Wuhan residents perceptions of prejudice and discrimination and the social categorization processes during and after the COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study

Abstract

Although studies have focused on intergroup biases (e.g., discrimination) during the COVID-19 pandemic, little is known about the underlying mechanisms driving intergroup bias, specifically social categorization. In-depth interviews were conducted among 32 residents of Wuhan, P.R. China, during and after the initial COVID-19 lockdown (Jan-July, 2020). Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was applied to describe perceived prejudice and discrimination and the intergroup interaction processes. Results indicated that: (1) Wuhan residents’ interpretations of perceived prejudice and discrimination evolved over time, especially regarding views of the pandemic prevention measures; (2) intergroup contact, emotional factors and cognitive factors influenced individuals’ perceptions of prejudice and discrimination; (3) social categorization and integration processes underwent changes across different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in Wuhan, encompassing the lockdown and reopening; (4) the group identity of recovered COVID-19 patients was easily solidified; (5) in the group integration process, emphasizing common attributes between groups, individualized media coverage and positive aspects of intergroup interactions weakened intergroup boundaries and promoted group integration. These results enrich existing knowledge about perceived discrimination and social categorization processes of a suddenly marginalized group through qualitative research methods.

Keywords

Prejudice and discrimination social categorization qualitative research COVID-19 Wuhan lockdown

Introduction

While previous studies have well described the basis of prejudice and discrimination (i.e., social categorization) and the factors that influence it, most of them have mainly focused on existing marginalized group identities (e.g., Hopkins & Kahani-Hopkins, 2006). The outbreak of COVID-19 in December 2019 in Wuhan and the city lockdown provided us with an opportunity to observe the process by which a group (i.e., Wuhan residents) that was not previously marginalized became suddenly marginalized because of physical isolation (i.e., Wuhan lockdown). Previous quantitative studies found that Wuhan residents were threatened by the risk of prejudice and discrimination (Gan et al., 2022). However, little is known about how Wuhan residents interpreted the discriminatory expression exhibited by non-Wuhan people. As a group of people who were suddenly marginalized due to the city lockdown, Wuhan residents’ interpretation of their identity and their experience of group integration with other groups also deserve to be described in detail. Therefore, the current research adopts qualitative research to systematically describe these questions, contributing to the literature on marginalized group members’ unique perceptions and experiences.

Prejudice and discrimination

Prejudice represents a negative (or less positive) evaluative or affective response, or both, to others in a given context based on their group membership (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2010). Discrimination refers to unjustified negative behavior toward members of the target group, or less positive responses to an outgroup member than would occur for an ingroup member in comparable circumstances (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2010). As two forms of intergroup bias, prejudice reflects people’s attitude, and discrimination reflects people’s behavior towards others. Prejudice and discrimination can be reflected in ways including mobilizing hatred and violence, accusation and denial, and repression (Durrheim et al., 2016).

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous instances of prejudice and discrimination have been observed. For instance, healthcare workers were found to encountered stigmatization, which triggered fear and avoidance of them from others (Taylor et al., 2020). Discrimination wise, it has been found that its various forms, including personal discrimination and group discrimination, could contribute to individuals’ negative emotion and expectation of future discrimination in the duration of COVID-19 (Lou et al., 2023). The form of group discrimination could also be systemic, that is, having a broad impact in the whole society (Kline et al., 2022). After the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, compared with other ethnic groups, Asians and Asian Americans suffered from more discrimination in many areas, such as housing, hotel accommodations, and employment in America (Kantamneni, 2020). Furthermore, the discrimination could also be vicarious. People would suffer from more psychological distress after witnessing or hearing about discrimination against others who were from the same ethnicity as theirs, after the outbreak of COVID-19 (Macaranas et al., 2023).

In Wuhan, the first city of the COVID-19 outbreaks, research suggested that Wuhan residents perceived discrimination from non-Wuhan people, which increased their psychological distress (Gan et al., 2022). However, previous research primarily focused on identifying what forms of prejudice and discrimination occurred and its psychological effect, relying heavily on quantitative methods. If the aim is to delve into understanding how intergroup bias is perceived, qualitative methods prove to be more effective (Teti et al., 2020).

Unlike the preexisting identities of marginalized groups in previous studies (e.g., Hopkins & Kahani-Hopkins, 2006), the identity of Wuhan residents became particularly salient due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to the outbreak, Wuhan residents were not marginalized. However, with the onset of the pandemic, this group identity suddenly became marginalized, leading to discrimination and prejudice. Understanding how Wuhan residents interpret such experiences is crucial. This understanding would deepen insights into the significant impact of the virus on vulnerable populations, offering richer insights than quantitative methods alone (Teti et al., 2020). On this basis, researchers can not only enrich people’s understanding of the experience of vulnerable populations and avoid unintended harm, but also help governments and social institutions prepare to reduce bias and protect vulnerable populations in future crises. Therefore, our first research goal is to elucidate Wuhan residents’ interpretations of prejudice and discrimination from non-Wuhan people during and post-lockdown via qualitative method. Additionally, through inter-case comparisons, we also aimed to explore factors that affected individuals’ interpretation of prejudice and discrimination.

