Personality and Covid-19 1

PERSONALITY AND COVID-19 1
Adaptive and Dark Personality in the Covid-19 Pandemic:
Predicting Health-behavior Endorsement and the Appeal of Public-health Messages
Complete Version 1.5
May 31, 2020
A peer-reviewed version of this unedited manuscript was accepted (with minor changes)
for publication in Social Psychological and Personality Science.
Pavel S. Blagov, PhD
Whitman College
Notes:
Contact: blagovp@whitman.edu
Disclosure: No known conflicts of interest.
Preregistration and data: https://osf.io/gwk5y
Acknowledgments: Jean-Pierre Rolland, PhD; Alissa Cordner, PhD; Nina Barzachka, PhD;
Kolby D. McKague.
Abstract
Who embraces directions to socially distance, boost hygiene, and protect others during a
pandemic of contagious respiratory disease? Do differently phrased public-health messages
appeal to different people? I based predictions on the five-factor, triarchic psychopathy, and
Dark Triad models of normal-range and dark traits; the extended parallel process model (EPPM);
and schema-congruence theory. In a survey of 502 online participants, normal-range traits (esp.
agreeableness and conscientiousness) predicted endorsement of social distancing and hygiene, as
well as the appeal of health messages in general. Consistent with the EPPM, conscientiousness
and neuroticism had an interaction. Dark traits (esp. psychopathy, meanness, and disinhibition)
predicted low endorsement of health behaviors and the intent to knowingly expose others to risk.
Most participants preferred a message appealing to compassion (“Help protect the
vulnerable...”), but dark traits predicted lower appeal of that message. Personality appears
relevant to epidemiology and public-health communication in a contagious-disease context.

Adaptive and Dark Personality Traits in the Covid-19 Pandemic:
On March 11, 2020, the WHO announced a pandemic of severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS) coronavirus disease (Covid-19). By March 20, all U.S. states had confirmed
Covid-19 cases and announced states of emergency, to which people reacted in diverse ways (So
et al., 2020). Were individual differences at play?
Personality predicts health and health behaviors broadly (Strickhouser et al., 2011), and
disease avoidance may be one reason why traits like cautiousness, conformity, and social
withdrawal have evolved (Lukaszewski & von Rueden, 2015; Schaller & Murray, 2008). Yet
little is known about personality’s links to protective vs. risk behavior germane to infectious
disease, nor is there research on personality and responses to public-health messages (PHMs) in
a pandemic. Who conforms to new hygiene and social distancing norms? What messages work
for whom in helping contain a pandemic? I tested whether general, psychopathy-related, and
dark personality dimensions correlated with people’s endorsement of key health behaviors. I also
tested whether the congruence of PHMs with people’s traits predicted the messages’ appeal.
Health Behavior and Normal-range Personality
Early in the pandemic, authorities appealed to people’s responsibility (e.g., “wash your
hands”), compassion and cooperation (e.g., “protect others, even if your risk is low”), and fear
(e.g., by emphasizing Covid-19’s lethality). Such appeals do not presume individual differences
yet call for behaviors that map readily onto the normal-range personality domains from the five-
factor model (FFM; Digman, 1990).
One such domain, conscientiousness, predicts health-promoting and risk-avoiding
behavior outside pandemic contexts (Roberts et al., 2005). Agreeableness (which entails empathy
and cooperativeness) predicts compliance with social norms for specific health behaviors (e.g., in
physical exercise, driving, sexual activity, alcohol use, and smoking; Malouff et al., 2006).
Neuroticism, usually a health and risk behavior liability (Lahey, 2009), nevertheless may make
people susceptible to “fear appeals” (dire warnings) to change behavior (Awagu & Basil, 2016).
Extraversion likely makes social distancing aversive, and openness may boost health behaviors
by improving perceptions of risk (Trobst et al., 2000). Overall, conscientiousness and
agreeableness, the FFM’s prosocial domains, appear especially likely to predict health and risk
behaviors.
More narrowly, personal hygiene’s links to personality have hardly been studied.
Personality-bound processes like disease worrying (Liao et al., 2011) seemed to predict hygiene
during an influenza pandemic, implicating neuroticism. Extraversion and (low) neuroticism may
predict oral hygiene (Kressin et al., 1999).
Research on non-respiratory communicable diseases and the FFM may inform
predictions about responses to contagious SARS. Aspects of neuroticism, (low)
conscientiousness, and (low) agreeableness may predict HIV risk behavior (Trobst et al., 2002)
and sexually transmitted infection (Mõttus et al., 2012). Would this generalize to SARS?
Furthermore, conscientiousness and agreeableness may predict adaptive behavior in a
pandemic synergistically, as they interact in academic and job performance (Witt et al., 2002).
Additionally, the extended parallel process model (EPPM) of persuasion in PHMs suggests a
synergy between threat sensitivity (entailed in neuroticism) and self-efficacy (linked to
conscientiousness) in predicting people’s fear-appeal susceptibility (Witte, 1992).

Health Behavior and Dark Personality
Apart from the FFM, clinical conceptualizations of maladaptive personality may explain
people’s diverse reactions. Sensation seeking and neuroticism’s clinical manifestations predict
many risk behaviors, including HIV-risk sexual behavior (Kalichman et al., 1998; Razei et al.,
2017); so do antisocial and borderline personality disorder features (Adams et al., 2016; Ladd &
Petry, 2003; Kelley & Petry, 2000). Because it relates to these disorders and sensation seeking,
such findings implicate psychopathy.
Psychopathy is a cluster of characteristics revolving around unempathic callousness
(Verschuere et al., 2018) and including egocentricity, grandiosity, glibness, remorselessness,
deceptiveness, manipulativeness, recklessness, unreliability, and antisociality (Hare, 1996). It
partially overlaps with the other Dark Triad traits (Paulhus & Williams, 2002): narcissism
(which involves more exhibitionism and less disinhibition) and Machiavellianism (which entails
more cynicism and calculated exploitativeness and less grandiosity and disinhibition). Not
unitary, in Patrick et al.’s (2009) triarchic model, psychopathy is the confluence of boldness
(dominance, fearlessness, adventurousness, and stress immunity), disinhibition (lack of
constraint, especially of one’s antisocial impulses), and meanness (callousness and instrumental
exploitativeness).
Psychopathy and, to some extent, narcissism and Machiavellianism, predict not only
antisocial tendencies (including aggression and violence), but also various health behaviors and
outcomes (Hudek-Knezevic et al., 2016; Jonason et al., 2015; Malesza & Kaczmarek, 2019),
including HIV-risk sexual behavior (Hudek-Knezevic et al., 2007). Like the FFM’s normal-range
traits, the Dark Triad has not been studied in relation to PHMs or health-related behaviors in a
SARS pandemic.
Dark Personality and Harm to Others’ Health
If maladaptive personality partially explains reactions to the pandemic and to PHMs, it
matters to public health. For example, it may explain who intentionally spreads, or threatens to
spread, disease – which raises societal concern (Dryer, 2020). Sensation seeking’s link to HIV-
risk behavior in infected persons has such implications (Kalichman et al., 2008; Shuper et al.,
2014). Findings link psychopathy to deliberately misleading sex partners about one’s HIV-
positive status (Benotsch et al., 2012) and narcissism to knowingly putting others at risk of HIV
(Martin et al., 2013). More generally, psychopathy and the Dark Triad correlate with
endorsement of unethical behavior (Pletti et al., 2017; Roeser et al., 2016). During a pandemic,
dark personality may predispose people to dismiss or act contrary to PHMs and endanger others.
Personality and Health Communications
Above, I theorized links between personality and health-related behavior during the
Covid-19 pandemic. Additionally, personality may have applied implications (Ferguson, 2013),
particularly for communicating health advice (Dutta-Bergman, 2003). It may partly explain what
PHMs are persuasive to different people. According to schema-congruence theory (Brock et al.,
1990), people prefer and find more persuasive messages that align with their views of
themselves. This has been suggested in commercial advertising (Chang, 2005; Matz et al., 2017),
antismoking campaigns (Chang, 2009), diabetes education (Lawson et al., 2010), college
drinking (York et al., 2012a), dental-hygiene promotion (Sherman et al., 2008), and condom use
(Noar et al., 2006). If personality is reflected in their self-concept, people may favor messages
that match their self-reported traits.

The Current Study
Given the paucity of research on personality in relation to SARS-protective and risk
behaviors during a pandemic, I tested such relationships using a survey. Measuring actual
behaviors would be preferable, yet self-reported current and intended behaviors provide a
starting point to probe the boundaries of personality theory.
Among the constructs discussed above, conscientiousness, agreeableness, (low)
extraversion, neuroticism, (low) boldness, and (low) disinhibition emerged as candidates to
predict self-reported ongoing social distancing. Conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism,
and low boldness, disinhibition, and psychopathy may predict endorsement of intent for future
social distancing (presumably because of growing knowledge and PHMs about the pandemic).
Conscientiousness, agreeableness, (low) disinhibition, and (low) meanness are likely to predict
intent for future hygiene (to protects not only the self but also others). Psychopathy, meanness,
disinhibition, and Machiavellianism may predict endorsing the willingness to infect others.
Additionally, conscientiousness and agreeableness, and conscientiousness and
neuroticism would interact in predicting current social distancing and future intent for social
distancing (as per prior research cited above and the EPPM).
Per schema-congruence theory, as outlined above, differently phrased PHMs’ appeal
would correlate with personality dimensions: (a) for a “self-centered” message, with narcissism,
meanness, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy; (b) for a “responsible” message, with
conscientiousness and (low) disinhibition; (c) for a “compassionate” message, with
agreeableness, conscientiousness, (low) narcissism, (low) Machiavellianism, (low) psychopathy,
and (low) meanness; (d) for an “avoidant” message, with neuroticism and (low) boldness; and (e)
for a “sociable” message, with extraversion, boldness, and openness.

