Refereed Original Paper
The effects of psychological attitudes on voluntarycooperation against COVID-19: an analysis using asocial dilemma framework
Keywords:
COVID-19, Social dilemma, prosocial behavior, public health

Hitoshi YAMAMOTO, Faculty of Business Administration, Rissho University
Takahisa SUZUKI, College of Policy Studies, Tsuda University
Yuki OGAWA, Faculty of Design and Data Science, Tokyo City University
Ryohei UMETANI, Graduate School of Science and Technology, University of Tsukuba

Abstract
The COVID-19 Pandemic is a global problem, and to prevent the spread of the infections, it is
crucial not only to develop vaccines and therapeutic medications but also to encourage people tochange their behavior. Behavioral change to prevent the spread of infectious diseases has required
people to give up many activities, especially pleasures outside the home. However, it is hoped that
if most people behave cooperatively, individuals’ selfish pursuit of pleasure will have little effecton the spread of infection. This conflict between benefits for individuals and those for thecommunity as a whole can be considered a social dilemma. Clarifying the factors that define
people’s behavior during epidemics is essential for designing social systems after the COVID-19
Pandemic is declared over. Here, we analyze the determinants of people’s behavior in theframework of a social dilemma by conducting a two-wave panel survey in 2020 and 2021. The
results show that in the first wave, psychological attitudes that affect prosocial behavior, such as
reciprocity, positively affect prosocial behavior. However, in the second wave, these effects
disappear, and other factors define people’s behavior. Continuous analysis of the factors
determining people’s behavior under drastically changing circumstances can provide information
for planning measures to promote desirable behavioral changes.

Received May 3 2022, Accepted Jan 23 2023

17

The effects of psychological attitudes on voluntary cooperation against COVID-19: an analysis using a social dilemma framework

YAMAMOTO et alsocial dilemma with the structure of the tragedy

1. Introductionof the commons (Hardin, 1968).
The COVID-19 Pandemic has significantly

The research questions of this paper are

impacted humanity, causing over 200 million

whether the psychological attitudes that haveconfirmed infections and over 4 million deaths

been shown to influence prosocial behavior inworldwide as of October 2021. To overcomesocial dilemma situations have affected people’s

COVID-19, not only medical measures such as

behavior during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Somethe development of vaccines but also behavioral

studies answer this question affirmatively (Vanchanges and restructuring of people’s lifestyles

Hulsen et al., 2020; Van Lange et al., 2021; Harring

are required (Van Bavel et al., 2020). Someet al., 2021; Ling et al., 2020; Johnson et al., 2020).

studies have analyzed behavioral change andFor example, a positive correlation has been

hoarding

pandemic

found between prosociality and COVID-19(Columbus, 2020; Lunn et al., 2020). In many

prevention behaviors (Jordan et al. 2020; Luttrellcountries, people’s behavior has been forcibly& Petty 2020; Pfattheicher et al. 2020; Fischer et

restricted by legally enforceable lockdownal., 2021). However, few studies have analyzed inpolicies. In Japan, however, the constitution does

detail the impact of prosociality and related

not allow for enforceable restrictions on people’s

psychological attitudes on preventive behavior.

behavior

duringthemovements or associations. Therefore, people

In theoretical studies of social dilemmas, twowere encouraged to change their behavior

variables are often used as the individual’s

voluntarily. Although vaccination is progressing

behavioral strategy: 1) the behavioral strategy ofin many countries and behavioral restrictions arecooperation or non-cooperation and 2) the

being relaxed, one significant public health issue

punishment

is to clarify the factors that determine behavioral

punishment or not. The former behavioral

changes to prevent the spread of infections in thestrategy can be measured by whether people

future.

voluntarily refrain from or intend to avoid goingstrategyofwhethertouse

To prevent infections, people have beenout to prevent infection. The latter punishmentencouraged to act less selfishly. For example,

strategy, however, is difficult to measure directly.

enjoying a meal at a restaurant or going to aThis is because, in many cases, direct private

concert is an essential part of people’s welfare,punishment is prohibited in the real world, andbut people have been told that they need topunishment is carried out by public authorities

voluntarily give up these pleasures to control(e.g., the police). Therefore, we adopt a

infections. In Japan, a state of emergency has

punishment

been declared four times, but no enforceable

cooperators should be punished” as a punishment

restrictions were imposed on individuals, andstrategy.

norm

that

considers“non-only voluntary cooperation was requested of

In this study, we focus on three variables ascitizens. We need a framework for analyzing

psychological attitudes that influence COVID-19

people’s behavior in situations where benefits forprevention behaviors. It is well known that these

individuals conflict with the benefits for society

variables have a positive correlation withas a whole. This situation can be considered a

prosocial behavior in social dilemmas. The first is
18

Journal of Socio-Informatics Vol. 16 No. 1 Sep. 2023

generalized reciprocity and generalized trust

have emerged, such as the conflict between(Yamagishi and Yamagishi, 1994; Yamagishi andpeople’s beliefs toward the vaccines. Specifically,

Kiyonari, 2000). Generalized reciprocity andthe cumulative number of confirmed infections ingeneralized trust are typical variables thatJapan as of 1st April, 2020 was 2,502, which is

promote cooperative behavior in social dilemmas.

