In the face of coronavirus, people are racing to protect themselves: everyday essentials are flying off the shelves in the rush to stockpile, and internal and overseas travel has ground to a halt. Interestingly, however, many people began undertaking these measures only when COVID-19 reached their shores – despite the outbreak in China and despite warnings to prepare for a global pandemic [1].
This response pattern is similar for other issues, such as climate change: scientists and environmentalists forewarn of an impending catastrophe, and yet we are slow to change our behaviours.
Whilst scientists are racing to find the COVID-19 vaccine, we ask ourselves: what can we learn from this dramatic change in behaviour after having been relatively unconcerned about the problem.
Author: Zoé Duhaldeborde, Associate at Insight Dojo
The principle of psychological distance may help explain why we are slow to adopt precautionary behaviours despite knowledge of an impending crisis.
Psychological distance is the subjective perception of an event as near or far from the self. According to construal level theory (CLT) [2], the greater the psychological distance from an event, the more abstractly that event is perceived. Research suggests shorter psychological distance from an event is associated with increased willingness to address the event[3]. This may be because when an event is psychologically close, it is imagined in more detail and the individual becomes more likely to act [3].
Psychological distance has four key dimensions [2]. Through each of these dimensions, we can begin to understand the increased urgency in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Dimension
Then
Now
Temporal
(time separating the present self from an event)
Prior to COVID-19, it was unclear when a pandemic would specifically occur.
When the World Health Organisation declared a global pandemic, it became clear that infection control was an issue of the present.
Spatial
(distance separating the self’s physical location from an event)
Like previous infections such as SARS, COVID-19 was initially seen as originating from, and impacting only China [4].
It is a global pandemic affecting over 200 countries.
Social
(interpersonal differences separating the self from others affected by an event)
People believed pandemics were less likely to affect ‘people like us’[5].
Friends and family have now been affected by COVID-19.
Hypothetical
(perceived likelihood of an event occurring)
There was lack of clarity around the impact of a pandemic.
Concrete metrics regarding the threat of COVID-19, such as infection rate and death toll, are now reported daily.
Simply put, the general public was psychologically distant from a global pandemic – including COVID-19 itself. However, in recent weeks, psychological distance from a pandemic has rapidly decreased on the four dimensions above, prompting urgent action.
So, what can we learn from public response to COVID-19? The pandemic has shown that urgent action is achievable on a mass scale, but one of the prerequisites might be reducing the psychological distance of the event. That may motivate us to act faster and be more prepared to tackle similar issues in the future.
-
Mongáin, C.Ó. (2020). Warnings about a global pandemic were ignored - then Covid-19 struck. Retrieved April 2nd, 2020, from https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0321/1124579-should-we-have-been-caught-off-guard-by-covid-19/.
-
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological review, 117(2), 440-463.
-
Spence, A., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. (2012). The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 32(6), 957-972.
-
Kuo, L. (2020). Trump sparks anger by calling coronavirus the 'Chinese virus'. Retrieved April 2nd, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/17/trump-calls-covid-19-the-chinese-virus-as-rift-with-coronavirus-beijing-escalates.
-
Schram, J. (2003). How popular perceptions of risk from SARS are fermenting discrimination. BMJ, 326(7395), 939.