Dehumanization During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Communities often unite during a crisis, though some cope by ascribing blame or stigmas to those who might be linked to distressing life events. In a preregistered two-wave survey, we evaluated the dehumanization of Asians and Asian Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our first wave (March 26-April 2, 2020; N = 917) revealed dehumanization was prevalent, between 6.1% and 39% of our sample depending on measurement. Compared to non-dehumanizers, people who dehumanized also perceived the virus as less risky to human health and caused less severe consequences for infected people. They were more likely to be ideologically Conservative and believe in conspiracy theories about the virus. We largely replicated the results 1 month later in our second wave (May 6-May 13, 2020; N = 723). Together, many Americans dehumanize Asians and Asian Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic with related perceptions that the virus is less problematic. Implications and applications for dehumanization theory are discussed.

Excluding numeric side-effect information produces lower vaccine intentions.

Encouraging vaccine uptake is important to reducing the impact of infectious disease. However, negative attitudes and vaccine hesitancy, due in part to worry about side effects, are obstacles to achieving high vaccination rates. Provided vaccine information sheets typically include a list of side effects without numeric information about their likelihoods, but providing such numbers may yield benefits. We investigated the effect of providing numeric information about side-effect likelihood (e.g., "1%") and verbal labels (e.g., "uncommon") on intentions to get a hypothetical vaccine, reasons for the vaccination decision, and risk overestimation. In a diverse, online, convenience sample (N = 595), providing numeric information increased vaccine intentions-70% of those who received numeric information were predicted to be moderately or extremely likely to vaccinate compared to only 54% of those who did not receive numeric information (p<.001), controlling for age, gender, race, education, and political ideology. Participants receiving numeric information also were less likely to overestimate side-effect likelihood. Verbal labels had additional benefits when included with numeric information, particularly among the vaccine hesitant. For these participants, verbal labels increased vaccine intentions when included with numeric information (but not in its absence). Among the vaccine-hesitant, 43% of those provided numeric information and verbal labels were predicted to be moderately or extremely likely to get vaccinated vs. only 24% of those given a list of side effects (p<.001). We conclude that the standard practice of not providing numeric information about side-effect likelihood leads to a less-informed public who is less likely to vaccinate.

Greater objective numeracy protects COVID-19 pandemic grades but endangers academic interest

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic greatly affected educational experiences by forcing students and teachers to change their learning and instructional strategies and by disrupting life outside the classroom as well. To determine the impact of the pandemic on students varying in ability, we measured perceived pandemic disruption, objective numeracy (ONS), math interest, and other academic- and life-related outcomes in an introductory data analysis course (N = 399) that switched mid-semester from in-person to online instruction because of the pandemic. As in prior research, those higher in objective numeracy had better academic outcomes before and during the pandemic. Ability did not predict perceived disruption, but students with lower numeric self-efficacy, women, and Pell Grant recipients (indicating low socioeconomic status) experienced more pandemic disruption. Although we expected numeracy to protect academic outcomes from disruption, we observed this effect only for grades. Unexpectedly, numeracy predicted greater vulnerability to losing interest in math, such that greater perceived disruption reduced math interest for those higher in objective numeracy but not for those lower in objective numeracy. Similarly, we found a small indirect effect of objective numeracy and disruption on course enrollment via math interest. In practical terms, about 30% fewer high-objective numeracy students enrolled in the advanced statistics course when they were high rather than low in disruption. Thus, high-ability students may paradoxically perform better but feel worse when faced with unexpected hardships. Our findings highlight the importance of educators being mindful of their high-ability students' struggles as their academic motivation may be less resilient than previously expected. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Ability-related political polarization in the COVID-19 pandemic.

In two large-scale longitudinal datasets (combined N = 5761), we investigated ability-related political polarization in responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We observed more polarization with greater ability in emotional responses, risk perceptions, and product-purchase intentions across five waves of data collection with a diverse, convenience sample from February 2020 through July 2020 (Study 1, N = 1267). Specifically, more liberal participants had more negative emotional responses and greater risk perceptions of COVID-19 than conservative participants. Compared to conservatives, liberal participants also interpreted quantitative information as indicating higher COVID-19 risk and sought COVID-related news more from liberal than conservative news media. Of key importance, we also compared verbal and numeric cognitive abilities for their independent capacity to predict greater polarization. Although measures of numeric ability, such as objective numeracy, are often used to index ability-related polarization, ideological differences were more pronounced among those higher in verbal ability specifically. Similar results emerged in secondary analysis of risk perceptions in a nationally representative longitudinal dataset (Study 2, N = 4494; emotions and purchase intentions were not included in this dataset). We further confirmed verbal-ability-related polarization findings on non-COVID policy attitudes (i.e., weapons bans and Medicare-for-all) measured cross-sectionally. The present Study 2 documented ability-related polarization emerging over time for the first time (rather than simply measuring polarization in existing beliefs). Both studies demonstrated verbal ability measures as the most robust predictors of ability-related polarization. Together, these results suggest that polarization may be a function of the amount and/or application of verbal knowledge rather than selective application of quantitative reasoning skills.

Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response.

The COVID-19 pandemic represents a massive global health crisis. Because the crisis requires large-scale behaviour change and places significant psychological burdens on individuals, insights from the social and behavioural sciences can be used to help align human behaviour with the recommendations of epidemiologists and public health experts. Here we discuss evidence from a selection of research topics relevant to pandemics, including work on navigating threats, social and cultural influences on behaviour, science communication, moral decision-making, leadership, and stress and coping. In each section, we note the nature and quality of prior research, including uncertainty and unsettled issues. We identify several insights for effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic and highlight important gaps researchers should move quickly to fill in the coming weeks and months.