The societal responses to COVID-19: Evidence from the G7 countries.

This paper provides a picture of how societies in the G7 countries have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our point of departure is to examine the effects of the pandemic in terms of four fundamental normative sources for well-being: Solidarity (S; willingness for social cooperation), Agency (A; empowerment to shape one's prospects through one's own efforts), GDP (G), and Environmental Performance (E)-SAGE for short. The normative foundations of SAGE are communitarianism, classical liberalism, materialistic utilitarianism, and ecoethics. We find that although G and E responded predictably and uniformly to the pandemic (such as G declining and carbon emissions improving), the societal responses were strikingly different. Societies that are cohesive and empowered (high S and A) may be expected to cope with the pandemic better than those that are fragmented and disempowered (low S and A). Furthermore, the pandemic has had diverse effects on S and A; while some societies became cohering and empowering (rising S and A), others became fragmenting and disempowering (falling S and A), and yet others became fragmenting and empowering. We also show that most G7 countries experienced greater tribalization (measured as the difference between inward S and outward S) during the pandemic. These trends are a matter of concern since they suggest that the willingness and perceived ability to address collective challenges collectively have waned. The analysis also suggests that governments' social policies may have an important role to play alongside economic and health policies in coping with the pandemic.

Risk Preferences and Predictions about Others: No Association with 2D:4D Ratio.

Prenatal androgen exposure affects the brain development of the fetus which may facilitate certain behaviors and decision patterns in the later life. The ratio between the lengths of second and the fourth fingers (2D:4D) is a negative biomarker of the ratio between prenatal androgen and estrogen exposure and men typically have lower ratios than women. In line with the typical findings suggesting that women are more risk averse than men, several studies have also shown negative relationships between 2D:4D and risk taking although the evidence is not conclusive. Previous studies have also reported that both men and women believe women are more risk averse than men. In the current study, we re-test the relationship between 2D:4D and risk preferences in a German student sample and also investigate whether the 2D:4D ratio is associated with people's perceptions about others' risk preferences. Following an incentivized risk elicitation task, we asked all participants their predictions about (i) others' responses (without sex specification), (ii) men's responses, and (iii) women's responses; then measured their 2D:4D ratios. In line with the previous findings, female participants in our sample were more risk averse. While both men and women underestimated other participants' (non sex-specific) and women's risky decisions on average, their predictions about men were accurate. We also found evidence for the false consensus effect, as risky choices are positively correlated with predictions about other participants' risky choices. The 2D:4D ratio was not directly associated either with risk preferences or the predictions of other participants' choices. An unexpected finding was that women with mid-range levels of 2D:4D estimated significantly larger sex differences in participants' decisions. This finding needs further testing in future studies.