0.0020% of the Japanese population. At this point,

Second is a belief in a just world (Lerner, 1980).

the maximum number of reported infections per

The literature (Miller, 1977, Zuckerman, 1975)

day was 268. However, as of 1st. Apr. 2021, thehas reported a positive association between the

cumulative number of confirmed infections inbelief in a just world strength and altruistic

Japan was 477,846, which is 0.3810% of the

behavior. The belief in a just world is a cognitive

population. The maximum number of reported

bias in which one believes that the world is still

infections per day before the second-wave survey

fair when exposed to harsh or difficult situations,reached 7,957 on 8th Jan. 2021. As a situationsuch as those faced by people throughout thechanges so significantly, people’s risk perception

world during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Thus, theand determinants of behavior should be expected

belief in a just world is thought to influence

to change.

people’sbehavior

COVID-19

Here, we conducted two waves of panel

Pandemic. Third, we adopt justice sensitivity

surveys, one in April 2020 during the early stages(Schmitt et al., 2010), which measures sensitivityof the COVID-19 Pandemic and the other a year

to various types of injustice. For instance, it

later in April 2021, to investigate whether people’s

consists of sensitivity to unfair losses suffered byprosociality affects preventive behavior andoneself and to unfair losses suffered by others.

whether

Because COVID-19 has had a non-homogeneous

Continuous analysis of the factors determining

and unequal impact on people, sensitivity to thispeople’s behavior under drastically changing

unequalcircumstances can provide information for

impactduringshouldtheinfluencepeople’sthiseffectbehavior. We analyze the impact of these threeplanning

psychological attitudes on infection prevention

behavioral changes.

measureschangedtooverpromotetime.

desirable

behavior and punishment norms during the

The factors that determine people’s behavior

COVID-19 Pandemic. The factors comprising

are not the only ones related to social dilemmas.

justice sensitivity have been shown to promote

Other related factors also need to be controlled.

altruistic behavior (Fetchenhauer & Huang,

On the one hand, prosocial behavior in preventing

2004, Gollwitzer et al., 2009) and third-party

the spread of infections is not necessarily

punishment (Fetchenhauer & Huang, 2004),

altruistically motivated. The self-centered motive

respectively.

of preventing oneself and one’s family members

Additionally, we must consider that the socialfrom being infected should also naturally promoteclimate surrounding COVID-19 continues toinfection prevention behavior (Harper et al. 2020;change rapidly and dynamically. In the early

Wise et al., 2020). On the other hand, the behavior

stages, it was important to focus on the conflictof others strongly influences people’s behavior

between individual and collective benefits, but(Asch, 1951). Information from the mass media

during the vaccination campaign, new problems

and social media is the primary way by which
19

The effects of psychological attitudes on voluntary cooperation against COVID-19: an analysis using a social dilemma framework

YAMAMOTO et alpeople infer the social atmosphere and theJapan. The second-wave survey was conductedbehavior of the majority. Therefore, it is necessary

from 13th to 24th Apr. 2021 and received 987

to consider the influence of media exposure on

valid responses (33.4% female; mean age 49.0).

people’s risk perception and estimation of theComparing the participants who responded tobehavior of others. The relationship between

both Wave 1 and Wave 2 and those who attrited in

COVID-19 prevention behaviors and the media

Wave 2 revealed differences in age (mean = 47.95

has also been researched (Liu et al., 2020; Liu etfor the former, mean = 45.05 for the latter, p<.001).

al., 2021; Chemli et al., 2020;). In today’s society,

There were no significant differences in gender

the influence of not only mass media but also

and the psychological attitudes used in thesocial media is expanding, so the influence offollowing analysis.

social media on COVID-19 prevention behaviors

2-1. Dependent variables

should also be considered (Huynh, L., 2020; Yu,
M. et al., 2021; Allington et al., 2021). It is also

We set the behaviors and norms for dependent

essential to consider what effect each of the twovariables as follows. First, for behavior, we used

types of media will have (Piltch-Loeb et al., 2021).

