Contagious or prosocial? Perceptions of mask-wearers toward Whites and Asians: A cross-cultural comparison during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a worldwide increase in the use of face masks to prevent viral transmission. However, as mask-wearing was a new behavior in many countries, there was a limited understanding of how mask-wearers are perceived and how such perceptions impact one's own mask-wearing behavior. Mask-wearers may be seen as contagious or prosocial, and these perceptions may vary based on the race of the mask-wearer and the country of the observer, particularly given the rise in pandemic-related anti-Asian rhetoric in the U.S. In three experiments (N = 579), we investigated these questions, conducting two studies in the United States (May and July 2020), where mask-wearing was new and anti-Asian rhetoric has been prevalent, and one study in South Korea (November 2020), where mask-wearing was relatively common. Results indicate that masked individuals are perceived as less contagious and more prosocial, regardless of target race or participant nation. These perceptions were more pronounced among American political liberals, Americans who are more sensitive to infection transmission (Study 2), and Koreans who self-perceived a greater vulnerability to infection (Study 3). Especially in the U.S., perceiving the masked target as more prosocial predicted more self-reported mask-wearing, while perceiving the masked target as more contagious and less prosocial predicted less mask-wearing (Study 2). These findings provide insights into social perceptions of masks and race during the pandemic.     

Framing COVID-19 as an existential threat predicts prejudice towards Chinese people via anxious arousal

We tested the hypothesis that perceived existential threat stemming from COVID-19 elicits anxious arousal, which can manifest in prejudice toward the perceived source of the threat (Chinese people). Americans (n = 474) were randomly assigned to a condition in which COVID-19 was framed as a high existential threat to the United States or to a condition in which COVID-19 was framed as a low existential threat to the United States. They then completed self-report measures of anxious arousal as well as subtle and blatant prejudice towards Chinese people. As expected, participants in the high threat (vs. low threat) condition reported greater anxious arousal which, in turn, predicted greater subtle and blatant prejudice. The high threat (vs. low threat) condition also indirectly predicted greater subtle and blatant prejudice via greater anxious arousal. Results advance knowledge on the reactions people had to perceiving COVID-19 as an existential threat during the early phase of the pandemic.     

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.     

Did COVID-19 really change our well-being? It's up to meaning in life: Evidence from two longitudinal studies

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, copious studies have explored whether and how COVID-19 has changed individuals' well-being. However, research has revealed mixed and inconsistent findings on this topic, with some suggesting that the pandemic hampered well-being, and others showing non-significant or even opposite patterns. Yet, little is known about what psychological factors could explain such discrepancies. The present study aims to fill this gap by proposing meaning in life (MIL) as a key moderator of the changes in well-being following the pandemic. Two studies reported here (total N = 19,828), which took within-person longitudinal approaches comparing subjective well-being (SWB; hedonic well-being) and psychological well-being (PWB; eudaimonic well-being) before and during COVID-19 (Study 1: 2018, 2019 vs. 2020, 2021; Study 2: 2019 vs. 2021), provided empirical evidence supporting our theoretical claims. Specifically, we found significant moderative effects of MIL in both studies, such that individuals who held a higher MIL amidst COVID-19 experienced an increase in SWB as well as PWB. In stark contrast, the two indicators of well-being declined over time among those who possessed a lower MIL during the pandemic. Overall, our results suggest that MIL serves as one of the significant moderators of the changes in well-being following COVID-19, which may address the previous conflicting findings in this field.     

Loneliness and the sexual behavior of sexual minority men in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadian provincial governments instituted a variety of public health measures that included social distancing and isolation, which may have had unintended consequeses. According to the Loneliness and Sexual Risk Model, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) often cope with loneliness through risky sexual behaviors. Previous studies have demonstrated that COVID-19 measures such as social distancing and isolation led to increases in loneliness; thus, these measures may also have led to elevated sexual risk-taking among some GBM. Participants were recruited from an ongoing cohort study on GBM health and well-being, and were included in the current analysis if they had completed relevant study questions (n = 1134). GBM who reported lower levels of social support pre-COVID-19, were younger, and lived alone each reported greater loneliness during the first year of COVID-19. Although feelings of loneliness did not predict sexual risk-taking within the first year of COVID-19, loneliness did predict greater sexual risk-taking 6 months later. Additionally, younger GBM and those living alone were more likely to engage in sexual risk-taking at both COVID-19 data collection points. These findings offer some support of the Loneliness and Sexual Risk Model; however, it is possible that the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a temporary suspension of this association, as many GBM took steps to protect themselves and partners in the context of COVID-19.     