Social categorization

Given that social categorization provides the basis for discrimination and prejudice, based on social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and self-categorization theory (Turner, 1985), a detailed description of the process of social categorization can help us understand how prejudice and discrimination occur. Social categorization refers to the subjective process by which people categorize populations based on similarities (Yzerbyt & Demoulin, 2010). The effect of social categorization on intergroup interaction is a double-edged sword. On one hand, serving as a significant psychological mechanism for individuals to adapt to their environment, social categorization establishes organizational principles for human interactions, aiding in cognitive processes and decision-making within new contexts (Philogène, 2012), such as the sudden outbreak of the pandemic. On the other hand, social categorization gives rise to the division of ingroups and outgroups, intensifying the perception of distinctions between groups (Fiske, 2005), thereby becoming pivotal factors of prejudice and discrimination.

In the context of COVID-19, empirical studies found that many groups were impacted by social categorization and regarded as groups of negative outgroup identities, such as hospitalized patients (Imran et al., 2020), medical workers (Taylor et al., 2020), residents at epicenters of the pandemic (e.g., Italy, Paolini et al., 2020; Wuhan, Gan et al., 2022), and foreign residents (Toprakkiran & Gordils, 2021). In these circumstances, COVID-19 outbreak distorted the original social identities of these groups, resulting in increased negative treatment by others (e.g., rejection, humiliation, disrespect) (Imran et al., 2020).

While prejudice and discrimination in the COVID-19 have been quantitatively explored, there remains a dearth of knowledge regarding the process of how marginalized groups form and were excluded from majority groups (i.e. the occurrence and development of social categorization). Furthermore, limited research has addressed this issue from the perspective of marginalized group members. Understanding the dynamic process of social categorization through the lens of marginalized group members (in this case, Wuhan residents) is crucial, as it honors the construction of social reality by the social actors themselves, rather than imposing an external perspective (Hopkins & Kahani-Hopkins, 2009).

Prior qualitative studies on identity and categorization were typically around preexisting identities of marginalized groups, such as Muslim groups (Hopkins & Kahani-Hopkins, 2006). In such studies, researchers had the opportunity to explore intergroup interactions between marginalized and majority groups based on their existing identities. For instance, one study found that members in Muslim group, as a minority group, may feel frustrated during contact encounters, as they are often positioned as representatives of their group according to the majority’s terms rather than their own (Hopkins et al., 2007). However, in the context of this study, the identity of Wuhan residents was not particularly salient before the COVID-19 outbreak. As a result, such context offered an observational opportunity to describe the process of social categorization and intergroup interaction as the pandemic unfolds.

Therefore, the second research goal is to focus on social categorization process from the perspective of a sudden marginalized group (i.e., Wuhan residents). Additionally, it has been argued that category-based approaches can be implemented to reduce intergroup bias and conflict (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2010). These approaches include: (1) the recategorization process, which redefines the intergroup boundary (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000); (2) the personalization process, which encourages people to treat each other as unique individuals in intergroup interactions (Brewer & Miller, 1984); and (3) mutual intergroup differentiation, which emphasizes the positive aspects of group interaction while maintaining group identity (Brown & Hewstone, 2005). As such, we also intend to describe and investigate antecedents that either promote or hinder group integration from the perspective of social categorization, in order to better understand the nature of group interaction in the context of COVID-19.

The present study

The time span this study aims to investigate was from the outbreak of COVID-19 (i.e., January, 2020) to the initial stage of normalized COVID-19 prevention in Wuhan (i.e., July, 2020). We recognized that previous quantitative studies might overlook the nuanced aspects of how marginalized group’s members construct meaning and interpret instances of prejudice and discrimination. Therefore, the first research goal was to gain a deeper understanding of how Wuhan residents (i.e., a sudden marginalized group’s members) interpreted behaviors indicative of prejudice and discrimination, contributing to the existing literature.

Given that social categorization lays the groundwork for intergroup bias, the second research question centered on the evolution of social categorization during and after the COVID-19 lockdown in Wuhan. Focus of this study was on exploring the perspectives of discriminated groups members, aiming to understand how they perceived the phenomenon of social categorization and whether group integration occurred amidst the pandemic’s development and Wuhan lockdown lifted. Additionally, we aimed to uncover the factors that may have influenced the processes of social categorization and integration in the experiences of Wuhan residents. By providing answers to these inquiries, this research contributes not only to the understanding of social categorization from the perspective of discriminated group members but also to the depiction of the dynamic process of social categorization and group integration.