the responses to the two items “I went out for

Even after controlling for these factors, it isfun” and “I went out for dinner” on the weekend

necessary to examine whether the factors thatof 28th and 29th March 2020, the week before thepromote prosocial behavior in social dilemma

first-wave survey, and set up a dummy variable inenvironments

which those who did either of the two items werestill

affectdeterminantsofdesignated as “not-cooperation” and those who

behavior.
This study has conducted during the first-wave

did neither of the two items were designated assurvey on 3rd Apr. 2020 and the second-wave“cooperation.” Then, in the second-wave survey,

panel survey from 13th to 24th Apr. 2021 to

we set a dummy variable using the same

analyze the changes in the determinants ofmanipulation for the weekend of 10th and 11th

people’s behavior over time. In both two periods,

Apr. 2021.

no state of emergency declaration was in place,For behavioral intentions, we adopted two

so there were minimal restrictions on daily life.

items using a 5-point scale: “Assuming the

However, after both surveys, a state of emergency

current situation continues, will you refrain fromwas declared. In other words, these surveys weregoing out this weekend?” and “If the current

conducted when there were minimal restrictions

situation continues, how much do you plan toon behavior, but the number of reported

refrain from going out on weekends in the next

infections was increasing.

month?” The score of behavioral intention was
obtained by the simple addition of two items.

2. Methods

Previous studies have revealed that punishment
and beliefs about punishment positively affectWe conducted the first-wave survey on 3rd

the promotion of cooperation (Fehr and Gächter,

Apr. 2020 (38.3% female; mean age 46.5) among

2002; Yamamoto and Suzuki, 2018). In this study,

2,000 monitors registered with Yahoo! Crowd

we measured punishment norms because, in the

Sourcing, a major crowdsourcing platform inreal world, institutional punishments (Sigmund et20

Journal of Socio-Informatics Vol. 16 No. 1 Sep. 2023

al., 2010) such as a police are used for non-Concretely, it is the psychological tendency tocooperative behavior, and direct observation ofbelieve that positive outcomes such as future

peer punishment behavior is not suitable.

success and rewards will result from prosocial

Therefore, as a punishment norm, in response to

behaviors such as effort and helping others.

the question, “How do you feel about people who

Alternatively,

go out on unnecessary and not urgent errands?”,

corruption and negligence will result in future

we asked three questions on a five-point scale:

failure and punishment. There is a positive“The public should condemn them,” “Theycorrelation between the belief in a just world andshould be punished with a fine,” and “Theyaltruistic behavior (Miller, 1977; Zuckerman,

should be allowed to do so because of their1975). The belief in a just world is composed ofindividual circumstances” (reversal item). The

two sub-concepts: belief in ultimate justice (BUJ)

score of punishment norm was obtained by theand belief in immanent justice (BIJ). BUJ is thesimple addition of the three items.

belief that present misfortune or bad luck will be

antisocial

behaviorsuchascompensated for positively in the future, while

2-2. Independent variables

BIJ is the belief that present injustice or

We have adopted a representative set of wellknown

psychologicalattitudes

thatwrongdoing will be rewarded negatively in theaffectfuture. Recently, a relationship between mental

prosocial behavior. The first is generalized

health and a belief in a just world has been shown

reciprocity and generalized trust (Yamagishi and(Wang et al., 2021). We adopted the eight items

Yamagishi, 1994; Yamagishi and Kiyonari, 2000).

developed by Murayama and Miura (2015) for

It is known that people with high levels of these

the belief in a just world.

two are more likely to engage in prosocial

Third, we adopt justice sensitivity (Schmitt etbehavior. To measure generalized trust, subjectsal., 2010). The justice sensitivity scale has been

were asked to rate two items: “Most people areused to examine cooperative and non-cooperative

trustworthy” and “Most people trust others.” Abehavior in the real world as well as in thesubject’s score on generalized trust was obtainedlaboratory. There are four sub-concepts of justiceby the simple addition of the two items’ scores.

sensitivity: victim, observer, beneficiary, andTwo statements on a questionnaire were used toperpetrator. Their respective meanings are asmeasure the subjects’ level of reciprocity. Theirfollows: susceptibility to loss from an unfair event,overall score was obtained by the simple addition

susceptibility to knowing about an unfair event asof the scores of the responses to the twoa third party, susceptibility to passively benefiting

statements. The two items used to calculate

from an unfair event, and susceptibility to actively

reciprocity were: “When someone helps me, Icausing an unfair event. For a scale, we adopted

also help someone else,” and “I believe that goodthe shortened version (8 items) created by thethings eventually come back to me when I am

Japanese version of the Justice Sensitivity Scalekind to others.”(Jessica Tham, et al., 2019). In addition to theSecond, we have focused on a belief in a justabove factors, many other variables influenceworld, which is a cognitive bias that leads people

prosocial behavior and punishment norms, but into believe that the world is fair (Lerner, 1980).

