Discriminatory attitudes against unvaccinated people during the pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, sizeable groups of unvaccinated people persist even in countries with high vaccine access1. As a consequence, vaccination became a controversial subject of debate and even protest2. Here we assess whether people express discriminatory attitudes in the form of negative affectivity, stereotypes and exclusionary attitudes in family and political settings across groups defined by COVID-19 vaccination status. We quantify discriminatory attitudes between vaccinated and unvaccinated citizens in 21 countries, covering a diverse set of cultures across the world. Across three conjoined experimental studies (n = 15,233), we demonstrate that vaccinated people express discriminatory attitudes towards unvaccinated individuals at a level as high as discriminatory attitudes that are commonly aimed at immigrant and minority populations3-5. By contrast, there is an absence of evidence that unvaccinated individuals display discriminatory attitudes towards vaccinated people, except for the presence of negative affectivity in Germany and the USA. We find evidence in support of discriminatory attitudes against unvaccinated individuals in all countries except for Hungary and Romania, and find that discriminatory attitudes are more strongly expressed in cultures with stronger cooperative norms. Previous research on the psychology of cooperation has shown that individuals react negatively against perceived 'free-riders'6,7, including in the domain of vaccinations8,9. Consistent with this, we find that contributors to the public good of epidemic control (that is, vaccinated individuals) react with discriminatory attitudes towards perceived free-riders (that is, unvaccinated individuals). National leaders and vaccinated members of the public appealed to moral obligations to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake10,11, but our findings suggest that discriminatory attitudes-including support for the removal of fundamental rights-simultaneously emerged.

The onset of COVID-19, common identity, and intergroup prejudice.

The research presented here examined the relationship between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, social group identity, intergroup contact, and prejudice. Utilizing a common ingroup identity approach, two datasets, which were composed of data from university students collected via online questionnaires before and after the onset of COVID-19, were combined (N = 511). Participants identified as either one of two subordinate student identities: domestic (i.e. U.S. citizen or permanent resident) or international (i.e. non-U.S. citizen or foreign resident), then reported on the strength of their subordinate and superordinate identity (university identity). Participants also reported on their contact experiences with outgroup members, outgroup stereotypes, and completed a novel intergroup bias task. Results indicated that after the onset of the pandemic, participants more strongly identified with the superordinate group, which predicted greater perceived intergroup contact and lower intergroup bias. Theoretical implications and future directions are discussed.

COVID-19 and prejudice against migrants: the mediating roles of need for cognitive closure and binding moral foundations. A comparative study.

What mitigates prejudice against migrants in situations of uncertainty? Addressing this question, we explored how individuals with greater COVID-19 concern perceive migrants as a greater threat and show prejudice against them, indirectly through the mechanism of need for cognitive closure and binding moral foundations.This study was conducted in two European countries: Malta and Italy. Six hundred and seventy-six individuals participated in this quantitative study (Malta: N = 204; Italy N = 472). Results from this study showed that the need for cognitive closure and binding moral foundations mediate the relationship between COVID-19 concern and prejudice against migrants in both countries. When testing the three binding moral foundations (loyalty, authority, and purity), the authority foundation seems to be the most consistent predictor.The implications of the findings contribute to theories about how situational uncertainty caused by COVID-19, together with the need for epistemic certainty and binding morality, contribute to increased prejudiced attitudes against migrants.

Violence and discrimination among Ugandan residents during the COVID-19 lockdown.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic. Many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, Uganda inclusive, implemented lockdowns, curfew, banning of both private and public transport systems, and mass gatherings to minimize spread. Social control measures for COVID-19 are reported to increase violence and discrimination globally, including in Uganda as some may be difficult to implement resulting in the heavy deployment of law enforcement. Media reports indicated that cases of violence and discrimination had increased in Uganda's communities following the lockdown. We estimated the incidence and factors associated with experiencing violence and discrimination among Ugandans during the COVID-19 lockdown to inform control and prevention measures. METHODS: In April 2020, we conducted a secondary analysis of cross-sectional data under the International Citizen Project (ICP) to assess adherence to public health measures and their impact on the COVID-19 outbreak in Uganda. We analyzed data on violence and discrimination from the ICP study. We performed descriptive statistics for all the participants' characteristics and created a binary outcome variable called experiencing violence and/or discrimination. We performed logistic regression analysis to identify the factors associated with experiencing violence and discrimination. RESULTS: Of the 1726 ICP study participants, 1051 (58.8%) were males, 841 (48.7%) were currently living with a spouse or partner, and 376 (21.8%) had physically attended work for more than 3 days in the past week. Overall, 145 (8.4%) experienced any form of violence and/or discrimination by any perpetrator, and 46 (31.7%) of the 145 reported that it was perpetrated by a law enforcement officer. Factors associated with experiencing violence or discrimination were: being male (AOR = 1.60 CI:1.10-2.33), having attended work physically for more than 3 days in the past week (AOR = 1.52 CI:1.03-2.23), and inability to access social or essential health services since the epidemic started (AOR = 3.10 CI:2.14-4.50). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of Ugandan residents experienced violence and/or discrimination during the COVID-19 lockdown, mostly perpetrated by law enforcement officers. We recommend mitigation of the collateral impact of lockdowns with interventions that focus on improving policing quality, ensuring continuity of essential services, and strengthening support systems for vulnerable groups including males.

