Social control and solidarity during the COVID-19 pandemic: The direct and indirect effects of causal attribution of insufficient compliance through perceived anomie.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a crisis which called for two crucial modes of social regulation: social control and social solidarity. In the present pre-registered study, we examine how the perceived non-compliance with health measures relates to attitudes towards these modes of social regulation, as well as to the role played by the perception of disintegrated and disregulated society (anomie). Using data from an online cross-sectional survey conducted in Belgium in April 2020 (N = 717), results show that the causal attribution of the crisis to insufficient compliance was differentially associated with support for social control and social solidarity behaviours. Specifically, greater attribution to insufficient compliance was associated with a perceived breakdown in the social fabric (disintegration), which explained stronger support for social control and fewer solidarity-based actions. Perceived disregulation, conversely, was associated with less support for social control and more support for social solidarity. Therefore, the perception of the pandemic and associated perceived anomie tend to polarize citizens' attitudes towards these two modes of social regulation. In this way, prosocial behaviours might be inhibited by communications that attribute the pandemic's causes to incivility. Other implications of our findings for the social psychological literature on communities' reactions to the pandemic are discussed. Please refer to the Supplementary Material section to find this article's Community and Social Impact Statement.

Attitudes Towards World War II Collaboration in Belgium: Effects on Political Positioning Towards the Amnesty Issue in the Two Main Linguistic Communities.

It is a known fact that some Belgians collaborated with the Nazi occupier during WWII. However, according to a popular myth, collaboration was widespread in Flanders, whereas Walloons bravely resisted. Of course, historical reality is much more nuanced, but this oversimplification has largely resurfaced in political debates surrounding the Belgian linguistic conflict. Demands for amnesty for former collaborators addressed by Flemish nationalist parties are a case in point. We conducted two studies in order to investigate Belgians' attitudes towards this political issue in the two linguistic communities. In 2012, a first survey (N = 521; 315 French-speakers (FS) and 206 Dutch-speakers (DS)) showed that WWII collaboration was morally condemned, and attitudes towards amnesty were predominantly negative, in both groups. However, DS tended to support amnesty more than FS. This effect of Linguistic Group on Support for Amnesty was mediated by Judgments of Morality of collaboration, and this mediation was moderated by Linguistic identification. In 2015, a second survey (N = 774; 476 FS and 298 DS) confirmed these results. Moreover, judgments about the Unfairness of the repression of collaboration also mediated the effect of Linguistic Group on Support for Amnesty. These results suggest that differences in political position-taking regarding the granting of amnesty between DS and FS are, at least partly, due to different attitudes towards collaboration and to the membership to a linguistic community.