this study, we focused on the three factors
21

The effects of psychological attitudes on voluntary cooperation against COVID-19: an analysis using a social dilemma framework

mentioned above, which are well known as

YAMAMOTO et al

3. Results

determinants of prosocial behavior.
Finally, we introduce the influence of media

In the first step of the analysis, we have

exposure. It is natural to think that not only

checked the independent variables. Factor

psychological attitudes but also information fromanalysis of two items each for generalized

the surrounding environment impact people’s

reciprocity and generalized trust revealed a one-behavior. In particular, the COVID-19 Pandemic

factor structure (α=.72 and α=.83, respectively),

has been one of the most important news items

and the simple summary of the two was adopted

worldwide since the beginning of 2020. We asked

as the variable. For belief in a just world, a two-

how much information about COVID-19 people

factor structure, the same as that in previous

had seen or heard in the media, dividing thesestudies (Murayama and Miura, 2015), was

two types of media into mass media and social

confirmed, and BUJ (α=.93) and BIJ (α=.91) weremedia. In the context of public health, it has been

extracted. Since previous research on justice

pointed out that the third-person effect is a factor

sensitivity (Jessica Tham, et al., 2019) has argued

in determining people’s behavior (Lee and Park,

that the validity of the short version is generally2016). The third-person effect refers to therobust, and since the purpose of this study wastendency for people to perceive mass media

not to examine the validity of the scale, the simple

messages as having a more significant impact on

addition of two items from each of the fourothers than on themselves (Davison, 1983).

proposed factors was adopted as the variable.

On the one hand, for mass media exposure,

The alpha coefficients of victim, observer,

subjects were asked how much information

beneficiary, and perpetrator are α=.61, α=.77,

about COVID-19 they had seen or heard in each

α=.75, and α=.77, respectively.

of the following media: newspapers, television,

The distribution of the dependent variable

news websites operated by newspapers, and“behavior” is shown in Table 1. As a result of theYahoo! News. The simple addition of the results

exact binomial test for the values of the first andwas used. On the other hand, subjects weresecond waves, the cooperative behavior of theasked the degree of exposure to social media

first wave was significantly higher (p=0.04).

services such as Facebook, Twitter, LINE, andThus, cooperative behavior decreased between

YouTube for social media exposure.

the two waves. The distribution of the dependent

For the third-person effect, subjects responded

variable “behavioral intention” is shown in Figure

to two items: “How much do you think the

1. The results of the one-factor ANOVA show that

average citizen’s opinion about refraining fromthe intention to go out has also increased

going out is influenced by the media and their(F(1,986)=63.08, p=.00, η2=.06), indicating thatsurroundings?” and “How much of your own

people’s behavioral inhibition has attenuatedopinion is influenced by the media?” The former

over the past year. Finally, the distribution ofminus the latter was adopted as a variable. Thispunishment norms is shown in Figure 2.

variable becomes larger the more the subject

Punishment norms also decreased in the second

thinks that others are more influenced thanwave (F(1,986)=112.66, p=.00, η2=1.03).
What factors determined behavior, behavioral

themselves by the media.
22

Journal of Socio-Informatics Vol. 16 No. 1 Sep. 2023

Table 1. Results of first-wave and second-wave behaviors (number of people)

First-wave

Cooperation

Notcooperation

Total

641

72

713

152

122

274

793

194

987

Cooperation (staying
home)
Not-cooperation (went
out)
Total

Second-wave

10
9
8
7
first-wave

6

second-wave

5
4
3
2

behavioral intention

Figure 1. Results of ANOVA (behavioral intentions). The verticalaxis shows simple addition of behavioral intention items.
Minimum value is two; maximum is ten. The error bars
show standard errors.
intention, and punishment norm? Moreover, diddependent

the determinants change over the year? We

observe the determinants of the dependent

conducted multiple regression analysis using thevariable in each period. In Model 3, the second-

first and second waves of data to answer thesewave data were used as the dependent variable,

questions. Since the change in psychologicaland the first wave data were used as the control

attitudes is considered slight, we adopted thevariable. This model enables us to observe

data from the first wave for psychologicalchanges over one year. COVID-19 does not

attitudes (trust, reciprocity, a belief in a justthreaten everyone equally. For example, theworld, and justice sensitivity). Models 1 and 2elderly and those with underlying diseases will

have the first- and second-wave responses as thebe more likely to take proactive preventive
23

variables,

respectively.

