Efforts to contain the spread of the coronavirus emphasize the central role of citizens’ compliance with self-protective behaviors. Understanding the processes underlying the decision to self-protect is, therefore, essential for effective risk communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the present study, we investigate the determinants of perceived threat and engagement in self-protective measures in the United Kingdom, Italy, and Austria during the first wave of the pandemic. The type of disease (coronavirus vs. seasonal flu) and the type of numerical information regarding the disease (number of recovered vs. number of dead) were manipulated. Participants’ cognitive and emotional risk assessment as well as self-reported engagement in protective behaviors were measured. Results show that worry was the best predictor of perceived threat in all countries. Moreover, a path analysis revealed that worry and perceived threat serially mediated the effect of type of disease on engagement in self-protective behaviors. The numerical framing manipulation did not significantly impact behavior but had a direct effect on worry and an indirect effect on perceived threat. These results are in line with theoretical accounts that identify emotions as a central determinant for risk perception. Moreover, our findings also suggest that effective risk communication during the COVID-19 pandemic should not stress comparisons to other, well-known viral diseases, as this can ultimately reduce self-protective behaviors.

Being able to distinguish between safe and risky options is paramount in making functional choices. However, deliberate manipulation of decision-makers emotions can lead to risky behaviors. This study aims at understanding how affective reactions driven by normatively irrelevant affective cues can interfere with risk-taking. Good and Bad decks of the Iowa Gambling Task have been manipulated to make them unpleasant through a negative auditory manipulation. Anticipatory skin conductance response (SCR) and heart rate variability (HRV) have been investigated in line with the somatic marker hypothesis. Results showed fewer selections from Good decks when they were negatively manipulated (i.e., Incongruent condition). No effect of the manipulation was detected when Bad decks were negatively manipulated (i.e., Congruent condition). Higher anticipatory SCR was associated with Bad decks in Congruent condition. Slower heart rate was found before selections from Good decks in Control and Congruent condition and from Bad decks in Incongruent condition. Differences in heart rate between Bad and Good decks were also detected in Congruent condition. Results shed light on how normatively irrelevant affective cues can interfere with risk-taking.