Open AccessAnalyzing the Perceived Utility of Covid-19 Countermeasures: The Role of Pronominalization, Moral Foundations, Moral Disengagement, Fake News Embracing, and Health Anxiety
Author(s) -
Alessandro Ansani,
Marco Marini,
Christian Cecconi,
Daniele Dragoni,
Elena Rinallo,
Isabella Poggi,
Luca Mallia
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
psychological reports
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.645
H-Index - 67
eISSN - 1558-691X
pISSN - 0033-2941
DOI - 10.1177/00332941211027829
Subject(s) - harm , psychology , social psychology , anxiety , disengagement theory , moral disengagement , covid-19 , gerontology , medicine , disease , pathology , psychiatry , infectious disease (medical specialty)
An online survey (N = 210) is presented on how the perceived utility of correct and exaggerated countermeasures against Covid-19 is affected by different pronominalization strategies (impersonal form, you, we). In evaluating the pronominalization effect, we have statistically controlled for the roles of several personal characteristics: Moral Disengagement, Moral Foundations, Health Anxiety, and Embracing of Fake News. Results indicate that, net of personal proclivities, the you form decreases the perceived utility of exaggerated countermeasures, possibly due to simulation processes. As a second point, through a Structural Equation Model, we show that binding moral values (Authority, Ingroup, and Purity) positively predict both fake news embracing and perceived utility of exaggerated countermeasures, while individualizing moral values (Harm and Fairness) negatively predict fake news embracing and positively predict the perceived utility of correct countermeasures. Lastly, fake news embracing showed a doubly bad effect: not only does it lead people to judge exaggerated countermeasures as more useful; but, more dangerously, it brings them to consider correct countermeasures as less useful in the struggle against the pandemic.