Digital surveillance methods, such as location tracking apps on smartphones, have been implemented in many countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, but not much is known about predictors of their acceptance. Could it be that prosocial responsibility, to which authorities appealed in order to enhance compliance with quarantine measures, also increases acceptance of digital surveillance and restrictions of privacy? In their fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, governments around the world communicated that self-isolation and social distancing measures are every citizen's duty in order to protect the health not only of oneself but also of vulnerable others. We suggest that prosocial responsibility besides motivating people to comply with anti-pandemic measures also undermines people's valuation of privacy. In an online research conducted with US participants, we examined correlates of people's willingness to sacrifice individual rights and succumb to surveillance with a particular focus on prosocial responsibility. First, replicating prior research, we found that perceived prosocial responsibility was a powerful predictor of compliance with self-isolation and social distancing measures. Second, going beyond prior research, we found that perceived prosocial responsibility also predicted willingness to accept restrictions of individual rights and privacy, as well as to accept digital surveillance for the sake of public health. While we identify a range of additional predictors, the effects of prosocial responsibility hold after controlling for alternative processes, such as perceived self-risk, impact of the pandemic on oneself, or personal value of freedom. These findings suggest that prosocial responsibility may act as a Trojan horse for privacy compromises.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7531172 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.578618 | DOI Listing |
Across a series of eight high-powered studies ( = 6,866), we develop a method for assessing impartial intergenerational beneficence, defined as intergenerational concern for all possible future generations. Across our studies, roughly 20% of participants displayed impartial intergenerational beneficence. Participants with impartial intergenerational beneficence expressed greater perceptions that future threats can be resolved, support for policies seeking to protect future generations of people, and a profound sense of responsibility for the long-term survival and prosperity of humanity.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Res Adolesc
March 2025
Department of Public Health, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.
Some Latine youth from rural migrant farmworker communities engage in farmwork to help support themselves and their families. Although research has documented their motives for working and some characteristics of their employment, knowledge about how these youth construct their work in the fields and how such experiences relate to their positive development is needed to depict their holistic experiences. Using mixed methods, we explored youth's farmwork experiences and examined how these experiences relate to youth's prosocial behaviors, civic responsibility, and ego-resiliency.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFNurs Outlook
December 2024
Centre for Health Research, University of Southern Queensland, Qld, Australia. Electronic address:
Background: Planetary Health emphasizes the interconnectedness of human health and the natural environment. Despite this, human-induced destruction of ecosystems threatens planetary stability. Understanding planetary empathy may offer insights into how healthcare professionals can better live and work with nature.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFPrev Sci
December 2024
Social Development Research Group, School of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Evol Psychol
November 2024
Centre for Political Research (CEVIPOF), Sciences-Po, Paris, France.
In four preregistered studies, we tested implications from a cooperation model that explains victim-blaming as a strategic move, as a way for people to avoid the costs of helping victims (who seem to be unpromising cooperation partners) without paying the reputational cost of being seen as ungenerous, reluctant cooperators. An implication of this perspective is that, if an individual is identified as a poor cooperation prospect to start with, people would be likely to blame that individual for his/her own misfortune, notably by suggesting that the victim was negligent. The four studies presented here support this interpretation, as participants attributed more negligence to an accident victim if that victim had been initially described as less prosocial, either because they denied benefits to others or because they created costs for others.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!