Abstract
How does the general public determine if a policy intervention is appropriate or an overreaction, and how do such judgments influence compliance? In four studies, we found that prospective judgments of overreaction are influenced by how likely a bad event is to occur, and retrospective judgments are influenced by whether the intervention is successful. In Studies 1–3, we investigated the mechanics of these judgments and found that if the bad event is low-risk, or the intervention is successful in preventing it, people judge the intervention to be an overreaction. In Study 4, a survey of 450 US participants showed that opinions of the risks and outcomes of the COVID-19 pandemic correlated with overreaction judgments, and critically, those judgments of overreaction predicted non-compliance with public health measures.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