Method

Research methods

Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was used to explore the research questions. As a qualitative research method, IPA is often used to investigate questions concerning how people make sense of their lived experiences, especially important and special experiences (Smith et al., 2009). In this study, IPA was chosen because its focus matched the research purpose of this study, which was to describe, interpret and analyze Wuhan residents’ perception of prejudice and discrimination in the context of COVID-19. This research purpose also coincides with the primary research question proposed in IPA, that is, people’s understanding of experiences in a specific context (Smith et al., 2009). As well, since the relevant social psychology theories on social categorization have been relatively thorough, the description and analysis of the process of social categorization and its influencing factors in this study (i.e., second research question) are therefore based on the perspective of the secondary research question in IPA. In other words, this study explored the understanding and interpretation of phenomena driven by a particular concept (i.e., the concept of social categorization) (Smith et al., 2009). Thus, the first research question of this study was based on a descriptive orientation, whereas the second is based on an interpretive orientation (Giorgi & Giorgi, 2010).

Participants

Participants were recruited from a larger research project exploring the mental health of the Wuhan residents during COVID-19 quarantine (Zhou et al., 2020). At the time of recruitment, due to the official requirement, patients infected with COVID-19 were required to be treated in isolation in hospitals. Therefore, our study did not have access to any COVID-19 patients, so all the participants at the time of the interview had no direct experience of COVID-19 infection (i.e., July, 2020, post-lockdown).

Participants were included or excluded according to the criteria of data saturation and theoretical saturation (Flick, 2018). Specifically, following participants’ informed consent, participants were asked a series of questions about their personal experiences in COVID-19, such as family relationships, neighborhood interactions, and perceptions of prejudice and discrimination. Under any topic, participants were allowed to skip any question. A total of 46 participants joined in the interview. In the current research topic (i.e., perceived prejudice and discrimination), 35 participants agreed to share their experiences, and 3 of them were excluded for the reason that they did not give concrete answers that contain sufficient information (such as skipping multiple questions, avoiding providing examples) and the answers of these 3 participants did not increase the variability, saturation and depth of the current findings. In the end, 32 participants (21 females, 11 males, M _age = 40 years, SD _age = 13.47 years, rang = 18∼64 years) were selected for this study. Among them, 23 participants were married, 4 were single, 3 were divorced or separated and 2 did not report marital status. In terms of occupation, 21 participants had full-time jobs, 5 were retired, 3 were university students, 2 were homemaker, and 1 did not report working status.

Information about travel history and relationship with COVID-19 patients were also asked. After the city lockdown was lifted on April 8, 2020, nearly half of the participants (15 participants) remained to stay in Wuhan, 10 had travel experience outside Wuhan, and 7 did not provide travelling information. In addition, although none of our participants had been infected with COVID-19 at the time of the interview, half of them (16 participants) reported that they had connections with some COVID-19 patients, including family members, friends, neighbors, and acquaintances.

Data collection

Prior to formal interviews, we conducted pilot interviews to develop research questions on the theme of prejudice and discrimination in the context of COVID-19. A semi-structured interview outline was then established. In July 2020, semi-structured interviews were conducted focusing on individuals’ perceived experiences, feelings and attitudes toward prejudice and discrimination during and after the Wuhan lockdown (i.e., from January 2020 to July 2020) (see Supplemental Material - Appendix 1 for interview questions). Interviews were conducted online and did not have a preset time limit and ended when information saturation was reached. All interviews were audio-recorded. The audio transcripts were doubled-checked by researchers.

Analytic process

Data analysis drew on the IPA analytic process proposed by Smith et al. (2009), which is divided into six steps and follows a hermeneutic circle with repeated iterations. This analytical process emphasized dynamism. The researcher maintained a multidirectional and open process of engaging with the text, describing the phenomenon interpretively throughout multiple hermeneutic cycles.

Reliability and fidelity

Reliability was assessed in three ways. Firstly, the interview outline was developed through progressive discussion during the pilot interview process. Using conversations of typical examples from pilot interviews, the lead researcher trained all interviewers in a group session to ensure a consistent understanding of the study purposes and questions. Secondly, before the onset of the formal interviews, each interviewer conducted at least two pilot interviews as part of their training. After each pilot interview, the researcher reviewed the audio recordings and transcripts and retrained each interviewer on the interview process to ensure that they grasped the requirements of conducting the interviews to reach information saturation. In terms of reliability of the results, ensuring the accuracy of the translation of the findings from Chinese to English, translations were conducted by the third author who has 5 years of English-Chinese translation and interpretation experience.

In terms of the fidelity of the results and interpretations, the current study invited eight participants (see Supplemental Material - Appendix 2 for details) to evaluate the findings and statements of the current findings. Specifically, participants rated the research model and specific interpretations (on a scale from 1–5) in relation to their own experiences. Higher scores indicate greater agreement with the research model’s formulation and interpretation. Results indicated an average of 4.28 on the item measuring “whether the model fits their own experiences” and 4.33 on “agreement with the model’s formulation and interpretation”. Participant reviewers also provided suggestions on the findings based on their own experiences. Researchers further revised ambiguous and inapplicable formulations in the model construction. In response to contradictory suggestions from participants, researchers returned to the original data to conduct ongoing inter-case comparisons and reflections to improve the fidelity of the findings.

