Too Mild, too Harsh, or Just About Right?

Abstract

Abstract: People around the world reacted differently to measures implemented by governments to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus. Some research showed that people with higher neuroticism, openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and lower extraversion were more supportive of such measures. The present study investigated the differences in personality between individuals who perceived measures as appropriate (AP), too mild (TM), and too harsh (TH), and how these differences were moderated by perceived health risk and measure stringency. The responses of 62,229 participants from 15 countries were analyzed using linear mixed models. Compared to AP, TM was: generally less agreeable; higher in neuroticism and lower in extraversion (both when health risk was perceived); and higher in openness (when the stringency index was at its mean or higher). Relative to AP, TH was lower in neuroticism (when health risk was perceived), higher in extraversion (when health risk was perceived or uncertain), openness (when stringency index was higher than the mean), and conscientiousness (when health risk was perceived and when it was not perceived). Despite the modest effects, these findings help to understand reactions to public health interventions and may be psychologically meaningful in the long term.