The Costs of Polarizing a Pandemic: Antecedents, Consequences, and Lessons (preprint)

One of the signature features of the American response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been the degree to which perceptions of risk and willingness to follow public health recommendations have been politically polarized. This paper will succinctly review research showing that every phase of the pandemic and key policies were polarized, including judgments of risk, spatial distancing, mask wearing, and vaccination. We will describe the role of political ideology, partisan identity, leadership, misinformation, and mass communication in this public health crisis. We will then assess the overall impact of polarization on the progression of the pandemic, offer a analysis of key policy questions, and identify a set of research questions for scholars and policy experts. Finally, we will include policy recommendations for avoiding the same mistakes in future public health crises

Evaluating expectations from social and behavioral science about COVID-19 and lessons for the next pandemic (preprint)

Social and behavioral science research proliferated during the COVID-19 pandemic, reflecting the substantial increase in influence of behavioral science in public health and public policy more broadly. This review presents a comprehensive assessment of 742 scientific articles on human behavior during COVID-19. Two independent teams evaluated 19 substantive policy recommendations (“claims”) on potentially critical aspects of behaviors during the pandemic drawn from the most widely cited behavioral science papers on COVID-19. Teams were made up of original authors and an independent team, all of whom were blinded to other team member reviews throughout. Both teams found evidence in support of 16 of the claims; for two claims, teams found only null evidence; and for no claims did the teams find evidence of effects in the opposite direction. One claim had no evidence available to assess. Seemingly due to the risks of the pandemic, most studies were limited to surveys, highlighting a need for more investment in field research and behavioral validation studies. The strongest findings indicate interventions that combat misinformation and polarization, and to utilize effective forms of messaging that engage trusted leaders and emphasize positive social norms.

Open-mindedness predicts support for public health measures and disbelief in conspiracy theories during the COVID-19 pandemic (preprint)

The COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the importance of public support for non-pharmaceutical public health interventions and the perils of rampant spread of misinformed or conspiratorial beliefs. Open-minded epistemic attitudes may be associated with adherence to public health recommendations and protect against holding false beliefs. In a large (N = 49 968, 68 countries) global sample collected during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic we find that open-minded people are less likely to accept conspiracy theories about the disease, more likely to engage in physical distancing, more likely to engage in hygienic behaviors such as hand-washing, and more likely to support public health policies such as closing dangerous indoor spaces such as restaurants and bars. In fact, out of seventeen potential individual difference measures, open-mindedness turns out to be the strongest predictor for rejecting conspiracy beliefs, and supporting physical distancing, and policy support and among the strongest for physical hygiene. In exploratory analyses, we find that public health support is associated with a learning oriented factor of open-mindedness while conspiratorial beliefs are associated with a threat oriented factor of open-mindedness. We further find that the effect of threat oriented open-mindedness interacts with participants' left-right political orientation. These results suggest that it will be important to investigate whether open-mindedness can be cultivated or encouraged through educational or other interventions to ensure that public health is protected and that conspiracy theories about COVID-19 do not spread.

Letter to the Editors of Psychological Science: Meta-Analysis Reveals that Accuracy Nudges Have Little to No Effect for U.S. Conservatives: Regarding Pennycook et al. (2020) (preprint)

According to recent work, subtly nudging people to think about accuracy can reduce the sharing of COVID-19 misinformation online (Pennycook et al., 2020). The authors argue that inattention to accuracy is a key factor behind the sharing of misinformation. They further argue that “partisanship is not, apparently, the key factor distracting people from considering accuracy on social media” (p. 777). However, our meta-analysis of data from this paper and other similar papers finds that partisanship is indeed a key factor underlying accuracy judgments on social media. Specifically, our meta-analysis suggests that the effectiveness of the accuracy nudge intervention depends on partisanship such that it has little to no effect for U.S. conservatives or Republicans. This changes one of Pennycook and colleague’s (2020) central conclusions by revealing that partisanship matters considerably for the success of this intervention. Further, since U.S. conservatives and Republicans are far more likely to share misinformation than U.S. liberals and Democrats (Guess et al., 2019; Lawson & Kakkar, 2021; Osmundsen, 2021), this intervention may be ineffective for those most likely to spread fake news.

National identity predicts public health support during a global pandemic (preprint)

Changing collective behaviour and supporting non-pharmaceutical interventions is an important component in mitigating virus transmission during a pandemic. In a large international collaboration (Study 1, N = 49,968 across 67 countries), we investigated self-reported factors that associated with people reported adopting public health behaviours (e.g., spatial distancing and stricter hygiene) and endorsed public policy interventions (e.g., closing bars and restaurants) during the early stage of the pandemic (April-May 2020). Respondents who reported identifying more strongly with their nation consistently reported greater engagement in public health behaviours and support for public health policies. Results were similar for representative and non-representative national samples. Study 2 (N = 42 countries) conceptually replicated the central finding using aggregate indices of national identity (obtained using the World Values Survey) and a measure of actual behaviour change during the pandemic (obtained from Google mobility reports). Higher levels of national identification prior to the pandemic predicted lower mobility during the early stage of the pandemic (r = -.40). We discuss the potential implications of links between national identity, leadership, and public health for managing COVID-19 and future pandemics.

