Mask-wearing and other preventive measures have been introduced in many countries, including Poland, to lower the risk of spreading COVID-19 (Nowakowska & Zarazińska, 2023). A systematic review that considered observational and interventional studies conducted during the first wave of the pandemic suggested that mask-wearing effectively controlled the pandemic's spread (Mendez-Brito et al., 2021). Similarly, a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational and interventional data from 2020–2021 indicated that mask-wearing, handwashing, and physical distancing were associated with reducing COVID-19 cases (Talic et al., 2021).

A further systematic review of studies from 2020–2023 (Boulos et al., 2023) suggested that more research found that mask-wearing reduced infection rates rather than had no effect or favored control groups However, this conclusion is not definitive, and the studies were conducted before the highly transmissible Omicron variant emerged. There is a clear need for further research to fully understand the effectiveness of mask-wearing, especially in the context of new variants. Additionally, 95% of the reviewed studies were at critical risk of bias in at least one domain, often failing to distinguish between mask-wearing and concurrent interventions’ specific effects.

Finally, the most recent review of RCTs only (Jefferson et al., 2023) highlighted a contradiction in the evidence. It suggested that wearing masks in community settings made little or no difference in the case of influenza-like or COVID-19-like illnesses compared to not wearing masks. However, the harms of mask-wearing were rarely measured in the reviewed RCTs or were poorly reported. This evidence needs to be considered along with other available evidence. Nevertheless, the current study focuses on community members’ behaviors in light of governmental directions when the study was conducted. Generally, mask-wearing was considered a socially responsible behavior at the time of the pandemic (Chi et al., 2022; Kaul & Palmer, 2023). However, mask-wearing mandates induced polarized reactions, including social media encouragement to put masks on or take them off (Lang et al., 2021). Notably, the resistance among some members of society focused on how mask-wearing can compromise human rights and contribute to the consolidation of societal inequalities (Czarnecki & Skowrońska, 2022).

During the pandemic, it was found that moral foundations may serve as a framework for encouraging preventive behaviors, including mask-wearing (Chan, 2021; Nowakowska & Zarazińska, 2023). According to the Moral Foundations Theory (Graham et al., 2009; 2011; Waytz et al., 2019), people judge the appropriateness of behaviors and assess them as “right” or “wrong” based on intuition, not on conscious thought. Conscious processes only occur after.

The theory suggests five foundational moral domains, according to which people form their judgments intuitively (Graham et al., 2009). These five moral domains can be further grouped into individualizing (individual-centered), consisting of harm/care and fairness/reciprocity, and binding (group-centered), consisting of the three latter foundations (Graham et al., 2011; Haidt, 2012). These foundations are described as stable dispositions, despite the contextual factors (e.g., experimental manipulations) that can temporarily amend individuals’ moral foundations (Haidt et al., 2009). Table 1 presents an overview of the theory and a description of the moral foundations.

Individualizing-oriented people have a higher propensity to comply with COVID-19 preventive behaviors (Chan, 2021), assess the efficacy of COVID-19 preventive behaviors (including mask-wearing) more positively, and accept COVID-19 conspiracy theories to a lower degree (Nowakowska & Zarazińska, 2023). This is probably due to the empathic component of the harm/care foundation and the concern for fairness because if everyone complies, then the reciprocal interaction would also be to comply. Thus, it can be hypothesized that:

A binding orientation, due to the concern for preserving the status quo (Day et al., 2014; Graham et al., 2009), which could, for example, manifest in not wearing extra accessories to prevent the spread of COVID-19, may be associated with less acceptance for mask wearing. Anti-mask views were positively related to binding moral foundations of authority/respect and purity/sanctity but negatively related to ingroup/loyalty (Mejova et al., 2023). Furthermore, binding-oriented people tended to assess the efficacy of COVID-19 preventive behaviors (including mask-wearing) more negatively and endorse COVID-19 conspiracy theories more (Nowakowska & Zarazińska, 2023). Thus, it can be hypothesized that:

Individualizing and binding moral foundations are distinct. However, they are not mutually exclusive. Profile analyses show that some people tend to endorse all moral foundations at a similar level (Nowakowska & Zarazińska, 2023), and in some cases, an individual-protection-oriented-binding morality can arise, producing, for example, ostracization (Graham et al., 2020; Janoff-Bulman & Carnes, 2013). Given that the government (authority) announced that the legal obligation to wear masks would be revoked based on arguments of the diminishing threat to individuals and this was approved by the ingroup, a binding orientation could weaken the individualizing moral foundations’ relationship with mask-wearing intentions. It can therefore be hypothesized that:

According to the Moral Foundations Theory, the moral judgment process appears at the first stage of deciding what behavior to undertake. The second stage is more conscious and based on reasoning. This is where some overlap with the Norm Activation Theory appears (Schwartz, 1970). In line with this, moral norms activate when a person sees the consequences of their behavior and assess them as manageable.

Consideration of immediate consequences (Strathman et al., 1994) describes to what extent an individual takes into account the immediate consequences of their own behavior. It is linked to lower self-control than consideration of distant (future) consequences (Joireman et al., 2008). Graham and colleagues (2020) found that low self-control is the strongest predictor of non-compliance with social distancing rules, which was higher for people who endorsed binding moral foundations. Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged that in this study, consideration of immediate consequences was not investigated directly. However, a study by Joireman and colleagues (2012) showed that people who consider immediate consequences are more inclined to engage in unhealthy behavior patterns (i.e., eating) because of the short-lived pleasure they might give.

Considering the immediate gains of “letting go” of the masks (e.g., personal comfort) may be negatively related to continuing to wear masks after the revocation of the obligation to do so. Taking into account this evidence, we hypothesize that:

Similar to binding moral foundations, considering immediate consequences can serve as a “temptation” for individualizing-oriented people to not continue wearing masks, especially when they are not required to. It is possible that the reduced risk can activate the belief that there is no need to take care any longer, and mask-wearing is no longer a matter of fairness, as it is not expected. Moreover, reciprocity concerns should not be relevant anymore—if other people do not wear masks, then the symmetrical action is not to wear them. If the majority decides to follow the new rule of not wearing masks, then the immediate and negative consequence of continuing to do so could be a lack of understanding from others. Thus, it can be hypothesized that:

The aim of the current study, conducted in the unique period between March 31^st, 2022, and April 5^th, 2022 (a few days after the obligation to wear masks was revoked in Poland), is to test the potential predictors (individualizing moral foundations and their interactions with binding moral foundations and consideration of immediate consequences, as well as simple effects of binding moral foundations and consideration of immediate consequences) of mask-wearing intentions right after the prevention law ended. For exploratory purposes, in a second model, we check whether self-reported mask-wearing behaviors before the revocation of the law are predicted by the same individual differences (individualizing/binding moral foundations, consideration of immediate consequences, and interactions are similarly hypothesized as for mask-wearing after the revocation of the law).

For both models, gender will be controlled, as gender was consistently found to be related to mask-wearing behaviors during the pandemic (Chuang & Liu, 2020; Haischer et al., 2020; Looi, 2022). Men were less keen to comply with this preventive measure than women, which led to the coining of the term “toxic mask-ulinity” (Palmer & Peterson, 2020), which is a wordplay based on the “toxic masculinity” concept that describes the unhealthy practices of masculinity, matching negative stereotypes about the male gender. These practices might encompass aggressiveness, oppression of weaker people, and entitlement (Kupers, 2005; Waling, 2019). It was interpreted as a function of higher risk aversion in women (Chuang & Liu, 2020).