Method
After pre-registering the study on March 20, I collected data from March 20-23, just after
California and New York (followed by other states) issued shelter-at-home orders. At that time,
Americans had varied and evolving opinions about the pandemic, whether it posed risk to them,
and whether the public was overreacting (Rakich, 2020).
Participants
U.S. Mechanical Turk (MTurk) workers with master status (N = 502), received $2.50 to
complete a 15-min. survey. Expecting small effect sizes and limited by funding, I planned to
obtain 500 cases for .85 power (Algina & Olejnik, 2003) to detect partial correlations of .15 at p
= .01 (one tailed) after data cleaning. I anticipated careless (possibly automated) responding on
MTurk and planned to screen the data for duplicate, automated, and invalid responding before
testing hypotheses. Of 652 people who reached the survey’s end, 616 passed effort checks. Of
them, 562 passed validity checks, 540 passed subsequent inconsistency checks, 503 passed a
completion-time check, and 502 had fully completed all questionnaires (Supplementary
Materials, SMs, Tables S1-S4). No duplicates were evident. Thus, 23% of response sets were
excluded as noncompliant or suspicious. Participants reported being 51% male, 77.5% White,
47.2% single, and 60.4% full-time employed. Age ranged from 21-76 years (M = 41, SD = 11),
and 72.5% denied having health conditions that increase risk from Covid-19 (Table S8).
Measures
Based on WHO and CDC advice for preventing Covid-19’s spread, I listed 10 health
behaviors coinciding with widely popularized advice (Nierenberg, 2020). Conceptually, they
represent social distancing and hygiene. From that list, I wrote two measures to capture self-
reported current and intended future health behaviors. A third questionnaire, with broader
content, was intended to measure covertly participants’ willingness to deliberately put others at
risk (vs. following advice to protect others).
Current Health Behavior (CHB; 10 items) asked participants how much they currently
did each behavior as a precaution against Covid-19 (e.g., “Limit contact with people as much as
possible…”) on a 4-point scale from not at all or never to extremely or always. I expected the
data to be reducible to CHB: Social Distancing and CHB: Hygiene. A principal components
analysis (PCA) corroborated this (Table S5). Thus, although CHB’s internal consistency was
high,  = .89, I reduced its data to two dimensions. Table S10 contains descriptives.
Future Health Behavior (FHB; 14 items) asked participants to rate on a 5-point scale
from extremely likely to not likely at all their likelihood to do each behavior over the next two
weeks. Scales were keyed opposite to CHB’s (and later reversed) for data control purposes. Ten
items paralleled the CHB’s. Four captured more venturous interpersonal contact, from going to a
large gathering to having sex with someone new. I expected the data to be reducible to FHB:
Social Distancing, FHB: Hygiene, and Venturous Behavior. Internal consistency was acceptable,
 = .76, and PCA supported the intended structure (Table S6).
Carrier Scenario (CS; 18 items) asked participants to rate on a 4-point scale (from not
at all to definitely) the likelihood of specific behaviors if they had good reason to think they were
carrying Covid-19. The behaviors ranged from calling ahead prior to seeing a physician, to
wearing a mask, to shaking hands in different situations, to purposefully trying to infect others.
CS ( = 71) was readily reducible to two components (Table S7): Harmful Behavior and
Protecting Others.
PHM Appeal
Participants viewed, in a randomized order, five PHMs written to appeal to different
personalities: Self-centered, Responsible, Compassionate, Avoidant, and Sociable (Appendix
SA). They rated from 0-100 how much each message (a) was persuasive to them, (b) was likely
for them to take seriously, and (c) was likely to affect their behavior. Each PHM’s composite
score was internally consistent ( = .93 - .95). Participants also viewed distinctive lines from
each message with instructions to rank-order the PHMs based on personal appeal.
Personality Dimensions
The Mini-IPIP (MIP; Donnellan et al., 2006) is 20-item form of the International
Personality Item Pool (Goldberg, 1993), developed to maximize short-form validity and factor
separation. It captures the FFM’s general trait domains (Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, etc.).
Participants responded on a 5-point scale from very false to very true. For exploratory purposes, I
computed personality superfactors: Stability, Plasticity, and the General P Factor (Rushton &
Irwing, 2011; Tables S11, S15).
The Abbreviated Measure of Psychopathy (AMP; Semel, 2018) operationalizes the
triarchic psychopathy model with 33-items as a parsimonious alternative to Patrick’s (2010)
longer instrument. It has a 4-point scale from true to false and yields scores on Boldness (e.g., “I
have a very strong and dominating personality”), Meanness (e.g., “It sometimes gives me
pleasure to see someone in pain”), and Disinhibition (e.g., “The saying ‘plan ahead’ is definitely
not for me”). For exploratory purposes, I also employed the overall score.
The Short Dark Triad (SD3; Jones & Paulhus, 2014) is a 27-item measure yielding
scores on Narcissism (e.g., “Many group activities tend to be dull without me”),
Machiavellianism (e.g., “I like to use clever manipulation to get my way”) and Psychopathy
(e.g., “Payback needs to be quick and nasty”). Participants responded on a 5-point scale from
disagree strongly to agree strongly. I also utilized its overall score to estimate the Dark Factor,
D; Moshagen et al., 2020)
Additional Considerations
To minimize the effects of global response sets, I keyed the measures’ scales both ways.
Additionally, about half of the MIP and multiple AMP and SD3 items were reverse-keyed.
Personality questionnaire names were disguised.
I planned to control for gender, age, and presence of health conditions that increase risk
from Covid-19. These could be expected to covary with both personality and pandemic-related
behavior. Extreme responses are of interest when studying maladaptive behavior, so I did not
plan deleting outliers. I adopted  = .01 (one-tailed) for 37 partial-correlation hypotheses (as
noted earlier) and  = .05 for four interaction hypotheses.
Results
Current Health Behavior
As predicted, Agreeableness (rp = .21, p = 2.6-6), Conscientiousness (rp = .18, p = 6.3-5),
and Neuroticism (rp = .12, p = 8.4-3) predicted CHB: Social Distancing (SD; Table 1 includes
CIs). In exploratory analyses (EAs), so did Extraversion (rp = .12, p = 6.1-3) and the FFM
superfactors, especially Stability (rp = .24, p = 4.3-8; Table S16).
Contrary to prediction, Boldness did not predict CHB:SD (rp = -.03, p = 5.9-1; Table 2).
As hypothesized, Disinhibition (rp = -.17, p = 9.5-5) and SD3 Psychopathy did (rp = -.23, p = 1.2-
7
). In EAs, so did Meanness (rp = -.17, p = 1.2-4), Machiavellianism (rp = -.16, p = 3.1-4), overall
AMP Psychopathy (rp = -.15, p = 9.2-4), and SD3 Dark Factor (D; rp = -.14, p = 1.5-3) scores.
Table 1
Partial Correlations between Health Behavior Endorsement and Normal Personality Domains (N = 502).
Mini-IPIP Current Health Behavior Future Health Behavior Carrier Scenario
factors and Social Hygiene Social Hygiene Venturous Harmful Protecting
superfactors Distancing Distancing Behavior Behavior Others
Agreeableness rp/p .21† 2.6E-06 .32† 3.1E-13 .16† 2.4E-04 .32† 2.5E-13 -.01 4.3E-01 -.17† 1.1E-04 .15† 2.7E-04
98% b.c. C.I. [.07 − .34] [.20 − .43] [.02 − .30] [.19 − .44] [-.14 − .10] [-.28 − -.03] [.05 − .26]
Conscientiousness rp/p .18† 6.3E-05 .25† 1.2E-08 .15† 2.6E-04 .24† 4.0E-08 -.12* 2.7E-03 -.07 7.2E-02 .12* 3.0E-03
98% b.c. C.I. [.07 − .28] [.13 − .37] [.03 − .29] [.13 − .35] [-.27 − .02] [-.15 − .01] [.03 − .22]
Neuroticism rp/p .12* 8.4E-03 .22† 6.3E-07 .07 5.7E-02 .18† 1.9E-05 .01 3.9E-01 -.05 1.2E-01 .15† 3.8E-04
98% b.c. C.I. [.01 − .23] [.11 − .32] [-.03 − .18] [.08 − .30] [-.08 − .11] [-.17 − .05] [.04 − .25]
Extraversion rp/p -.12* 6.1E-03 -.22† 4.5E-07 -.12* 3.1E-03 -.22† 5.1E-07 .06 8.1E-02 .09 2.6E-02 -.10 1.1E-02
98% b.c. C.I. [-.23 − -.03] [-.31 − -.13] [-.25 − -.01] [-.33 − -.12] [-.05 − .17] [.00 − .22] [-.21 − .01]
Openness rp/p .10 2.8E-02 .15† 5.4E-04 -.01 4.6E-01 .09 2.7E-02 .02 3.6E-01 -.08 4.4E-02 .09 2.5E-02
98% b.c. C.I. [.00 − .20] [.05 − .25] [-.10 − .09] [-.02 − .20] [-.11 − .12] [-.24 − .10] [-.02 − .20]
Controlling for sex, age, and risk health condition. Shaded: tests with a priori hypotheses. Unshaded: exploratory analyses.
Bootstrap estimation of bias-corrected C.I. with 1000 iterations.
*p < .01 = 1.0E-2, †p < .001 = 1.0E-3.
Table 2
Partial Correlations between Health Behavior Endorsement and Dark Personality Traits (N = 502).
Dark personality Current Health Behavior Future Health Behavior Carrier Scenario
dimensions Social Hygiene Social Hygiene Venturous Harmful Protecting
Distancing Distancing Behavior Behavior Others
AMP Boldness rp/p -.03 5.0E-01 .04 3.3E-01 -.09 2.5E-02 .01 4.9E-01 .11* 7.5E-03 .05 1.5E-01 -.04 1.7E-01
98% b.c. C.I. [-.13 − .07] [-.07 − .16] [-.21 − .05] [-.13 − .13] [.00 − .22] [-.08 − .16] [-.15 − .07]
AMP Meanness rp/p -.17† 1.3E-04 -.24† 5.5E-08 -.20† 2.4E-06 -.28† 1.6E-10 .13* 2.5E-03 .21† 2.0E-06 -.21† 1.9E-06
98% b.c. C.I. [-.29 − -.05] [-.36 − -.11] [-.35 − -.07] [-.41 − -.14] [-.02 − .29] [.07 − .31] [-.31 − -.11]
AMP Disinhibition rp/p -.17† 9.5E-05 -.21† 2.8E-06 -.23† 1.2E-07 -.25† 1.2E-08 .21† 1.2E-06 .19† 1.3E-05 -.19† 6.8E-06
98% b.c. C.I. [-.28 − -.07] [-.32 − -.07] [-.37 − -.08] [-.38 − -.12] [.05 − .36] [.03 − .31] [-.29 − -.09]
SD3 Narcissism rp/p .03 5.6E-01 .08 6.5E-02 .00 4.6E-01 .06 9.7E-02 .03 2.2E-01 .05 1.4E-01 .02 3.2E-01
98% b.c. C.I. [-.08 − .13] [-.03 − .20] [-.11 − .12] [-.06 − .18] [-.07 − .16] [-.06 − .14] [-.09 − .13]
SD3 Machiavellianismrp/p -.16† 3.1E-04 -.19† 1.9E-05 -.13* 2.6E-03 -.17† 5.1E-05 .08 4.6E-02 .10 1.1E-02 -.17† 1.0E-04
98% b.c. C.I. [-.26 − -.06] [-.30 − -.08] [-.26 − -.01] [-.29 − -.06] [-.06 − .23] [.03 − .21] [-.26 − -.07]
SD3 Psychopathy rp/p -.23† 1.2E-07 -.20† 7.0E-06 -.20† 2.3E-06 -.21† 1.1E-06 .18† 4.2E-05 .18† 2.9E-05 -.10 1.1E-02
98% b.c. C.I. [-.34 − -.12] [-.31 − -.07] [-.34 − -.07] [-.33 − -.08] [.01 − .33] [.05 − .28] [-.21 − .00]
Controlling for sex, age, and risk health condition. Shaded: tests with a priori hypotheses. Unshaded: exploratory analyses. Bayesian
estimation of bias-corrected C.I. with 1000 iterations. AMP: Abbreviated Measure of Psychopathy; SD3: Short Dark Triad.
*p < .01 = 1.0E-2, †p < .001 = 1.0E-3.
Future Health Behavior
As predicted, Conscientiousness correlated with FHB:SD (rp = .15, p = 2.6-4). Contrary to
predictions, Neuroticism did not (rp = .07, p = 5.7-2). In EAs, Agreeableness (rp = .16, p = 2.4-4)
and, negatively, Extraversion (rp = -.12, p = 3.1-3) were linked to FHB:SD. As with CHB:SD, the
superfactors Stability (rp = .21, p = 1.6-6) and P (rp = .16, p = 2.4-4) predicted FHB:SD.
As predicted, Disinhibition (rp = -.23, p = 1.2-76) and SD3 Psychopathy (rp = -.20, p = 2.3-
6
) correlated inversely with FHB:SD. Contrary to the hypothesis, Boldness did not (rp = -.09, p =
2.5-2). In EAs, Meanness (rp = -.20, p = 2.4-6), Machiavellianism (rp = -.13, p = 2.6-3), AMP
Psychopathy (rp = -.21, p = 1.3-6), and SD3:D (rp = -.13, p = 2.5-3) predicted lower FHB:SD.
Regarding FHB: Hygiene (H), the hypotheses for Agreeableness (rp = .32, p = 2.5-13) and
Conscientiousness (rp = .24, p = 4.0-8) received support. In EAs, Neuroticism (rp = .18, p = 1.9-5)
and, negatively, Extraversion (rp = -.22, p = 5.1-7) correlated with FHB:H, as did Stability (rp =
.37, p = 6.9-18) and P (rp = .33, p = 2.9-14).
Also supported were the predictions that Meanness (rp = -.28, p = 1.6-10) and
Disinhibition (rp = -.25, p = 2.6-8) would predict FHB:H negatively. In EAs, so did
Machiavellianism (rp = -.17, p = 5.1-5) and Psychopathy (rp = -.21, p = 1.1-6), as did overall AMP
Psychopathy (rp = -.20, p = 2.2-6) and SD3:D (rp = -.11, p = 2.8-3).
In EAs, FHB: Venturous Behavior correlated especially with Disinhibition (rp = .21, p =
1.2-6) and, more generally, overall AMP Psychopathy (rp = .18, p = 2.6-5).
Carrier Scenario: Harmful Behavior
As predicted, Meanness (rp = .21, p = 2.0-6) and Disinhibition (rp = .19, p = 1.3-5), and
SD3 Psychopathy (rp = .18, p = 2.9-5), predicted CS: Harmful Behavior (HB). The result for
Machiavellianism (rp = .10, p = 1.1-2) approached  = .01 (one-tailed) but was non-significant;
however, its 98% C.I. excluded 0, suggesting that it, too, predicted CS:HB. In EAs, so did
overall AMP Psychopathy (rp = .17, p = 4.4-5) and SD3:D (rp = .13, p = 1.5-3), as did
Agreeableness (negatively; rp = -.17, p = 1.1-4).
EAs suggested that CS: Protecting Others (PO) was negatively linked especially to
Meanness (rp = -.21, p = 1.9-6), Disinhibition (rp = -.19, p = 6.8-6), and Machiavellianism (rp = -
.17, p = 1.0-4).
Interactions
As predicted, Conscientiousness and Neuroticism interacted ( = -0.11, p = 8.0-3; Table
3) in predicting CHB:SD (after controlling for age, gender, and health risk). Specifically,
CHB:SD (corrected for age, gender, and risk) was less correlated with Neuroticism ( = -0.01) at
lower Conscientiousness levels than at higher ones (M = 3.6, SD = 0.78,  = -.20). The
hypothesis that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism would interact in predicting FHB:SD ( = -
0.06, p = 2.0-1) was not supported.
The hypothesis that Conscientiousness and Agreeableness interact to predict FHB:SD
received support at  = .05 ( = 0.09, p = 2.9-2), but the 95% C.I. for b included 0, rendering this
inconclusive. It raises the possibility that Conscientiousness and Agreeableness may predict
FHB:SD synergistically, Conscientiousness predicting FHB:SD slightly less well at higher ( =
0.12, p = 7.4-2) than lower ( = 0.17, p = 4.3-3) Agreeableness levels. The hypothesis that
Conscientiousness and Agreeableness would interact in predicting CHB:SD did not receive
support ( = -0.05, p = 2.9-1).

