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.     

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.     

Obedience to authorities is not unconditional: Differential effects of COVID-19 threat on three facets of RWA in Poland and Germany

Collective authoritarian responses to threat might differ depending on whether people trust collective authorities in reducing threat. Thus, we tested the differential effects of epidemic threat on three facets of right-wing authoritarianism, in Germany (a country with high authorities' efficacy in responses to COVID-19) and Poland (low authorities' efficacy context). Two representative sample longitudinal studies performed in Poland (N = 892) and Germany (N = 883) showed that in Germany feelings of COVID-19 threat explained increases in authoritarian submission and (to a lesser extent) authoritarian aggression, whereas in Poland such feelings of threat explained changes in authoritarian aggression and conventionalism after the pandemic, but did not alter authoritarian submission. These findings suggest that specific authoritarian reactions to threat (submissive vs. conventionalist) might depend on the general trust in authorities' ability to respond to crises.     

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.     

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.     

The associations of cultural worldviews,political orientation,and trust with COVID-19 risk beliefs in the U.S.

Given that risk beliefs predict engagement in behaviors to prevent disease, it is important to understand the factors associated with risk beliefs. In the present paper, we conducted path analyses to investigate the associations of belief systems (political orientation and cultural worldviews of individualism and hierarchy) with COVID-19 risk beliefs (i.e., perceived likelihood, perceived severity, and worry about disease; Studies 1 and 2), and the indirect effect through trust in information sources in these relationships (Study 1). Two online panels of U.S. adults were surveyed at three timepoints during the COVID-19 pandemic (Study 1: baseline n = 1,667, 1-year follow-up n = 551; Study 2: n = 404). Results of path analyses indicated that, across studies and timepoints, when controlling for political orientation, trust, and demographic factors, greater individualism had consistent significant direct effects on lower perceived severity and worry about COVID-19, whereas greater hierarchy had consistent significant direct effects on lower perceived severity. However, after accounting for cultural worldviews of individualism and hierarchy (and trust and demographic factors), none of the associations among political orientation and any of the three COVID-19 risk beliefs were significant. The test of indirect effects indicated that individualism and hierarchy were indirectly associated with lower perceived severity of and worry about COVID-19 through less trust. The findings suggest that cultural worldviews of individualism and hierarchy play a role in shaping people's risk beliefs.     

A growth mindset intervention to improve mental health in adolescents during COVID-19

COVID-19 poses a considerable threat to adolescent mental health. We investigated depression rates in teens from pre to post-COVID. We also explored if leveraging a growth mindset intervention (“Healthy Minds”) could improve adolescent mental health outcomes during the pandemic, especially for adolescents experiencing the most distress. In Study 1, we recruited youth from schools in a rural southern community (N = 239) and used a pre-post design. In Study 2, we recruited an online sample (N = 833) and used a longitudinal randomized control trial design to test the effectiveness of Healthy Minds. Across both studies, there is evidence of higher rates of depression in youth during COVID-19, relative to pre-pandemic numbers. In Study 1, the intervention effectively changed psychological and behavioral processes related to mental health, especially for adolescents experiencing greater COVID-19 stress. However, in Study 2, the intervention failed to impact depression rates or symptoms at follow-up.     

Divergent reactions to COVID-19 exhibited in grandiose and vulnerable narcissism

Grandiosity and vulnerability are distinct dimensions of narcissism that may exhibit differences regarding compliance with COVID-19 regulations and policies. Although both dimensions reflect entitlement and self-importance, motivational tendencies diverge. Narcissistic grandiosity reflects bold expressions consistent with approach motivation, whereas vulnerable narcissism reflects reactive expressions consistent with avoidance motivation. Therefore, the present cross-sectional investigation explored these relations between November 2020 and April 2021. Undergraduates (N = 487, M_age = 19.79, 87.1% women) completed online surveys that assessed grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, perceived severity of and susceptibility to COVID, attitudes and reactions toward COVID policies, as well as self-reported behavioral data including number of daily hours out in public, indoor bar/restaurant attendance, and whether they had ever received a positive COVID diagnosis. Consistent with theoretical distinctions between the two narcissistic dimensions, grandiosity generally predicted reduced behavioral compliance and extraverted tendencies that put them at risk for COVID exposure; however, both grandiosity and vulnerability predicted worse reactions and attitudes toward COVID-19 policies.     

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.     

Pandemic precarity: A multi-level study of neoliberal precarity and COVID-Related outcomes in the United States

Neoliberalism is the political-economic system that has characterized the United States for the past half century. Structurally, neoliberalism has involved privatization, deregulation, and government divestment from public health systems. Cultural psychologists have begun to outline the ways that neoliberalism is reflected in attitudes, ways of being, and ideologies, such as in the form of heightened individualism, justification of inequality, depoliticization, and precarity. We argue that neoliberal structures and psychologies may contribute to deleterious outcomes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. We demonstrate that neoliberalism at the US state level (n = 51) is associated with higher COVID mortality and case fatality rates, as well as lower vaccination rates (Study 1). We also demonstrate that individual-level (n = 8280) neoliberal ideology predicts less adaptive beliefs and attitudes such as the belief that the federal response to the pandemic was too fast and belief in COVID-related misinformation (Study 2). We demonstrate using multilevel modeling that state-level neoliberalism predicts individual-level COVID-related attitudes, which is explained in part by heightened neoliberal ideology in more neoliberal states (Study 2). This study contributes to an understanding of the structural and cultural psychological factors that have contributed to the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US.     

