Pandemic related changes in social interaction are associated with changes in automatic approach-avoidance behaviour.

People's natural tendencies to either approach or avoid different stimuli in their environment are considered fundamental motivators of human behaviour. There is a wealth of research exploring how changes in approach and avoidance motivational orientations impact behaviour with consequences for wellbeing. However, research has seldom explored this relationship in reverse. The COVID-19 pandemic offered a unique opportunity to explore whether widespread changes in social behaviour are associated with changes in automatic approach-avoidance tendencies over time. We gathered online survey data on people's adherence to 7 of the prescribed social restrictions set out by the UK government and people's automatic approach-avoidance tendencies in response to different stimuli (sad/happy faces and social scenes) at three time points during the COVID-19 pandemic. Reduced-overall-interaction (digital and in person) was found to be significantly associated with faster avoidance relative to approach of sad faces. The results suggest that automatic approach-avoidance tendencies may function to protect people against the typically negative experience of reduced social interaction, with important implications for understanding public resilience during times of crisis, and beyond.

The dark side of belief in Covid-19 scientists and scientific evidence.

We draw from an interdisciplinary literature on convictions to examine the manifestations and consequences of firmly held beliefs in Covid-19 (C19) science. Across three studies (N = 743), we assess participants' beliefs in C19 experts, and beliefs in supported and unsupported empirical evidence. Study 1 establishes the basic theoretical links and we show that an individual's belief in science on C19 is associated with dispositional belief in science and moralization of C19 mitigation measures. Our subsequent two studies show how stronger belief in C19 science influences distrust in unmasked individuals past the mandates, and greater endorsement of pandemic mitigation authoritarianism. We document the dark side that emerges when belief in C19 science extends beyond the generally desirable scientific literacy and manifests as a conviction that public health experts are the only ones who can handle the pandemic, and that even unsupported claims about C19 are supported by scientific evidence (e.g., risk of outdoor transmission is high). We also highlight our political ideology findings showing that both liberals and conservatives mis-calibrate C19 risks in different ways, and we conclude with discussing how examining the darker side of scientific beliefs can inform our understanding of people's reactions to the pandemic.

Five Steps Towards Avoiding Narrative Traps in Decision-Making.

Narratives provide simple rules about how we ought to live and what our priorities ought to be. They are especially appealing in times of high uncertainty. Using the uncertainty surrounding Covid-19 as an illustration, we show how a narrative to preserve life has become dominant, and we illustrate how it has been reinforced by several behavioural biases. We argue that being able to identify and critically evaluate the impact of dominant narratives is vital to ensuring optimal decision-making. To facilitate this, we offer five recommendations-the ABCDE of decision-making-that can help to reduce the "narrative trap" in decision-making in any uncertain environment.