The distinct associations of ingroup attachment and glorification with responses to the coronavirus pandemic: Evidence from a multilevel investigation in 21 countries.

While public health crises such as the coronavirus pandemic transcend national borders, practical efforts to combat them are often instantiated at the national level. Thus, national group identities may play key roles in shaping compliance with and support for preventative measures (e.g., hygiene and lockdowns). Using data from 25,159 participants across representative samples from 21 nations, we investigated how different modalities of ingroup identification (attachment and glorification) are linked with reactions to the coronavirus pandemic (compliance and support for lockdown restrictions). We also examined the extent to which the associations of attachment and glorification with responses to the coronavirus pandemic are mediated through trust in information about the coronavirus pandemic from scientific and government sources. Multilevel models suggested that attachment, but not glorification, was associated with increased trust in science and compliance with federal COVID-19 guidelines. However, while both attachment and glorification were associated with trust in government and support for lockdown restrictions, glorification was more strongly associated with trust in government information than attachment. These results suggest that both attachment and glorification can be useful for promoting public health, although glorification's role, while potentially stronger, is restricted to pathways through trust in government information.

Crisis complicates peacebuilding in postconflict societies: COVID-19 support triggers negative outgroup emotions among individuals with low and high prejudice

Despite research on intergroup relations showing that prejudice influences the effect of intergroup help on outgroup empathy, less is known about the interplay of prejudice and intergroup help on outgroup emotions, trust, and perceptions in postconflict societies, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. In response, we examined whether outgroup prejudice moderates the effect of outgroup help with fighting COVID-19 on intergroup affect and intergroup perception. In two studies (Ntotal = 811), participants with low prejudice exhibited more negative intergroup emotions and perceptions (i.e., perceived outgroup dominance) and less outgroup trust when the outgroup's country (i.e., a former opponent) had supported their country in fighting the pandemic than when it had supported another country or when support had been exchanged between other countries. In addition, participants with high prejudice exhibited more negative intergroup emotions and perceptions and less outgroup trust in all experimental conditions and perceived outgroup dominance explained the observed effects for participants with low prejudice. This article discusses what these results imply for theory and practice concerning postconflict intergroup relations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved) Impact Statement This research clarifies how people in postconflict societies react to receiving help from former opponents. In two studies, individuals with low prejudice had less trust and more negative emotions and perceptions regarding the outgroup after receiving outgroup help than in two control conditions. In addition, individuals with high prejudice had those same emotions, perceptions, and levels of trust whether the outgroup had offered help or not, which indicates their largely fixed negative views on the outgroup. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

In it together?: Exploring solidarity with frontline workers in the United Kingdom and Ireland during COVID-19.

The phrase 'in it together' has been used liberally since the outbreak of COVID-19, but the extent that frontline workers felt 'in it together' is not well understood. Here, we consider the factors that built (or eroded) solidarity while working through the pandemic, and how frontline workers navigated their lives through periods of disconnection. Semi-structured interviews with 21 frontline workers, across all sectors, were conducted in the United Kingdom and Ireland. The qualitative data were analysed systematically using reflexive thematic analysis. The three themes identified in the data were: (1) Solidarity as central to frontline experiences; (2) Leadership as absent, shallow and divisive: highlighting 'us-them' distinctions and (3) The rise of 'us' and 'we' among colleagues. Our research offers insights into how frontline workers make sense of their experiences of solidarity and discordance during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, with relevance for government and organizational policy-makers shaping future conditions for frontline workers.

Crisis complicates peacebuilding in postconflict societies: COVID-19 support triggers negative outgroup emotions among individuals with low and high prejudice

Despite research on intergroup relations showing that prejudice influences the effect of intergroup help on outgroup empathy, less is known about the interplay of prejudice and intergroup help on outgroup emotions, trust, and perceptions in postconflict societies, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. In response, we examined whether outgroup prejudice moderates the effect of outgroup help with fighting COVID-19 on intergroup affect and intergroup perception. In two studies (N-total = 811), participants with low prejudice exhibited more negative intergroup emotions and perceptions (i.e., perceived outgroup dominance) and less outgroup trust when the outgroup' s country (i.e., a former opponent) had supported their country in fighting the pandemic than when it had supported another country or when support had been exchanged between other countries. In addition, participants with high prejudice exhibited more negative intergroup emotions and perceptions and less outgroup trust in all experimental conditions and perceived outgroup dominance explained the observed effects for participants with low prejudice. This article discusses what these results imply for theory and practice concerning postconflict intergroup relations.

Trust in scientific information mediates associations between conservatism and coronavirus responses in the U.S., but few other nations.