Safety behaviors were associated with greater anxious symptoms during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic

Research shows that people who use safety behaviors are at greater risk factor for anxiety than people who do not use safety behaviors. However, the perception of some safety behaviors changed during the COVID-19 pandemic; behaviors that were once considered unnecessary or excessive were now commonplace (e.g., monitoring bodily symptoms, avoiding crowds). The purpose of this study was to determine the degree to which the pandemic changed the status of health-related safety behaviors as a risk factor for symptoms of anxiety. To this end, we tested the effect of safety behavior use on anxious symptoms during the first year of the pandemic using a longitudinal design with 8 time points and participants (n = 233) from over 20 countries. Despite possible changes in their perception, those engaging in high levels of safety behaviors reported the greatest levels of anxious symptoms throughout the pandemic year. However, the outcomes for safety behavior users were not all negative. Safety behavior use at baseline was the only predictor of participants' willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine (measured one year later).     

Why do U.S. conservatives take fewer COVID-19 precautions? The role of worry,perceived risk,and governmental trust

Research suggests a U.S. political ideology gap for taking COVID-19 precautions, but we do not know the role of cognitive risk (assessed here as perceived risk) and affective risk (assessed here as worry) in explaining why conservative Americans participated in fewer recommended precautions (e.g., mask wearing) and whether governmental trust attenuates the effect. We predicted that conservatives (compared with liberals) would take fewer precautions because they thought they were less at risk and were less worried about COVID-19, but that this would be more pronounced for those with low governmental trust. In this study, U.S. adults (representative sample: N = 738; M_age = 46.8; 52% women; 78% white) who had not had COVID-19 took two online surveys 2 weeks apart during the first wave of the pandemic (April 2020). Participants reported ideology, perceived risk of getting or dying of COVID-19, worry about COVID-19, and trust in the CDC and state officials at baseline. At follow-up, participants reported on COVID-19 precautions: (1) prevention behavior participation (e.g., mask wearing) and (2) behavioral willingness for future behaviors (e.g., vaccination). Results showed that, politically conservative Americans took fewer precautions due to lower worry (but unexpectedly not due to lower perceived risk). As predicted, when trust was high, the ideology gap was muted for predicting precautions as well as for predicting perceived risk and worry. In sum, conservatives worried less about COVID-19 which predicted fewer precautions, but trust in governmental institutions reduced this ideological gap. Improving governmental trust could be one fruitful path to increasing COVID-19 precautions.     

Does partisan media make a pawn of mistrust? Institutional trust and preventive COVID-19 health behaviors in a polarized pandemic

In a rapidly developing crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic, people are often faced with contradictory or changing information and must determine what sources to trust. Across five time points (N = 5902) we examine how trust in various sources predicts COVID-19 health behaviors. Trust in experts and national news predicted more engagement with most health behaviors from April 2020 to March 2022 and trust in Fox news, which often positioned itself as counter to the mainstream on COVID-19, predicted less engagement. However, we also examined a particular public health behavior (masking) before and after the CDC announcement recommending masks on 3 April 2020 (which reversed earlier expert advice discouraging masks for the general public). Prior to the announcement, trust in experts predicted less mask-wearing while trust in Fox News predicted more. These relationships disappeared in the next 4 days following the announcement and reversed in the 2 years that follow, and emerged for vaccination in the later time points. We also examine how the media trusted by Democrats and Republicans predicts trust in experts and in turn health behaviors. Broadly we consider how the increasingly fragmented epistemic environment has implications for polarization on matters of public health.     