The study is unique in its timing (a few days after the obligation revocation) and is relevant to the fields of psychology and public health. The study was conducted at times when policymakers expected this behavior and considered it socially responsible. We focus on how people intend to behave when legal health-related regulations change. Understanding people’s behavioral intentions in the face of changing legal circumstances can help predict real-life behaviors when mask-wearing or other health-related legal obligations are revoked. Finding individual differences that correlate to such behavioral intentions is essential to observe who is most likely to sustain behaviors that were previously legally required and who is least likely to undertake the behavior regardless of the law or gives it up as soon as they are not obliged to perform it. The results may help form prevention-related messages and target specific moral concerns to promote socially responsible behaviors. Moreover, they contribute to the body of research on moral foundations and consideration of immediate consequences, adding to the knowledge of the links between morality and behavior and future discounting and behavior.

First, in Table 2, we present a correlation analysis along with descriptive statistics for the variables of interest to provide the first insight into the relationships between the variables.

Next, a regression with interaction analysis was performed to predict current mask-wearing intention. Durbin-Watson’s statistic for the whole model was 1.99. Table 3 shows the results of this analysis.

Data from Table 3 shows that female gender and individualizing moral foundations were significant positive predictors of current mask-wearing intention. Negative and significant predictors were binding moral foundations, consideration of immediate consequences, the interaction between individualizing and binding moral foundations, and the interaction between individualizing moral foundations and consideration of immediate consequences.

Simple slopes post hoc tests indicated that individualizing moral foundations were related to current mask-wearing intentions on all levels of binding moral foundations (other variables and interaction from the regression analysis controlled). However, the relationship differed in strength. It was the strongest when the binding moral foundations were low, B = .34, p < .001; less strong when they were average, B = .24; p < .001, and the weakest when they were high, B = .15; p < .05. Figure 1 shows the visualization of this interaction.

Individualizing moral foundations were also related to current mask-wearing intentions on all levels of consideration of immediate consequences (other variables and interaction from the regression analysis controlled). However, the relationship differed in strength. It was the strongest when the consideration of immediate consequences was low, B = .33, p < .001; less strong when it was average, B = .25; p < .001, and the weakest when it was high, B = .16; p < .01. Figure 2 shows a visualization of this interaction.

Next, for exploratory purposes, a regression with interaction analysis was performed to predict mask-wearing refusal before the obligation revocation. Durbin-Watson's statistic for the whole model was 1.99. Table 4 shows the results of this analysis.

Table 4 shows that the significant negative predictor of mask-wearing refusal before the obligation revocation were individualizing moral foundations. Positive and significant predictors were male gender, binding moral foundations, and consideration of immediate consequences. None of the interactions were significant.

The aim of the study was to test the role of moral foundations (individualizing versus binding) and consideration of immediate consequences (caring for the short-term gain of ceasing mask-wearing). In addition, it explored the interaction between individualizing and binding moral foundations as well as individualizing moral foundations and consideration of immediate consequences when it comes to predicting mask wearing intentions after the legal obligation to do so was revoked in Poland in March 2022. An additional model with the same predictors regarding the refusal to wear masks before the revocation was also tested.

The data supported all five hypotheses. For H1, individualizing moral foundations were consequently associated with mask-wearing intentions at all values of both moderators (the link differed in strength, which will be discussed below). This aligns with previous research stating that concern for care and justice is important for mask-wearing behaviors during COVID-19 (Chan, 2021). Valuing care means a person is concerned about others’ well-being (Clark et al., 2017). As masks were referred to in Poland as “a protection for others from your germs,” it could have been predicted that mainly other-oriented people would be more accepting of mask-wearing.