Table 3
Tests of Interactions between Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness and Neuroticism, in Predicting Social
Distancing Endorsement (N = 502)
Model Step 21 Predictors R Adj. R p  p b 95% b.c. C.I. VIF DW
1 Current Social Conscientiousness (C) .35† .111† 5.8E-12 0.14† 1.2E-3 0.08 0.03 – 0.04 1.04 2.03
Distancing Agreeableness (A) 0.18† 6.1E-5 0.10 0.04 – 0.16 1.11
Interaction: C x A -0.05 2.9E-1 -0.02 -0.09 – 0.03 1.02
2 Current Social Conscientiousness (C) .33† .096† 2.7E-10 0.16† 5.1E-4 0.09 0.03 – 0.15 1.11 2.08
Distancing Neuroticism (N) -0.08 6.6E-2 -0.05 -0.11 – 0.01 1.17
Interaction: C x N -0.11† 8.0E-3 -0.06 -0.11 - -0.01 1.01
3 Future Social Conscientiousness (C) .31† .085† 4.2E-9 0.12† 4.5E-3 0.10 0.01 – 0.18 1.04 1.99
Distancing Agreeableness (A) 0.13† 5.5E-3 0.10 0.02 – 0.20 1.11
Interaction: C x A -0.09* 2.9E-2 -0.07 -0.15 – 0.04 1.02
4 Future Social Conscientiousness (C) .28† .070† 2.1E-7 0.13† 4.3E-3 0.11 0.01 – 0.21 1.11 2.08
Distancing Neuroticism (N) -0.09 5.7E-2 -0.07 -0.16 – 0.01 1.17
Interaction: C x N -0.06 2.0E-1 -0.04 -0.16 – 0.07 1.01

1Each model controls for age, gender identity, and health risk status in the previous step omitted for brevity. All predictors were
centered. Bootstrap estimation of bias-corrected C.I. based on 1000 iterations. Shaded are tests of hypothesized interactions. VIF:
Variance inflation factors; DF: Durbin-Watson statistic. *p < .05 = 5.0E-2, †p < .01 = 1.0E-2.
Running head: PERSONALITY AND COVID-19 17
Public-health Messages
All PHMs received high mean ratings (Table S10). The mean appeal of the
Compassionate (highest, M = 84, SD = 19.4) and Sociable (lowest, M = 66, SD = 28.7) messages
differed from the rest (Figure S1), FRM(1, 501) = 102, p < 2.73-79, partial 2 = .17 (large effect).
The hypotheses that PMH1: Self-centered’s appeal would correlate positively with
Meanness (rp = -.14 , p = 1.2-3 ), Narcissism (rp = .08 , p = 3.6-2 ), Machiavellianism (rp = -.11 , p
= 5.5-3 ), and SD3 Psychopathy (rp = -.14 , p = 1.1-3 ) did not receive support. These associations
were mostly negative. Adaptive traits, e.g., the superfactors Stability (rp = .27 , p = 7.1-10 ),
Plasticity (rp = .17 , p = 9.7-5 ), and P (rp = .26 , p = 2.2-9) predicted this and all other PMHs’
appeal (Tables 4, S17).
The hypotheses that PMH2: Responsible’s appeal would correlate with
Conscientiousness (rp = .15 , p = 4.6-4) and Disinhibition (rp = -.11, p = 7.1-3) received support.
However, as was generally the case for MPHs, its appeal also correlated with other traits:
positively with adaptive and negatively with maladaptive ones.
The hypotheses that PMH3: Compassionate’s appeal would be predicted by
Agreeableness (rp = .37, p = 5.6-18) and Conscientiousness (rp = .17, p = 8.0-5) and, negatively, by
Meanness (rp = -.31, p = 3.3-13), Machiavellianism (rp = -.23, p = 1.6-7), and SD3 Psychopathy (rp
= -.26, p = 2.5-9) received support; the hypothesis that it would correlate negatively with
Narcissism (rp = -.04, p = 2.0-1) did not. In EAs, PMH3 appeal correlated also with Openness (rp
= .15, p = 3.3-4), Disinhibition (rp = -.24, p = 1.7-8), and all superfactors.
As predicted, Neuroticism correlated with PMH4: Avoidant’s appeal (rp = .13, p = 2.2-3)
but also with all other PMHs, and PMH4 had a stronger correlation with Agreeableness (rp = .24,
p = 2.7-8). Contrary to expectations, Boldness did not predict PMH4 ratings (rp = .01, p = 4.6-1).
Table 4
Partial Correlations between Public-health Message Appeal and Personality Traits (N = 502).
Personality Public-health Message Appeal
dimensions Self-centered Responsible Compassionate Avoidant Sociable
MIP A rp/p 0.26† 2.7E-09 .29† 3.6E-11 .37† 5.6E-18 .24† 2.7E-08 .21† 6.5E-07
98% b.c. C.I. [0.13 − .38] [.16 − .41] [.26 − .48] [.11 − .37] [.09 − .35]
MIP C rp/p 0.18† 3.1E-05 .15† 4.6E-04 .17† 8.0E-05 .14† 6.2E-04 .09 2.5E-02
98% b.c. C.I. [0.08 − .28] [.04 − .25] [.06 − .27] [.02 − .25] [-.03 − .20]
MIP N rp/p 0.16† 1.7E-04 .16† 1.3E-04 .11* 9.5E-03 .13* 2.2E-03 .18† 2.1E-05
98% b.c. C.I. [0.05 − .26] [.06 − .26] [.00 − .21] [.02 − .23] [.07 − .28]
MIP E rp/p -0.13* 2.6E-03 -.11* 6.4E-03 -.11* 6.0E-03 -.09 2.2E-02 -.10 1.4E-02
98% b.c. C.I. [-0.23 − -.02] [-.22 − -.01] [-.23 − .01] [-.20 − .02] [-.22 − .01]
MIP O rp/p 0.10 1.1E-02 .11* 6.1E-03 .15† 3.3E-04 .09 2.1E-02 .06 8.2E-02
98% b.c. C.I. [-0.01 − .20] [.00 − .22] [.05 − .25] [-.02 − .20] [-.05 − .17]
AMP B rp/p 0.02 3.1E-01 .02 3.4E-01 -.07 5.6E-02 .01 4.6E-01 .03 2.6E-01
98% b.c. C.I. [-0.08 − .13] [-.09 − .14] [-.18 − .04] [-.10 − .09] [-.08 − .14]
AMP M rp/p -0.14* 1.2E-03 -.19† 1.3E-05 -.31† 3.3E-13 -.11* 8.3E-03 -.13* 2.3E-03
98% b.c. C.I. [-0.25 − -.02] [-.31 − -.06] [-.42 − -.19] [-.22 − .00] [-.23 − -.03]
AMP D rp/p -0.10* 1.0E-02 -.11* 7.1E-03 -.24† 1.7E-08 -.10 1.6E-02 -.06 1.1E-01
98% b.c. C.I. [-0.20 − .00] [-.21 − -.01] [-.35 − -.13] [-.20 − .00] [-.15 − .03]
SD3 N rp/p 0.08 3.6E-02 .08 3.4E-02 -.04 2.0E-01 .09 2.7E-02 .12* 4.8E-03
98% b.c. C.I. [-0.03 − .18] [-.03 − .18] [-.14 − .06] [-.01 − .18] [.00 − .22]
SD3 Mch rp/p -0.11* 5.5E-03 -.17† 8.9E-05 -.23† 1.6E-07 -.03 2.7E-01 -.05 1.4E-01
98% b.c. C.I. [-0.22 − .00] [-.26 − -.06] [-.32 − -.13] [-.13 − .07] [-.15 − .06]
SD3 P rp/p -0.14* 1.1E-03 -.14† 7.3E-04 -.26† 2.5E-09 -.12* 4.8E-03 -.08 3.5E-02
98% b.c. C.I. [-0.25 − -.03] [-.26 − -.04] [-.36 − -.15] [-.22 − -.02] [-.18 − .02]
Note: Controlling for sex, age, and risk health condition. Shaded: tests with a priori hypotheses.
Unshaded: exploratory. Bootstrapping of bias-corrected C.I. with 1000 iterations. MIP: Mini-
IPIP (A: Agreeableness, C: Conscientiousness, N: Neuroticism, E: Extraversion, O: Openness);
AMP: Abbreviated Measure of Psychopathy (B: Boldness, M: Machiavellianism; D:
Disinhibition); SD3: Short Dark Triad (N: Narcissism, Mch: Machiavellianism, P: Psychopathy).
Note: *p < .01 = 1.0E-2, †p < .001 = 1.0E-3.
No support emerged for the hypotheses that PHM5: Sociable’s appeal would correlate
with Extraversion (rp = -.10, p = 1.4-2), Openness (rp = .06, p = 8.2-2), and Boldness (rp = .03, p =
2.6-1). Instead, like the other PHM’s, PHM5 correlated with Agreeableness (rp = .21, p = .6 5-7)
and Neuroticism (rp = .18 , p = 2.1-5) and, negatively, Meanness (rp = -.13 , p = 2.3-3).
Post Hoc Analyses
Unplanned regression analyses clarified the relative unique contributions of normal-range
and dark traits to key health-related variables (Tables S19-21).
PHM: Compassionate was participants’ top choice by far (n = 208; more than twice as
often as other PHMs). In EAs, participants’ highest-ranked PHM predicted no MIP variables. It
predicted AMP and SD3 scores except Boldness and Psychopathy. For example, Meanness, F(4,
493) = 5.5, p = 2.4-4, partial 2 = .043 (small effect), was lower than average in participants who
ranked PHM: Compassionate the highest, t = -.114, p = 8.5-4, 95% C.I. = [-.18 - -.05].
Disinhibition, Narcissism, and Machiavellianism showed similar patterns.
Discussion
This research extends personality theory to differences in people’s reactions to a
pandemic of communicable SARS. The five-factor, triarchic psychopathy, and Dark Triad
models informed such questions as: What traits predict intent for social distancing and hygiene,
endorsement of behavior that risks others’ health, and the appeal of differently phrased PHMs?
Such knowledge may aid individual risk prediction (Chapman et al., 2019). It may have applied
implications when a minority of people dismisses conventional PHMs (de Bruin et al., 2020).
Twenty-four of 40 hypotheses received support. This was true particularly for hypotheses
using trait theory to predict people’s self-reported current and intended future health behavior, as
well as risks they may create for others. Although most correlations were small (a few were
medium), they may reflect meaningful patterns in behavior over time. Self-reported traits predict
trait-relevant behavior (Fleeson & Gallagher, 2009), including health behaviors sampled in real
time (Kroencke et al., 2019). Furthermore, behavioral intentions likely predict actual behavior
(Webb & Sheeran, 2006). The results probably reflect true trait-behavior connections.
Normal-range Personality
Regarding the FFM, eight of 11 hypotheses received support. In planned and exploratory
analyses, agreeableness and conscientiousness predicted endorsement of social distancing and
hygiene. This agrees with prior literature on health (Strickhouser et al., 2011), health behaviors
(Roberts et al., 2005), and non-respiratory contagions (Mõttus et al., 2012). Neuroticism may
play a small role in hygiene intent, whereas extraversion’s negative links to social distancing and
hygiene vanished after controlling for other traits. Consistent with the EPPM (Witte, 1992),
conscientiousness and neuroticism interacted in predicting adaptive responses to the pandemic
(perhaps by increasing susceptibility to PHMs). Somewhat consistent with prior research on
work and school behavior, conscientiousness and agreeableness showed a trend toward a
synergistic interaction.
If such findings replicate, future research should address mechanisms behind them. Such
mechanisms may include the empathic concern for others and flexibility in interpersonal
behavior entailed in agreeableness (Graziano & Tobin, 2017) and the industrious self-efficacy
and self-regulation involved in conscientiousness (Jackson & Roberts, 2017).
Dark Personality
Regarding triarchic psychopathy and the Dark Triad, nine of 12 hypotheses received
support. In planned and exploratory analyses, meanness and disinhibition (and overall
psychopathy) as well as Machiavellianism (to a lesser extent) predicted lower intent for social
distancing and hygiene. Together with boldness, the psychopathy traits predicted endorsement of
risky, venturesome behavior (when participants were asked to imagine being disease carriers).
This agrees with research on dark personality in relation to health risk (including non-respiratory
communicable disease; Malesza & Kaczmarek, 2019).
As predicted, meanness and disinhibition (and overall psychopathy, but not boldness)
predicted endorsement of behavior that puts others at risk of infection (knowingly, and perhaps
deliberately). This corroborates the link between psychopathy and unethical everyday behavior
(Benotsch et al., 2012; Pletti et al., 2017). In exploratory analyses, disinhibition related to all
undesirable behaviors, meanness was particularly implicated in putting others at risk, and
boldness may be linked to (adaptive) intent for hygiene. This parallels research (in non-forensic
samples), whereby boldness either does not predict maladaptive or predicts adaptive outcomes
(Berg et al., 2017; Sörman et al., 2016).
Future research may ask whether similar mechanisms explain the links between the two
sets of traits (maladaptive vs. adaptive) and health outcomes. Beyond this project’s scope (see
Limitations), the ability of dark traits to predict health risk behavior incrementally (over and
above normal traits) merits investigation.
Appeal of Public-health Messages (PHMs)
Knowledge of the kind presented above becomes useful if it can inform public-health
interventions, e.g., to limit a pandemic. As noted earlier, researchers are testing personality
theory’s ability to inform the tailoring of effective communication in applied contexts. I tested
whether personality predicted participant’s ratings of differently phrased PHMs.
This was, indeed, the case, but not always in the predicted manner. Only eight of 17
predictions received support. This may reflect methodological limitations. For example, the
PHMs may not have been congruent with the self-schemas they were meant to match, or schema-
congruence theory cannot encompass self-reported traits and trait-congruent PHMs (York et al.,
2012b).
Agreeableness and conscientiousness predicted the appeal of the Compassionate PHM
(“Help protect the vulnerable!”), conscientiousness of the Responsible message (“Take personal
responsibility!”), and neuroticism of the Avoidant message (“Avoid the disease!”). Psychopathy,
meanness, and Machiavellianism negatively predicted the Compassionate message’s appeal.
However, such findings were message-nonspecific: Overall, adaptive traits predicted PHM’s
appeal, and maladaptive traits predicted their non-appeal.
Participants typically chose the Compassionate message over others (including the Self-
centered one: “Keep yourself healthy!”). This parallels finding that appeals to altruism improve
hygiene in analog (Betsch et al., 2013) and real-life (Grant & Hofmann, 2011) experiments. Yet,
ranking the Compassionate message as most effective was linked to lower meanness,
disinhibition, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. Thus, appeals to altruism may work for most
people but might backfire in antagonistic individuals.
Limitations
The influential personality models that informed this study are not free of potentially
controversial assumptions (e.g., Watts et al., 2017). For example, Machiavellianism and
psychopathy may not be truly separable (Miller et al., 2016). Indeed, their scores were highly
intercorrelated and had similar associations with health-behavior endorsement. The models
imply separation between normal-range vs. maladaptive traits. However, much of the personality
variation they encompass may be due to a smaller set of underlying traits with wide ranges of
intensity (Hyatt et al., 2020; Lynam & Miller, 2019).

