Cultural influence on COVID-19 cognitions and growth speed: The role of collectivism

Major challenges faced by humans often require large-scale cooperation for communal benefits. We examined what motivates such cooperation in the context of social distancing and mask wearing to reduce the transmission intensity of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). We hypothesized that collectivism, a cultural variable characterizing the extent that individuals see themselves in relation to others, contributes to people's willingness to engage in these behaviors. Consistent with preregistered predictions, across three studies (n = 2864), including a U.S. nationally representative sample, collectivist orientation was positively associated with intentions, positive beliefs, norm perceptions, and policy support for the preventive behaviors. Further, at a country level, more collectivist countries showed lower growth rates in both COVID-19 confirmed cases and deaths. Together, these studies demonstrate the role of collectivism in reducing COVID-19 transmission, and highlight the value of considering culture in public health policies and communications.     

Risk perception,illusory superiority and personal responsibility during COVID-19: An experimental study of attitudes to staying home

Little is known about how different government communication strategies may systematically affect people’s attitudes to staying home or going out during the COVID-19 pandemic, nor how people perceive and process the risk of viral transmission in different scenarios. In this study, we report results from two experiments that examine the degree to which people’s attitudes regarding the permissibility of leaving one’s home are (1) sensitive to different levels of risk of viral transmission in specific scenarios, (2) sensitive to communication framings that are either imperative or that emphasize personal responsibility, or (3) creating ‘loopholes’ for themselves, enabling a more permissive approach to their own compliance. We find that the level of risk influences attitudes to going out, and that participants report less permissive attitudes to going out when prompted with messages framed in imperative terms, rather than messages emphasizing personal responsibility; for self-loopholes, we find no evidence that participants’ attitudes towards going out in specific scenarios are more permissive for themselves than for others. However, participants report they are more rigorous in staying home than others, which may cause moral licensing. Additionally, we find that age is negatively associated with permissive attitudes, and that male participants are more permissive to going out. Thus, during phases where it is important to promote staying home for all scenarios, including those perceived to be low-risk, imperative communication may be best suited to increase compliance.     

Dating during the time of COVID-19: Risk perceptions and political ideology

This study examined predictors of single people's beliefs about COVID prevention behaviors, intentions to engage in COVID prevention behaviors while dating, and actual dating behavior during the pandemic. Results revealed that single participants engaged in “riskier” dating behaviors (i.e., in-person unmasked) more frequently than “safer” dating behaviors (i.e., remote, or in-person masked/distanced). Individuals who perceived greater (vs. lesser) risk associated with COVID more strongly endorsed beliefs about social distancing (self and other) and were more likely to personally (or request others) engage in COVID prevention behaviors while dating. However, perceived risk did not predict actual dating behaviors. Conservatives (vs. liberals) less strongly endorsed beliefs about social distancing (for others, but not the self) and were less likely to personally (or request others) engage in COVID prevention behaviors while dating. Conservatives also reported meeting potential romantic partners more frequently than liberals. However, political ideology did not predict actual dating behaviors. Results suggest there is a disconnect between college students' beliefs/intentions and their actual dating behavior. These results demonstrate the importance of developing public health interventions that take into account the disconnect between college students' health-related intentions and actual behaviors, particularly in the context of dating.     

When,why, and how do People Deviate from Physical Distancing Measures During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed-Methods Study

Introduction:To limit the spread of COVID-19, many countries, including Belgium, have installed physical distancing measures. Yet, adherence to these newly installed behavioral measures has been described as challenging and effortful. Based on the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) model, this study performed an in-depth evaluation of when, why, and how people deviated from the physical distancing measures.Methods:An online mixed-method study was conducted among Belgian adults (N = 2055) in the beginning of May 2020. Participants were recruited via an open call through email and social media platforms, using snowball sampling. Conditions wherein people deviated from the physical distancing measures were assessed by means of an open-ended question. HAPA determinants were assessed in a quantitative way.Results:Half of the sample reported to deviate from the measures. Further, deviation from the measures was associated with each determinant outlined by the HAPA. Findings highlight that many people deviated from the measures because of their need for social contact. The majority of the people who deviated from the measures stated that they carefully weighed the risks of their behavior.Conclusions:Need for social contact pushed people to deviate from physical distancing measures in a deliberate manner. Potential areas for future interventions aimed at promoting adherence to physical distancing measures and enhancing psychosocial well-being are discussed.     