Regarding H2, binding moral foundations were negatively related to mask-wearing intentions after the revocation of the law. They were also related positively to the refusal to wear a mask when the obligation was present. This is congruent with how binding morality relates to preventive measure acceptance during the pandemic (Nowakowska & Zarazińska, 2023). It might be due to a willingness to preserve the status quo and avoid what is novel and what disturbs the known social order, which is characteristic of binding-oriented people (Graham et al., 2011). Another explanation is the linkage between binding moral foundations and lowered tolerance for ambiguity (Nowakowska & Zarazińska, 2023). Mask-wearing decisions bear some ambiguity: whether they are safe for individuals, whether the benefit of caring for others outweighs the concern for personal liberty, among others. Binding-oriented people may have decided not to comply to resolve this ambiguity and conflict. They might have preferred to remain with the familiar—that is, not using masks. Nevertheless, as tolerance of ambiguity was not measured in the current study, this interpretation is speculative and needs further research.

For H3, consideration of immediate consequences was negatively related to mask-wearing intention after the revocation. It was also positively related to a refusal to wear a mask when the obligation was in effect. People with a high consideration of immediate consequences take into account the results that are not distant in time (Strathman et al., 1994), for example, their comfort and lack of obligation to remember to put on a mask. That is why they might prefer the more straightforward solution of ignoring the obligation or giving up mask-wearing after the law was revoked.

Moreover, we observed interaction effects. For H4 and H5, both binding moral foundations and consideration of immediate consequences moderated the role of individualizing moral foundations on mask-wearing intentions. The simple slope effect of individualizing moral foundations suggests that people who endorsed this type of morality—thus, caring for other people’s well-being (Graham et al., 2009)—generally tended to wear masks, and this effect is substantial. At the same time, binding foundations may incline toward following authorities and conforming to the group. Thus, for people who are individualizing and binding simultaneously, the concern for others might be related to a lower propensity to wear masks, presumably as a result of being fair to the authorities and ingroup. Consideration of immediate consequences might trigger a search for what feels more comfortable and what bears less immediately visible consequences (for example, negative judgments from others). That is why simultaneous individualizing morality and consideration of immediate consequences could be associated with lower mask-wearing intentions after revoking the law.

For the exploratory model, the moderating effects were not displayed in the relationship between individualizing moral foundations and mask-wearing before the revocation. This may be linked to the individualizing morality sense—if one is obliged to do something (as was the case when the mask-wearing mandate was in effect), it is a matter of fairness and reciprocity to comply. Other moral considerations or consequences should not be that important. Nevertheless, the data on mask-wearing during the pandemic is based on retrospective reports, and thus ought to be treated with caution.

Finally, the obtained results confirmed the previous findings regarding men’s lower tendency to wear protective masks (Chuang & Liu, 2020; Haischer et al., 2020; Looi, 2022; Palmer & Peterson, 2020). Summing up the differences between predictors for mask-wearing refusal before the revocation and intentions for mask-wearing after the revocation, women were less likely to refuse to wear a mask when the relevant law was in effect and more likely to continue wearing them after it was revoked. Binding moral foundations and consideration of immediate consequences were positively related to mask-wearing refusal before the revocation of the law and negatively to the intention to continue mask-wearing after the revocation. Individualizing moral foundations showed the opposite direction of correlations. Moreover, both binding moral foundations and consideration of immediate consequences suppressed the effect of individualizing moral foundations on further mask-wearing intentions.

Our study provides interesting insights for prevention and public health. First, it highlights the need for more communication and targeted public health messages aimed at men to enhance cooperation and responsibility beyond gender. Moreover, it shows that if health-related laws are in effect, individualizing and not binding moral foundations may play a role in complying with them. Presumably, to encourage binding-oriented people to comply with such laws, underlining the importance of particular behaviors to preserve group integrity, being loyal to other members of society, or referring to preserving purity or sanctity concerns could be helpful when planning health communications. Moreover, as people considering the immediate consequences are less likely to comply or sustain health-related behaviors, highlighting the short-term benefits of health-related behaviors can play a role. Nevertheless, wearing masks might be uncomfortable (thus having short-term negative consequences), which prevents engagement in such behavior. However, grounding the prevention messages in sound research results showing the short-term benefits for the community (e.g., fewer infected persons) or the individual (lack of contamination) can be helpful.