Implicit and explicit COVID-19 associations and mental health in the United States: a large-scale examination and replication.

BACKGROUND: Given the sensitive nature of COVID-19 beliefs, evaluating them explicitly and implicitly may provide a fuller picture of how these beliefs vary based on identities and how they relate to mental health. OBJECTIVE: Three novel brief implicit association tests (BIATs) were created and evaluated: two that measured COVID-19-as-dangerous (vs. safe) and one that measured COVID-19 precautions-as-necessary (vs. unnecessary). Implicit and explicit COVID-19 associations were examined based on individuals' demographic characteristics. Implicit associations were hypothesized to uniquely contribute to individuals' self-reports of mental health. METHODS: Participants (N = 13,413 US residents; April-November 2020) were volunteers for a COVID-19 study. Participants completed one BIAT and self-report measures. This was a preregistered study with a planned internal replication. RESULTS: Results revealed older age was weakly associated with stronger implicit and explicit associations of COVID-as-dangerous and precautions-as-necessary. Black and Asian individuals reported greater necessity of taking precautions than White individuals (with small-to-medium effects); greater education was associated with greater explicit reports of COVID-19-as-dangerous and precautions-as-necessary with small effects. Replicated relationships between COVID-as-dangerous explicit associations and mental health had very small effects. CONCLUSIONS: Implicit associations did not predict mental health but there was evidence that stronger COVID-19-as-dangerous explicit associations are weakly associated with worse mental health.

The role of uncertainty, worry, and control in well-being: Evidence from the COVID-19 outbreak and pandemic in U.S. and China.

Uncertainty about the future often leads to worries about what the future will bring, which can have negative consequences for health and well-being. However, if worry can act as a motivator to promote efforts to prevent undesirable future outcomes, those negative consequences of worry may be mitigated. In this article, we apply a novel model of uncertainty, worry, and perceived control to predict psychological and physical well-being among four samples collected in China (Study 1; during the early COVID-19 outbreak in China) and the United States (Studies 2-4, during 4 weeks in May 2020, 4 weeks in November 2020, and cross-sectionally between April and November 2020). Grounded in the feeling-is-for-doing approach to emotions, we hypothesized (and found) that uncertainty about one's COVID-19 risk would predict greater worry about the virus and one's risk of contracting it, and that greater worry would in turn predict poorer well-being. We also hypothesized, and found somewhat mixed evidence, that perceptions of control over 1's COVID-19 risk moderated the relationship between worry and well-being such that worry was related to diminished well-being when people felt they lacked control over their risk for contracting the virus. This study is one of the first to demonstrate an indirect path from uncertainty to well-being via worry and to demonstrate the role of control in moderating whether uncertainty and worry manifest in poor well-being. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Who is more likely to ignore experts' advice related to COVID-19?

Failing to adhere to COVID-19 experts' advice could have devastating consequences for individuals and communities. Here we determine which demographic factors can impact trust in COVID-19 experts. Participants consisted of more than 1875 online volunteers, primarily from the U.S. Survey data were collected before and after the first peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S. (28th of March-15th of May 2020). We consistently find that participants with a lower perceived socio-economic status, social conservatives, individualists, and participants who are less worried about COVID-19 are significantly more likely to support individuals who ignore the goverment's, scientists', medical professionals' COVID-19 advice. Regarding race, Black participants consistently (and Hispanics to a lesser degree) were more likely to support individuals who ignore the three expert groups relative to Whites. All these findings generalized to weaker trust towards public policy decision experts. Asian and other racial groups' trust was consistently lower than Whites, but primarily numerically, not statistically. Age and gender showed weak or inconsistent results respectively. We provide an enhanced understanding of the demographic factors that can result in individuals/groups ignoring COVID-19 experts. Lack of compliance could increase the transmission risks of the virus. Therefore, non-partisan campaigns that target individuals/groups who distrust COVID-19 experts will likely reduce COVID-19 related deaths. Increasing expert representatives' racial diversity may also increase trust among racial minorities.

Exposure and Aversion to Human Transmissible Diseases Predict Conservative Ideological and Partisan Preferences.

The objective prevalence of and subjective vulnerability to infectious diseases are associated with greater ingroup preference, conformity, and traditionalism. However, evidence directly testing the link between infectious diseases and political ideology and partisanship is lacking. Across four studies, including a large sample representative of the U.S. population (N > 12,000), we demonstrate that higher environmental levels of human transmissible diseases and avoidance of germs from human carriers predict conservative ideological and partisan preferences. During the COVID-19 pandemic (N = 848), we replicated this germ aversion finding and determined that these conservative preferences were primarily driven by avoidance of germs from outgroups (foreigners) rather than ingroups (locals). Moreover, socially conservative individuals expressed lower concerns of being susceptible to contracting infectious diseases during the pandemic and worried less about COVID-19. These effects were robust to individual-level and state-level controls. We discuss these findings in light of theory on parasite stress and the behavioral immune system and with regard to the political implications of the COVID-19 pandemic.