Examining approaches to encourage COVID-19 vaccination on social media

Following the release of the first COVID-19 vaccinations many people utilized social media to promote vaccination among their social circles. These attempts to persuade others to get vaccinated ranged from positive encouragement (e.g., emphasizing the prosocial benefits and positive outcomes) to shame and threats (e.g., name calling and threating to end friendships over vaccination status). The present study investigated how these different social media messages affected COVID-19 vaccination intentions. In June 2021, shortly after vaccines had been made freely available to anyone over the age of 16 in the United States, unvaccinated participants read a manipulated Twitter message designed to be either encouraging or shaming. Message-type did not significantly affect intentions to become vaccinated against COVID-19; however, participants who saw the encouraging message reported that the post made them feel more likely to get vaccinated. Self-efficacy was also manipulated but did not reveal any significant effects. Additional analyses suggest that having personal experience with COVID-19 moderates reactions to these different messages. We discuss limitations and promising avenues for future research on the effects of social media messages on health behaviors.     

Moralizing the COVID-19 Pandemic: Self-Interest Predicts Moral Condemnation of Other's Compliance,Distancing, and Vaccination

The emergence of the novel coronavirus has put societies under tremendous pressure to instigate massive and rapid behavior change. Throughout history, an effective strategy to facilitate novel behaviors has been to morally condemn those who do not behave in an appropriate way. Accordingly, here, we investigate if complying with the advice of health authorities—for example, to physically distance or vaccinate—has emerged as a moralized issue during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Study 1, we rely on data (N = 94K) from quota-sampled rolling cross-sectional online surveys from eight countries (Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, the United Kingdom, and the United States). We find that large majorities find it justified to condemn those who do not keep a distance to others in public and around half of respondents blame ordinary citizens for the severity of the pandemic. Furthermore, we identify the most important predictors of condemnation to be behavior change and personal concern, while institutional trust and social distrust also play large but less consistent roles. Study 2 offers a registered replication of our findings on a representative sample of Britons (N = 1.5K). It shows that both moralization and condemnation of both vaccination and general compliance are best predicted by self-interested considerations.     

Prosocial rule breaking,ingroups and social norms: Parental decision-making about COVID-19 rule breaking in the UK

The British public generally adhered to COVID-19-related restrictions, but as the pandemic drew on, it became challenging for some populations. Parents with young children were identified as a vulnerable group. We collected rich, mixed-methods survey data from 99 UK-based parents (91 mothers) of children under 12, who described their lockdown transgressions. Household mixing was the most prevalent broken rule. Template analysis found that rule breaking was driven by ‘ingroup-level’ prosocial motivations to protect the mental and social health of family and loved ones, and that parents were ‘engaged’ decision-makers who underwent careful deliberation when deciding to break rules, making trade-offs, bending rules, mitigating risks, reaching consensus, and reacting to perceived rule injustices. Cumulative link models found that the perceived reasonableness of rule violations was predicted by social norms. Rules were broken by parents not for antisocial reasons, but for ‘ingroup-level’ prosocial reasons, linked to supporting loved ones.     