Findings

Research question 1: How did Wuhan residents perceive prejudice and discrimination during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Key themes about prejudice and discrimination occurred in the interviews

Overall speaking, our results indicated that all 32 participants perceived prejudice and discrimination during and after the COVID-19 lockdown in Wuhan. However, the sources of their perceptions differed: in 12 cases, participants reported their own experiences, 14 cases pertained to participants’ observations of their relatives and friends and 16 cases were observed on social media.

On this basis, three main themes and nine sub-themes emerged regarding what kind of behaviors were interpreted by Wuhan residents in terms of prejudice and discrimination (see Table 1 for detailed quotations). The first main theme behavioral performance comprised the four sub-themes: rejection, avoidance, verbal aggression and behavioral aggression. The frequency of both rejection and avoidance was reported 29 times, which was higher than the other two sub-themes (verbal aggression and behavioral aggression). Most of the reported occasions of rejection and avoidance were from participants’ personal experiences, whereas occasions of both verbal and behavioral aggression arose from participants’ observed experiences of relatives/friends or from the social media. The second main theme was emotional performance, comprising the sub-themes of fear and disgust. Fear was reported 18 times, higher than disgust (3 times). The third theme was preventive measures only targeted for Wuhan identities. It should be noted that the interviews were conducted after the lockdown was lifted in Wuhan. At that time, all Wuhan residents had completed universal community NATs and were declared safe, and were allowed by central and state governments to travel. In such circumstance, Wuhan residents perceived these targeted preventive measures as discriminatory. The third theme was comprised of two sub-themes of repetitive nucleic acid tests (NATs), and inconsistent quarantine measures. The sub-theme of Repetitive NATs was reported 8 times and reflected the situation that Wuhan residents need to demonstrate their health by taking NAT repeatedly when they arrived at new cities after the lockdown. The sub-theme of Inconsistent quarantine measures was reported 20 times, indicating that Wuhan residents were quarantined solely due to their Wuhan identities, regardless of their NAT result. Furthermore, the criteria for whether, when, and how Wuhan residents need to be quarantined varied discretionally across cities, fostering feelings of discrimination among Wuhan residents.

Table 1.

The Themes of Wuhan Residents’ Perceived Prejudice and Discrimination.

Theme	Sub-theme	Quotation	Frequency
Behavioral performances	Rejection	“A lot of products from Wuhan are rejected and returned.”	29
	Avoidance	“When others know that we are from Wuhan, they avoid us [entering the hotel].”	29
	Verbal aggression	“There are a lot of comments criticizing people from Wuhan, ……, i.e., eating the wrong foods makes them sick.”	7
	Behavioral aggression	“Vehicles with Wuhan license plates are smashed in other city.”	5
Emotional performances	Fear	“If you have recovered from COVID-19, when you go back to work, and are right next to me, I will be afraid.”	18
Emotional performances	Disgust	“Some [people] from other places …… just act very disgusted, with a look of disgust.”	3
Preventive measures only targeted for Wuhan identities	Repetitive NATs	“After undergoing a NAT in Wuhan, I still have to undergo a NAT again after landing at another city, ……, and a NAT is repeatedly conducted in each city if I travel to several places.”	8
Preventive measures only targeted for Wuhan identities	Inconsistent quarantine measures	“Some places just need negative NAT results, some need a 7-day [quarantine], some need a 14-day [quarantine], and some just lead you directly to quarantine without asking anything.”	20

Note. Missing content is represented by “……”; brackets (i.e., “[]”) are used for additional explanation.

A change over time: Different interpretations of prejudice and discrimination

As we did not limit the time period for participants to express their perceptions of prejudice and discrimination, participants’ interpretations of prejudice and discrimination were found to change over time. This can be shown by the following quote:

At first, I could understand (the prejudice and discrimination). But later on, I couldn’t anymore, especially after April 8 when the lockdown had been lifted. I couldn’t understand why people in many other places still treat Wuhan residents differently even after the lockdown was lifted. It (their prejudice and discrimination) was so obvious. (ID: 439, Male, 33 years old)

The results indicated that regardless of the stage of the pandemic, Wuhan residents’ interpretations of prejudice and discrimination was divided into the two categories of others’ self-prevention and discriminatory treatment. However, as time changes (from the outbreak of COVID-19 to the post-lockdown), Wuhan residents’ interpretation of prejudice and discrimination can be classified into one category and then shift to another (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Specific performances of perceived prejudice and discrimination and influencing factors: a model based on the development stage of the pandemic.

Specifically, in stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan (i.e., January 2020), participants only interpreted perceived verbal aggression and behavioral aggression as discriminatory treatment and other themes were interpreted as others’ self-prevention. In regard of other’s self-prevention, participants believed that others engaged in such behavior because they were afraid of the virus and concerned about the health of themselves and their family members.

