RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Responses to COVID-19 Threats: An Evolutionary Psychological Analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.06.20.22276460
DO 10.1101/2022.06.20.22276460
A1 Colarelli, Stephen M.
A1 Mirando, Tyler J.
A1 Han, Kyunghee
A1 Li, Norman P.
A1 Vespi, Carter
A1 Klein, Katherine A.
A1 Fales, Charles P.
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/21/2022.06.20.22276460.abstract
AB Responses to COVID-19 public health interventions have been lukewarm. For example, only 64% of the US population has received at least two vaccinations. Because most public health interventions require people to behave in ways that are evolutionarily novel and mismatched with evolved human perceptual and decision-making mechanisms, it is imperative that we gain a better understanding of how people respond to public health information, including how they respond under different pandemic conditions and how specific groups may differ in their responses. We conducted two studies, using data from primarily public sources. We found that state-level COVID-19 threats (e.g., infection and mortality rates) had no relationships with mental health symptoms, suggesting that people were not attending to threat information. This result is consistent with the evolutionary psychological explanation that COVID-19 threat information is insufficient to activate the human behavioral immune system. Furthermore, individual differences affected how people responded to COVID-19 threats, supporting a niche picking explanation. Finally, aggregate state IQ levels correlated positively with aggregate vaccination rates, suggesting that intelligence can partially counteract the evolutionary novelty of abstract threat information, supporting the savanna-IQ interaction hypothesis. We conclude with policy implications for improving interventions and promoting greater compliance.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any funding.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Part of the data in Study 1 in the manuscript used anonymous survey data. We received approval for the Institutional Review Board of Central Michigan University. All other date in Study 1 and Study two were openly available public data.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.