How does exposure to masked individuals affect White Americans' attitudes toward Asian American and Pacific Islanders?

Across three studies, conducted between Spring 2020 and Spring 2021, we tested whether exposure to an Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI) target person wearing a face mask would increase or decrease White Americans' perceived threat from and positivity toward AAPI individuals. Although results varied by study, a single-paper meta-analysis revealed that the masked (compared to unmasked) AAPI target resulted in greater positivity toward AAPIs, due to reduced perceptions of both symbolic threat to group values and realistic threat to group health. Positivity toward AAPIs did not reliably differ after exposure to a masked versus unmasked White target. Implications for interventions that encourage COVID-safe behaviors and combat anti-AAPI attitudes are discussed.     

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 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.     

Won't you be my neighbor? Local community identification predicted decreased stress over the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic

Social identities are an important resource, especially during times of crisis. They provide shared meaning, as well as access to social and instrumental support. The COVID-19 pandemic, although global in nature, was experienced very locally; many people stopped traveling and were often confined to their homes and neighborhoods. We reasoned this would make American residents' local community identities especially important. We collected data at five time points between April 2020 and March 2021 and measured American adults' social identification with their local community, identification with a self-nominated important group, and stress. We found that stress decreased over the first few months of the pandemic, then leveled out. Importantly, this decrease was more pronounced among people who strongly identified with their local communities. Furthermore, community identities were stronger predictors of stress decreases than social groups that respondents themselves nominated as highly important to them (e.g., family, friends). These results held controlling for age, gender, political conservatism, and other variables. This research provides important insights into the importance of social identities, and specifically local communities, during times of crisis.     

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.     

Does disseminating (mis)information restore social connection during a global pandemic?

The COVID-19 pandemic impeded social interaction, negatively affecting well-being worldwide. To slow virus spread, practices were enacted to minimize face-to-face contact, leading to increased social disconnection. As people turned increasingly to online environments (e.g., social media) to fulfill needs for inclusion and belonging, misinformation regarding COVID-19 simultaneously ran rampant. The purpose of the current study was to examine whether impeded social inclusion may have contributed to the spread of misinformation. We recruited a sample of adult social media users in the United States (N = 431) and randomly assigned them to be either included, ostracized (i.e., ignored), or rejected (i.e., to receive explicitly negative attention). Participants subsequently rated their willingness to share COVID-19 claims via social media (in fact, all claims were false). Participants learned that sharing some claims would likely lead to high expected engagement from others on social media (e.g., “likes”), whereas some claims would likely lead to little expected engagement. While information sharing was low in our sample, participants were more willing to share claims that they believed would lead to higher levels of engagement—consistent with the idea that sharing information is motivated not only by the desire to educate others but also to elicit social connection. However, this behavioral intention was no more common among participants who had been momentarily ostracized or rejected online than among participants who had been included. Future research should continue to explore the link between social exclusion and the motivation to disseminate (mis)information beyond a pandemic-related context.     

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.     

The role of explanatory context for racial disparities in predicting sociopolitical attitudes during COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic placed preexisting racial health disparities in stark relief. Recent studies have already established that, among prejudiced Whites, exposure to such racial disparities reduced concern about the pandemic and support for mitigation policies (Harrel & Lieberman, 2021; Stephens-Dougan, 2022). In response to such results, one cautionary line of reasoning argues that communicating the disparity figures without explanatory context can perpetuate (or at least not undermine) myths that African Americans are more likely to contract COVID-19 due to genetic predispositions or maladaptive behavioral tendencies (Chowkwanyun & Reed, 2020). In two studies, we test the claims that (a) explanatory context mitigates the tendency to attribute racial disparities to essential racial differences and (b) that perceptions of racial disparities are attuned to specific racial inequalities in the U.S., and not merely expressions of outgroup bias. In Study 1, we found that exposure to racial disparities with explanatory context (vs. without explanatory context) did not reduce racial essentialism or stereotyping, but did promote support for healthcare equity. In Study 2, we found that black disadvantage frames (vs. white vs. Hispanic) uniquely promoted support for equitable healthcare and multicultural inclusion. Importantly, and contrary to other recent findings, exposure to black disadvantage did not preclude support for equity.     

Comparative optimism and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic

Past research suggests that being comparatively optimistic about one's risk for disease is associated with benefits to mental health, such as lowered stress and anxiety. However, few studies have longitudinally examined whether comparative optimism has the same protective benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic. The current study examined levels of comparative optimism, changes in comparative optimism over time, and the association between comparative optimism and COVID-related mental and physical health outcomes among a US adult sample during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants completed online surveys at four timepoints, over the course of four weeks in May and June of 2020. Results from paired-samples t-tests revealed that comparative optimism was present, such that participants estimated their risk for COVID-19 as being significantly lower than that of others their age and sex. Results from linear mixed models suggested that people who were more comparatively optimistic reported lower anxiety, depression, and stress. However, at times when people were more comparatively optimistic, they also reported greater depression and poorer sleep quality. Together, the findings suggest that the relationship between comparative optimism and health may be more complex than previously anticipated and further research is needed to examine the potential pathways through which comparative optimism affects health.