I think this phenomenon is understandable, because the situation (i.e. outbreak of the COVID-19) of Wuhan was the most severe. People were afraid out of concern for their own health… However, you can be afraid, but you should not hurt others. You should not say things that hurts people. Someone would say ‘Kick Wuhan people out of China’. This kind of words, I think, are very unnecessary. (ID: 22, Female, 22 years old)

When lockdown measures eased in Wuhan and universal community NATs were implemented (July 2020), the COVID-19 pandemic in China entered the initial stage of normalized pandemic prevention (The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, 2020). During this stage, interpretation of prejudice and discrimination by Wuhan residents changed. Avoidance and fear were in the category of others’ self-prevention, whereas verbal aggression and behavioral aggression were still interpreted as discriminatory treatment (see Figure 1).

However, the rejection sub-theme (under behavioral performance) and the disgust sub-theme (under emotional performance) were considered to be discriminatory treatment at this time. Such classifications reflected that in specific interpretation of prejudice and discrimination during this stage, behavioral and emotional actions (which are more explicit and intense) were more likely to be perceived by individuals as discriminatory treatment.

After the lockdown was lifted, my work required me to meet people visiting Wuhan from other places. Some of them would show evident signs of disdain, dissatisfaction with very negative attitudes. Although these signs are quite subtle, I remember this discomfort and their attitude quite clearly. (ID: 176, Male, 23 years old)

There is also a change in individuals’ interpretation of the NATs and quarantine measures. Normal NATs and quarantine measures were interpreted as others’ self-prevention, while repetitive NATs and inconsistent quarantine measures were interpreted as discriminatory treatment (see Figure 1).

I understood at first, but then I couldn’t anymore. Because of the nature of my work, I was exposed to a lot of cases and reports about this. There are a lot of people who went out from Wuhan and they have already done NAT in Wuhan, but when they arrived at other places, the local people just wouldn’t approve the result ... Some places just sent them back home or seal up their houses and force them to stay in. (ID: 439, Male, 33 years old)

Factors that affect individuals’ interpretation of prejudice and discrimination

In subsequent inter-case comparisons, we explored factors that affected individuals’ interpretation of prejudice and discrimination. We aimed to understand whether there were interindividual variation factors that lead to different levels of perception and interpretation of prejudice and discrimination. Results revealed three main themes: degree of intergroup contact, emotional factors, and cognitive factors, as well as 5 sub-themes: nature of occupation, empathy, social responsibility, COVID-19 awareness and awareness of information on COVID-19 prevention (see Figure 1). The degree of intergroup contact refers to opportunities for contact with outgroups, with increased contact leading to greater perception of prejudice and discrimination. Nature of occupation reflected the degree of the contact between interviewees and non-Wuhan people after lockdown implementation eased. Due to the nature of their occupations, certain participants (e.g., those sales professions) had more frequent contact with non-Wuhan people and were more likely to perceive prejudice and discrimination.

I connect with manufacturers from all over the country… I can clearly feel that not only Wuhan residents, but all Hubei residents are being discriminated. (ID: 49, Male, 24 years old)

Under the second main theme of emotional factors, there are two sub-themes of empathy and social responsibility. In terms of empathy, we found that participants with stronger empathy demonstrated more compassion towards others and therefore perceived non-Wuhan people’s behaviors as less reflective of discriminatory treatment.

I live in Wuhan and I am afraid of other Wuhan residents myself. So the fact that others are afraid of me is very normal. (ID: 102, Female, 32 years old)

In terms of social responsibility, participants with more social responsibilities better understood the non-Wuhan people’s behaviors (e.g., avoidance due to caution) as not only individual self-protection, but also as taking responsibility for the health and public safety of others in society. As a result, they were less likely to perceive non-Wuhan people’s behaviors as a sign of discriminatory treatment.

The NAT ... is a reflection of your own health. It also shows a responsible attitude toward those people in the cities you visit. (ID: 73, Female, 52 years old)

Under the third main theme of cognitive factors, there are two sub-themes: COVID-19 awareness and awareness of information on COVID-19 prevention and control. In regard to COVID-19 awareness, we found that participants with more scientific awareness of COVID-19 (e.g., transmission route, infection mode) were more able to objectively understand the emotional and behavioral responses of others and thus less likely to perceive such behaviors as discriminatory treatment.

What they are afraid of is the virus, not us Wuhan residents. It is a very infectious disease after all, and there are a lot of infected people that shows no signs (but still can spread the virus). Being cautious is good. (ID: 8, Male, 27 years old)

The sub-theme of awareness of information on COVID-19 prevention and control reflected how Wuhan residents interpreted the NATs and quarantine measures. The impact of this factor occurred before Wuhan residents’ contact with non-Wuhan people. In other words, prior to interactions between Wuhan residents and other groups, participants who had more information on COVID-19 prevention measures in the other city were more often able to predict and evaluate the impending intergroup interaction, made more psychological preparations for the possible responses of others, and were less likely to perceive non-Wuhan people’s behaviors as discriminatory.

