Blaming the unvaccinated during the COVID-19 pandemic: the roles of political ideology and risk perceptions in the USA.

Individuals unvaccinated against COVID-19 (C19) experienced prejudice and blame for the pandemic. Because people vastly overestimate C19 risks, we examined whether these negative judgements could be partially understood as a form of scapegoating (ie, blaming a group unfairly for an undesirable outcome) and whether political ideology (previously shown to shape risk perceptions in the USA) moderates scapegoating of the unvaccinated. We grounded our analyses in scapegoating literature and risk perception during C19. We obtained support for our speculations through two vignette-based studies conducted in the USA in early 2022. We varied the risk profiles (age, prior infection, comorbidities) and vaccination statuses of vignette characters (eg, vaccinated, vaccinated without recent boosters, unvaccinated, unvaccinated-recovered), while keeping all other information constant. We observed that people hold the unvaccinated (vs vaccinated) more responsible for negative pandemic outcomes and that political ideology moderated these effects: liberals (vs conservatives) were more likely to scapegoat the unvaccinated (vs vaccinated), even when presented with information challenging the culpability of the unvaccinated known at the time of data collection (eg, natural immunity, availability of vaccines, time since last vaccination). These findings support a scapegoating explanation for a specific group-based prejudice that emerged during the C19 pandemic. We encourage medical ethicists to examine the negative consequences of significant C19 risk overestimation among the public. The public needs accurate information about health issues. That may involve combating misinformation that overestimates and underestimates disease risk with similar vigilance to error.

When Do Observers Deprioritize Due Process for the Perpetrator and Prioritize Safety for the Victim in Response to Information-Poor Allegations of Harm?

We examined how observers assess information-poor allegations of harm (e.g., "my word against yours" cases), in which the outcomes of procedurally fair investigations may favor the alleged perpetrator because the evidentiary standards are unmet. Yet this lack of evidence does not mean no harm occurred, and some observers may be charged with deciding whether the allegation is actionable within a collective. On the basis of theories of moral typecasting, procedural justice, and uncertainty management, we hypothesized that observers would be more likely to prioritize the victim's safety (vs. to prioritize due process for the perpetrator) and view the allegation as actionable when the victim-alleged perpetrator dyad members exhibit features that align with stereotypes of victims and perpetrators. We supported our hypothesis with four studies using various contexts, sources of perceived prototypicality, due-process prioritization, and samples (students from New Zealand, Ns = 137 and 114; Mechanical Turk workers from the United States; Ns = 260 and 336).

The dark side of belief in Covid-19 scientists and scientific evidence.

We draw from an interdisciplinary literature on convictions to examine the manifestations and consequences of firmly held beliefs in Covid-19 (C19) science. Across three studies (N = 743), we assess participants' beliefs in C19 experts, and beliefs in supported and unsupported empirical evidence. Study 1 establishes the basic theoretical links and we show that an individual's belief in science on C19 is associated with dispositional belief in science and moralization of C19 mitigation measures. Our subsequent two studies show how stronger belief in C19 science influences distrust in unmasked individuals past the mandates, and greater endorsement of pandemic mitigation authoritarianism. We document the dark side that emerges when belief in C19 science extends beyond the generally desirable scientific literacy and manifests as a conviction that public health experts are the only ones who can handle the pandemic, and that even unsupported claims about C19 are supported by scientific evidence (e.g., risk of outdoor transmission is high). We also highlight our political ideology findings showing that both liberals and conservatives mis-calibrate C19 risks in different ways, and we conclude with discussing how examining the darker side of scientific beliefs can inform our understanding of people's reactions to the pandemic.

Harsh but Expedient: Dominant Leaders Increase Group Cooperation via Threat of Punishment.