The nonprobability sample and potentially unusual characteristics of MTurk participants
may raise concerns. Reviews of studies on MTurk in personality research (e.g., Chandler &
Shapiro, 2016; Miller et al., 2017) have been favorable regarding the measurement, factor
structures, and construct validity of normal-range and maladaptive traits (including from five-
factor, Dark Triad, and psychopathy-related models).
The sample included participants from across the U.S. However, most represented were
California (13%) and New York (6%), already heavily affected by the pandemic. In conjunction
with the study’s timing, self-selection into research on Covid-19, and the participants’ relatively
high education, the sample’s composition may have affected the results. The most likely impact
is range restriction of the health and risk behavior scores. Indeed, consistent with polls, most
participants highly endorsed health-protective behaviors. Thus, I may have underestimated the
magnitude of trait-behavior correlations, perhaps promoting false negative results. This was
countered by a respectably large sample. Future research, if using similar methods, may benefit
from more sensitive rating scales to mitigate range restriction.
Screening out noncompliant and suspicious responses likely increased measurement
reliability, thus promoting power to obtain true positive results. Conversely, screening may have
limited the range of irresponsible, disinhibited, antagonistic, and deceptive (i.e., psychopathic)
traits, making it harder to detect their links to other variables.
The self-report, cross-sectional, survey method using convenience sampling enabled
rapid data collection at a unique historic moment. It also poses limitations, some of which (e.g.,
measuring intent instead of observing behavior; potential noncompliant responding) have been
noted. I used brief personality measures for practicality; however, by limiting content validity
and measurement reliability (Crede et al., 2012), this may have caused inaccurate estimation
(most likely underestimation) of some correlations. Also by necessity, the health-behavior and
PHM-appeal measures had not been pilot tested or previously validated. Besides age, gender, and
health status, the study did not include potentially relevant predictors or suppressors, such as
Covid-19 knowledge accuracy, misinformation susceptibility, political affiliation (Allyn &
Sprunt, 2020), and regional policies. Furthermore, the measures were acontextual vis-à-vis
interpersonal factors like kinship, in-group/out-group membership, and situational factors that
may interact with personality.
Conclusion
In summary, early in the pandemic, prosocial traits likely facilitated social distancing and
hygiene, and antagonistic traits likely detracted from adaptive behavior and promoted harm to
people’s health. Distinctly antagonistic persons may have disregarded or acted contrary to
public-health appeals for altruistic behavior.
This is an early demonstration that personality may matter in understanding
communicable respiratory disease. More generally, personality has implications for contagious
diseases and public-health communication. The findings, if replicated, may find applications in
public-health messaging, individual risk prediction, and doctor-patient communication.
The results do not mean that it is mostly irresponsible and inconsiderate people who
spread viruses. The correlations were often small, and the traits’ scientific conceptualizations are
not quotidian judgments about character. The results do not mean that people who contract a
disease like Covid-19 have maladaptive traits. The findings do invite further research on
personality in public health.

References
Adams, L.M., Stuewig, J.B., Tangney, J.P. (2016). Relation of borderline personality features to
preincarceration HIV risk behaviors of jail inmates: Evidence for gender differences?
Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7, 40-49.
Algina, J. & Olejnik, S. (2003). Sample size tables for correlation analysis with application in
partial correlation and multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38, 309-
323.
Allyn, B., & Sprunt, B. (2020, March 17). Poll: As coronavirus spreads, fewer Americans see
pandemic as a real threat. National Public Radio. Retrieved from:
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/17/816501871
Awagu, C. & Basil, D.Z. (2016). Fear appeals: The influence of threat orientations. Journal of
Social Marketing, 6(4), 361-376.
Benotsch, E., G., Rodriguez, V.M., Hood, K., Lance, S.P., Green, M., Martin, A.M., & Thrun,
M. (2012). Misleading sexual partners about HIV status among persons living with
HIV/AIDS. Journal of Community Health, 37, 1049-1057.
Berg, J.M., Lilienfeld, S.O., & Sellbom, M. (2017). The role of boldness in psychopathy: A
study of academic and clinical perceptions. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research,
and Treatment, 8(4), 319–328.
Betsch, C., Böhm, R., Korn, L. (2013). Inviting free-riders or appealing to prosocial behavior?
Game-theoretical reflections on communicating herd immunity in vaccine advocacy.
Health Psychology, 32, 978–985.
Brock, T.C., Brannon, L.A., & Bridgwater, C. (1990). Message effectiveness can be increased by
matching appeals to recipient's self-schemas. In S. J. Agres, J. A. Edell, and T. M.

Dubitsky (Eds.), Emotions in advertising: Theoretical and practical explorations, 238-
315. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Brooner, R.K., Greenfield, L., Schmidt, C.W., & Bigelow, G.E. (1993). Antisocial personality
disorder and HIV infection among intravenous drug abusers. The American Journal of
Psychiatry, 150(1), 53–58.
Chandler, J., & Shapiro, D. (2016). Conducting clinical research using crowdsourced
convenience samples. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 53-81.
Chang, C. (2005). Ad-self-congruency effects: Self-enhancing cognitive and affective
mechanisms. Psychology & Marketing, 22(11), 887-910.
Chang, C. (2009). Enhancing the effectiveness of antismoking messages via self-congruent
appeals. Health Communications, 24, 33-40.
Chapman, B.P., Lin, F., Roy, S., Benedict, R.H.B., & Lyness, J.M. (2019). Health risk prediction
models incorporating personality data: Motivation, challenges, and illustration.
Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 10(1), 46-58.
Caspi, A., Begg, D., Dickson, N., Harrington, H., Langley, J., Moffitt, T.E., & Silva, P.A.
(1997). Personality differences predict health-risk behaviors in young adulthood:
Evidence from a longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5),
1052-1063.
Crede, M., Harms, P., Niehorster, S., & Gaye-Valentine, A. (2012). An evaluation of the
consequences of using short measures of the Big Five personality traits. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 102, 874–888.
de Bruin, W.B., Samek, A., & Bennett, D. (2020, March 26). Americans disagree on how risky
the coronavirus is, but most are changing their behaviors anyway. The Conversation.
Retrieved from: https://theconversation.com/americans-disagree-on-how-risky-the-
coronavirus-is-but-most-are-changing-their-behavior-anyway-133991
Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review
of Psychology, 41, 417-440.
Dodoo, N.A., & Wen, J.T. (2019). A path to mitigating SNS ad avoidance: Tailoring messages to
individual personality traits. Journal of Interactive Advertising. Advance online
publication: doi: 10.1080/15252019.2019.1573159
Donnellan, M.B., Oswald, F.L., Baird, B.M., & Lucas, R.E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-
yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological
Assessment, 18, 192-203.
Dryer, C. (2020, March 25). Man faces terror charges after allegedly coughing at worker, then
claiming he’s infected. National Public Radio. Retrieved from:
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/03/25/821371963
Dutta-Bergman, M.J. (2003). The linear interaction model of personality effects in health
communication. Health Communication, 15(1), 101-116.
Ferguson, E. (2013). Personality is of central concern to understand health: towards a theoretical
model for health psychology. Health Psychology Review, 7(S1), S32-S70.
Fleeson, W., & Gallagher, P. (2009). The implications of Big Five standing for the distribution
of trait manifestation in behavior: Fifteen experience-sampling studies and a meta-
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1097–1114.
Goldberg, L.R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.

Goldberg, L.R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the
lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I.J. Deary, F. De Fruyt,
and F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg,
The Netherlands: Tilburg University.
Grant, A.M., & Hofmann, D.A. (2011). It’s not all about me: Motivating hand hygiene among
health care professionals by focusing on patients. Psychological Science, 22(12), 1494–
1499.
Graziano, W.G., & Tobin, R.M. (2017). Agreeableness and the Five Factor Model. In T.A.
Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the Five Factor Model (p. 105–132). Oxford,
U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 23, 25–54.
Harned, M.S., Pantalone, D.W., Ward-Ciesielski, E.F., Lunch, T.R., & Linehan, M.M. (2011).
The prevalence and correlates of sexual risk behaviors and sexually transmitted infections
in outpatients with borderline personality disorder. Journal of Nervous and Mental
Disease, 199, 832-838.
Hudek-Knezevic, J., Kardum, I., & Krapic, N. (2007). HIV-transmission knowledge, five-factor
personality traits, and psychopathy as determinants of risky sexual behaviors. Review of
Psychology, 14(2), 139-152.
Hudek-Knezevic, J., Kardum, I., & Mehic, N. (2016). Dark triad traits and health outcomes: An
exploratory study. Psychological Topics, 25(1), 129-156.

Hyatt, C.S., Crowe, M.L., Donald R. Lynam, & Miller, J.D. (2020). Components of the triarchic
model of psychopathy and the five-factor model domains are largely overlapping
nomological networks. Assessment, 27, 72-88.
Jackson, J.J., & Roberts, B.W. (2017). Conscientiousness. In T.A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of the Five Factor Model, pp. 133–147. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University.
Jonason, P.K., Baughman, H.M., Carter, G.L., & Barker, P. (2016). Dorian Gray without his
portrait: Psychological, social, and physical health costs associated with the Dark Triad.
Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 5-13.
Jones, D.N., & Paulhus, D.L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure
of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28-41.
Kalichman, S.C., Tannenbaum, L., & Nachimson, D. (1998). Personality and cognitive factors
influencing substance use and sexual risk for HIV infection among gay and bisexual men.
Psychology and Addictive Behavior, 12(4), 262-271.
Kalichman, S.C., Simbayi, L., Jooste, S., Vermaak, R., & Cain, D. (2008). Sensation seeking and
alcohol use predict HIV transmission risk. Addictive Behavior, 33(12), 1630-1633.
Kelley, J.L., & Petry, N.M. (2000). HIV risk behaviors in male substance abusers with and
without antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 9, 59-66.
Kressin, N.R., Spiro, A., Bosse, R., & Garcia, R.I. (1999). Personality traits and oral self-care
behavior: Longitudinal findings from the normative aging group. Psychology and Health,
14, 71-85.
Kroencke, L., Harari, G.M., Katana, M., & Gosling, S.D. (2019). Personality trait predictors and
mental well-being correlates of exercise frequency across the academic semester. Social
Science and Medicine, 236. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112400

Ladd, G.T., & Petry, N.M. (2003). Antisocial personality in treatment-seeking cocaine abusers:
Psychosocial functioning and HIV risk. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 24, 323-
330.
Lahey, B.B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist, 64(4),
241-256.
Lawson, V.L.., Bundy, C., Belcher, J., & Narvey, J.N. (2010). Mediation by illness perceptions
of the effect of personality and health threat communication on coping with the diagnosis
of diabetes. British Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 623-642.
Liao, Q., Cowling, B.J., Lam, W.W.T., Fielding, R. (2011). The influence of social-cognitive
factors on personal hygiene practices to protect against influenza: Using modelling to
compare Avian A/H5N1 and 2009 pandemic A/H1N1 influenza in Hong Kong.
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 18, 93-104.
Lukaszewski, A.W., & von Rueden, C.R. (2015). The extraversion continuum in evolutionary
perspective: A review of recent theory and evidence. Personality and Individual
Differences, 77, 186-192.
Lynam, D.R., & Miller, J.D. (2019). The basic trait of Antagonism: An unfortunately
underappreciated construct. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 118-126.
Malesza, M., & Kaczmarek, M.C. (2019). Dark side of health – predicting health behaviors and
diseases with the Dark Triad traits. Journal of Public Health. Advance online publication:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-019-01129-6
Malouff, J.M., Thorsteinsson, E.B., & Schutte, N.S. (2006). The five-factor model of personality
and smoking: A meta-analysis. Journal of Drug Education, 36(1), 47-58.

