Those who held more superstitious beliefs were more fearful of getting COVID-19

Superstitious beliefs, locus of control, and feeling at risk in the face of Covid-19. Arvid Hoffmann et al. Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 196, October 2022, 111718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111718

Highlights

• We examined superstitious beliefs, locus of control, and feeling at risk of Covid-19.

• Superstitious beliefs were positively related to feeling at risk of Covid-19.

• Internal locus of control was negatively related to feeling at risk of Covid-19.

• Internal locus of control negatively moderated the effect of superstitious beliefs.

Abstract: Unprecedented uncertainty during the Covid-19 pandemic stimulated anxiety among individuals, while the associated health restrictions contributed to a feeling of loss of control. Prior research suggests that, in times of crisis, some individuals rely on superstitious beliefs as a coping mechanism, but it remains unclear whether superstition is positively or negatively associated with fear of Covid-19 during the pandemic, and the role that individuals' locus of control plays in this regard. In two studies conducted among individuals in Belgium and the U.S., we therefore examined the relationship between superstitious beliefs, locus of control, and feeling at risk of Covid-19. Across both countries, we found that superstition is positively, and internal locus of control negatively, related with feeling at risk of Covid-19. Moreover, in Belgium, the effect of superstition was less pronounced for individuals with a higher level of internal locus of control. The absence of an interaction effect between superstition and locus of control in the U.S. could be explained by this country's higher level of superstitious beliefs and lower level of internal locus of control combined with a stronger feeling of being at risk of Covid-19 or cultural differences such as Belgium's higher uncertainty avoidance compared to the U.S.

Keywords: Covid-19FearFeeling at riskLocus of controlPandemicSuperstitious beliefs

5. General discussion

The results of our two studies improve our understanding of the role of superstitious beliefs on feeling at risk of Covid-19. Our findings add to prior work by documenting how being superstitious increased one's fear of Covid-19, no matter whether the individual held positive or negative superstitious beliefs (cf. Wiseman & Watt, 2004). Thus, superstitious beliefs did not seem to act as a coping mechanism to deal with an uncertain situation as suggested by some recent studies (Schippers, 2020), but rather were associated with an increased feeling of being at risk. Furthermore, unlike the inconclusive findings of prior research (Stanke & Taylor, 2004), we demonstrated across both our studies that an internal locus of control was negatively correlated with individuals' superstitious beliefs and was also negatively related to their fear of Covid-19.

In light of the necessity to better understand the drivers of individuals' feeling of being at risk of Covid-19 to be able to improve public health measures and policy communications, our findings provide several practical guidelines. Specifically, it is important for public policy makers to understand which measures can help restore within individuals a sense of control over their life outcomes and reduce the reliance on superstitious rituals. Health interventions focused on helping individuals understand their sources of personal power, their core beliefs, and envisioning future goals can assist in building their personal agency (Shankar et al., 2019). Given that fear appeals often have unintended consequences, such as distrust in public health authorities, skepticism of health messaging, and a lack of uptake in recommended health behaviors (Stolow et al., 2020), our recommendations aim to reduce fear and increase knowledge.

Practically speaking, our findings lead us to posit that policy makers should: (i) address misinformation and reduce the reliance on unverified sources such as social media to fight superstitious beliefs about Covid-19 and help individuals distinguish facts from unfounded opinions; (ii) highlight the ability of individuals to reduce the spread of the virus through their own actions, stressing individuals' personal agency to stimulate their internal locus of control; and (iii) provide clear and verified facts on infectiousness and mortality, using an intuitive way to present probabilities to decrease the fear of Covid-19 among individuals with lower numeracy.

Similar to “accuracy nudges” designed to reduce the spread of Covid-19 misinformation on social media (Pennycook et al., 2020), to stimulate individuals to question superstitious beliefs policy makers could use statements such as “Rely on facts, not feelings in fighting Covid-19.” To increase internal locus of control and decrease fear of Covid-19, campaigns could also include statements such as “I have the power to slow the spread.” Indeed, similar to the famous World War II slogan, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2021) stressed individuals' potential for control over the pandemic and infection by stating “We Can Do It!”

Optimal intervention design might vary due to cultural differences. Apart from the aforementioned difference in uncertainty avoidance between Belgium and the U.S., which suggests that successful interventions in Belgium need to focus on reducing ambiguity, there is also an important difference between both countries in terms of their long-term orientation. Belgium scores much higher than the U.S. in this regard (82 vs. 26) (Hofstede et al., 2005), and individuals in the former (latter) country might thus be more responsive to health communication highlighting the long-term (short-term) virtues of changes in behavior in order to fight Covid-19.

Despite its contributions, our research was subject to some limitations which provide opportunities for future research. First, although we used a well-established measure of locus of control from Rotter (1966) and found that it had satisfactory reliability, we also found that two items that were scored in the opposite direction of the other five items had low loadings, suggesting the need for scales without reversed items as per Swain et al. (2008). Second, research should further investigate the interaction effect between superstitious beliefs and internal locus of control on feeling at risk of Covid-19 using samples from different countries, as we found such an interaction effect in Belgium but not in the U.S. Related to this is the need to more formally account for cultural differences. Third, we note that the zero-order correlations between the key variables was substantially higher in the Amazon Mturk sample of Study 2 compared to the Qualtrics sample of Study 1, which could indicate common method variance bias. However, our tests in this regard did not support such an explanation and research has shown that Amazon Mturk samples are not more prone to bias than other participant pools, offering reliable data (Paolacci & Chandler, 2014). Hence, we call for future research to examine this issue in more detail. Fourth, we measured fear of Covid-19 by adapting an item from the well-established Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire of Broadbent et al. (2006) but acknowledge that more recently a dedicated Covid-19 Phobia Scale (C19P-S) has been developed by Arpaci et al. (2020). To examine generalizability across alternative measures, future research could also include the C19P-S scale in examinations of the relationship between superstitious beliefs, internal locus of control, and fear of Covid-19. Finally, given the cross-sectional nature of our studies, we cannot make claims regarding causality. Future research could run longitudinal surveys or experiments to establish causality.