Dominant leadership is, surprisingly, on the rise globally. Previous studies have found that intergroup conflict increases followers' support for dominant leaders, but identifying the potential benefits that such leaders can supply is crucial to explaining their rise. We took a behavioral-economics approach in Study 1 (N = 288 adults), finding that cooperation among followers increases under leaders with a dominant reputation. This pattern held regardless of whether dominant leaders were assigned to groups, elected through a bidding process, or leading under intergroup competition. Moreover, Studies 2a to 2e (N = 1,022 adults) show that impressions of leader dominance evoked by personality profiles, authoritarian attitudes, or physical formidability similarly increase follower cooperation. We found a weaker but nonsignificant trend when dominance was cued by facial masculinity and no evidence when dominance was cued by aggressive disposition in a decision game. These findings highlight the unexpected benefits that dominant leaders can bestow on group cooperation through threat of punishment.

Culture, assumptions about the world, and interpretations of children's disabilities.

Sim et al. (2021) examined the interplay between parental caretakers and children with health disabilities in East Asian cultures. Their analyses suggested that the way East Asian mothers responded to their disabled children may have to do with the culture in which they were embedded. Complementing their work, we aim to integrate their findings with the cultural psychology literature, focusing on styles of thought and supernatural beliefs. Doing so allows us to forge theoretical links between Sim et al. (2021) and frameworks that delineate the distinct ways of thought in East Asian cultures, recommend promising directions for future research, and motivate interdisciplinary readership.

Moralization of Covid-19 health response: Asymmetry in tolerance for human costs.

We hypothesized that because Covid-19 (C19) remains an urgent and visible threat, efforts to combat its negative health consequences have become moralized. This moralization of health-based efforts may generate asymmetries in judgement, whereby harmful by-products of those efforts (i.e., instrumental harm) are perceived as more acceptable than harm resulting from non-C19 efforts, such as prioritizing the economy or non-C19 issues. We tested our predictions in two experimental studies. In Study 1, American participants evaluated the same costs (public shaming, deaths and illnesses, and police abuse of power) as more acceptable when they resulted from efforts to minimize C19's health impacts, than when they resulted from non-health C19 efforts (e.g., prioritizing economic costs) or efforts unrelated to C19 (e.g., reducing traffic deaths). In Study 2, New Zealand participants less favorably evaluated the quality of a research proposal empirically questioning continuing a C19 elimination strategy in NZ than one questioning abandoning an elimination strategy, although both proposals contained the same amount of methodology information. This finding suggests questioning elimination approaches is morally condemned, a similar response to that found when sacred values are questioned. In both studies, condition effects were mediated by lowered moral outrage in response to costs resulting from pursuing health-minded C19 efforts. Follow-up analyses revealed that both heightened personal concern over contracting C19 and liberal ideology were associated with greater asymmetries in human cost evaluation. Altogether, results suggest efforts to reduce or eliminate C19 have become moralized, generating asymmetries in evaluations of human suffering.

More behavioral recommendations produce more change: A meta-analysis of efficacy of multibehavior recommendations to reduce nonmedical substance use.

Death and morbidity associated with substance use have risen continuously over the last few decades, increasing the need for rigorous examination of promising programs. Interventions attempting to change multiple behaviors have been designed to address interconnected problems such as use of both alcohol and drugs. This meta-analysis aimed to examine the efficacy of multibehavior interventions to curb nonmedical substance use in relation to the theoretical relation among different substance use behaviors. Specifically, our synthesis aimed to estimate the optimal number of recommendations for intervention efficacy and evaluate the impact of different combinations of recommendations on intervention efficacy. A synthesis of multibehavior interventions addressing nonmedical substance use was conducted to measure behavioral changes between the pretest and the follow-up. These changes were then compared across different numbers of recommendations. Sixty-nine reports and 233 effect sizes (k of conditions = 155, n = 28,295) were included. A positive linear relation was found between the number of targeted behaviors and intervention efficacy, which was stronger for drug use than alcohol use. Furthermore, recommendations on drug use worked better when paired with recommendations targeting other behaviors, whereas recommendations on alcohol use worked more independently. Lastly, multibehavior interventions were especially efficacious when delivered by experts. Overall, our synthesis indicated that targeting multiple substances is beneficial for changing drug use outcomes, but less so for alcohol use outcomes. Therefore, in the current substance use epidemic, innovative multibehavior programs appear to hold promise, especially to combat nonmedical drug use. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).