Martin, A.M., Benotsch, E.G., Lance, S.P., & Green, M. (2013). Transmission risk behaviors in a
subset of HIV-positive individuals: The role of narcissistic personality features.
Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 256-260.
Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G., & Stillwell, D. J. (2017). Psychological targeting as an
effective approach to digital mass persuasion. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 114, 12714–12719.
Miller, J.D., Crowe, M., Weiss, B., Maples-Keller, J.L., & Lynam, D.R. (2017). Using online,
crowdsourcing platforms for data collection in personality disorder research: The
example of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and
Treatment, 8, 26-34.
Miller, J.D., Hyatt, C.S., Maples-Keller, J.L., Carter, N.T., & Lynam, D.R. (2017). Psychopathy
and Machiavellianism: A distinction without a difference? Journal of Personality, 85,
439-453.
Moshagen, M, Zettler, I., & Hilbig, B.E. (2020). Measuring the dark core of personality.
Psychological Assessment, 32(2), 182-196.
Mõttus, R., Realo, A., Allik, J., Esko, T., & Metspalu, A. (2012). History of the diagnosis of a
sexually transmitted disease is linked to normal variation in personality traits. Journal of
Sex Medicine, 9, 2861-2867.
Nierenberg, A. (2020, March 20). How to protect yourself and prepare for the coronavirus. The
New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/article/prepare-for-
coronavirus.html.
Noar, S.M., Zimmerman, R.S., Palmgreen, P., Lustria, M., & Horosewski, M.L. (2006).
Integrating personality and psychosocial theoretical approaches to understanding safer

sexual behavior: Implications for message design. Health Communications, 19(2), 165-
174.
Patrick, C.J. (2010). Operationalizing the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy:
Preliminary description of brief scales for assessment of boldness, meanness, and
disinhibition (Unpublished manual). Tallahassee, FL: Department of Psychology, Florida
State University
Patrick, C., Fowles, D., & Krueger, R. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy:
Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Developmental
Psychopathology, 21, 913-938.
Paulhus, D.L., & Williams, K.M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556-563.
Perkins, D.O., Davidson, E.J., Leserman, J., Duanping, L., & Evans, D.L. (1993). Personality
disorder in patients infected with HIV: A controlled study with implications for clinical
care. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150(2), 309-315.
Pletti, C., Lotto, L., Buodo, G., & Sarlo, M. (2017). It’s immoral, but I’d do it! Psychopathy
traits affect decision-making in sacrificial dilemmas and in everyday moral situation.
British Journal of Psychology, 108, 351-368.
Rakich, N. (2020, March 20). Americans’ views on the coronavirus are shifting fast.
FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved from: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-views-
on-the-coronavirus-are-shifting-fast/
Razei, M., Zakiei, A., Reshadat, S., & Ghasemi, S. (2017). The role of individual and personality
factors in controlling risky behaviours related to AIDS: Proposing a causal model.
Personality and Mental Health, 11, 51-63.

Roberts, B.W., Walton, K.E., & Bogg, T. (2005). Conscientiousness and health across the life
course. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 156-1968.
Roeser, K., McGregor, V.E., Stegmaier, S., Mathew, J., Kübler, A., & Meule, A. (2016). The
Dark Triad of personality and unethical behavior at different times of day. Personality
and Individual Differences, 88, 73-77.
Rushton, J.P., & Irwing, P. (2011). The general factor of personality: Normal and abnormal. In
T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. von Stumm, and A. Furnham (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell
Handbook of Individual Differences, pp. 132-161. Hoboken, N.J.: Blackwell.
Schaller, M., & Murray, D.R. (2008). Pathogens, personality, and culture: Disease prevalence
predicts worldwide variability in sociosexuality, extraversion, and openness to
experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 212-221.
Semel, R.A. (2018). The Abbreviated Psychopathy Measure (AMP): Two pilot studies of a brief
measure of psychopathy traits. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 10(2), 41-
58.
Sherman, D.K., Updegraff, J.A., & Mann, T. (2008). Improving oral health behavior. Journal of
the American Dental Association, 139(10), 1382-1387,
Shuper, P.A., Joharchi, N., & Rehm, J. (2014). Personality as a predictor of unprotected sexual
behavior among people living with HIV/AIDS: A systematic review. AIDS and Behavior,
18, 398-410.
So, L., Tanfani, J., Cocks, T., & Kelly, T. (2020, March 20). Coronavirus spreads fear, isolation,
death to elderly worldwide. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-
health-coronavirus-elderly-insight/coronavirus-spreads-fear-isolation-death-to-elderly-
worldwide-idUSKBN2172N8.
Sörman, K., Edens, J.F., Toney Smith, S., Clark, J.W., Kristiansson, M., & Svensson, O. (2016).
Boldness and its relation to psychopathic personality: Protoypicality analyses among
forensic mental health, criminal justice, and layperson raters. Law and Human Behavior,
40(3), 337-349.
Strickhouser, J.E., Zell, E., & Krizan, Z. (2017). Does personality predict health and well-being?
A metasynthesis. Health Psychology, 36(8), 797–810.
Trobst, K.K., Wiggins, J.S., Costa, P.T., Herbst, J.H., McCare, R.R., & Masters, H.L. (2000).
Personality psychology and problem behaviors: HIV risk and the five-factor model.
Journal of Personality, 68(6), 1233-1252.
Trobst, K.K., Herbst, J.H., Masters, H.L., & Costa, P.T. (2002). Personality pathways to unsafe
sex: Personality, condom use, and HIV risk behavior. Journal of Research in Personality,
36, 117-133.
Verschuere, B., van Ghesel Grother, S., Waldorp, L., Watts, A.L., Lilienfeld, S.O., Edens, J.F.,
Skeem, J.L., & Noordhof, A. (2018). What features of psychopathy might be central? A
network analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) in three large samples.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127, 51-65.
Watts, A.L., Waldman, I.D., Smith, S.F., Poore, H.E., & Lilienfeld, S.O. (2017). The nature and
correlates of the Dark Triad: The answer depends on the questions. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 126, 951-968.
Webb, T.L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior
change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2),
249-268.
Witt, L.A., Burke, L.A., Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (2002). The interactive effects of
conscientiousness and agreeableness on job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(1), 164–169.
Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model.
Communication Monographs, 59, 329-349.
York, V.K., Brannon, L.A., & Miller, M.M. (2012a). Increasing the effectiveness of messages
promoting responsible undergraduate drinking. Health Communications, 27(3), 302-309.
York, V.K., Brannon, L.A., & Miller, M.M. (2012b). Marketing responsible drinking behavior:
Comparing the effectiveness of responsible drinking messages tailored to three possible
“personality” conceptualizations. Health Marketing Quarterly, 29, 29-65.

Running head: PERSONALITY AND COVID-10 Supplementary 1
Supplementary Materials
for
Adaptive and Dark Personality in the Covid-19 Pandemic:
Manuscript under Review
Complete Version 1.5
May 31, 2020
Pavel S. Blagov, PhD
Whitman College
PERSONALITY AND COVID-19 Supplementary Materials 2
Table of Contents
Table S1: Distribution of Effort Check Data ...................................................................................3
Table S2: Distribution of Invalid Responding Data ........................................................................4
Table S3: Distribution of the Inconsistency Check Data .................................................................5
Table S4: Distribution of Completion Times Below the Median ....................................................6
Table S5: Principal Components Analysis of Current Health Behavior (CHB) ..............................7
Table S6: Principal Components Analysis of Future Health Behavior (FHB) ................................8
Table S7: Principal Components Analysis of Carrier Pretend Scenario Ratings (CPS)..................9
Table S8: Participant Characteristics ........................................................................................10
Table S9: Self-reported Location by U.S. State .............................................................................11
Table S10: Descriptives for Health Behavior Endorsement and Message Appeal Variables12
Table S11: Descriptives for Personality Variables ...................................................................13
Figure S1: The Compassionate and Sociable Messages Were the Most and Least Favored 14
Table S12: Bivariate Correlations among Health Behavior Endorsement and Public-health
Message Appeal Variables ............................................................................................15
Table S13: Bivariate Correlations among Personality Variables ..................................................16
Table S14: Bivariate Correlations among Main Study Variables and Covariates .........................17
Table S15: Descriptive Statistics for Personality Superfactors .....................................................18
Table S16: Exploratory Analyses with Personality Superfactors and Health Behavior ................19
Table S17: Exploratory Analyses with Personality Superfactors and Message Appeal ................20
Table S18: Exploratory Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Message Appeal ....................21
Figure S2: Conscientiousness and Neuroticism Interact in Predicting Current Social Distancing22
Figure S3: Conscientiousness and Agreeableness as Related to Future Social Distancing ...........23
Table S19: Unplanned Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Key Health-related Variables
from Normal-range Personality Dimensions .................................................................24
Table S20: Unplanned Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Health-related and Harmful
Behavior Endorsement from the Triarchic Model of Psychopathy Dimensions...........25
Table S21: Unplanned Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Health- related and Harmful
Behavior Endorsement from the Dark Triad of Personality Dimensions .....................26
Appendix SA: Text of the Public-health Messages ...................................................................27
Table S1
Distribution of Effort Check Data (N = 652)
Bootstrap (1000) Bias SE 95% C.I.

M 0.055 0.000 0.009 0.038 0.075
Md 0 0 0 0 0
SD 0.229 -0.001 0.018 0.192 0.264
Skewness 3.904 0.054 0.402 3.230 4.819
SE Skewness 0.096
Kurtosis 13.280 0.589 3.263 8.461 21.292
SE Kurtosis 0.191
Min. 0
Max. 1
Frequencies n %
0 616 94.5
1 36 5.5
N 652 100
Note: 1 = failure of any of four effort checks. Effort checks were simple analogies, like: “Sheep
is to lamb as ___ is to a calf.”
Table S2
Distribution of Invalid Responding Data (N = 616)

M 0.395 0.001 0.032 0.335 0.466
Md 0 0 0 0 0
SD 0.837 0.000 0.051 0.746 0.939
Skewness 2.637 -0.014 0.179 2.293 2.994
SE Skewness 0.098
Kurtosis 7.543 -0.096 1.294 5.159 10.358
SE Kurtosis 0.197
PR = 95 2 0.147 0.345 2.000 3.000
PR = 98 3 0.275 0.424 3.000 4.000
PR = 99 4 -0.057 0.267 3.000 4.000
Min. 0
Max. 5
Possible range 0-6
PR = Percentile rank. Validity checks were responses with scores beyond the midpoint in the
undesirable direction on such question as “I am answering these questions thoughtfully.”
Table S3
Distribution of the Inconsistency Check Data (N = 562)

M 1.867 -0.001 0.051 1.767 1.970
Md 2.000 -0.022 0.143 2.000 2.000
Mode 1.000
SD 1.226 -0.005 0.060 1.105 1.340
Skewness 1.509 -0.016 0.131 1.220 1.731
SE Skewness 0.103
Kurtosis 3.224 -0.057 0.553 2.131 4.284
SE Kurtosis 0.206
Min. 0
Max 7
PR = 95 4 0.100 0.293 4.000 5.000
PR = 98 6 -0.282 0.445 5.000 6.000
PR = 99 6.370 0.066 0.465 6.000 7.000
PR = Percentile rank.
Inconsistency n % Cum. %
0 28 5 5
1 228 40.6 45.6
2 186 33.1 78.6
3 71 12.6 91.3
4 27 4.8 96.1
5 9 1.6 97.7
6 8 1.4 99.1
7 5 0.9 100
N 562 100
Note: Inconsistency scores are based on the sum of the absolute values of the differences
between the items from three pairs of nearly identical items after any necessary reverse-coding.
Table S4
Distribution of Completion Time Below the Median (N = 540)
Completion time (min.) Stem-and-Leaf Plot
Frequency Stem & Leaf
1.00 Extremes (=<2.5)

1.00 5 . 4
3.00 5 . 779
4.00 6 . 2344
6.00 6 . 678999
11.00 7 . 12222334444
11.00 7 . 56667788889
13.00 8 . 0000222222334
16.00 8 . 5666677888888999
20.00 9 . 01111111122222233444
21.00 9 . 555666667777888999999
26.00 10 . 00000001111222222333333344
29.00 10 . 55555555566667777788888899999
15.00 11 . 011112223333344
17.00 11 . 55566777778889999
18.00 12 . 000011111222333334
20.00 12 . 56666777777777789999
22.00 13 . 0000001111122222444444
16.00 13 . 5566666777788889
Stem width: 1.00

Each leaf: 1 case(s)
Table S5
Principal Components Analysis with Varimax Rotation of Current Health Behavior (N = 502)
Abbreviated item Component Variance Explained Commu-

1 2 # Eigenvalue % nality
1. Limit contact .83 1 5.26 52.57 .75
3. Stay at home .83 2 1.22 12.16 .71
4. Avoid social activities .77 3 0.73 7.30 .62
5. Avoid visiting relatives .74 4 0.57 5.72 .66
2. Keep a 6-foot distance .71 .36 5 0.51 5.08 .64
6. Protect older people .70 .33 6 0.42 4.23 .60
7. Wash hands frequently .81 7 0.39 3.88 .72
9. Disinfect surfaces .81 8 0.33 3.29 .69
8. Avoid touching face .80 9 0.31 3.08 .71
10. Cover one’s cough .30 .54 10 0.27 2.69 .39
Note: Loadings > .3 were omitted.
Table S6
Principal Components Analysis of Future Health Behavior (N = 502)
Abbreviated item Component Variance Explained Commu-