Validating self-reported compliance with COVID-19 regulations: Demonstrating group-level sociodemographic self-reported compliance that mirrors actual morbidity rates

Using a novel approach, in this work, we establish an association between self-reported compliance with COVID-19 preventive behaviors and fear of the virus with morbidity rates (i.e., actual tests and their outcome). In two nationally representative samples that were collected in Israel during the first (April 2020: N = 507) and second (August 2020: N = 515) waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, participants responded to items assessing their compliance with the COVID-19 preventive behaviors and their fear of contracting the virus. Participants' compliance and fear self-reports served as a proxy for morbidity rates. Specifically, we assessed the association between sociodemographic variables (gender, age, or belonging to a minority group), self-reports, and morbidity rates (as reported in publicly open databases of the Israeli health ministry). We found that self-reports of compliance and fear were mirrored and aligned with actual morbidity rates across sociodemographic variables and studies. By establishing a clear connection between specific behavior (i.e., compliance with covid regulations) and emotion (i.e., fear of getting infected by the virus), self-reports and sociodemographic variables represent a real related phenomena (i.e., covid 19 morbidity rates), our findings overall validate numerous studies that used self-reports to assess compliance with COVID-19 preventive behaviors.     

Defensive pessimism and precautionary action during the COVID pandemic

The purpose of this research was to test, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the hypothesis that individuals who use defensive pessimism as a strategy to manage anxiety are likely to act to prevent or mitigate negative outcomes. Across three crowd-sourced samples (Total N = 1416), defensive pessimism was correlated with self-reports of more precautionary behavior (Studies 1, 2, & 3) and fewer COVID-positive results (Study 3).     

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.     

From model minority to yellow peril: How threat perceptions and disgust predict anti-Asian prejudice during COVID-19

During the COVID-19 pandemic, hate crimes against Asians sharply increased in the United States. We investigated whether the threat of contracting COVID-19 and specific negative emotions (disgust, anxiety, fear, and anger) regarding COVID-19 predicted anti-Asian prejudice in a 3-wave longitudinal study of non-Asian American adults (N = 486) in the early days of the pandemic in 2020. In all 3 timepoints, participants who believed that they may have already contracted COVID and those who expressed greater disgust reported more anti-Asian attitudes, evaluated Asians as less than human, tolerated anti-Asian prejudice, and blamed Asians for spreading COVID-19. In a well-fitting longitudinal path model, we found longitudinal evidence for these associations, such that the belief that one had already contracted COVID-19 in March 2020 predicted greater disgust one month later, in April 2020, which in turn predicted greater anti-Asian prejudice in May 2020.     

Libertarian independent ideologies predict lower support for and participation in COVID-19 safety precautions among Americans

In the US, higher conservatism has consistently been linked to lower receptiveness toward COVID-19 safety precautions. The present studies extended these findings by examining how specific dimensions of conservatism contributed to this relationship. Three studies (total N = 1123) found that conservatives with higher Libertarian Independent attitudes reported less support for and participation in COVID-19 safety precautions. These effects remained robust after controlling for demographics, general political orientation, COVID-19 threat perception, and personality. These findings offer nuanced insight into how those with different conservative ideologies responded to COVID-19 safety precautions.     

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.     

A call for caution regarding infection-acquired COVID-19 immunity: The potentially unintended effects of “immunity passports” and how to mitigate them

Research suggests that emerging information about infection-acquired COVID-19 immunity should be interpreted with caution. The introduction of “immunity passports” that would enable people who have recovered from COVID-19 to travel freely and return to work may therefore have detrimental consequences if not managed carefully. In two studies, we examined how perceived (suspected or imagined) recovery from COVID-19, and the concept of immunity passports, influence people’s intentions to engage in behaviors aimed to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We also consider ways to lessen potential negative effects. In Study 1 (N = 1604), participants asked to imagine that they had recovered from COVID-19 reported lower social distancing intentions compared to a control condition. Participants who suspected (versus imagined) that they had recovered from past infection did not report lower preventative intentions compared to the control condition, even at high levels of certainty of past infection. In Study 2 (N = 1732), introducing the idea of immunity passports also reduced social distancing intentions compared to a control condition. The latter effect was, however, attenuated when cautious information about the equivocal science on COVID-19 was also presented to participants. Participants who suspected that they had COVID-19 in the past (compared to the control condition) revealed a similar pattern of results, but only at higher levels of certainty of past infection. Caution regarding infection-acquired COVID-19 immunity and immunity passports will be crucial in the COVID-19 response. Implications for premature pandemic announcements, as well as their potential remedies, are discussed.     

Associations between COVID-19-related disruptions and psychological adjustment in a sample of young adults

We examined the relations between disruptions experienced by young adults in the US during the COVID-19 pandemic and their psychological adjustment. An online sample (N = 180, M_age = 24.8) reported on the impact of the pandemic on their living arrangements, work status, and finances; their psychological adjustment overall and with specific reference to the pandemic; and whether they lived alone and, if living with others, there were children in the home. Results indicated a moderate association between financial strain and poor overall adjustment and a small association between job-related problems and sleep disruption. Women experienced negative effects of pandemic-related disruptions on their adjustment. Men were particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of financial strain. The results show the negative psychological effects of disruptions brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic on young adults' mental health.     

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.