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.     

Worth the risk? Fear of being single and willingness to make risky health decisions in sex and dating contexts

Does fear of being single (FOBS) predict risky health behaviors when such behavior could promote pursuit of a romantic connection? Study 1 tested general tendencies toward taking health risks associated with FOBS. Study 2 tested how those with stronger FOBS navigated romantic versus non-romantic risk behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Study 3 extended the test of risky behavior beyond the pandemic to test whether FOBS was associated with willingness to engage in risky sexual behavior. Despite nonsignificant associations with taking health risks more generally, FOBS was associated with greater willingness to engage in risky behaviors in dating contexts, particularly when considering their willingness to settle for less in relationships. This research provides novel insight into dating choices associated with stronger FOBS and how willingness to settle predicts risky health behavior when it could appeal to romantic prospects.     

Envy,entitlement, and cutting the line: Dark personality predicted selfishness during the U.S. COVID-19 vaccine rollout

Dark Triad personality traits (narcissism, psychopathy, and Machivellianism) predict increased selfish thinking and behavior. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, they have been related to behaviors such as greater hoarding and decreased COVID-preventative behaviors. Here we examined whether the Dark Triad might predict selfish beliefs and behavior surrounding COVID-19 vaccinations during the 2021 U.S. vaccine rollout—a time when availability was scarce and people were prioritized based on factors like preexisting medical conditions or line of work. In a sample of 499 people, we found that the constellation of Dark Triad traits predicted skipping one's priority in line to get the COVID-19 vaccine earlier among the vaccinated. Among the unvaccinated it predicted greater envy, entitlement, perceptions of unfairness, and willingness to skip the line. Taken together, these findings suggest that those high in the Dark Triad do not simply care less about their health and safety, instead there may be circumstances in which dark traits predict preventative, albeit selfish, behavior.     

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.     

Emotional Reactions to COVID-19 Projections and Consequences for Protective Policies and Personal Behavior

How does the public react to information about the likely progression of COVID-19 cases in the United States? How do these reactions vary over the course of the pandemic and by partisanship, and with what consequences for policy attitudes and personal behavior? We argue that reading projections about the peak of COVID-19 cases in the United States is likely to lead to increased levels of anxiety and sadness. We expect that these effects will be more pronounced and less polarized along partisan lines earlier in the pandemic. Finally, we expect that elevated anxiety and sadness should in turn lead to greater support for protective policies to combat the pandemic and a greater inclination to engage in protective behaviors. To test these arguments, we fielded online survey experiments at three points in time (April, June, and August 2020), in which respondents were randomly assigned to a control group or one of two projections about the likely progression of COVID-19 cases in the United States. Across all three waves, we find that exposure to information about case peaks increases anxiety and sadness, though the effects get weaker over time, particularly among Republicans. We also find evidence that these elevated emotional responses increase support for protective policies and behavior.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Prosocial orientation and COVID-19 vaccine willingness in the U.S.

Despite evidence of the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and their wide availability, many in the U.S. are not vaccinated. Research demonstrates that prosocial orientations predict COVID-19 health behaviors (e.g., social distancing) and vaccination intentions, however, little work has examined COVID-19 vaccination willingness in the U.S. since vaccines were approved. Findings from two U.S. samples show that, in contrast to other COVID-19 health behaviors, vaccine willingness in unvaccinated people is unrelated to prosocial orientation. Study 2 demonstrates that the lack of association between vaccine willingness and prosocial orientation in unvaccinated participants was specific to those with stronger beliefs that COVID-19 vaccines are ineffective. Thus, in prosocial people, perceptions of vaccines' ineffectiveness may undermine COVID-19 vaccine willingness.     

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).     

Collective views of vaccination predict vaccine hesitancy and willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine

We examined the association between sociodemographic factors, views of vaccines as being an individual choice to protect oneself versus a collective choice to protect others, general vaccine hesitancy, and willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. In a sample of adults (N = 619; 33% non-white), we showed that demographic factors explain significant variance in both vaccine hesitancy and willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Viewing vaccines as an individual choice to protect oneself explained additional variance in vaccine hesitancy. However, people who viewed vaccines as a collective choice to protect others showed both less vaccine hesitancy and greater willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. These findings suggest that promoting prosocial attitudes about vaccinations may decrease vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake.     