U.S.-based research suggests conservatism is linked with less concern about contracting coronavirus and less preventative behaviors to avoid infection. Here, we investigate whether these tendencies are partly attributable to distrust in scientific information, and evaluate whether they generalize outside the U.S., using public data and recruited representative samples across three studies (Ntotal = 34,710). In Studies 1 and 2, we examine these relationships in the U.S., yielding converging evidence for a sequential indirect effect of conservatism on compliance through scientific (dis)trust and infection concern. In Study 3, we compare these relationships across 19 distinct countries. Although the relationships between trust in scientific information about the coronavirus, concern about coronavirus infection, and compliance are consistent cross-nationally, the relationships between conservatism and trust in scientific information are not. These relationships are strongest in North America. Consequently, the indirect effects observed in Studies 1-2 only replicate in North America (the U.S. and Canada) and in Indonesia. Study 3 also found parallel direct and indirect effects on support for lockdown restrictions. These associations suggest not only that relationships between conservatism and compliance are not universal, but localized to particular countries where conservatism is more strongly related to trust in scientific information about the coronavirus pandemic.

Social cohesion and loneliness are associated with the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Recent research has suggested that psychosocial factors influence the antibody response to vaccine, including SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) vaccines. Here we investigated whether social cohesion and loneliness were predictive of antibody response to a single dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We also tested if the association between social cohesion and antibody response was mediated by feelings of loneliness. METHODS: Participants (N = 676) COVID-19 antibody data were extracted from March 2021 wave of the Understanding Society COVID-19 study from the UK. Relevant socio-demographics, health and lifestyle, loneliness, social cohesion indices were also used in a series of hierarchical linear regression to test our main hypotheses. RESULTS: After controlling for covariates (e.g., age and chronic health conditions), lower social cohesion was associated with a lower antibody response. Further, the association between social cohesion and poorer antibody responses was mediated by loneliness; those reporting lower social cohesion also reported higher loneliness, which in turn was associated with lower antibody response. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that feelings of 'being in it together' relate to the strength of the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination, emphasising the importance of the social cohesion agenda during the pandemic.

Pandemic threat and group cohesion: national identification in the wake of COVID-19 is associated with authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism emerges in times of societal threat, in part driven by desires for group-based security. As such, we propose that the threat caused by the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increased authoritarian tendencies and that this can be partially explained by increased national identification. We tested this hypothesis by collecting cross-sectional data from three different countries in April 2020. In Study 1, data from Ireland (N = 1276) showed that pandemic threat predicted increased national identification, which in turn predicted authoritarianism. In Study 2, we replicated this indirect effect in a representative UK sample (N = 506). In Study 3, we used an alternative measure of authoritarianism and conceptually replicated this effect among USA citizens (N = 429). In this US sample, the association between threat and authoritarian tendencies was stronger among progressives compared to conservatives. Findings are discussed and linked to group-based models of authoritarianism.

A meta-analysis of influenza vaccination following correspondence: Considerations for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: High vaccination rates are needed to protect against influenza and to end the COVID-19 pandemic. Health authorities need to know if supplementing mass communications with direct correspondence to the community would increase uptake. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to determine if sending a single written message directly to individuals increases influenza vaccine uptake, and a secondary objective is to identify any identified content shown to increase influenza vaccine uptake. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and PubMed were searched for RCTs testing a single correspondence for members of the community in OECD countries to obtain influenza vaccination. A meta-analysis with inverse-variance, random-effects modelling was used to estimate a mean, weighted risk ratio effect size measure of vaccine uptake. Studies were quality assessed and analysis was undertaken to account for potential publication bias. RESULTS: Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials were included, covering 45 interventions. Of the 45 interventions, 37 (82.2%) report an increase in influenza vaccination rates. A formal meta-analysis shows that sending a single written message increased influenza vaccine uptake by 16%, relative to the no contact comparator group (RR = 1.16, 95% CI [1.13-1.20], Z = 9.25, p < .001). Analysis shows that the intervention is effective across correspondence type, age group, time, and location, and after allowing for risk of publication bias. LIMITATIONS: The generalizability of results across the OECD may be questioned. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The implication for public health authorities organizing vaccination programs for influenza, and arguably also for COVID-19, is that sending written vaccination correspondence to members of the community is likely to increase uptake. This study is pre-registered on osf.io; details can be found at https://osf.io/98mr7.

The Political Psychology of COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to unprecedented and extraordinary conditions. It represents a profound threat to health and political and economic stability globally. It is the pressing issue of the current historical moment and is likely to have far-reaching social and political implications over the next decade. Political psychology can inform our preparedness for the next phase of the pandemic as well as our planning for a post COVID-19 world. We hope that this special issue will play its part in helping us to think how we manage and live with COVID-19 over the coming decade. In this editorial, we review the key themes arising from the contributions to our special issue and, alongside existing knowledge highlight the relevance of political psychology to finding solutions during this time of crisis. The contributions to this special issue and the pandemic raise many classic topics of central interest to political psychology: leadership, solidarity and division, nationalism, equality, racism, and international and intergroup relations. In our editorial, we offer an analysis that highlights three key themes. First, the importance of sociopolitical factors in shaping behavior during this pandemic. Second, the relevance of political leadership and rhetoric to collective efforts to tackle SARS-COV-2. And third, how sociopolitical cohesion and division has become increasingly relevant during this time of threat and crisis.