We

can

The effects of psychological attitudes on voluntary cooperation against COVID-19: an analysis using a social dilemma framework

YAMAMOTO et al

15
13
11
first-wave

9second-wave

7
5
3

punishment norm

Figure 2. Results of ANOVA (punishment norm). The vertical axis
shows simple addition of punishment norm items.
Minimum value is three; maximum is fifteen. The error
bars show standard errors.
actionsforself-protection.

The

subjective

inhibited from going out than the first wave.

infection risk might have a significant impact on

Since, BIJ is the belief that one will be sanctioned

people’s behavior. Therefore, we introduced thein the future for one’s present wrongful behavior,subjective risk of infection as a control variable.

people avoided going out as reported cases wereTable 2 reports odd ratios (ORs) from logistic

rising because they perceived it as antisocial

regressions with behavior as the dependent

behavior. As for justice sensitivity, “perpetrator

variable. First, women tend to go out less thansensitivity” consistently had a positive effect. The

men. Reciprocity had a positive effect only during

perception of not wanting to be a perpetrator who

the first wave, and BUJ consistently had ainfects others through one’s own going out

negative effect. Furthermore, BUJ has ainhibits one from going out. Naturally, thetransformative effect on curtailment: it is theperception of one’s own risk has a positive effectbelief that present misery will be compensatedon inhibiting going out. However, media contact

for in the future. Therefore, it can be considered

did not affect behavioral change.

that the more people believe that they are

Next, we analyze “behavioral intention.” Table

currently forced to endure hardship, the more

3 reports β from ordinary least squares

they perceive that they are justified in going out.

regressions (OLS). For behavior, the tendency to

The BIJ, on the other hand, has a positive effect

not go out was stronger among women. In

on discouraging going out in the second wave

addition, older people intended not to go out. The

and also has the effect of making people moresame as behavior, reciprocity had a positive effect24

Journal of Socio-Informatics Vol. 16 No. 1 Sep. 2023

Table 2. Effects of psychological attitudes and media exposure on behaviors by logistic regressions.

Model 1Model 2Model 3ORs
Behavior in the firstwave (dummy variable:

7.103 ***

cooperation=1)
Control variables

Trust and reciprocity
Belief in a just world

Justice sensitivity

Media exposure

Age

1.008

1.015 *

1.014

Gender (female=1)

2.037 ***

1.462 **

1.177

Subjective infection risk

1.157 ***

1.223 ***

1.240 ***

Generalized trust

1.063

1.075

1.061

Reciprocity

1.148 **

1.011

0.961

BUJ

0.929 ***

0.934 ***

0.947 **

BIJ

1.014

1.065 **

1.071 **

Victim

0.93

0.909 **

0.920 *

Observer0.889 **

1.091 *

1.152 **

Beneficiary

0.983

0.96

0.955

Perpetrator

1.132 **

1.122 ***

1.086 *

Mass media exposure

0.987

0.987

0.994

Social media exposure

0.994

0.989

0.989

Third-person effect

0.962

1.006

0.96

Constant

0.834

0.171 ***

0.041 ***

Pseudo R2

0.07

0.06

0.162

Log likelihood-454.81-547.78-488.52

only in the first wave. However, the effect of astrengthened the intention to go out. Exposure tobelief in a just world was weaker than the effectmass media increased the perception of infection

on behavior; BIJ was not statistically significant,risk and reinforced people’s intention not to go

although BUJ tended to have a negative effect. As

out. The third-person effect also has a negativefor fairness sensitivity, beneficiary sensitivity

effect. This result means that people who thinkstrengthened the intention to reduce going out.

that others are more influenced by the media

Perception of one’s own infection risk alsothan themselves tended to intend to go out.
25

The effects of psychological attitudes on voluntary cooperation against COVID-19: an analysis using a social dilemma framework

YAMAMOTO et al

Table 3. Effects of psychological attitudes and media exposure on behavioral intentions by OLS.

Model 1Model 2Model 3βBehavioral intention in

0.290***

the first-wave
Control variables

Trust and reciprocity
Belief in a just world

Justice sensitivity

Media exposureAge

0.086***

0.064*

0.037

Gender (female=1)

0.062**

0.042

0.016

Subjective infection risk

0.303***

0.268***

0.239***

Generalized trust

0.008

0.002

0.005

Reciprocity

0.077**

0.070*

0.043

BUJ-0.046-0.084**-0.072*

BIJ

0.026

0.022

0.012

Victim-0.048-0.057-0.04

Observer

0.044

0.043

0.031

Beneficiary-0.087**0.058

0.079**

Perpetrator

0.024

0.016

0.005

Mass media exposure

0.057*

0.076**

0.058*

Social media exposure

0.073**

0.057*

0.036

Third-person effect-0.085***-0.102***-0.088***

R2

0.158

0.139

0.217

adj. R2

0.146

0.127

0.205

Finally, we analyze the determinants ofresult means that those who believe that theirpunishment norms. Table 4 also reports β fromcurrent misfortune will eventually be positively

ordinary least squares regressions (OLS).