Association between maternity harassment and depression during pregnancy amid the COVID-19 state of emergency.

OBJECTIVES: Maternity harassment, known in English as pregnancy discrimination, remains prevalent in developed countries. However, research examining the mental health effects of maternity harassment is lacking. We aimed to examine the association between maternity harassment and depression during pregnancy in Japan. METHODS: A cross-sectional Internet survey was conducted on 359 pregnant employees (including women who were working at the time their pregnancy was confirmed) from May 22 to May 31, 2020, during which time a COVID-19 state of emergency was declared. Maternity harassment was defined as being subjected to any of the 16 adverse treatments prohibited by national guidelines. Depression was defined as a score of ≥9 on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (Japanese version). Logistic regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Overall, 24.8% of the pregnant employees had experienced maternity harassment by supervisors and/or colleagues. After adjusting for demographics, pregnancy status, work status, and fear of COVID-19, pregnant employees who experienced maternity harassment were more likely to have depression than those who did not (odds ratio 2.48, 95% confidential interval 1.34-4.60). This association was not influenced by whether they were teleworking or not as a COVID-19 measure. CONCLUSIONS: One quarter of pregnant employees experienced maternity harassment and had a higher prevalence of depression than those who did not. Being physically away from the office through teleworking may not reduce the effect of maternal harassment on depression. To protect the mental health and employment of pregnant women, employers should comply with the laws and take measures to prevent maternity harassment.

Why public health framing matters: An experimental study of the effects of COVID-19 framing on prejudice and xenophobia in the United States.

The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a notable increase in the expression of prejudicial and xenophobic attitudes that threaten the wellbeing of minority groups and contribute to the overall public health toll of the virus. However, while there is evidence documenting the growth in discrimination and xenophobia, little is known about how the COVID-19 outbreak is activating the expression of such negative attitudes. The goal of the current paper therefore was to investigate what aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic may be contributing to this rise in expressions of prejudice and xenophobia. More specifically, this study used an experimental design to assess the effects of using stigmatized language to describe the virus as well as the threat to physical health and economic wellbeing posed by the virus on COVID-19 prejudice. Data were collected from a national sample of 1451 adults residing within the United States. Results from 2 × 2 x 2 between-subjects analyses of covariance demonstrated that emphasizing the connection between China and COVID-19, rather than framing the virus neutrally, increased negative attitudes toward Asian Americans, beliefs that resources should be prioritized for Americans rather than immigrants, and general xenophobia. Emphasizing the severity of the economic impact of the virus also increased beliefs that Asian Americans are a threat to resources and general xenophobia. In contrast, messages which emphasized the serious health risks of COVID-19 did not increase bias toward Asian Americans or xenophobia. Our findings suggest that specific types of public health messaging related to infectious diseases, especially framing the virus in terms of its country of origin or its likely economic impact, may elicit prejudice and xenophobia. Public health campaigns that emphasize the severity of the virus, however, are not likely to trigger the same negative attitudes. Implications for public health responses to health crises are discussed.

COVID-19-related prejudice toward Asian medical students: A consequence of SARS-CoV-2 fears in Poland.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak caused by SARS-CoV-2 has triggered global panic. We have conducted an anonymous online survey of Asian medical students in Poland to assess whether they experience any form of prejudice related to the ongoing pandemic. As demonstrated, the COVID-19 outbreak had triggered xenophobic reactions toward students of Asian-origin (n=85) before the first SARS-CoV-2 case was confirmed in Poland. Facing prejudice, including discrimination related to COVID-19, may add to feelings of isolation of students of Asian origin who study abroad, and affect career development, especially for students. We recommend that universities should proactively develop policies that support students, faculty, and staff affected by discriminatory behavior both during the current outbreak and in the future. However, preventing such behaviors should also be enforced by national authorities.