We had already heard from our colleagues before we went there [i.e., a city outside Wuhan]. We knew that we would need to do another NAT. Well, at least we had this information before we arrived. (ID: 185, Male, 36 years old)

In this section, we addressed Research Question 1 by delineating Wuhan residents’ interpretation of prejudice and discrimination from non-Wuhan people, including changes over time and influential factors. Given that social categorization underpins bias formation, Research Question 2 further elaborated on how Wuhan residents perceive social categorization processes.

Research question 2: How did Wuhan residents perceive social categorization processes during and after the lockdown?

The social categorization process changed with the developmental stage of the pandemic

Findings related to Research Question 1 suggested that important time points in the Wuhan lockdown should be addressed in subsequent analyses. As such, based on the description of participants, we divided time duration into three stages: (1) the initial Wuhan lockdown; (2) official requirement for treatment of COVID-19 patients and potential patients; and (3) lockdown lifted.

Wuhan lockdown: Group division process due to the physical separation

Before the COVID-19 outbreak, the term Wuhan residents had no particular significance in the wider population. On January 23, 2020, the implementation of lockdown measures separated Wuhan from other regions in terms of physical distance. As such, we observed the first-time social categorization process (see Figure 2). Such social categorization exhibited a simple (yes/no) dichotomous process (Kawakami et al., 2017) at this stage. In the early stage of the pandemic, when people lacked of COVID-19-related information (e.g., result of NATs), the physical location and identity characteristics related to Wuhan became the equivalent determination criteria for the COVID-19. Due to the physical separation (i.e., Wuhan lockdown) and the severity of the pandemic, Wuhan residents identified themselves as potentially at risk, while those who had no relationship to Wuhan in terms of physical location or identity characteristics were considered as healthy groups.

Our family left Wuhan before the lockdown. After Wuhan lockdown, my Wuhan license plate attracted the attention of the local community, and then someone from the local community came to register our families’ personal information and asked us to report our temperature every day. Although it was a special treatment, it is understandable that the pandemic in Wuhan was too serious at that time. They did not want their health to be threatened. (ID: 104, Male, 31 years old)

Figure 2.

Social categorization model with the development stage of the pandemic.

In addition, when Wuhan residents perceived social categorization process at this stage, they demonstrated the behavioral reaction of distancing themselves from the other groups. That is, at this stage, the physical separation triggered by the city lockdown provided the basis for the first division of Wuhan residents and other groups. On this basis, these two groups show further initiatives to clarify group boundaries.

I knew when... right after the lockdown… I knew that we, Wuhan residents, should not go anywhere, as others certainly do not welcome us. (ID: 84, Female, 56 years old)

Further categorization between Wuhan residents and other groups and a hierarchically nested structure within Wuhan residents’ group

On February 17, 2020, an official requirement was instituted that four categories of individuals (confirmed patients, suspected patients, febrile patients, and close contacts) should be hospitalized and treated (Cui, 2020). This appears to have prompted a second-time social categorization process (see Figure 2). The clear definition of these four categories further divided those individuals from the potentially at-risk groups (i.e., Wuhan residents) in the first stage. At the implement of this isolation treatment, members of those four categories were explicitly labeled as groups at risk directly related to COVID-19. Notably, the categorization of groups potentially at risk from the first stage still existed at this stage, but due to the second-time social categorization process, the definition of groups potentially at risk has changed (i.e., Wuhan residents after the exclusion of the four categories of people). The expression of potentially at-risk groups was still used, because at this stage the physical separation of Wuhan still existed. Therefore, Wuhan residents were still regarded as members of a potentially at-risk group.

Later, when the government began to screen the “four categories” of people, some people in our community were quarantined…We definitely would keep a distance from those families and neighbors. (ID: 82, Female, 45 years old)

In addition, within the groups potentially at risk, we identified a hierarchically nested structure (see Figure 3). This structure revealed that the regional risk level of the COVID-19 pandemic was served as a standard for intergroup categorization within the group potentially at risk. Specifically, the epicenter of outbreak was in Hankou district, leading Wuhan residents to perceive Hankou as posing a higher risk. This perception instigated a social categorization process within the groups potentially at risk, wherein participants residing in distinct locales (e.g., urban or suburban areas) perceived varying degrees of risk contingent on their proximity to the epicenter.

Figure 3.

A hierarchically nested structure within the groups potentially at risk in the isolation treatment stage.

Each participant’s perception entailed the existence of other groups closer to the outbreak’s epicenter than their own, enabling them to psychologically distance themselves from potential risks. For example, urban residents viewed Hankou district residents were more at risk, while the whole urban residents (including Hankou district residents) were viewed more at risk by suburbanites. As such, the nested structure formed by social categorization was not directly formed from the outermost groups, but formed hierarchically.

We live in Wuchang District (one central area of Wuhan). At that time, Hankou District, the original place of the pandemic, was more serious, and we would be nervous even if we drove by. (ID: 422, Male, 44 years old)

Their suburbanites had an evasive attitude toward people returning from the urban area. (ID: 8, Male, 27 years old).