rewarded will avoid punishing others, while

Gender and age had no significant effect. As in

those who believe that their current injustice will

the previous analyses, reciprocity has a positive

eventually be negatively sanctioned will be more

effect only in the first wave. As for the belief in awilling to punish others. Victim sensitivity had ajust world, BUJ has a negative effect, and BIJ has

positivea positive effect. In addition, both have an effect

Perception of one’s own infection risk had ain the direction of reinforcing the tendency. Thisconsistently strong positive effect on punishment26

effectonthepunishment

norm.

Journal of Socio-Informatics Vol. 16 No. 1 Sep. 2023

Table 4. Effects of psychological attitudes and media exposure on punishment norms by OLS.

Model 1Model 2Model 3βPunishment norm in the

0.343***

first-wave
Age

0.02

0.05

0.04

Gender (female=1)-0.008-0.022-0.028

Subjective infection risk

0.285***

0.212***

0.188***

Trust and

Generalized trust

0.019-0.024-0.024

reciprocity

Reciprocity

0.097**-0.019-0.057

Belief in a just

BUJ

-0.106*** -0.119*** -0.086**

world

BIJ

0.04

0.129***

0.113***

Victim0.132***

0.127***

0.085**

Observer-0.090**-0.076*-0.043

Beneficiary

0.023

0.071*

0.057

Perpetrator-0.008-0.044-0.048Mass media exposure

0.013-0.007-0.013Social media exposure

0.073**

0.028

0.002

Third-person effect-0.099*** -0.091*** -0.078***

R2

0.133

0.0982

0.21

adj. R2

0.12

0.0853

0.198

Control variables

Justice sensitivity

Media exposure

4. Summary

norm. Media exposure did not have a significant
effect. The third-person effect has a negative
effect. This means that people who believe thatIn this paper, we analyzed changes in theothers are more influenced by the media thandeterminants of behavior and norms during athemselves have weaker norms for punishingpandemic by surveying the same subjects at twoothers.

time points: early in the COVID-19 Pandemic andone year later. In particular, this paper considers
restraint from going out as prosocial behavior
and attempts to analyze it within the framework
27

The effects of psychological attitudes on voluntary cooperation against COVID-19: an analysis using a social dilemma frameworkof a social dilemma.

YAMAMOTO et al“sensitivity to one’s own loss.” These findings

Generalized trust and reciprocity have beensuggest that emphasizing prosociality andknown to have positive effects on prosocial

altruismbehavior in many studies. However, in the present

cooperation in the early stages of the pandemic

study, reciprocity had positive effects on prosocial

but that policies emphasizing fairness are

behavior, intention of prosocial behavior, andnecessary after the infections have become

punishment norms, in the first wave, but thesewidespread. By continuously researching theeffects disappeared in the second wave. On thefactors that define people’s behavior, it is possible

other hand, psychological attitudes toward

to obtain a comprehensive picture of the social

fairness, such as the belief in a just world andatmosphere surrounding a pandemic. Thisjustice sensitivity, consistently had an effect on

analysis can guide in developing policies thatpeople’s behavior and norms. As for the belief inpromote prosocial behavior.

effectively

encourages

voluntarya just world, BIJ has a positive effect on prosocial

As for media exposure and third-person effects,

behavior and punishment norms. The belief in a

the effects are limited. Since this survey simply

just world has led to blaming the victim (Correia

measured the amount of exposure throughet al., 2007), and the results of this study also

voluntary responses, more quantitative analysis,suggest a risk of unfairly blaming infected people.

such as analyzing actual media consumption

Regarding justice sensitivity, the results are

history, will be necessary in the future. Influentialconsistent with the intuition that the higher

factors for COVID-19 prevention behavior are notsomeone’s perpetrator sensitivity, the less likely

only social dilemmas but also personality. Somethey are to go out, and the higher someone’s

researchers have focused on the effects ofvictim sensitivity, the higher the punishment

personalities on behavior during the COVID-19

norm.

Pandemic (Qian & Yahara, 2020; Nowak et al.