新冠肺炎疫情下科学家的社会责任问题研究

科学家的社会责任问题存在“科学价值中立说”与“科学家的普遍社会责任说”之争。新冠肺炎疫情下的风险社会中,科学家不能持有“事不关己”的“价值中立”态度,而应担负“普遍责任”,他们是疫情防治中的重要行动者。但是,在一些国家出现了科学研究不严谨、科学研究政治化等科学家社会责任缺失现象。需加强科学理性与价值理性的统一、建立重大疫情科学决策咨询制度、改革科技评价方式、精英决策与民主决策相结合、保持科学研究与政治之间的合理张力。     

The effects of social belonging and kindness on stress and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal experiment

Because the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has introduced significant stressors to people's lives, more research on self-directed strategies to cope with pandemic-related stress is needed. In the current longitudinal experiment (N = 614), we investigated the emotional benefits of two self-directed strategies—belonging affirmation and recalling kindness—during the Delta (October 2021) and Omicron (February 2022) waves of the pandemic. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three activity conditions (belonging affirmation, recalling kindness, or control), which they performed weekly for 4 weeks. Contrary to our pre-registered hypothesis, belonging affirmation and recalling kindness did not promote greater well-being overall; however, belonging affirmation led to well-being improvements indirectly via increases in positive emotions. Furthermore, the benefits of belonging affirmation were moderated by pandemic wave. That is, during the Omicron wave, but not the Delta wave, belonging affirmation led to improved life satisfaction, positive emotions, and connectedness, decreased loneliness and negative emotions, and marginally reduced perceived stress and anxiety. These results provide preliminary evidence for the well-being benefits of belonging affirmation and suggest the importance of evaluating coping strategies throughout different stages of a long-term stressor.     

The protective role of social network factors during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

The present study examined the relationship between COVID-19 threat perception, isolating health precautions, and loneliness. As a test of the stress-buffering hypothesis (Cohen & Wills, 1985), this study also examined if social network factors representing various aspects of social support moderated, or weakened, the relationship between threat perception, isolating health precautions, and loneliness. Participants (N = 1149) provided information about themselves, as well as 15 other people they know via an online survey. We found that structural and compositional social network factors, density, number of close alters, network threat perception, network covid cautiousness and number of vaccinated alters all negatively related to loneliness. Further, using moderated mediation analyses, we found that network threat perception and network covid cautiousness moderated the indirect relationship between threat perception and loneliness through precautions. At high levels of these factors, the mediation was less likely to be significant suggesting that the social network factors may buffer people from the loneliness that sometimes comes with engaging in isolating health precautions in response to the perceived threat of COVID-19.     

The effects of social vigilantism and masculine honor beliefs on perceptions of confrontation during the COVID-19 pandemic

Varying opinions about the COVID-19 pandemic inspire different behaviors (e.g., mask-wearing), and confrontation may result between people with differing viewpoints. Individual differences associated with belief superiority (e.g., Social Vigilantism; SV) and/or pride (e.g., Masculine Honor Beliefs; MHB) likely related to third-person perceptions of pandemic confrontations. In this study (N = 237; US sample), we used vignettes in a 2 (Mask: Yes/No) ×  2(Confrontation Response: Vocal Defense/Walked Away) between-groups design to examine how SV and MHB predict perceptions of (1) responses to public confrontation about (not) wearing a mask and (2) the person being confronted. In general, mask-wearing and walking away from confrontation were perceived more positively. Higher SV was associated with more positive perceptions of seemingly morally-justified responses to confrontation (e.g., walking away when confronted for not wearing a mask, vocally defending oneself when confronted for wearing a mask). Contrarily, higher MHB were associated with more positive perceptions of non-mask-wearing. This research provides insight about how individual differences in SV and MHB relate to nuances in pandemic confrontations, and responses to confrontations, about (non)mask-wearing.     