The psychological benefit of future vividness in goal persistence: An illustrative case of the class of 2020 before & during COVID-19

Graduating during COVID-19, the Class of 2020 had difficulty pursuing their future goals. This research examined the likelihood of academic and career goal change early in the pandemic, disparities in persistence by socioeconomic status (SES), and how psychological resources mitigated goal change during the early stages of the pandemic. This 4-year study surveyed students in the Class of 2020 eight times from their first week in college (Fall 2016) to their last semester before graduation (Spring 2020; N = 115; 20% below middle SES, 80% middle SES or above). Even in the first weeks of COVID-19, a quarter of students changed goals. Lower SES students were less likely to persist in their post-graduation plans. Nevertheless, students who entered college with a vivid image of their future were more likely to have secured a graduate school or job prospect prior to COVID-19, and, in turn, were less likely to change goals.     

How mask gap impacts discrimination and anxiety during COVID-19: A study on overseas Chinese during the first outbreak in 2020

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic brought unrelenting waves of xenophobia against people representing vulnerable populations, among them those identified as Asians or more specifically as Chinese. Although previous studies have found that some discriminatory actions against overseas Chinese were closely related to mask use during the pandemic, there is not much evidence that explicates what might be the social-cultural triggers or impact of self-other mask discrepancy. The current study aims to examine how a mask use gap impacts perceived discrimination and anxiety during the first outbreak of COVID-19, and how perceived discrimination mediates the mask gap–anxiety relationship. This was operationalized by developing a new “mask gap” variable to capture the incongruent mask use norms between Chines and others around them in the host country. Data were collected from a cross-sectional sample of Chinese (n = 745) residing in 21 countries from March to May 2020 during the first wave of the pandemic. Results showed the newly explicated “mask gap” variable was associated with a higher level of anxiety. In addition, perceived discrimination mediated the mask gap-anxiety relationship. These findings advance both theoretical and practical understandings of how incongruent social norms impact discrimination and mental health during health threat events like the COVID-19 pandemic. The results also suggest important implications for both societal responses and the mental health of sojourners or immigrants during pandemics.     

Immoral,infectious, or both? How disgust sensitivity predicts judgments of violations against COVID-19 mitigation actions

Violations against mitigation actions to prevent the spreading of the SARS-CoV-2 virus causing COVID-19, such as not wearing a mask or not practicing social distancing, were seen as immoral and could also increase the likelihood of spreading the virus. In two studies (N1 = 318, N2 = 293), we found that moral and pathogen disgust sensitivity differentially predicted perceptions of such COVID-19 violations against mitigation actions, framed as a moral, pathogen, or on a good-bad dimension, albeit in a less specific way than initially hypothesized (e.g., regarding the pathogenic framed violations, not only pathogen but also moral disgust was associated with higher perceptions of infectiousness). These results suggest that individual differences, especially in pathogen disgust (and, more inconsistently, moral disgust), are important when evaluating violations against mitigation actions. Further research on the role of moral disgust is needed.     

Taking Care of Each Other: How Can We Increase Compliance with Personal Protective Measures During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Chile?

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, personal protective measures (e.g., social distancing, handwashing, and mask wearing) have been adopted as a cornerstone to limit the spread of the disease. Yet, the effectiveness of these measures depends on people's levels of adherence. In this article, we apply social-psychological research to the study of compliance with personal protective measures during the COVID-19 pandemic in Chile. We consider three possible models underlying adherence: (1) sociodemographic and socioeconomic factors, (2) instrumental factors, and (3) normative factors. We draw on data from a longitudinal nonrepresentative panel study (Study 1, n = 32,304) and a cross-sectional representative survey (Study 2, n = 1,078) to explore the impact of these different factors on personal protective measures compliance. Findings show the strongest support for the role of instrumental and normative factors, in that people who comply with protective measures report to a greater extent that relatives and friends comply too and tend to perceive high risk of COVID-19. We finish by proposing policy recommendations to promote effective strategies to contain the spread of the virus.     

Memory lapses during a pandemic: Differential associations between COVID-stress and daily memory lapses?

