Social identification and risk dynamics: How perceptions of (inter)personal and collective risk impact the adoption of COVID-19 preventative behaviors.

Public adoption of preventative behaviors to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 is crucial to managing the pandemic, and so it is vital to determine what factors influence the uptake of those behaviors. Previous studies have identified COVID-19 risk perceptions as a key factor, but this work has typically been limited both in assuming that risk means risk to the personal self, and in being reliant on self-reported data. Drawing on the social identity approach, we conducted two online studies in which we investigated the effects of two different types of risk on preventative measure taking: risk to the personal self and risk to the collective self (i.e., members of a group with which one identifies). Both studies involved behavioral measures using innovative interactive tasks. In Study 1 (n = 199; data collected 27 May 2021), we investigated the effects of (inter)personal and collective risk on physical distancing. In Study 2 (n = 553; data collected 20 September 2021), we investigated the effects of (inter)personal and collective risk on the speed at which tests are booked as COVID-19 symptoms develop. In both studies, we find that perceptions of collective risk, but not perceptions of (inter)personal risk, influence the extent to which preventative measures are adopted. We discuss the implications both conceptually (as they relate to both the conceptualization of risk and social identity processes) and also practically (in terms of the implications for public health communications).

Engaged followership and toxic science: Exploring the effect of prototypicality on willingness to follow harmful experimental instructions.

Drawing on the 'engaged followership' reinterpretation of Milgram's work on obedience, four studies (three pre-registered) examine the extent to which people's willingness to follow an experimenter's instructions is dependent on the perceived prototypicality of the science they are supposedly advancing. In Studies 1, 2 and 3, participants took part in a study that was described as advancing either 'hard' (prototypical) science (i.e., neuroscience) or 'soft' (non-prototypical) science (i.e., social science) before completing an online analogue of Milgram's 'Obedience to Authority' paradigm. In Studies 1 and 2, participants in the neuroscience condition completed more trials than those in the social science condition. This effect was not replicated in Study 3, possibly because the timing of data collection (late 2020) coincided with an emphasis on social science's importance in controlling COVID-19. Results of a final cross-sectional study (Study 4) indicated that participants who perceived the study to be more prototypical of science found it more worthwhile, reported making a wider contribution by taking part, reported less dislike for the task, more happiness at having taken part, and more trust in the researchers, all of which indirectly predicted greater followership. Implications for the theoretical understanding of obedience to toxic instructions are discussed.

Is it really "panic buying"? Public perceptions and experiences of extra buying at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Shopping behaviour in response to extreme events is often characterized as "panic buying" which connotes irrationality and loss of control. However, "panic buying" has been criticized for attributing shopping behaviour to people's alleged psychological frailty while ignoring other psychological and structural factors that might be at play. We report a qualitative exploration of the experiences and understandings of shopping behaviour of members of the public at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Through a thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 23 participants, we developed three themes. The first theme addresses people's understandings of "panic buying". When participants referred to "panic buying" they meant observed product shortages (rather than the underlying psychological processes that can lead to such behaviours), preparedness behaviours, or emotions such as fear and worry. The second theme focuses on the influence of the media and other people's behaviour in shaping subsequent shopping behaviours. The third theme addresses the meaningful motivations behind increased shopping, which participants described in terms of preparedness; some participants reported increased shopping behaviours as a response to other people stockpiling, to reduce their trips to supermarkets, or to prepare for product shortages and longer stays at home. Overall, despite frequently using the term 'panic', the irrationalist connotations of "panic buying" were largely absent from participants' accounts. Thus, "panic buying" is not a useful concept and should not be used as it constructs expected responses to threat as irrational or pathological. It can also facilitate such behaviours, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Social norms, social identities and the COVID-19 pandemic: Theory and recommendations.

Sustained mass behaviour change is needed to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic, but many of the required changes run contrary to existing social norms (e.g., physical closeness with in-group members). This paper explains how social norms and social identities are critical to explaining and changing public behaviour. Recommendations are presented for how to harness these social processes to maximise adherence to COVID-19 public health guidance. Specifically, we recommend that public health messages clearly define who the target group is, are framed as identity-affirming rather than identity-contradictory, include complementary injunctive and descriptive social norm information, are delivered by in-group members and that support is provided to enable the public to perform the requested behaviours.