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.

Religion Does Not Prevent Trust in Science, but Non-Religious People Think it Does (preprint)

How does religion influence attitudes towards science? Some theories claim that religion encourages conflict with science by narrowing people’s worldviews, whereas others claim that religious people combine insights from science and religion to understand the world. We reconcile these perspectives with a new model of science and religion, drawn from goal systems theory, that makes two key hypotheses. Studies 1-2 test a compatibility hypothesis that religious people should perceive less conflict between science and religion than non-religious people. We support this hypothesis in the U.S. (Study 1) and in a 38-nation sample (Study 2). Studies 3-6 test an instrumentality hypothesis that religious people should view science and religion as each moderately instrumental, whereas non-religious people should view science as extremely instrumental and religion as not at all instrumental. We support this hypothesis by analyzing how people explain extraordinary phenomena (Study 3), answer “life’s big questions” (Study 4), and avoid infection during COVID-19 (Study 5). Our studies also show that non-religious people underestimate religious people’s trust in science, and view science and religion as more mutually exclusive than do religious people (Study 6). These studies challenge claims about tensions between religion and science, and reconcile seemingly contradictory findings from past research. Religious people may be more open to science than non-religious people think.