Subjective experience, self-efficacy, and motivation of professional football referees during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The present multi-study article investigates the subjective experience of professional football (a.k.a. soccer) referees and players during the COVID-19 pandemic and the so-called ghost games (i.e., games without supporters). Referees from the Austrian Football Association completed questionnaires inquiring about self-efficacy, motivation, and general personal observations and perceptions (e.g., arousal or confidence). In addition, two players and one referee in the Austrian Football Bundesliga were interviewed retrospectively regarding their subjective experience during ghost games and the effects of emotions on behavior and performance using semi-structured, video-taped interviews. Results of the referee survey indicate that the most profound differences between regular games and ghost games lie in the domain of intrinsic motivation and multiple aspects of subjective experience. Specifically, the experience in ghost games compared with regular games was reported by referees as being significantly less motivating, less excited/tense, less emotional, less focused, and overall, more negative, despite being easier to referee and the players behaving more positively. Qualitative analyses of the video-taped interview footage indicated (i) substantial inter-individual variability regarding the extent of the effect of the empty stadiums on the subjective experience of emotions, (ii) consequently, different strategies to regulate emotions and arousal from suboptimal to optimal levels, both before and during competition, and (iii) interactions between reported emotions, arousal, motivation, self-confidence, behavior and performance on the pitch. In addition, non-verbal expressions of emotion were captured using fully automated AI-software that coded facial movements during interviews. The results of this exploratory facial expression analysis revealed varying degrees of arousal and valence in relation to the content of the statements during the interviews, demonstrating the convergent validity of our findings. Our findings contribute to the growing literature on the effects of football games without fans during the COVID-19 pandemic and provide insights into the subjective experience of professional football referees. Concerning referees and players alike, emotions are investigated as potential processes related to home-field advantage and performance in professional football by means of a multi-methods approach. Further, the combination of qualitative and quantitative measures-as well as verbal and non-verbal communication channels-can deepen our understanding of the emotional influence of (missing) spectators on the subjective experience and the behavior of sports professionals is discussed.

What Motivates the Vaccination Rift Effect? Psycho-Linguistic Features of Responses to Calls to Get Vaccinated Differ by Source and Recipient Vaccination Status.

Although vaccination provides substantial protection against COVID, many people reject the vaccine despite the opportunity to receive it. Recent research on potential causes of such vaccine hesitancy showed that those unvaccinated rejected calls to get vaccinated when they stemmed from a vaccinated source (i.e., a vaccination rift). To mend this vaccination rift, it is key to understand the underlying motivations and psychological processes. To this end, we used the voluntary free-text responses comprised of 49,259 words from the original Austrian large-scale data-set (N = 1170) to conduct in-depth psycho-linguistic analyses. These findings indicate that vaccinated message sources elicited longer responses using more words per sentence and simpler language writing more about things rather than themselves or addressing others directly. Contrary to common assumptions, expressed emotions or indicators of cognitive processing did not differ between message source conditions, but vaccinated sources led to more achievement-related expressions. Participant vaccination did not moderate the observed effects but had differential main effects on psycho-linguistic response parameters. We conclude that public vaccination campaigns need to take the vaccination status of the message source and other societal rifts into account to bolster recipients' achievement.

The vaccination rift effect provides evidence that source vaccination status determines the rejection of calls to get vaccinated.

COVID vaccination protects individuals and helps end the pandemic, but a sizable minority in Western countries rejects the vaccine. Vaccination status should serve as a group membership, critical communication between groups undermines trust, and we accordingly suggest that calls to get vaccinated by vaccinated sources lead to defensive rejection instead of desired behavior change. We term this the vaccination rift effect. A unique collaboration with national print, online and TV news media yielded a large (N = 1170), age-representative sample of Austrian citizens for our fully randomized experiment. Participants exhibited the vaccination rift: They ascribed less constructive motives, d = 0.28, 95% CI [0.17; 0.40], experienced more threat, d = - 0.30, 95% CI [- 0.42; - 0.19], and ascribed worse personality characteristics to vaccinated (vs. unvaccinated) commenters, d = 0.17, 95% CI [0.06; 0.29]. Constructiveness consistently predicted behavioral measures of counterarguing and vaccination planning (indirect effects B = 0.033, SE = 0.013 and B = - 0.056, SE = 0.014). The vaccination rift was substantially stronger among the critical group of unvaccinated participants, ds = |0.39-0.52|, than among those fully vaccinated, ds = |0.08-0.17|. We discuss how to apply these psychological mechanics of the vaccination rift to public campaigns.

Exploring Higher Education Pathways for Coping With the Threat of COVID-19: Does Parental Academic Background Matter?

First-generation students (FGS) are more likely to feel misplaced and struggle at university than students with university-educated parents (continuous-generation students; CGS). We assumed that the shutdowns during the Coronavirus-pandemic would particularly threaten FGS due to obstructed coping mechanisms. Specifically, FGS may show lower identification with the academic setting and lower perceived fairness of the university system (system justification). We investigated whether FGS and CGS used different defenses to cope with the shutdown threat in a large sample of German-speaking students (N = 848). Using Structural Equation Modeling, we found that for all students, independent of academic parental background, high levels of system justification were associated with perceiving the learning situation as less threatening, better coping with failure, and less helplessness. However, in comparison to CGS, FGS showed small but significant reductions in system justification and relied more on concrete personal relationships with other students as well as their academic identity to cope with the threatening situation. We discuss implications for helping FGS succeed at university.

On efficient mass-media messages during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of expertise and expressed social identity

The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic requires swift behavior change based on the most up-to-date recommendations. To reach many people, the use of mass media and technology is key. We therefore investigate how health advice in the media can most effectively change behavioral intentions. Specifically, we integrate the literature on science rejection and on intergroup criticism to argue that people are likely to follow expert advice, but only if these experts communicate a common group identity ("we"). Our preregistered and high-powered experiment showed weak support for these registered hypotheses. Exploratory moderation analyses including trust in science and political orientation produced inconsistent results. Exploratory mediation analyses showed a consistent positive impact of rated expertise on intention to comply and perceived inadequacy of public response, mediated by message motive ratings. Health experts or public figures who communicate health-advice in the media should thus clarify their expertise and intention. We discuss implications and future directions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Management in times of crisis: Can collective plans prepare teams to make and implement good decisions?

Purpose: Crises such as the Coronavirus pandemic pose extraordinary challenges to the decision making in management teams. Teams need to integrate available information quickly to make informed decisions on the spot and update their decisions as new information becomes available. Moreover, making good decisions is hard as it requires sacrifices for the common good, and finally, implementing the decisions made is not easy as it requires persistence in the face of strong counterproductive social pressures. Design/methodology/approach: We provide a “psychology of action” perspective on making team-based management decisions in crisis by introducing collective implementation intentions (We-if-then plans) as a theory-based intervention tool to improve decision processes. We discuss our program of research on forming and acting on We-if-then plans in ad hoc teams facing challenging situations. Findings: Teams with We-if-then plans consistently made more informed decisions when information was socially or temporally distributed, when decision makers had to make sacrifices for the common good, and when strong social pressures opposed acting on their decisions. Preliminary experimental evidence indicates that assigning simple We-if-then plans had similar positive effects as providing a leader to steer team processes. Originality/value: Our analysis of self-regulated team decisions helps understand and improve how management teams can make and act on good decisions in crises such as the Coronavirus pandemic. © 2020, J. Lukas Thürmer, Frank Wieber and Peter M. Gollwitzer.