These results indicate that altruistic attitudes

2020; Makhanova & Shepherd, 2020). In thesuch as reciprocity influenced people’s behavior

future, our research will need to explore a widein the early stage of the pandemic, but that

range of factors. That exploration is planned for

influence of altruism changed as the pandemic

the third wave of panel studies.

continued. On the other hand, attitudes regarding
fairness consistently affected people’s behavior,Notes

behavioral intentions, and punishment norms. In1) The all data of this study are stored in an OSF data

particular, BUJ has consistently had a negative

package titled ‘Data of The effects of psychologicaleffect on cooperative behavior and punishment

attitudes and media exposure on voluntarynorms. BUJ is the belief that “present misfortunes

cooperation against COVID-19’ (Yamamoto, 2022),

should eventually be rewarded.” The result

which can be accessed at the below link.

suggests that people who believe they have been
inconvenienced
voluntary

enoughcooperation.

will
In

refrainfrom

addition,victimhttps://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/P7F3C
2) All experiments were approved by the ethics
committee

sensitivity has a consistently positive effect onofRisshoUniversity,

application

number 02-01 and 03-02.

the punishment norm. Victim sensitivity is

3) 
The

28

authors

acknowledge

Grants-in-Aid

forJournal of Socio-Informatics Vol. 16 No. 1 Sep. 2023
Scientific

Research

18H03498,

19K21570,

Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 999-1005.

19H02376 and 21H01568.

Gürerk, O., Irlenbusch, B., & Rockenbach, B. (2006).
The

Referencescompetitive

advantageofsanctioning

institutions. Science, 312(5770), 108-111.

Allington, D., Duffy, B., Wessely, S., Dhavan, N., &Hardin, G. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science.

Rubin, J. Health-protective behaviour, social media

1968; 162(3859), 1243-1248.

usage and conspiracy belief during the COVID-19

Harper, C.A., Satchell, L.P., Fido, D., & Latzman, R.D.

public health emergency. Psychological medicine.

Functional fear predicts public health compliance2021; 51(10): 1763-1769.

in the COVID-19 pandemic. International journal

Asch, S.E. Effects of group pressure upon theof mental health and addiction. 2020; 1-14.

modification and distortion of judgments. In H.

Harring, N., Jagers, S.C., & Lofgren, A. COVID-19:

Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men;

Large-scale

research(pp. 177-190).

intervention, and the importance of trust. World

Chemli, S., Toanoglou, M., & Valeri, M. The impact ofHuynh, T.L. The COVID-19 risk perception: A survey

Covid-19 media coverage on tourist’s awarenesson socioeconomics and media attention. Econ.

for future travelling. Current Issues in Tourism.

Bull. 2020; 40(1), 758-764.

in

human

relations

Carnegie Press; 1951.

collective

action,government

Development. 2021; 138, 105236.

2020; 1-8.

Jessica Tham, Y., Hashimoto, T., Schmitt, M., &Correia, I., Vala, J., & Aguiar, P. Victim’s innocence,

Karasawa, K. Development of a Japanese versionsocial categorization, and the threat to the belief inof the Justice Sensitivity Inventory (JSI-J). Thea just world. Journal of Experimental Social

Japanese Journal of Psychology. 2019; 90(5), 503-

Psychology. 2007; 43(1), 31-38.
Davison,

W.P.

The

512.

third-person

effectinJohnson, T., Dawes, C., Fowler, J., & Smirnov, O.

communication. Public opinion quarterly. 1983;

Slowing COVID-19 transmission as a social

47(1), 1-15.

dilemma: Lessons for government officials from

Fehr E, Gächter S. Altruistic punishment in humans.

interdisciplinary research on cooperation. Journal

Nature. 2002; 415(6868): 137-40.

of Behavioral Public Administration, 2020; 3(1).

Fetchenhauer, D., & Huang, X. (2004). Justicesensitivity

anddistributive

decisionsJordan, J.J., Yoeli, E., & Rand, D.G. Don’t get it orin

don’t spread it: Comparing self-interested versus

experimental games. Personality and Individual

prosocial motivations for COVID-19 prevention

Differences, 36, 1015-1029.

behaviors. Scientific Reports. 2021; 11(1), 1-17.

Fischer, M., Twardawski, M., Steindorf, L., &Lee, H., & Park, S.A. Third-person effect andThielmann, I. Stockpiling during the COVID-19

pandemic flu: The role of severity, self-efficacy

pandemic as a real-life social dilemma: A person-

method mentions, and message source. Journal of

situation perspective. Journal of Research inhealth communication. 2016; 21(12), 1244-1250.

Personality. 2021; 91, 104075.

Lerner, M.J. The belief in a just world. In M.J. Lerner

Gollwitzer, M., Rothmund, T., Pfeiffer, A., &(Ed.), The belief in a just world. Springer. Boston,

Ensenbach, C. (2009). Why and when justice

MA. pp. 9-30. 1980.

sensitivity leads to pro- and antisocial behavior.