1 2 3 # Eigenvalue % nality
1. Limit contact .83 -.30 1 8.54 60.97 .87
3. Stay at home .82 -.33 2 1.82 13.00 .83
4. Avoid visiting relatives .78 3 .97 6.91 .72
2. Keep a 6-foot distance .75 .43 4 .47 3.37 .81
6. Protect older people .75 .42 5 .39 2.81 .80
5. Avoid social activities .74 -.45 6 .36 2.55 .81
13. Go on a new date .90 7 .32 2.29 .91
14. Sex with someone new .89 8 .30 2.17 .88
11. Go to large social event .88 9 .23 1.66 .85
12 .Go to small social event -.36 .84 10 .18 1.29 .85
9. Disinfect surfaces .82 11 .17 1.18 .76
8. Avoid touching face .82 12 .14 1.00 .80
7. Wash hands frequently .34 .79 13 .08 0.57 .80
10. Cover one’s cough .42 -.40 .56 14 .03 0.24 .80
Note: Loadings > .3 were omitted.
Table S7
Principal Components Analysis of Carrier Pretend Scenario Ratings (N = 502)
Item Component Variance Explained Commu-

1 2 # Eigenvalue % nality
Purposefully touch, spit on, or sneeze on high-use
18. .91 1 5.91 32.85 .88
surfaces in public
Purposefully touch, spit on, or sneeze on high-use
17. .91 2 2.40 13.31 .88
surfaces at work
Purposefully shake hands with, hug, or kiss
15. .73 3 1.61 8.93 .80
someone you hate
7. Go to a social event or a party .73 4 1.15 6.38 .69
If you get the chance, go on an in-person date with
12. .70 (.39) 5 1.03 5.72 .77
someone new
8. Shake hands with strangers .62 (.50) 6 0.94 5.22 .70
Sneeze or spit on the personal belongings of some
16. .61 7 0.91 5.06 .87
you hate
9. Shake hands with people you know well .75 8 0.78 4.32 .81
10. Shake hands with people you care about (.43) .68 9 0.67 3.71 .80
If you get the chance, go to an in-person job
13. .67 10 0.53 2.93 .50
interview
11. Hug and/or kiss people that you are close with .64 11 0.49 2.74 .62
Wear a mask outside your home (assuming you
4. .54 12 0.43 2.37 .67
have masks) (R)
Go to work (assuming you work and not from
5. .51 13 0.39 2.17 .49
home)
Go out in public to take care of business that isn't
6. .48 14 0.29 1.63 .56
urgent
Wear a mask at home (assuming you have masks)
3. .48 15 0.23 1.26 .59
(R)
If you get the chance, have sex (in person, not
14. .42 (.47) 16 0.15 0.85 .64
online) with someone new
Go to seek medical attention, but first call ahead
1. 17 0.10 0.57 .48
(R)
Go to seek medical attention, without calling
2. 18 0.00 0.00 .33
ahead
Note: Item 10 was allocated to the first component in scale creation for conceptual coherence.
Table S8
Participant Characteristics (N = 502)
Sex 51% male Socioeconomic status (current)

49% female Poor 8.2%
Age M = 41, SD = 11, Md = 40 Working class 33.9%
Range = 21 – 76 years Lower middle class 15.9%
Education M = 15, SD = 2.04, Md = 16.0 Middle class 35.3%
Race/Ethnicity Upper middle class 6.8%
77.5% White/Caucasian Higher class 0.0%
10.0% Asian/Asian-American Employment status
6.2% Black/African-American Full-time employed 60.4%
3.8% Latinx/Hispanic Part-time employed 8.8%
0.6% Native American Self-employed 21.3%
2.0% Other Full-time student 0.6%
Relationship status Unemployed 2.8%
47.2% single Disabled 1.2%
36.3% married Retired/Retired but working 3.6%
9.4% divorced Other 1.7%
5.2% life-partnered Covid-10 effect on work
0.6% separated No effect 57.0%
1.6% widowed More hours/extra shifts 4.6%
Work from home? Fewer hours/fewer shifts 22.5%
33.3% Yes, normally from home Furlough 5.8%
25.7% Yes, because of coronavirus Laid off 3.0%
40.2% No / Not applicable Other 6.8%
Covid-19 diagnosis history Covid-19 risk: chronic condition
1 “Yes” No 72.5%
20 “No, but WE think WE had it” Not sure 6.8%
481 “No” Yes 20.7%
Table S9
Self-reported Location by U.S. State
State n % State (cont. n %

Alabama 6 1.2 Nevada 7 1.4
Arkansas 0 0 New Hampshire 1 0.2
Arizona 13 2.6 New Jersey 15 3
California 63 12.5 New Mexico 3 0.6
Colorado 12 2.4 New York 29 5.8
Connecticut 7 1.4 North Carolina 25 5
Delaware 1 0.2 North Dakota 0 0
District of Columbia 1 0.2 Ohio 14 2.8
Florida 35 7 Oklahoma 7 1.4
Georgia 14 2.8 Oregon 4 0.8
Hawaii 4 0.8 Pennsylvania 31 6.2
Idaho 0 0 Puerto Rico 0 0
Illinois 15 3 Rhode Island 3 0.6
Indiana 2 0.4 South Carolina 8 1.6
Iowa 2 0.4 South Dakota 0 0
Kansas 3 0.6 Tennessee 8 1.6
Kentucky 12 2.4 Texas 27 5.4
Louisiana 7 1.4 Utah 3 0.6
Maine 2 0.4 Vermont 3 0.6
Maryland 7 1.4 Virginia 13 2.6
Massachusetts 10 2 Washington 13 2.6
Michigan 23 4.6 West Virginia 2 0.4
Minnesota 10 2 Wisconsin 20 4
Mississippi 0 0 Total 501 99.8
Missouri 8 1.6 Missing 1 0.2
Montana 4 0.8 Sample 502 100
Nebraska 4 0.8
Table S10
Descriptives for Health Behavior Endorsement and Message Appeal Variables (N = 502)
Items Scale M 95% C.I.2 Md SD 

Health Behavior Endorsement bias-corrected
Current Social Distancing 6 0-3 2.55 [2.5 - 2.6] 2.7 0.57 .89
Current Hygiene 4 0-3 2.31 [2.3 - 2.4] 2.5 0.63 .80
Future Social Distancing 6 0-4 3.55 [3.5 - 3.6] 3.8 0.83 .95
Future Hygiene 4 0-4 3.31 [3.2 - 3.4] 3.8 0.89 .87
Future Venturous Behavior 4 0-4 0.24 [0.2 - 0.3] 0.0 0.79 .95
Carrier Scenario: Protecting Others 8 0-3 0.03 [0.0 - 0.1] 0.0 0.14 .65
Carrier Scenario: Harmful Behavior 8 0-3 2.65 [2.6 - 2.7] 2.8 0.36 .74
Public-health Message (PHM) Appeal1
Message 1: Self-centered 3 0-100 77.11 [75 - 79] 83.3 22.44 .94
Message 2: Responsible 3 0-100 78.41 [77 - 80] 83.3 22.41 .94
Message 3: Compassionate 3 0-100 83.73 [82 - 86] 90.0 19.43 .93
Message 4: Avoidant 3 0-100 76.61 [75 - 79] 83.3 23.31 .95
Message 5: Sociable 3 0-100 66.29 [64 - 69] 73.3 28.74 .94
PHM Rankings
Message 1: Self-centered – rank 1 1-5 2.71 [2.6 - 2.8] 3 1.16 -
Message 2: Responsible – rank 1 1-5 2.75 [2.7 - 2.9] 3 1.22 -
Message 3: Compassionate – rank 1 1-5 2.22 [2.1 - 2.3] 2 1.28 -
Message 4: Avoidant – rank 1 1-5 3.20 [3.1 - 3.3] 3 1.37 -
Message 5: Sociable - rank 1 1-5 4.13 [4.0 - 4.2] 5 1.28 -
1 Messages were presented for evaluation in a random order.
2 Bootstrapping estimates based on 1000 iterations.
Table S11
Descriptives for Personality Variables (N =502)
Items Scale M 95% C.I.** Md SD 

Mini-IPIP* bias-corrected
Agreeableness 4 0-4 2.92 [2.8 – 3.0] 3.0 0.90 .88
Conscientiousness 4 0-4 2.93 [2.9 – 3.0] 3.0 0.80 .77
Extraversion 4 0-4 1.38 [1.3 - 1.5] 1.0 1.10 .89
Neuroticism 4 0-4 1.40 [1.3 - 1.5] 1.3 1.01 .84
Openness 4 0-4 3.00 [2.9 - 3.1] 3.0 0.86 .80
AMP *
Boldness1 11 0-3 0.97 [0.9 – 1.0] 0.91 0.56 .86

1
Meanness 11 0-3 0.44 [0.4 - 0.5] 0.27 0.47 .88
Disinhibition1 11 0-3 0.50 [0.5 - 0.5] 0.36 0.45 .87
SD3 *
Narcissism 9 0-4 1.39 [1.3 - 1.5] 1.33 0.77 .84

Machiavellianism 9 0-4 1.75 [1.7 - 1.8] 1.67 0.74 .84
Psychopathy 9 0-4 0.87 [0.8 - 0.9] 0.78 0.62 .79
*Mini-IPIP = Mini-Internal Personality Item Pool (Donnellan et al., 2006); AMP = Abbreviated
Measure of Psychopathy (Semel, 2018); SD3 = Short Dark Triad (Jones & Paulhus, 2014).
1Scores reversed for interpretability.
** Bootstrapping estimates based on 1000 iterations.
Figure S1
The Compassionate and Sociable Messages Were the Most and Least Favored
1 = Self-centered; 2 = Responsible; 3 = Compassionate; 4 = Avoidant; 5 = Sociable.
Table S12
Bivariate Correlations among Health Behavior Endorsement and Public-health Message Appeal Variables, Two-tailed (N = 502)
Pearson correlations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. CHB: SD r -
p -
2. CHB: H r .61
p 1.3E-51
3. FHB: SD r .58 .38
p 1.7E-46 5.2E-19
4. FHB: H r .41 .69 .73
p 7.1E-22 3.5E-73 2.2E-84
5. FHB: VB r -.12 -.08 -.62 -.50
p 6.0E-03 6.4E-02 8.3E-54 3.1E-33
6. CS: HB r -.25 -.17 -.19 -.17 .20
p 1.6E-08 9.4E-05 1.4E-05 2.0E-04 8.3E-06
7. CS: PO r .30 .37 .23 .29 -.13 -.47
p 4.7E-12 1.7E-17 2.8E-07 1.7E-11 4.0E-03 1.4E-28
8. M1: SC r .42 .46 .29 .38 -.05 -.14 .23
p 1.2E-22 9.3E-28 1.6E-11 1.8E-18 3.1E-01 2.3E-03 1.1E-07
9. M2: R r .50 .51 .36 .42 -.09 -.16 .24 .75
p 1.7E-33 3.1E-34 1.0E-16 1.6E-22 5.0E-02 2.5E-04 3.1E-08 2.0E-93
10. M3: C r .54 .52 .36 .42 -.08 -.15 .23 .66 .69
p 8.5E-39 8.0E-36 3.0E-17 5.7E-23 8.8E-02 8.0E-04 2.4E-07 4.5E-65 2.2E-72
11. M4: A r .49 .45 .33 .37 -.05 -.13 .20 .78 .75 .67
p 5.0E-31 1.6E-26 5.0E-14 1.1E-17 2.3E-01 2.5E-03 5.8E-06 5.5E-105 3.8E-90 1.7E-65
12. M5: SO r .37 .38 .21 .27 .03 -.11 .17 .59 .60 .54 .60
p 5.5E-18 3.1E-18 1.5E-06 1.6E-09 4.7E-01 1.3E-02 1.3E-04 4.5E-48 1.2E-50 1.4E-38 1.3E-50
Note: CHB = Current Health Behavior (SD = Social Distancing, H = Hygiene); FHB = Future Health Behavior (VB = Venturous
Behavior); CS = Carrier Scenario (HB = Harmful Behavior, PO = Protecting Others); M = Public-health Message (SC = Self-
centered, R = Responsible, C = Compassionate, A = Avoidant, SO = Sociable). Note: p < .01 = 1.0E-2, p < .001 = 1.0E-3.
Table S13
Bivariate Correlations among Personality Variables, Two-tailed (N = 502)
1: MIP A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 11 12 13 14 15
2. MIP C r .18
p 6.0E-05
3. MIP E r .30 .18
p 1.0E-11 7.7E-05
4. MIP NE r -.13 -.28 -.38
p 4.2E-03 2.6E-10 2.4E-18
5. MIP O r .35 .05 .30 -.12
p 5.0E-16 2.6E-01 3.5E-12 5.6E-03
6. MIP ST r .64 .67 .43 -.73 .26
p 3.2E-58 9.9E-67 1.0E-23 1.1E-84 2.8E-09
7. MIP PL r .40 .15 .86 -.33 .75 .44
p 2.5E-20 8.4E-04 4.3E-145 5.7E-14 5.3E-93 7.7E-25
8. MIP PF r .62 .51 .74 -.64 .58 .87 .82
p 2.2E-54 6.3E-34 4.3E-87 2.3E-59 1.2E-45 4.7E-157 3.5E-124
9. AMP B r -.10 .00 .50 -.27 .26 .10 .49 .33
p 2.6E-02 9.6E-01 1.3E-33 1.1E-09 1.8E-09 2.6E-02 7.5E-32 3.0E-14
10. AMP M r -.60 -.21 -.07 .24 -.18 -.51 -.15 -.40 .37
p 4.2E-50 1.7E-06 1.0E-01 8.4E-08 7.7E-05 4.0E-35 1.0E-03 3.1E-21 5.3E-18
11. AMP D r -.27 -.41 .11 .21 .01 -.43 .08 -.23 .53 .65
p 7.5E-10 5.9E-22 1.5E-02 1.4E-06 7.7E-01 1.2E-23 6.6E-02 3.2E-07 3.4E-38 5.0E-62
12. AMP Tot. r -.38 -.23 .24 .05 .06 -.31 .20 -.09 .80 .80 .87
p 2.1E-18 1.3E-07 3.1E-08 2.9E-01 1.9E-01 1.1E-12 6.0E-06 5.0E-02 3.3E-114 8.6E-113 9.2E-154
13. SD3 Nar r .03 .12 .60 -.19 .23 .17 .54 .40 .69 .28 .33 .55
p 5.6E-01 8.1E-03 2.5E-51 1.7E-05 1.7E-07 1.5E-04 8.3E-40 6.1E-21 4.1E-72 3.5E-10 6.3E-14 3.2E-40
14. SD3 Mch r -.37 -.16 -.04 .22 -.10 -.37 -.08 -.28 .34 .63 .46 .57 .37
p 1.0E-17 4.6E-04 3.2E-01 5.4E-07 3.3E-02 1.1E-17 6.4E-02 1.9E-10 6.0E-15 4.7E-56 1.0E-27 2.4E-44 4.5E-18
15. SD3 P r -.35 -.28 .14 .19 .01 -.39 .10 -.19 .53 .67 .72 .77 .42 .62
p 7.6E-16 1.7E-10 2.3E-03 2.8E-05 7.8E-01 5.1E-20 2.4E-02 1.2E-05 5.4E-38 1.8E-67 4.5E-81 3.6E-100 1.7E-22 9.5E-56
16. SD3 DF r -.28 -.12 .30 .08 .07 -.23 .24 -.01 .65 .64 .61 .77 .76 .83 .82
p 3.3E-10 8.9E-03 5.6E-12 8.0E-02 1.4E-01 2.4E-07 3.0E-08 8.0E-01 1.5E-61 3.4E-59 4.8E-52 2.1E-100 2.2E-96 5.7E-128 2.5E-124
Note: MIP = Mini-IPIP (A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness, E = Extraversion, NE = Neuroticism, O = Openness, ST = Stability, PL = Plasticity, PF =
General P Factor); AMP = Abbreviated Measure of Psychopathy (B = Boldness, M = Meanness, D = Disinhibition); SD3 = Short Dark Triad (Nar = Narcissism,
Mch = Machiavellianism, P = Psychopathy, DF = Dark Factor. Note: p < .01 = 1.0E-2, p < .001 = 1.0E-3.
Table S14
Bivariate (Pearson) Correlations among Main Study Variables and Key Covariates, Two Tailed (N = 502)
Gender1 Age Risk2 Gender Age Risk Gender Age Risk

