Do individuals flexibly and adaptively calibrate their motivation, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in response to changing ecological opportunities and threats? Using a longitudinal six-wave survey data set collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, the study addresses three research questions: are some psychological features or characteristics more or less likely to be calibrated in response to environmental change, are certain types of people more sensitive to these ecological changes, and do individuals become more sensitized or habituated to these changes over time? The results demonstrate that individuals can flexibly adjust their psychology directly relevant to managing COVID-19 infection: people were more strongly motivated to avoid disease and perceived that they were more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection during periods when the threat of COVID-19 infection was high. Political liberals were particularly sensitive to ecological infection changes in adjusting their disease avoidance motivation. Importantly, the study also found a significant quadratic effect of COVID-19 cases on disease avoidance motivation, perceived COVID vulnerability, and preventative behaviors. This indicates that the effect of COVID-19 cases was especially pronounced during the early phase of the pandemic when new cases were relatively low, but diminished as time passed and new cases increased. These findings highlight the adaptive nature of human behavior in response to changing environmental circumstances and underscore the importance of considering both individual and contextual factors in understanding psychological flexibility.

Developments in commercial genetic testing have made it possible for people to find out a wealth of information that was previously difficult or impossible to obtain. Genetic testing is a novel solution to the adaptive problem of paternal uncertainty. We hypothesized that participants in the control condition would have greater interest in their paternal genetic information than their maternal genetic information and that participants who were cued to their dissimilarities with their father would seek out genetic information regarding their paternal side of the family above all other conditions. Neither of the two tested hypotheses were supported by the data. Analyses of several variables suggest that the manipulation did work to enhance perceptions of similarity and dissimilarity to parents, that participants were paying attention, and that the dependent variables were sensitive. Some incidental findings suggest that feelings of similarity, rather than dissimilarity, to father are related to interest in learning about paternal genealogy.