherence and Well-Being: The Critical Role of Proportionality.

BACKGROUND: The stringency of the measures taken by governments to combat the COVID-19 pandemic varied considerably across countries and time. In the present study, we examined how the proportionality to the epidemiological situation is related to citizens'behavior, motivation and mental health. METHODS: Across 421 days between March 2020 and March 2022, 273,722 Belgian participants (Mage = 49.47; 63.9% female; 33% single) completed an online questionnaire. Multiple linear mixed regression modeling was used to examine the interaction between the epidemiological situation, as indicated by the actual hospitalization numbers, and the stringency index to predict day-to-day variation in the variables of interest. RESULTS: Systematic evidence emerged showing that disproportional situations, as opposed to proportional situations, were associated with a clear pattern of maladaptive outcomes. Specifically, when either strict or lenient measures were disproportional in relation to the epidemiological situation, people reported lower autonomous motivation, more controlled motivation and amotivation, less adherence to sanitary rules, higher perceived risk of infection, lower need satisfaction, and higher anxiety and depressive symptoms. Perceived risk severity especially covaried with the stringency of the measures. At the absolute level, citizens reported the highest need satisfaction and mental health during days with proportional lenient measures. CONCLUSION: Stringent measures are not per se demotivating or compromising of people's well-being, nor are lenient measures as such motivating or enhancing well-being. Only proportional measures, that is, measures with a level of stringency that is aligned with the actual epidemiological situation, are associated with the greatest motivational, behavioral, and mental health benefits.