The policies related to COVID-19 pandemic such as stay at home orders and social distancing increased daily stress and associated impairments in mental health. This study examines the association between COVID-related stress and cognitive functioning by examining two different types of daily memory lapses, those related to prospective memory (i.e., memory for future plans) and retrospective memory (i.e., memory for past information) as well as the perceived emotional and functional consequences of daily memory problems. As part of a larger study, 58 adults (18 men; 22 ± 3 years) completed a web-based version of the daily inventory of stressful events including stress related to COVID-19 and positive/negative affect for eight consecutive days between 8 September 2020 and 11 November 2020. Findings showed that prospective lapses were positively correlated with COVID-19 stressors (r = 0.41, p = 0.002). At the within-person level, daily COVID-19 stressors were significantly associated with the number of prospective lapses (b = 0.088, SE = 0.040). COVID-19-related stressors were not significantly related to retrospective lapses (all ps > 0.05). Our findings suggested that more daily COVID-19 stressors were related to greater numbers of prospective lapses in daily life even among healthy younger adults. Thus, future research should address long term relations of COVID-19 stress and cognitive functioning in addition to the specific cognitive impairments related to COVID-19 infection.     

Chronic illness and COVID-19-related risk and protective behaviors

People with chronic illnesses are at increased risk of contracting COVID-19. Still, little is known about whether such an increased risk relates to COVID-19-related protective behaviors among those with chronic illness. This study compares the self-reported COVID-19 risky and protective behaviors—specifically physically distancing, handwashing, and having houseguests—of people (N = 936) (1) living with chronic illnesses or (2) cohabiting with someone with chronic illness to those who fall in neither category at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020). Study results were mixed: people with a chronic illness were more likely to have had houseguests in the past 5 days and less likely to have increased their handwashing in response to the pandemic, but were also more likely to physical distance when outside the home. Those cohabiting with someone with a chronic illness were more likely to have had houseguests, but did not differ in other outcomes.     

Can a pandemic make people more socially conservative? Political ideology,gender roles,and the case of COVID-19

The first months of 2020 rapidly threw people into a period of societal turmoil and pathogen threat with the COVID-19 pandemic. By promoting epistemic and existential motivational processes and activating people's behavioral immune systems, this pandemic may have changed social and political attitudes. The current research specifically asked the following question: As COVID-19 became pronounced in the United States during the pandemic's emergence, did people living there become more socially conservative? We present a repeated-measures study (N = 695) that assessed political ideology, gender role conformity, and gender stereotypes among U.S. adults before (January 25–26, 2020) versus during (March 19–April 2, 2020) the pandemic. During the pandemic, participants reported conforming more strongly to traditional gender roles and believing more strongly in traditional gender stereotypes than they did before the pandemic. Political ideology remained constant over time. These findings suggest that a pandemic may promote the preference for traditional gender roles.     

Romantic relationship quality during the COVID-19 pandemic: The longitudinal associations with relationship loneliness and depression

The COVID-19 pandemic created significant strain on both mental health and romantic relationships. Therefore, we examined longitudinal associations between romantic relationship quality, relationship loneliness, and depressive symptoms over 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We surveyed 122 couples (n = 244 individuals) in approximately May, September, and November 2020. Using a dyadic mediation model, findings indicated that relationship quality at Time 1 was positively associated with depression at Time 3 for men, but not for women. A significant indirect effect of relationship quality on depression via relationship loneliness at Time 2 was found for both men and women. Self-mastery, or feeling in control of one's life circumstances, was an important covariate of women's depressive symptoms. Overall, these findings highlight relationship loneliness as particularly salient for mental health and demonstrate the importance of high-quality relationships for promoting well-being during stressful events, such as global pandemics.     