Lockdown lifted: Integration of ingroups and outgroups versus isolation of recovered COVID-19 patients

On 8th April 2020, the Wuhan lockdown was lifted. As a result, physical barriers that originally separated the Wuhan residents and other groups were eliminated. Group contact provides possibility for intergroups integration (Allport et al., 1954). At this stage, the process of group contact was characterized by the coexistence of conflict and integration. Here, conflict refers to the situation that compared with the lockdown period, Wuhan residents perceive more inter-group conflicts through actual inter-group contact. Specifically, the psychological significance of group boundaries, originally formed by physical separation of the Wuhan lockdown, did not disappear when physical separation was eliminated. At this stage, Wuhan residents reported more perceived prejudice and discrimination behaviors from the other groups than the previous stages. Accordingly, Wuhan residents also showed more behavioral and emotional responses to experiences of prejudice and discrimination than previous stages.

I have not experienced much discrimination during the lockdown. But after the lockdown was lifted, the news says that people in other regions were very disgusted by Wuhan residents, so we decided to not leave town. (ID: 247, Female, 37 years old)

Integration refers to the process of weakening the boundary due to the combined effect of external requirements and individuals’ internal motivations. Specifically, the official requirement of resuming work and production prompted intergroup interactions. In addition, the reopening of the city sent signals to Wuhan residents, urging them to seek group integration with the other groups and obtain a unified collective identity.

After the lockdown was lifted, Wuhan residents... definitely wish to be more welcomed and not being treated differently when they go outside of Wuhan. (ID: 159, Female, 35 years old)

Notably, we found that the group identity of COVID-19 patients/recovered patients did not change with the development stage of the pandemic (i.e., solidification of their outgroup identities; see Figure 2). Specifically, when talking about the group of COVID-19 patients/recovered COVID-19 patients, Wuhan residents who were uninfected with the COVID-19 exhibited a change in group identity, from those who perceive prejudice and discrimination to those who exhibit active prejudice and discriminatory behaviors. In line with such changed group identity, Wuhan residents also showed the emotional and behavioral performance to the group of COVID-19 patients/recovered patients (e.g., avoidance, rejection, and fear).

Furthermore, the identity of COVID-19 patients/recovered COVID-19 patients’ group was found to have first formed at the stage of isolation treatment and continued to exist until the lockdown lifted. The lifting of the lockdown in Wuhan did not change the identity of this group, and their interactions with any other groups were found difficult across both stages. Thus, we interpreted this COVID-19 patients/recovered patients’ group to have solidified identity characteristics and suggested that they would bear more prejudice and discrimination.

My mom was in a senior citizen’s dance team. One of the male members of the dance team had been diagnosed with COVID-19 and then recovered. After the lockdown was lifted, when he went back to the dance team, the others would put on masks immediately. He used to be quite popular before, but now when he came, people wouldn’t talk to him. He explained to them: 'I've recovered, and this virus is nothing to be afraid of.' But everyone ignored him. So, he felt very sad and never went there again. (ID: 297, Female, 34 years old)

Factors influencing the group integration process

This section described the factors that may exist in the group categorization and integration model and affect group interaction. Notably, these factors occurred not only between the Wuhan residents and other groups interactions, but also between hierarchical groups within the Wuhan residents’ group.

Strengthening intergroup boundaries

Three factors were found to emphasize categorization: inconsistent prevention measures, media coverage of conflict incidents, and negative online interactions.

Inconsistent prevention measures have been described under the theme of perceived prejudice and discrimination (i.e., research question 1), so we save the explanation.

The media coverage of conflict incidents refers to instances when Wuhan residents perceived categorization via media reports of group conflict events. Participants focused on the negative impacts of intergroup categorization to interpret group conflicts in the reporting. Therefore, although these reports were not the participants’ personal experience, they still made them notice the occurrence of social categorization, which in turn, led them to strengthen their own group boundaries.

When the city was locked down… I didn’t have much feeling [of discrimination]. The discrimination phenomenon that impressed me deeply was after the lifting of lockdown. I saw in the news that when some people from Hubei province tried to cross the bridge in Jiangxi Province, they were stopped and there was a physical conflict. We were talking about this news and felt angry. (ID: 91, Female, 55 years old)

Negative online interaction refers to when Wuhan residents interacted with other groups’ members via the internet, and perceived prejudice and discrimination. Although all participants reported that they did not actively participate in negative online interactions (e.g., posting comments), the experience of watching others’ online interactions (e.g., reading comments on social media) could cause them to feel negative emotions (e.g., anger, sadness), which heightened their awareness of the occurrence of social categorization.

It would be sad if someone says bad words to Wuhan residents on the internet. I will not argue with them, but I felt rejected and was very sad. (ID: 321, Male, 20 years old)

Weakening of intergroup boundaries

Weakening the intergroup boundary emerged as a means to promote group integration. Three factors were found: emphasizing common attributes of intergroups, individualized media coverage, and emphasizing the positive aspects of intergroup interaction.