Troll and Divide: The Language of Online Polarization (preprint)

The affective animosity between the political left and right has grown steadily in many countries over the past few years, posing a threat to democratic practices and public health. There is a rising concern over the role that ‘bad actors’ or trolls may play in the polarization of online networks. In this research, we examined the processes by which trolls may sow intergroup conflict through polarized rhetoric. We developed a dictionary to assess online polarization by measuring language associated with communications that display partisan bias in their diffusion. We validated the polarized language dictionary in four different contexts and across multiple time periods. The polarization dictionary made out-of-set predictions, generalized to both new political contexts (#BlackLivesMatter) and a different social media platform (Reddit), and predicted partisan differences in public opinion polls about COVID-19. Then we analyzed tweets from a known Russian troll source (N = 383,510) and found that their use of polarized language has increased over time. We also compared troll tweets from three countries (N = 798,33) and found that they all utilize more polarized language than regular Americans (N = 1,507,300) and trolls have increased their use of polarized rhetoric over time. We also find that polarized language is associated with greater engagement, but this association only holds for politically engaged users (both trolls and regular users). This research clarifies how trolls leverage polarized language and provides an open-source, simple tool for exploration of polarized communications on social media.

The best-case heuristic: Relative optimism in a global health pandemic (preprint)

In the first wave of COVID-19, we examined how people evaluate personal risk in a global pandemic. Three experiments identified two kinds of relative optimism (N=2,300 Americans). Consistent with a best-case heuristic, participants made "realistic" predictions of infection risk that were closer to their own best-case scenario than to their worst-case scenario. Infection risk was also rated as lower for oneself than the average person, indicating unrealistic optimism. Both effects were successfully replicated in a high-powered replication (nationally-representative). More generally, infection risk predictions were positively correlated with emotional distress, pro-social intentions, and support of public-health lockdown policies. Although a bipartisan majority supported lockdown, right-leaning conservatives made lower risk predictions and were less supportive than left-leaning liberals. Resistance to early lockdown was also associated with the belief in national superiority. Finally, the best-case heuristic generalized to predicted waiting time for a COVID-19 vaccine and future relationship satisfaction, suggesting a broader pattern.

Partisan differences in physical distancing are linked to health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. (preprint)

Numerous polls suggest that COVID-19 is a profoundly partisan issue in the U.S. Using the geotracking data of 15 million smartphones per day, we found that U.S. counties that voted for Donald Trump (Republican) over Hillary Clinton (Democrat) in the 2016 presidential election exhibited 14% less physical distancing between March and May 2020. Partisanship was more strongly associated with physical distancing than numerous factors, including counties’ median income, COVID-19 cases, population density, and racial and age demographics. Contrary to our predictions, the observed partisan gap strengthened over time and remained when stay-at-home orders were active. Additionally, county-level consumption of conservative media (Fox News) related to reduced physical distancing. Finally, the observed partisan differences in distancing were associated with subsequently higher COVID-19 infection and fatality growth rates in pro-Trump counties. Taken together, these data suggest that U.S. citizens’ responses to COVID-19 are subject to a deep—and consequential—partisan divide.

National Narcissism and the Belief and the Dissemination of Conspiracy Theories During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence From 56 Countries (preprint)

Conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 have propagated around the globe, leading the World Health Organization to declare the spread of misinformation an ‘Infodemic’. We tested the hypothesis that national narcissism —a belief in the greatness of one’s nation that requires external recognition— is associated with the spread of conspiracy theories during the COVID-19 pandemic. In two large-scale national surveys (NTotal = 950) conducted in the US and the UK, and secondary analysis of data from 56 countries (N = 50,757), we found a robust, positive relationship between national narcissism and proneness to believe and disseminate conspiracy theories related to COVID-19. Further, belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories was related to less engagement in health behaviors and less support for public-health policies to combat COVID-19. Our findings illustrate the importance of social identity factors in the spread of conspiracy theories and provide insights into the psychological processes underlying the COVID-19 pandemic.

Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response (preprint)

The COVID-19 pandemic represents a massive global health crisis. Because the crisis requires large-scale behaviour change and places significant psychological burdens on individuals, insights from the social and behavioural sciences can be used to help align human behavior with the recommendations of epidemiologists and public health experts. Here we discuss evidence from a selection of research topics relevant to pandemics, including work on navigating threats, social and cultural influences on behaviour, science communication, moral decision-making, leadership, and stress and coping. In each section, we note the nature and quality of prior research, including uncertainty and unsettled issues. We identify several insights for effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and also highlight important gaps researchers should move quickly to fill in the coming weeks and months.