Disparagement humor permits unsafe COVID-19 behaviors: A prejudiced norm perspective

Extending prejudiced norm theory, we hypothesized that memes diminishing the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic promote tolerance of unsafe pandemic behaviors (as in contrary to contemporary advice of public health agencies, i.e., not wearing a protective mask) by establishing a perceived norm of tolerance for such behaviors. In Spring 2021, members of several Reddit communities (n = 106) reported their perceived threat of COVID-19 and then completed a roleplay exercise in which they imagined they were with a group of friends in a church setting. In this context, participants viewed memes shared among their friends that belittled COVID-19 (COVID-19 disparagement condition) or memes unrelated to COVID-19 (control condition). Then, participants responded to a vignette describing a woman confronting an usher about a couple who violated protocol by not wearing masks. The results supported our hypothesis. First, participants in the COVID-19 disparagement condition perceived a greater norm of tolerance of the mask protocol violation among others in the immediate context compared to those in the control condition. Second, for participants who viewed COVID-19 as a low threat, that local norm resulted in greater personal tolerance of the mask protocol violation. However, for participants who view COVID-19 as a high threat, the local norm had no impact on their personal tolerance.     

Employee psychological well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: A longitudinal study of demands,resources, and exhaustion

Many governments react to the current coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic by restricting daily (work) life. On the basis of theories from occupational health, we propose that the duration of the pandemic, its demands (e.g., having to work from home, closing of childcare facilities, job insecurity, work-privacy conflicts, privacy-work conflicts) and personal- and job-related resources (co-worker social support, job autonomy, partner support and corona self-efficacy) interact in their effect on employee exhaustion. We test the hypotheses with a three-wave sample of German employees during the pandemic from April to June 2020 (N_w1 = 2900, N_w12 = 1237, N_w123 = 789). Our findings show a curvilinear effect of pandemic duration on working women's exhaustion. The data also show that the introduction and the easing of lockdown measures affect exhaustion, and that women with children who work from home while childcare is unavailable are especially exhausted. Job autonomy and partner support mitigated some of these effects. In sum, women's psychological health was more strongly affected by the pandemic than men's. We discuss implications for occupational health theories and that interventions targeted at mitigating the psychological consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic should target women specifically.     

Women's social experiences before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A 3-part measurement burst study among women in midlife with health risks

Women in midlife (ages 40–60) with elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) often rely on social networks during times of high stress. Precautions against the spread of COVID-19—particularly stay-at-home-orders—could have limited positive social experiences during a stressful time, but also could have reduced unwanted negative social experiences. This report presents findings from an ecological momentary assessment study that used 3 bursts of 5 surveys per day for 5 days, to test for changes in women's social experiences: prior to COVID-19 (2019), during stay-at-home-orders (April-May 2020), and during initial reopening (August-September 2020). Participants were women aged 40–60 with one or more CVD risk factors (e.g., hypertension; N = 35, M_Age = 51, M_BMI = 32.2 kg/m²). Momentary reports showed that the number of positive interactions experienced in daily life did not significantly change from before to during the pandemic; positive interactions were more variable during stay-at-home orders than pre-COVID, but rebounded by initial reopening (to pre-COVID levels). In contrast, the number of negative social interactions and social comparisons decreased from before COVID to stay-at-home orders, and remained lower during initial reopening; these experiences were also less variable during stay-at-home orders and initial reopening than before COVID-19. Thus, in a vulnerable group of women with health risks, there is little evidence that social experiences worsened during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic; decreases in (potentially) negative social experiences may be a small but beneficial side effect of short-term public health precautions.     

The anti-scientists bias: The role of feelings about scientists in COVID-19 attitudes and behaviors

Across three studies, we investigated who expresses concern for COVID-19, or coronavirus, and engages in behaviors that are consistent with slowing the spread of COVID-19. In Studies 1 and 2 (n = 415, n = 199), those with warmer feelings toward scientists were more concerned and engaged in greater COVID-preventative behaviors, regardless of partisanship. That is, an anti-scientists bias was related to lessened concern and toward less preventive behaviors. Furthermore, those who were the most optimistic about hydroxychloroquine, a purported but unproven treatment against the virus, were less likely to engage in behaviors designed to decrease the spread of COVID-19. In Study 3 (n = 259), asking participants to watch a scientist discuss hydroxychloroquine on Fox News led people to greater endorsement of COVID behaviors. In short, positive feelings toward scientists, rather than political attitudes or knowledge, related to who was concerned and those willing to engage in pandemic reducing behaviors. These behaviors were not immutable and can be changed by scientific out-reach.