Do unbiased people act more rationally?-The case of comparative realism and vaccine intention.

Within different populations and at various stages of the pandemic, it has been demonstrated that individuals believe they are less likely to become infected than their average peer. This is known as comparative optimism and it has been one of the reproducible effects in social psychology. However, in previous and even the most recent studies, researchers often neglected to consider unbiased individuals and inspect the differences between biased and unbiased individuals. In a mini meta-analysis of six studies (Study 1), we discovered that unbiased individuals have lower vaccine intention than biased ones. In two pre-registered, follow-up studies, we aimed at testing the reproducibility of this phenomenon and its explanations. In Study 2 we replicated the main effect and found no evidence for differences in psychological control between biased and unbiased groups. In Study 3 we also replicated the effect and found that realists hold more centric views on the trade-offs between threats from getting vaccinated and getting ill. We discuss the interpretation and implication of our results in the context of the academic and lay-persons' views on rationality. We also put forward empirical and theoretical arguments for considering unbiased individuals as a separate phenomenon in the domain of self-others comparisons.

Double jeopardy: How lower levels of support during COVID-19 exacerbated the relationship between loneliness and distress.

While the relationship between loneliness and psychological distress is well documented, the mechanisms underlying this relationship are less clear. One factor known to be related to loneliness as well as psychological distress, is social support, with some studies suggesting that support-both received and provided-can serve as a mechanism to reduce the distress associated with loneliness. In this paper we examine the mediating role of both aspects of support in the relationship between loneliness and psychological distress in the COVID-19 context. We used a multi-country dataset collected at two timepoints during the pandemic; the first during the early stages (N = 6,842, 11 countries) and the second collected for a subset of countries (N = 1,299, 3 countries) 3 months later. Across all eleven countries, results revealed significant positive associations between loneliness and distress. Furthermore, using longitudinal data, we investigated the directionality of this relationship and found that increased loneliness over time was associated with increased psychological distress. The data also showed that both feeling unsupported and feeling unable to provide support to others mediated this relationship. These findings point to the need to facilitate people's ability to draw effective social support and help others-particularly at times when social connectedness is threatened-as a way of alleviating the psychological distress that commonly presents with loneliness.

Economic inequality and conspiracy theories.

Can perceptions of economic inequalities trigger conspiratorial thinking? We provide evidence that high economic inequality may enhance conspiratorial thinking because, as a form of collective-level crisis, it undermines the social fabric of society and engenders anomie. We focus on the mechanism through which inequality should affect conspiratorial thinking by outlining how inequality enhances perceptions of anomie that, in turn, increase conspiratorial thinking. We end our contribution with the observation that it is by focusing on the socio-structural contexts that trigger conspiracy beliefs that we can more fully understand them. Specifically, conspiracy beliefs are not merely a product of individual irrationality, but are grounded in, and reflective of, the times that collectives live in.

Unlocking collective cooperation in the midst of COVID-19: The role of social support in predicting the social class disparity in cooperation.

We examined whether (the lack of) social support can explain why researchers have found lower rates of adherence to follow public health guidelines amongst people who perceived themselves as coming from lower social class backgrounds during the COVID-19 pandemic. To do this, we surveyed 5818 participants from 10 countries during the first wave of lock-down. Contrary to previous findings, social class was not related to general adherence to COVID-19 regulations or desire to engage in citizenship behaviours (e.g., showing initiatives to help others during the pandemic). However, we found evidence of an indirect effect whereby those who perceived themselves as higher social class were more likely to be both the recipient and provider of social support which in turn predicted greater adherence and desire to engage in citizenship behaviours during the earlier wave of the pandemic. Our findings highlight the importance of social support in unlocking potential for collective cooperation (i.e., adherence to COVID-19 rules and desire to engage in citizenship behaviours). They suggest that instead of enforcing strict regulations, government authorities need to address existing social support barriers within lower income communities to facilitate cooperation from everyone in the community.