CHB: SD r .19 .11 .17 MIP: A r .26 .09 .05 AMP: B r -.32 -.18 -.08
p 1.2E-05 1.1E-02 1.5E-04 p 4.5E-09 5.4E-02 2.8E-01 p 2.5E-13 3.5E-05 7.9E-02
CHB: H r .19 .04 .11 MIP: C r .04 -.04 -.08 AMP: M r -.23 -.22 -.03
p 2.5E-05 3.3E-01 1.4E-02 p 3.6E-01 3.2E-01 8.8E-02 p 2.7E-07 8.7E-07 5.2E-01
FHB: SD r .20 .12 .11 MIP: E r -.04 .00 -.09 AMP: D r -.21 -.19 -.04
p 1.0E-05 5.3E-03 1.6E-02 p 4.1E-01 9.7E-01 5.3E-02 p 1.8E-06 1.9E-05 3.6E-01
FHB: H r .22 .06 .09 MIP: NE r .16 -.08 .13 AMP: Tot. r -.31 -.24 -.06
p 8.4E-07 1.6E-01 5.7E-02 p 4.5E-04 8.1E-02 3.5E-03 p 7.1E-13 6.4E-08 1.6E-01
FHB: VB r -.08 -.05 -.05 MIP: O r -.06 -.01 .05 SD3: Nar r -.19 -.13 -.12
p 9.0E-02 2.6E-01 3.0E-01 p 2.1E-01 8.1E-01 2.7E-01 p 1.7E-05 3.5E-03 6.4E-03
CS: HB r -.11 -.16 -.04 MIP: ST r .06 .07 -.08 SD3: Mch r -.28 -.23 -.04
p 1.2E-02 2.9E-04 3.6E-01 p 1.9E-01 1.4E-01 7.1E-02 p 2.9E-10 2.5E-07 3.6E-01
CS: PO r .12 .02 .03 MIP: PL r -.06 .00 -.03 SD3: P r -.41 -.24 -.04
p 9.3E-03 6.2E-01 4.8E-01 p 2.1E-01 9.1E-01 4.6E-01 p 9.4E-22 3.5E-08 4.2E-01
M1: SC r .14 .24 .10 MIP: PF r .01 .04 -.07 SD3: DF r -.35 -.25 -.09
p 2.0E-03 5.0E-08 2.0E-02 p 8.9E-01 3.8E-01 1.2E-01 p 2.5E-16 2.6E-08 5.6E-02
M2: R r .14 .25 .15 M4: Av r .14 .23 .16
p 1.2E-03 2.1E-08 7.9E-04 p 1.2E-03 1.4E-07 4.1E-04
M3: Com r .21 .22 .13 M5: S r .10 .15 .15
p 2.2E-06 3.9E-07 2.9E-03 p 2.9E-02 7.7E-04 7.8E-04
Note: 1Gender = identified gender (0 = man, 1 = woman); 2Risk = self-reported chronic health condition that increases risk from
Covid-19 (0 = no, 1 = maybe, 2 = yes); CHB = Current Health Behavior (SD = Social Distancing, H = Hygiene); FHB = Future
Health Behavior (VB = Venturous Behavior); M = Public-health Message (SC = Self-centered, R = Responsible, Com =
Compassionate, Av = Avoidant, S = Sociable); MIP = Mini-IPIP (A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness, NE = Neuroticism, O =
Openness, ST = Stability, PL = Plasticity, PF = General P Factor); AMP = Abbreviated Measure of Psychopathy (B = Boldness, M =
Meanness, D = Disinhibition); SD3 = Short Dark Triad (Nar = Narcissism, Mch = Machiavellianism, P = Psychopathy, DF = Dark
Factor of Personality). Note: p < .01 = 1.0E-2, p < .001 = 1.0E-3.
Table S15
Descriptive Statistics for Personality Superfactors (N = 502)
Items Scale M 95% C.I.** Md SD 

Mini-IPIP* bias-corrected
Stability (C, A, rev. N) 12 0-4 2.82 [2.8 - 2.9] 2.8 0.62 .80
Plasticity (E, O) 8 0-4 2.19 [2.1 - 2.3] 2.1 0.79 .83
P (General Factor of Personality) 4 0-4 2.57 [2.5 - 2.6] 2.6 0.58 .85
AMP *
AMP Psychopathy1 33 0-3 0.64 [0.6 - 0.7] 0.58 0.41 .92

SD3 *
D (Dark Factor of Personality) 27 0-4 1.34 [1.3 - 1.4] 1.30 0.57 .90
* Mini-IPIP: Mini – International Personality Item Pool; AMP: Abbreviated Measure of Psychopathy; SD3: Short Dark Triad.
** Bootstrapping estimates based on 1000 iterations.th
Table S16
Exploratory Analyses with Personality Superfactors and Health Behavior Endorsements: Partial Correlations Controlling for Gender,
Age, and Risk Health Condition, One-tailed, with Bias-corrected Confidence Interval Estimates, N = 502.
Personality Current Health Behavior Future Health Behavior Carrier Scenario

superfactors Social Hygiene Social Hygiene Venturous Harmful Protecting
distancing distancing behavior behavior others
MIP Stability rp/p .24 4.3E-08 .38 1.2E-18 .21 1.6E-06 .37 6.9E-18 -.09 2.1E-02 -.15 2.9E-04 .18 2.4E-05
98% b.c. C.I. [.14 − .36] [.27 − .48] [.09 − .33] [.26 − .48] [-.24 − .03] [-.24 − -.08] [.08 − .28]
MIP Plasticity rp/p .13 2.6E-03 .24 9.7E-08 .05 1.5E-01 .17 5.0E-05 .02 3.5E-01 -.08 4.0E-02 .15 3.5E-04
98% b.c. C.I. [.03 − .25] [.12 − .34] [-.06 − .15] [.06 − .29] [-.09 − .13] [-.15 − -.01] [.05 − .25]
MIP P Factor rp/p .23 3.2E-07 .37 1.6E-17 .16 2.4E-04 .33 2.9E-14 -.05 1.4E-01 -.14 8.8E-04 .20 4.7E-06
98% b.c. C.I. [.12 − .34] [.25 − .47] [.05 − .28] [.22 − .44] [-.17 − .05] [-.21 − -.07] [.10 − .29]
AMP Psychopathy rp/p -.15 9.2E-04 -.15 5.6E-04 -.21 1.3E-06 -.20 2.2E-06 .18 2.6E-05 .17 4.4E-05 -.17 4.5E-05
98% b.c. C.I. [-.26 − -.03] [-.28 − -.01] [-.36 − -.06] [-.35 − -.07] [.03 − .33] [.01 − .30] [-.28 − -.08]
SD3 Dark Factor rp/p -.14 1.5E-03 -.12 9.6E-03 -.13 2.5E-03 -.12 2.8E-03 .11 6.1E-03 .13 1.5E-03 -.10 1.3E-02
98% b.c. C.I. [-.24 − -.04] [-.23 − .01] [-.27 − .01] [-.26 − .01] [-.04 − .29] [.02 − .23] [-.20 − .00]
Note: Controlling for sex, age, and risk health condition.
Note: Bootstrap estimation of C.I. with 1000 iterations. Note: p < .01 = 1.0E-2, p < .001 = 1.0E-3.
Note: MIP = Mini-IPIP (Stability subsumes Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and low Neuroticism; Plasticity subsumes
Extraversion and Openness; and the General P Factor subsumes all five factors with Neuroticism reversed); AMP = Abbreviated
Measure of Psychopathy (AMP Psychopathy subsumes Boldness, Meanness and Disinhibition); SD3 = Short Dark Triad (the SD3
Dark Factor subsumes Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy).
Table S17
Exploratory Analyses with Personality Superfactors and Public-health Message Appeal: Partial Correlations Controlling for Gender,
Age, and Risk Health Condition, One-tailed, with Bias-corrected Confidence Interval Estimates, N = 502.

MIP Stability rp/p 0.27 7.1E-10 .26 1.8E-09 .31 7.5E-13 .23 1.8E-07 .19 6.9E-06
98% b.c. C.I. [0.15 − .37] [.14 − .36] [.21 − .40] [.11 − .32] [.07 − .32]
MIP Plasticity rp/p 0.17 9.7E-05 .17 5.1E-05 .15 2.6E-04 .14 1.1E-03 .16 1.8E-04
98% b.c. C.I. [0.05 − .27] [.06 − .28] [.05 − .25] [.02 − .24] [.05 − .26]
MIP P Factor rp/p 0.26 2.2E-09 .26 2.3E-09 .28 9.9E-11 .22 4.9E-07 .21 1.3E-06
98% b.c. C.I. [0.14 − .37] [.14 − .36] [.17 − .37] [.10 − .32] [.09 − .32]
AMP Total rp/p -0.08 3.2E-02 -.11 8.3E-03 -.25 7.1E-09 -.08 3.5E-02 -.06 1.0E-01
98% b.c. C.I. [-0.18 − .03] [-.21 − .01] [-.36 − -.14] [-.18 − .01] [-.15 − .03]
SD3 Total rp/p -0.06 8.9E-02 -.09 2.8E-02 -.21 1.1E-06 -.01 3.9E-01 .01 4.6E-01
98% b.c. C.I. [-0.17 − .04] [-.19 − .02] [-.31 − -.11] [-.11 − .08] [-.10 − .10]
Note: Controlling for sex, age, and risk health condition.
Note: Bootstrap estimation of C.I. with 1000 iterations. Note: p < .01 = 1.0E-2, p < .001 = 1.0E-3.
Note: MIP = Mini-IPIP (Stability subsumes Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and low Neuroticism; Plasticity subsumes
Extraversion and Openness; and the General P Factor subsumes all five factors with Neuroticism reversed); AMP = Abbreviated
Measure of Psychopathy (AMP Psychopathy subsumes Boldness, Meanness and Disinhibition); SD3 = Short Dark Triad (the SD3
Dark Factor subsumes Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy).
Table S18
Exploratory Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Message Appeal from Personality Variables (N = 502)

