Threat Rejection Fuels Political Dehumanization (preprint)

Americans disagree about many things, including what threats are most pressing. We suggest people morally condemn and dehumanize opponents when they are perceived as rejecting the existence or severity of important perceived threats. We explore perceived “threat rejection” across five studies (N=2,404) both in the real-world COVID-19 pandemic and in novel contexts. Americans morally condemned and dehumanized policy opponents when they seemed to reject realistic group threats (e.g., threat to the physical health or resources of the group). Believing opponents rejected symbolic group threats (e.g., to collective identity) was not reliably linked to condemnation and dehumanization. Importantly, the political dehumanization caused by perceived threat rejection can be soothed with a “threat acknowledgement” intervention.

Threat of Racial and Economic Inequality Increases Preference for Algorithm Decision-Making (preprint)

Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms hold promise to reduce inequalities across race and socioeconomic status. One of the most important domains of racial and economic inequalities is medical outcomes; Black and low-income people are more likely to die from many diseases. Algorithms can help reduce these inequalities because they are less likely than human doctors to make biased decisions. Unfortunately, people are generally averse to algorithms making important moral decisions—including in medicine—undermining the adoption of AI in healthcare. Here we use the COVID-19 pandemic to examine whether the threat of racial and economic inequality increases the preference for algorithm decision-making. Four studies (N=2,819) conducted in the United States and Singapore show that emphasizing inequality in medical outcomes increases the preference for algorithm decision-making for triage decisions. These studies suggest that one way to increase the acceptance of AI in healthcare is to emphasize the threat of inequality and its negative outcomes associated with human decision-making.

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.

Psychological Science in the Wake of COVID-19: Social, Methodological, and Meta-Scientific Considerations (preprint)

The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively changed the state of psychological science, from what research questions psychologists can ask to which methodologies psychologists can employ to investigate them. In this article, we offer a perspective on how to optimize new research in the pandemic’s wake. As this pandemic is inherently a social phenomenon—an event that hinges upon human-to-human contact—we focus on socially relevant subfields of psychology. We highlight specific psychological phenomena that have likely shifted due to the pandemic and discuss theoretical, methodological, and practical considerations of conducting research on these phenomena. Following this discussion, we evaluate meta-scientific issues that have been amplified by the pandemic. We aim to demonstrate how theoretically grounded views on the COVID-19 pandemic can help make psychological science stronger—not weaker—in its wake.

Measuring Realistic and Symbolic Threats of COVID-19 and their Unique Impacts on Wellbeing and Adherence to Public Health Behaviors (preprint)

COVID-19 threatens lives, livelihoods, and civic institutions. Although restrictive public health behaviors such as social distancing help manage its impact, these behaviors can further sever our connections to people and institutions that affirm our identities. Three studies (N=1,195) validated a brief 10-item COVID-19 threat scale that assesses 1) realistic threats to physical or financial safety, and 2) symbolic threats to one’s sociocultural identity. Studies reveal that both realistic and symbolic threat predict higher distress and lower wellbeing, and demonstrate convergent validity with other measures of threat sensitivity. Importantly, the two kinds of threat diverge in their relationship to restrictive public health behaviors: Realistic threat predicted greater self-reported adherence, whereas symbolic threat predicted less self-reported adherence to social-disconnection behaviors. Symbolic threat also predicted using creative ways to affirm identity even in isolation. Our findings highlight how social psychological theory can be leveraged to understand and predict people’s behavior in pandemics.