Followership at a distance: Follower adjustment to distal leadership during COVID-19

Leader distance theory has received scant empirical attention in the extant literature; however, the “work from home” orders associated with COVID-19 have made this theory and its empirical findings highly relevant for organizations. Our study integrates leader distance theory and followership theory to understand how follower role beliefs affect follower effort, performance, and withdrawal under physical leader distance and varying conditions of leader interaction frequency. Using a three-wave survey methodology with 260 adults working remotely, our study finds that followers' levels of effort, performance, and withdrawal were contingent on leader interaction frequency. Specifically, followers with a coproduction role orientation, who see their role as more collaborative, reported higher levels of effort under conditions of high leader interaction. Furthermore, the indirect effect of coproduction on follower performance and withdrawal via effort was moderated by leader interaction frequency. The results for followers with passive role orientations, however, were in the opposite direction. These followers reported less effort when leader interaction was high, and the mediational chain predicting performance and withdrawal was contingent on leader interaction frequency. Our study contributes to the ongoing conversation about the positive and negative effects of leader distance and positions followership characteristics as important boundary conditions of distal leadership.     

The role of mindfulness and compassion in early adults' subsequent mental health,coping and compliance with health guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic: A prospective longitudinal study

The present study explored prospective links between trait mindfulness and compassion on subsequent coping and compliance with Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines and indirect effects via well-being and internalized distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study included N = 736 US college students who participated in a three-wave longitudinal study across a single academic year. The first two assessment waves took place in 2018 and 2019, respectively, while the third wave took place in May 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants completed self-report measures of trait mindfulness, compassion, well-being, internalized distress, coping, and compliance with CDC health guidelines. Results of a series of autoregressive, cross-lagged panel models revealed that trait mindfulness was associated with better coping via indirect effects of greater well-being and lower internalized distress. Greater compassion was linked with greater adherence to CDC guidelines. Findings suggest that trait mindfulness and compassion may play a role in college students' coping and compliance during the pandemic.     

Distancing from a stigmatized social identity: State of the art and future research agenda on self-group distancing

Despite equal rights, minority groups such as ethnic minorities, LGBTQ + people, and people with mental or physical disabilities face discrimination on a day-to-day basis in subtle and hard-to-recognize forms. As discrimination slips beneath the surface, it becomes difficult to fight the stigma using collective social identity coping mechanisms. Instead, individual mobility responses such as distancing the self from the stigmatized identity (“self-group distancing”) become more viable as a way to improve one's individual standing. In this overview of the state of the art, we take a social identity lens to reflect on the current empirical knowledge base on self-group distancing as a coping mechanism and provide a framework on what self-group distancing is; when, where and why self-group distancing likely occurs; and what its consequences are at the individual and the collective level. The contributions in this special issue provide novel insights into how these processes unfold, and serve as a basis to set a future research agenda, for example on what can be done to prevent self-group distancing (i.e., interventions). Together, the insights highlight that while self-group distancing may seem effective to (strategically and temporarily) alleviate discomfort or to improve one's own position, on a broader collective level and over time self-group distancing tends to keep the current unequal social hierarchy in place.     

A little help from my friends: Lack of social interaction predicts greater boredom during the COVID-19 pandemic

Were people bored during the pandemic, and if so why? One possibility is lack of social interaction due to restrictions on social activity intended to slow the spread of communicable disease. In a 3-week daily diary study (n = 438; international community sample) social interaction predicted boredom and its consequences. People felt more bored on days when they engaged in less social interaction than usual (in-person or virtually), largely driven by a lack of meaning. In turn, boredom predicted lower well-being concurrently, and more virtual interaction the next day; people dispositionally higher in trait boredom also reported more solitary (but not partnered) sexual activity. In conclusion, this study suggests that maintaining social connections, even during a pandemic, may be important to mitigate boredom and improve overall well-being.     