Other- versus self-focus and risky health behavior: the case of HIV/AIDS

We examined the relationships of other-focus and self-focus with risky health behaviors among HIV+ individuals. Participants who were recruited by an AIDS advocacy organization completed anonymous questionnaires that included measures of other-focus (i.e. empathic concern and perspective-taking) and self-focus (i.e. personal distress and exaggerated internal control); direct measures of concern about the consequences of HIV/AIDS for the self, close others, and society; and a measure of willingness to engage in HIV/AIDS risk behaviors. As predicted, other-focus measures were generally associated with less, and self-focus measures with greater, willingness to engage in risky behavior. However, concern about the consequences of HIV/AIDS for close others was similar to self-focus and was associated with greater willingness to engage in risky behavior. These results are consistent with the notion that prevention efforts focusing on the consequences of HIV/AIDS – and perhaps other communicable diseases – might be more effective if they highlighted the consequences of the disease for society.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Culture Wars and COVID-19 Conduct: Christian Nationalism,Religiosity, and Americans’ Behavior During the Coronavirus Pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Americans’ behavioral responses were quickly politicized. Those on the left stressed precautionary behaviors, while those on the (religious) right were more likely to disregard recommended precautions. We propose the far right response was driven less by partisanship or religiosity per se, but rather by an ideology that connects disregard for scientific expertise; a conception of Americans as God's chosen and protected people; distrust for news media; and allegiance to Trump―Christian nationalism. Analyzing panel data collected in the thick of the COVID-19 crisis, we find Christian nationalism was the leading predictor that Americans engaged in incautious behavior like eating in restaurants, visiting family/friends, or gathering with 10+ persons (though not attending church), and was the second strongest predictor that Americans took fewer precautions like wearing a mask or sanitizing/washing one's hands. Religiosity, in contrast, was the leading predictor that Americans engaged in more frequent precautionary behaviors. Findings document that Christian nationalism, not religious commitment per se, undergirded the far-right response to COVID-19 that disregarded precautionary recommendations, thus potentially worsening the pandemic.     

Unvaxxed and unafraid: Unvaccinated Americans perceive less disease risk than do vaccinated Americans

Is disease risk perception accurately calibrated among the unvaccinated? People shift their attitudes to rationalize their choices, so those who choose to be unvaccinated may be motivated to feel less at risk. In three studies (total N = 1446), we asked Americans how worried they were about catching/spreading influenza and COVID-19 and whether they were vaccinated against those diseases. Unvaccinated participants felt less at risk of catching/spreading the diseases they were unvaccinated against than vaccinated participants. For instance, unvaccinated participants felt ∼24% less at risk of catching/spreading COVID-19 and had ∼28% stronger intention to engage in activities that carried a high risk of COVID-19 transmission (Study 3). Overall, those who choose to be the most vulnerable to disease feel and act the least vulnerable.     

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.     

I love you too much to keep social distance: Closeness in relationships and (dis)engagement in preventive behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic

Although we are witnessing a new phase in the management of COVID-19, understanding what predicts adherence to preventive behaviors still remains crucial. In this study we focus on interpersonal relationships by specifically investigating whether engagement in preventive behaviors when in the presence of others may be a function of the type of relationship (in terms of closeness) one has with others. Because close others are often perceived similar to the self compared to strangers, we put forward that close relationships may inadvertently decrease COVID-19 risk perceptions which may ultimately decrease compliance with recommended behaviors when in their presence. To test this hypothesis, 747 Italian respondents were invited to answer one out of four versions of a questionnaire differing on the target (i.e., friends vs. parents vs. grandparents vs. strangers), including questions regarding COVID-19 risk perceptions and intentions to engage in preventive behaviors. Mediation analysis showed that close relationships (i.e., with friends, parents, and grandparents) compared to nonclose relationships (i.e., with strangers) predicted lower intentions to engage in preventive behaviors via lower risk perceptions. Altogether, these results shed light on the role played by closeness in indirectly shaping individuals' dis(engagement) in preventive behaviors and contribute to better understand possible unconscious biases which may undermine our safety during the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Implicit and explicit COVID-19-vaccine harmfulness/helpfulness associations predict vaccine beliefs,intentions, and behaviors

We investigated the role of implicit and explicit associations between harm and COVID-19 vaccines using a large sample (N = 4668) of online volunteers. The participants completed a brief implicit association test and explicit measures to evaluate the extent to which they associated COVID-19 vaccines with concepts of harmfulness or helpfulness. We examined the relationship between these harmfulness/helpfulness COVID-19 vaccine associations and vaccination status, intentions, beliefs, and behavior. We found that stronger implicit and explicit associations that COVID-19 vaccines are helpful relate to vaccination status and beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccine. That is, stronger pro-helpful COVID-19 vaccine associations, both implicitly and explicitly, related to greater intentions to be vaccinated, more positive beliefs about the vaccine, and greater vaccine uptake.