Model 1  p  p  p  p  p
MIP Agreeableness 0.25 <.0001 0.29 <.0001 0.39 <.0001 0.25 <.0001 0.21 <.0001
MIP Conscientiousness 0.10 .0260 0.07 .1450 0.08 .0615 0.07 .1068 0.01 .7450
MIP Neuroticism 0.04 .3601 0.04 .3739 -0.05 .2462 0.02 .6232 0.11 .0245
MIP Extraversion -0.04 .4034 -0.02 .5994 -0.04 .3994 -0.02 .7271 -0.02 .7462
MIP Openness -0.02 .6758 -0.02 .7047 0.01 .8121 -0.01 .7732 -0.05 .3364
Model 2  p  p  p  p  p
AMP Boldness 0.05 .3095 0.05 .3260 0.03 .6099 0.01 .8029 0.05 .3379
AMP Meanness -0.15 .0087 -0.23 .0001 -0.31 <.0001 -0.12 .0352 -0.19 .0015
AMP Disinhibition -0.08 .1853 -0.04 .5173 -0.10 .0817 -0.08 .2387 0.00 .9536
Model 3  p  p  p  p  p
SD3 Narcissism 0.15 .0019 0.16 .0011 0.08 .0945 0.13 .0080 0.16 .0010
SD3 Machiavellianism -0.10 .0691 -0.18 .0015 -0.16 .0025 0.00 .9611 -0.06 .2996
SD3 Psychopathy -0.20 .0005 -0.16 .0043 -0.27 <.0001 -0.24 <.0001 -0.16 .0064
Note: MIP: Mini-IPIP; AMP: Abbreviated Measure of Psychopathy; SD3: Short Dark Triad.
Figure 2S
Conscientiousness and neuroticism interact in predicting self-reported social distancing (corrected for age, gender identity, and the
presence of a chronic health condition that increases the risk of Covid-19), N = 502.
Figure S3
Conscientiousness and agreeableness as they relate to self-reported intent for future social-distancing (corrected for age, gender
identity, and the presence of a chronic health condition that increases the risk of Covid-19), N = 502. (Note that the test of interaction
was significant in null-hypothesis testing but not in a bootstrap analysis.)
Tale S19
Unplanned Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Key Health-related Variables from Normal-range Personality Dimensions (N =
502)
Model Step 21 Predictors R Adj. R2 p  p b 95% b.c. C.I. VIF DW

1 Current Agreeableness .35 † †
.108 5.3E-11 †
0.17 8.0E-4 0.11 0.02 – 0.18 1.35 2.04
Health Behavior: Conscientiousness 0.13* 4.4E-3 0.09 0.02 – 0.16 1.13
Social Distancing Neuroticism -0.05 3.5E-1 -0.03 -0.08 – 0.03 1.31
Extraversion 0.02 6.8E-1 0.01 -0.04 – 0.06 1.32
Openness 0.02 7.4E-1 0.01 -0.05 – 0.07 1.23
2 Future Agreeableness .31† .097† 3.7E-8 0.15* 2.0E-3 0.14 0.04 – 0.24 1.35 1.99
Health Behavior: Conscientiousness 0.11ˆ 1.7E-2 0.11 0.01 – 0.22 1.13
Social Distancing Neuroticism -0.07 1.4E-1 -0.06 -0.16 – 0.02 1.31
Extraversion 0.00 1.0E+0 0.00 -0.06 – 0.07 1.32
Openness -0.08 1.1E-1 -0.07 -0.16 – 0.01 1.23
3 Future Agreeableness .44 † †
.181 1.8E-19 †
0.28 6.0E-9 0.27 0.17 – 0.39 1.35 2.01
Health Behavior: Conscientiousness 0.15* 6.1E-4 0.16 0.06 – 0.27 1.13
Hygiene Neuroticism -0.12ˆ 1.3E-2 -0.10 -0.18 – -0.03 1.31
Extraversion 0.04 3.6E-1 0.03 -0.03 – 0.10 1.32
Openness -0.05 2.3E-1 -0.06 -0.14 – 0.03 1.23
4 Carrier Scenario: Agreeableness .25* .05* 8.7E-5 -0.15* 2.4E-3 -0.02 -0.05 – 0.00 1.35 2.06
Harmful Behavior Conscientiousness -0.02 5.9E-1 0.00 -0.02 – 0.01 1.13
Neuroticism 0.06 2.2E-1 0.01 0.00 – 0.02 1.31
Extraversion 0.03 5.9E-1 0.00 -0.01 – 0.03 1.32
Openness -0.02 7.1E-1 0.00 -0.04 – 0.02 1.23
1Each model controls for age, gender identity, and health risk status in a previous step omitted for brevity. Bootstrap estimation of
bias-corrected C.I. with 1000 iterations. VIF: variance inflation factors. DW: Durbin-Watson statistic.
ˆ p < .05 = 5.0E-2; * p < .01 = 1.0E-2; † p < .001 = 1.0E-3
Table S20
Unplanned Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Health-related and Harmful Behavior Endorsement from the Triarchic Model of
Psychopathy Dimensions (N = 502).

1 Current Boldness .31 † †
.087 3.1E-09 0.08 1.4E-01 0.08 -0.03 – 0.17 1.50 2.01
Health Behavior: Meanness -0.10 7.2E-02 -0.13 -0.33 – 0.06 1.80
Social Distancing Disinhibition -0.15ˆ 1.7E-02 -0.19 -0.35 - -0.04 2.10
2 Future Boldness .32 † †
.094 4.7E-10 0.04 4.8E-01 0.05 -0.10 – 0.20 1.50 1.97
Social Distancing Disinhibition -0.19* 2.7E-03 -0.34 -0.60 - -0.09 2.10
.140 2.2E-15 †
0.17 9.2E-04 0.27 0.10 - 0.43 1.50 1.96
Health Behavior: Meanness -0.21† 2.2E-04 -0.39 -0.66 - -0.14 1.80
Hygiene Disinhibition †
-0.20 8.0E-04 -0.40 -0.65 - -0.14 2.10
4 Carrier Boldness .29† .070† 1.9E-7 -0.06 2.2E-01 -0.02 -0.04 – 0.01 1.50 2.05
Scenario: Meanness 0.15ˆ 1.0E-02 0.04 0.01 – 0.09 1.80
Harmful Behavior Disinhibition 0.13ˆ 3.9E-02 0.04 0.00 – 0.09 2.10
.040 2.1E-4 0.01 8.9E-01 0.01 -0.14 – 0.16 1.50 2.04
Venturous Disinhibition †
0.22 6.3E-04 0.38 0.10 – 0.68 2.10
1Each model controls for age, gender identity, and health risk status in a previous step omitted for brevity. Bootstrap estimation of
ˆ p < .05 = 5.0E-2; * p < .01 = 1.0E-2; † p < .001 = 1.0E-3.
Table S21
Unplanned Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Health- related and Harmful Behavior Endorsement from the Dark Triad of
Personality Dimensions (N = 502)

1 Current Narcissism .39 † †
.118 1.0E-12 *
0.14 2.6E-03 0.11 0.08 – 0.19 1.26 2.03
Health Behavior: Machiavellianism -0.07 2.0E-01 -0.05 -0.14 – 0.03 1.70
Social Distancing Psychopathy †
-0.27 4.9E-06 -0.25 -0.37 – -0.13 1.95
2 Future Narcissism .31 † †
.085 4.6E-9 0.10ˆ 3.8E-02 0.11 0.01 – 0.21 1.26 1.97
Social Distancing Psychopathy -0.24† 5.5E-05 -0.32 -0.51 – -0.13 1.95
3 Future Narcissism .35† .121† 6.8E-12 0.18† 2.1E-04 0.20 0.10 – 0.32 1.26 1.94
Health Behavior: Machiavellianism -0.12ˆ 3.6E-02 -0.14 -0.27 – 0.00 1.70
Hygiene Psychopathy †
-0.23 9.2E-05 -0.33 -0.52 - -0.15 1.95
4 Carrier Narcissism .25† .052† 1.3E-5 -0.02 6.5E-01 0.00 -0.02 – 0.01 1.26 2.06
Scenario: Machiavellianism 0.00 9.3E-01 0.00 -0.2 – 0.03 1.70
Harmful Behavior Psychopathy 0.20† 8.9E-04 0.05 0.01 – 0.08 1.95
5 Future Narcissism .20 * *
.028 2.6E-3 -0.03 5.0E-01 -0.03 -0.13 – 0.06 1.26 2.05
Venturous Psychopathy †
0.23 2.5E-04 0.29 0.10 – 0.48 1.95
1 Each model controls for age, gender identity, and health risk status in a previous step omitted for brevity. Bootstrap estimation of
ˆ p < .05 = 5.0E-2; * p < .01 = 1.0E-2; † p < .001 = 1.0E-3.
Appendix SA
Public-health Messages
Self-centered:
"Keep yourself healthy!

First and foremost, prioritize your own health. Control other people's distance from you, and
keep them at least 6 feet away. Use soap and hand sanitizer often to keep other people's
germs away. Leave your home only to take care of your basic needs (food and medical care).
If possible, work from home."
Responsible:
"Take personal responsibility!

You have an obligation to safeguard your health. Be mindful how far you are from other
people, and maintain a distance of at least 6 feet. Carefully wash your hands with soap, or rub
them with hand sanitizer thoroughly. You should not leave your home, except for such
necessities as food or medical care. If possible, work from home."
Compassionate:
"Help protect the vulnerable!

Consider the well-being of people who are older or have chronic health conditions. To reduce
their and everyone's risk, try to keep a distance of at least 6 feet away from others. Help slow
the spread of germs by washing your hands with soap and using hand sanitizer often. To
protect my community, only leave the house if you need necessities, like food, medication, or
to help a person in need. If possible, work from home."
Avoidant:
"Avoid the disease!

It is essential to stay clear of the contagion. To remain disease-free, steer away from people
by keeping a distance of at least 6 feet. To ward off germs, cleanse your hands thoroughly
with soap or hand sanitizer often. Avoid leaving your home, except to get food or medical
care. If possible, work from home."
Sociable:
“Distant socializing, not social distancing!

You don't have to give up on the fun of socializing because of the coronavirus. You have to
keep 6 feet a part in person, but you can meet up online or chat over the phone one-on-one or
in a group session. That way, you can leave your home only for necessities, like getting food
or medical care. And if you do, don't spoil the party - wash your hands with soap or use hand
sanitizer often. If possible, work from home.”

Personality and Covid-19 1

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Personality and Covid-19 1

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

PERSONALITY AND COVID-19 1

Adaptive and Dark Personality in the Covid-19 Pandemic:

Predicting Health-behavior Endorsement and the Appeal of Public-health Messages

Complete Version 1.5

May 31, 2020

for publication in Social Psychological and Personality Science.

Pavel S. Blagov, PhD

pandemic of contagious respiratory disease? Do differently phrased public-health messages

agreeableness and conscientiousness) predicted endorsement of social distancing and hygiene, as

Most participants preferred a message appealing to compassion (“Help protect the

relevant to epidemiology and public-health communication in a contagious-disease context.

Adaptive and Dark Personality Traits in the Covid-19 Pandemic:

Predicting Health-behavior Endorsement and the Appeal of Public-health Messages

et al., 2020). Were individual differences at play?

Health Behavior and Normal-range Personality

factor model (FFM; Digman, 1990).

One such domain, conscientiousness, predicts health-promoting and risk-avoiding

by improving perceptions of risk (Trobst et al., 2000). Overall, conscientiousness and

predict oral hygiene (Kressin et al., 1999).

Research on non-respiratory communicable diseases and the FFM may inform

predictions about responses to contagious SARS. Aspects of neuroticism, (low)

Furthermore, conscientiousness and agreeableness may predict adaptive behavior in a

synergy between threat sensitivity (entailed in neuroticism) and self-efficacy (linked to

conscientiousness) in predicting people’s fear-appeal susceptibility (Witte, 1992).

Health Behavior and Dark Personality

such findings implicate psychopathy.

Psychopathy is a cluster of characteristics revolving around unempathic callousness

(Verschuere et al., 2018) and including egocentricity, grandiosity, glibness, remorselessness,

deceptiveness, manipulativeness, recklessness, unreliability, and antisociality (Hare, 1996). It

(dominance, fearlessness, adventurousness, and stress immunity), disinhibition (lack of

Dark Personality and Harm to Others’ Health

If maladaptive personality partially explains reactions to the pandemic and to PHMs, it

Personality and Health Communications

that match their self-reported traits.

The Current Study

Given the paucity of research on personality in relation to SARS-protective and risk

starting point to probe the boundaries of personality theory.

Among the constructs discussed above, conscientiousness, agreeableness, (low)

extraversion, neuroticism, (low) boldness, and (low) disinhibition emerged as candidates to

predict self-reported ongoing social distancing. Conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism,

Additionally, conscientiousness and agreeableness, and conscientiousness and

Per schema-congruence theory, as outlined above, differently phrased PHMs’ appeal

meanness, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy; (b) for a “responsible” message, with

conscientiousness and (low) disinhibition; (c) for a “compassionate” message, with

agreeableness, conscientiousness, (low) narcissism, (low) Machiavellianism, (low) psychopathy,

for a “sociable” message, with extraversion, boldness, and openness.

and whether the public was overreacting (Rakich, 2020).

risk (vs. following advice to protect others).

 = .76, and PCA supported the intended structure (Table S6).

Participants viewed, in a randomized order, five PHMs written to appeal to different

personalities: Self-centered, Responsible, Compassionate, Avoidant, and Sociable (Appendix

Irwing, 2011; Tables S11, S15).

The Abbreviated Measure of Psychopathy (AMP; Semel, 2018) operationalizes the

triarchic psychopathy model with 33-items as a parsimonious alternative to Patrick’s (2010)

D; Moshagen et al., 2020)

Personality questionnaire names were disguised.

noted earlier) and  = .05 for four interaction hypotheses.

Current Health Behavior

As predicted, Agreeableness (rp = .21, p = 2.6-6), Conscientiousness (rp = .18, p = 6.3-5),

superfactors, especially Stability (rp = .24, p = 4.3-8; Table S16).

Future Health Behavior

As predicted, Conscientiousness correlated with FHB:SD (rp = .15, p = 2.6-4). Contrary to

.37, p = 6.9-18) and P (rp = .33, p = 2.9-14).