The effects of social comparison,emotion induction,and parent vaccination status on parental intentions for COVID-19 vaccine uptake in children

Parental vaccine hesitancy—delays in vaccine uptake for children—is a significant public health concern. Using an online adult sample of U.S. parents (N = 183), the current research experimentally examined how exposure to cautious or risky social comparison models on social media (in terms of their COVID-19 beliefs and behaviors) influenced parental intentions to vaccinate their children against COVID-19 in the early stages of the pandemic. Additionally, we examined whether the influence of social comparison models was moderated by emotional state (fear or contentment) and parental vaccination status. Overall, we found that parents exposed to cautious (vs. risky) comparison models and vaccinated (vs. unvaccinated) parents reported greater vaccine intentions for their children. We further found that vaccination intentions were highest among unvaccinated parents after exposure to cautious (vs. risky) comparison models, whereas intentions were highest among vaccinated parents after exposure to risky (vs. cautious) comparison models (but only when induced to feel content). Overall, our findings highlight the importance of understanding the additive and interactive impact of psychological and situational factors in shaping parental vaccine hesitancy.     

Treating Social Anxiety in an Era of Social Distancing: Adapting Exposure Therapy for Youth During COVID-19

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has caused widespread disruption to our traditional way of life and mental health therapy has not been spared. A combination of increased anxiety, diminished social opportunities, and the shift to telehealth service provision presents particular challenges for the treatment of social anxiety in youth, which relies heavily on exposures to social situations with peers, adults, or other feared social stimuli. The objective of this commentary is to provide guidance to clinicians working with youth with social anxiety on how to maintain ethical, evidence-informed provision of exposure therapy in light of these unusual circumstances. We first present an overview of how COVID-19 may uniquely impact youth with social anxiety and highlight the importance of continuing to provide exposure-based treatments during this time. We then discuss guiding principles for delivering exposure therapy during COVID-19. We focus on providing practical examples of how common social anxiety exposures can be adapted and delivered successfully through telehealth while abiding by COVID-19 social distancing guidelines. Finally, we discuss key recommendations to assist clinicians in moving treatment forward while considering changing safety guidelines pertaining to COVID-19.     

Stop the blame game: An analysis of blaming on Weibo during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in rice and wheat areas in China

In the pandemic era, social media has provided the public with a platform to make their voice heard. One of the most important public opinions online during a pandemic is blame. Blame can lead to stigma towards patients as well as potential patients and decrease social cooperation, which might impede prevention and control measures during epidemics. Thus, studying online blame during the early days of COVID-19 can facilitate the management and control of future pandemics. By analyzing 3791 posts from one of the most popular social media sites in China (Weibo) over the 10 days immediately after COVID-19 was declared to be a communicable disease, we found that there were four main agents blamed online: Individuals, corporations, institutions, and the media. Most of the blame targeted individual agents. We also found that there were regional-cultural differences in the detailed types of blamed individual agents, that is, between rice- and wheat-farming areas in China. After controlling influence of distance from the epicenter of Wuhan, there were still stable differences between regions: people in wheat areas had a higher probability of blaming agentic, harmful individuals, and people in rice areas had a higher probability of blaming individuals with low awareness of social norms for preventive health behavior. Findings have implications for preventing and predicting blame across cultures in future pandemics.     

Intellectual humility predicts COVID-19 preventive practices through greater adoption of data-driven information and feelings of responsibility

Preventive health practices have been crucial to mitigating viral spread during the COVID-19 pandemic. In two studies, we examined whether intellectual humility—openness to one's existing knowledge being inaccurate—related to greater engagement in preventive health practices (social distancing, handwashing, mask-wearing). In Study 1, we found that intellectually humble people were more likely to engage in COVID-19 preventive practices. Additionally, this link was driven by intellectually humble people's tendency to adopt information from data-driven sources (e.g., medical experts) and greater feelings of responsibility over the outcomes of COVID-19. In Study 2, we found support for these relationships over time (2 weeks). Additionally, Study 2 showed that the link between intellectual humility and preventive practices was driven by a greater tendency to adopt data-driven information when encountering it, rather than actively seeking out such information. These findings reveal the promising role of intellectual humility in making well-informed decisions during public health crises.