Ling, T., Hoh, G., Ho, C., & Mee, C. Effects of the29

The effects of psychological attitudes on voluntary cooperation against COVID-19: an analysis using a social dilemma framework

YAMAMOTO et al

coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on social

COVID-19 emergency status in Japan: Influence of

behaviours: From a social dilemma perspective.

personality, morality and ideology. PlOS ONE.

Technium Soc. Sci. J. 2020; 7, 312.

2020; 15(7), e0235883.

Liu, L., Xie, J., Li, K., & Ji, S. Exploring how media

Schmitt, M., Baumert, A., Gollwitzer, M., & Maes, J.

influence preventive behavior and excessiveThe

preventive

COVID-19

Validity, Location in the Personality Facet Space,pandemic in China. International Journal of

Demographic Pattern, and Normative Data. Social

Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;

Justice Research. 2010; 23(2), 211-238.

intention

duringthe17(21), 7990.

Justice

Sensitivity

Inventory:

Factorial

Sefton, M., Shupp, R., & Walker, J.M. The effect ofLiu, N., Chen, Z., & Bao, G. Role of media coverage inrewards and sanctions in provision of public

mitigating COVID-19 transmission: Evidence

goods. Economic inquiry. 2007; 45(4), 671-690.

from China. Technological Forecasting and Social

Van Bavel, J.J., Baicker, K., Boggio, P.S., Capraro, V.,

Change. 2021; 163, 120435.

Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., et al. Using social and

Makhanova, A., & Shepherd, M.A. Behavioral

behaviouralsciencetosupport

COVID-19

immune system linked to responses to the threat

pandemic response. Nature human behaviour.

of2020; 4(5), 460-471.

COVID-19.

Personality

andIndividual

Differences. 2020; 167, 110221.

Van Hulsen, M.A., Rohde, K.I., & van Exel, N.J.A.

Milinski, M., & Rockenbach, B. On the interaction ofIntertemporal and Social Preferences predict

the stick and the carrot in social dilemmas. Journal

cooperation in a Social Dilemma: An application inof theoretical biology. 2012; 299, 139-143.

the context of COVID-19 (No. TI 2020-047/I).

Miller, D.T. Altruism and threat to a belief in a justTinbergen Institute Discussion Paper. 2020.

world. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

Van Lange, P., & Rand, D.G. Human Cooperation and

1977; 13, 113-124.

the Crises of Climate Change, COVID-19, andMurayama, A. & Miura, A. Derogating victims andMisinformation. Annual review of psychology.

dehumanizing perpetrators: Functions of two

2021; doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-110044

types of beliefs in a just world. The JapaneseWang, J., Wang, Z., Liu, X., Yang, X., Zheng, M., &Journal of Psychology. 2015; Vol. 86, No. 1, pp. 1-9.

Bai, X. The impacts of a COVID-19 epidemic focus

Nowak, B., Brzoska, P., Piotrowski, J., Sedikides,

and general belief in a just world on individualC., Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M., & Jonason, P.K.

emotions. Personality and Individual Differences.

Adaptive and maladaptive behavior during the2021; 168, 110349.

COVID-19 pandemic: The roles of Dark Triad

Wise, T., Zbozinek, T.D., Michelini, G., Hagan, C.C.,

traits, collective narcissism, and health beliefs.

& Mobbs, D. Changes in risk perception and self-

Personality and Individual Differences. 2020); 167,

reported protective behaviour during the first110232.

week of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United

Piltch-Loeb, R., Savoia, E., Goldberg, B., Hughes, B.,

States. Royal Society open science,. 2020; 7(9),Verhey, T., Kayyem, J., et al. Examining the effect200742.

of information channel on COVID-19 vaccine

Yamagishi, T., & Kiyonari, T. The group as theacceptance. PlOS ONE. 2021; 16(5), e0251095.

container

Qian, K., & Yahara, T. Mentality and behavior inofgeneralized

reciprocity.

Psychology Quarterly. 2000; 116-132.

30

SocialJournal of Socio-Informatics Vol. 16 No. 1 Sep. 2023
Yamagishi,

andYu, M., Li, Z., Yu, Z., He, J., & Zhou, J. Communicationcommitment in the United States and Japan.

T.,&

Yamagishi,

M.

Trust

related health crisis on social media: a case of

Motivation and emotion. 1994; 18(2), 129-166.

COVID-19 outbreak. Current issues in tourism.

Yamamoto, H., & Suzuki, T. Effects of beliefs about

2021; 24(19), 2699-2705.

sanctions on promoting cooperation in a public

Zuckerman, M. Belief in a just world and altruistic

goods game. Palgrave Communications. 2018;

behavior. Journal of Personality and Social

4(1), 148.

Psychology. 1975; 31, 972-976.

31