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.

On order and disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In this paper, we analyse the conditions under which the COVID-19 pandemic will lead either to social order (adherence to measures put in place by authorities to control the pandemic) or to social disorder (resistance to such measures and the emergence of open conflict). Using examples from different countries (principally the United Kingdom, the United States, and France), we first isolate three factors which determine whether people accept or reject control measures. These are the historical context of state-public relations, the nature of leadership during the pandemic and procedural justice in the development and operation of these measures. Second, we analyse the way the crisis is policed and how forms of policing determine whether dissent will escalate into open conflict. We conclude by considering the prospects for order/disorder as the pandemic unfolds.

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.

How national leaders keep 'us' safe: A longitudinal, four-nation study exploring the role of identity leadership as a predictor of adherence to COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether citizens' adherence to health-protective non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) during the COVID-19 pandemic is predicted by identity leadership, wherein leaders are perceived to create a sense of shared national identity. DESIGN: Observational two-wave study. Hypotheses testing was conducted with structural equation modelling. SETTING: Data collection during the COVID-19 pandemic in China, Germany, Israel and the USA in April/May 2020 and four weeks later. PARTICIPANTS: Adults in China (n=548, 66.6% women), Germany (n=182, 78% women), Israel (n=198, 51.0% women) and the USA (n=108, 58.3% women). MEASURES: Identity leadership (assessed by the four-item Identity Leadership Inventory Short-Form) at Time 1, perceived shared national identification (PSNI; assessed with four items) and adherence to health-protective NPIs (assessed with 10 items that describe different health-protective interventions; for example, wearing face masks) at Time 2. RESULTS: Identity leadership was positively associated with PSNI (95% CI 0.11 to 0.30, p<0.001) in all countries. This, in turn, was related to more adherence to health-protective NPIs in all countries (95% CI 0.03 to 0.36, 0.001≤p≤0.017) except Israel (95% CI -0.03 to 0.27, p=0.119). In Germany, the more people saw Chancellor Merkel as engaging in identity leadership, the more they adhered to health-protective NPIs (95% CI 0.04 to 0.18, p=0.002). In the USA, in contrast, the more people perceived President Trump as engaging in identity leadership, the less they adhered to health-protective NPIs (95% CI -0.17 to -0.04, p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: National leaders can make a difference by promoting a sense of shared identity among their citizens because people are more inclined to follow health-protective NPIs to the extent that they feel part of a united 'us'. However, the content of identity leadership (perceptions of what it means to be a nation's citizen) is essential, because this can also encourage people to disregard such recommendations.

Perceptions of the Targets and Sources of COVID-19 Threat are Structured by Group Memberships and Responses are Influenced by Identification with Humankind.

The purpose of this study was to investigate which social groups are perceived as a threat target and which are perceived as a threat source during the COVID-19 outbreak. In a German sample (N = 1454) we examined perceptions of social groups ranging from those that are psychologically close and smaller (family, friends, neighbors) to those that are more distal and larger (people living in Germany, humankind). We hypothesized that psychologically closer groups would be perceived as less affected by COVID-19 as well as less threatening than more psychologically distal groups. Based on social identity theorizing, we also hypothesized that stronger identification with humankind would change these patterns. Furthermore, we explored how these threat perceptions relate to adherence to COVID-19 health guidelines. In line with our hypotheses, latent random-slope modelling revealed that psychologically distal and larger groups were perceived as more affected by COVID-19 and as more threatening than psychologically closer and smaller groups. Including identification with humankind as a predictor into the threat target model resulted in a steeper increase in threat target perception patterns, whereas identification with humankind did not predict differences in threat source perceptions. Additionally, an increase in threat source perceptions across social groups was associated with more adherence to health guidelines, whereas an increase in threat target perceptions was not. We fully replicated these findings in a subgroup from the original sample (N = 989) four weeks later. We argue that societal recovery from this and other crises will be supported by an inclusive approach informed by a sense of our common identity as human beings.

Vaccinating adolescents against SARS-CoV-2 in England: a risk-benefit analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To offer a quantitative risk-benefit analysis of two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among adolescents in England. SETTING: England. DESIGN: Following the risk-benefit analysis methodology carried out by the US Centers for Disease Control, we calculated historical rates of hospital admission, Intensive Care Unit admission and death for ascertained SARS-CoV-2 cases in children aged 12-17 in England. We then used these rates alongside a range of estimates for incidence of long COVID, vaccine efficacy and vaccine-induced myocarditis, to estimate hospital and Intensive Care Unit admissions, deaths and cases of long COVID over a period of 16 weeks under assumptions of high and low case incidence. PARTICIPANTS: All 12-17 year olds with a record of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in England between 1 July 2020 and 31 March 2021 using national linked electronic health records, accessed through the British Heart Foundation Data Science Centre. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospitalisations, Intensive Care Unit admissions, deaths and cases of long COVID averted by vaccinating all 12-17 year olds in England over a 16-week period under different estimates of future case incidence. RESULTS: At high future case incidence of 1000/100,000 population/week over 16 weeks, vaccination could avert 4430 hospital admissions and 36 deaths over 16 weeks. At the low incidence of 50/100,000/week, vaccination could avert 70 hospital admissions and two deaths over 16 weeks. The benefit of vaccination in terms of hospitalisations in adolescents outweighs risks unless case rates are sustainably very low (below 30/100,000 teenagers/week). Benefit of vaccination exists at any case rate for the outcomes of death and long COVID, since neither have been associated with vaccination to date. CONCLUSIONS: Given the current (as at 15 September 2021) high case rates (680/100,000 population/week in 10-19 year olds) in England, our findings support vaccination of adolescents against SARS-CoV2.

The potential impact of vaccine passports on inclination to accept COVID-19 vaccinations in the United Kingdom: Evidence from a large cross-sectional survey and modeling study.

BACKGROUND: The UK Government is considering the introduction of vaccine passports for domestic use and to facilitate international travel for UK residents. Although vaccine incentivisation has been cited as a motivating factor for vaccine passports, it is unclear whether vaccine passports are likely to increase inclination to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: We conducted a large-scale national survey in the UK of 17,611 adults between 9 and 27 April 2021. Bayesian multilevel regression and poststratification is used to provide unbiased national-level estimates of the impact of the introduction of vaccine passports on inclination to accept COVID-19 vaccines and identify the differential impact of passports on uptake inclination across socio-demographic groups. FINDINGS: We find that a large minority of respondents report that vaccination passports for domestic use (46·5%) or international travel (42·0%) would make them no more or less inclined to accept a COVID-19 vaccine and a sizeable minority of respondents also state that they would 'definitely' accept a COVID-19 vaccine and that vaccine passports would make them more inclined to vaccinate (48·8% for domestic use and 42·9% for international travel). However, we find that the introduction of vaccine passports will likely lower inclination to accept a COVID-19 vaccine once baseline vaccination intent has been adjusted for. This decrease is larger if passports were required for domestic use rather than for facilitating international travel. Being male (OR 0·87, 0·76 to 0·99) and having degree qualifications (OR 0·84, 0·72 to 0·94) is associated with a decreased inclination to vaccinate if passports were required for domestic use (while accounting for baseline vaccination intent), while Christians (OR 1·23, 1·08 to 1·41) have an increased inclination over atheists or agnostics. Change in inclination is strongly connected to stated vaccination intent and will therefore unlikely shift attitudes among Black or Black British respondents, younger age groups, and non-English speakers. INTERPRETATION: Our findings should be interpreted in light of sub-national trends in uptake rates across the UK, as our results suggest that passports may be viewed less positively among socio-demographic groups that cluster in large urban areas. We call for further evidence on the impact of vaccine certification and the potential fallout for routine immunization programmes in both the UK and in wider global settings, especially those with low overall trust in vaccinations. FUNDING: This survey was funded by the Merck Investigator Studies Program (MISP).

Staying 'Covid-safe': Proposals for embedding behaviours that protect against Covid-19 transmission in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: The Scientific Pandemic Insights group on Behaviours (SPI-B) as part of England's Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE), were commissioned by the UK Cabinet Office to identify strategies to embed infection control behaviours to minimize Covid-19 transmission in the long term. METHODS: With minimal direct evidence available, three sources of information were used to develop a set of proposals: (1) a scoping review of literature on sustaining behaviour change, (2) a review of key principles used in risk and safety management, and (3) prior reports and reviews on behaviour change from SPI-B. The information was collated and refined through discussion with SPI-B and SAGE colleagues to finalize the proposals. RESULTS: Embedding infection control behaviours in the long-term will require changes to the financial, social, and physical infrastructure so that people in all sections of society have the capability, opportunity, and motivation needed to underpin those behaviours. This will involve building Covid-safe educational programmes, regulating to ensure minimum standards of safety in public spaces and workspaces, using communications and social marketing to develop a Covid-safe culture and identity, and providing resources so that all sections of society can build Covid-safe behaviours into their daily lives. CONCLUSIONS: Embedding 'Covid-safe' behaviours into people's everyday routines will require a co-ordinated programme to shape the financial, physical, and social infrastructure in the United Kingdom. Education, regulation, communications, and social marketing, and provision of resources will be required to ensure that all sections of society have the capability, opportunity, and motivation to enact the behaviours long term.

From the 'fragile rationalist' to 'collective resilience': what human psychology has taught us about the COVID-19 pandemic and what the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us about human psychology.

A successful response to the Covid-19 pandemic is dependent on changing human behaviour to limit proximal interactions with others. Accordingly, governments have introduced severe constraints upon freedoms to move and to mix. This has been accompanied by doubts as to whether the public would abide by these constraints. Such doubts are underpinned by a psychological model of individuals as fragile rationalists who have limited cognitive capacities, who panic under pressure and turn a crisis into a tragedy. Drawing on evidence from the UK, we show that this did not occur. Rather, the pandemic has illustrated the remarkable collective resilience of individuals when brought together as a community by the common experience of crisis. This is a crucial lesson for the future, because it underpins the importance of developing leadership and policies that enhance rather than weaken such emergent social identity.

A trouble shared is a trouble halved: The role of family identification and identification with humankind in well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered health-related anxiety in ways that undermine peoples' mental and physical health. Contextual factors such as living in a high-risk area might further increase the risk of health deterioration. Based on the Social Identity Approach, we argue that social identities can not only be local that are characterized by social interactions, but also be global that are characterized by a symbolic sense of togetherness and that both of these can be a basis for health. In line with these ideas, we tested how identification with one's family and with humankind relates to stress and physical symptoms while experiencing health-related anxiety and being exposed to contextual risk factors. We tested our assumptions in a representative sample (N = 974) two-wave survey study with a 4-week time lag. The results show that anxiety at Time 1 was positively related to stress and physical symptoms at Time 2. Feeling exposed to risk factors related to lower physical health, but was unrelated to stress. Family identification and identification with humankind were both negatively associated with subsequent stress and family identification was negatively associated with subsequent physical symptoms. These findings suggest that for social identities to be beneficial for mental health, they can be embodied as well as symbolic.