Emphasis on common attributes between groups was achieved through recategorization, promoted by universal community NATs (Hasnain et al., 2020), the absence of new confirmed cases in Wuhan, and the sporadic emergence of confirmed COVID-19 cases in other cities. These occurrences emphasized the common pandemic-related attributes between Wuhan and other cities. The “universal community NATs” and the “absence of new confirmed cases in Wuhan” drew underscored the shared characteristics of safety among the Wuhan residents and other groups. Wuhan no longer being directly tied to the COVID-19 pandemic signaled to other groups that intergroup boundaries could be eliminated, providing Wuhan residents with an incentive to promote their integration with other groups.

With universal community NATs, Wuhan is arguably one of the safest cities in China. (ID: 159, Female, 35 years old)

Similarly, “the sporadic emergence of confirmed COVID-19 cases in other cities” emphasized the shared characteristics of the potential risk attribute for both Wuhan residents and other groups. All the cities were facing similar potential pandemic risks post-lockdown.

Now, everyone [is] just like a Wuhan resident who faced the virus directly at that time (early in 2020). (ID: 73, Female, 52 years old)

Individualized media coverage was achieved by highlighting the dedication and sacrifices of specific individuals fighting against the COVID-19. Through personalized and differentiated reporting on those Wuhan residents, individualized media coverage promoted understanding and awareness among other groups.

Wuhan residents have made a lot of sacrifices. The medical staff in Wuhan, rather than us citizens, sacrificed the most. Seeing the news about Wuhan, I feel that the sacrifices of our people have finally been seen, and I am very moved. (ID: 297, Female,34 years old)

Emphasis on the positive aspects of intergroup interaction was achieved through mutual intergroup differentiation in three ways: (1) expert voice, (2) positive emotion arousal, and (3) helping-farmers policies in Hubei/Wuhan. These factors did not directly attempt to break the intergroup boundaries, thus not threatening the formed identity of the non-Wuhan people. By emphasizing the uniqueness of Wuhan identity, the positive aspects of the intergroup interaction were highlighted in terms of cognition, emotion, and behavior.

In terms of cognition, when experts clearly state that “Wuhan is safe”, the association between Wuhan residents and COVID-19 were redefined, emphasizing positive attributes of safety and health. In terms of emotions, mutual intergroup differentiation was reflected in the arousal of positive emotions in both Wuhan residents and other groups (e.g., “Wuhan is a heroic city”, The Xinhua News Agency, 2020). For the Wuhan residents, this advocacy promotes positive emotions, such as self-esteem and pride, thereby reducing possible obstacles in the intergroup interaction. Additionally, the helping-farmers policies in Hubei/Wuhan included behavioral aspects, directly promoting interaction between the Wuhan residents and other groups.

We now had special policies to support Wuhan's economy and help its farmers and merchants to sell their goods. I have seen news that many out-of-towners are willing to help Wuhan people in this way, and they also left messages on shopping websites saying, “Hang in there” which is very nice and warm. I know there are many people who do not discriminate against Wuhan people. (ID: 440, Male, 41 years old)

Discussion

A significant portion of the research on prejudice and discrimination amid the COVID-19 pandemic has predominantly relied on quantitative studies. Their research focus was on what forms of prejudice and discrimination occurred during the pandemic (Taylor et al., 2020), and the impact of prejudice and discrimination on individual’s mental health and intergroup interaction (Paolini et al., 2020; Gan et al., 2022). Our study focuses on how Wuhan residents interpreted prejudice and discrimination. Wuhan residents conveyed an array of themes encompassing behavior, emotions, and pandemic prevention measures of non-Wuhan groups. During the lockdown, Wuhan residents did not have direct contact with people outside Wuhan, therefore their perceived prejudices and discriminations were almost vicarious. After the lockdown lifted, given that several of our interviewees went to other cities, direct and personal prejudices and discriminations appeared. Moreover, the prejudices and discriminations might be systemic and spread to many areas (e.g. “Vehicles with Wuhan license plates are smashed in other city.”). Different forms of prejudices and discriminations also associated with Wuhan residents perceived social categorization process during and after COVID-19 lockdown.

We are particularly interested in Wuhan residents’ interpretations of their encounters with prejudice and discrimination. Three key aspects of our findings deserve special attention. The first aspect is the key themes of perceived prejudice and discrimination. As shown in Figure 1, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Wuhan residents recount experiences of discrimination, where certain behaviors (e.g., aggression) were unequivocally recognized as discrimination, whereas other manifestations, like avoidance, rejection, and fear, were interpreted as others’ self-prevention measures. This broadens our understanding of discrimination from the perspective of marginalized groups. Specifically, Wuhan residents can discern objective discrimination occurrences while employing a subjective interpretation that allows them to distinguish the underlying implications of diverse behaviors, adopting a positive outlook in comprehending others’ actions. One plausible explanation is that, rejection, fear, and disgust often serve an adaptive purpose by maintaining social distance and mitigating the risk of virus transmission (Sun & Zhai, 2020). In Wuhan, the pioneering city to confront the pandemic, residents were primarily focused on safeguarding their own well-being, prioritizing personal health over concerns about others’ treatment of them.

The second noteworthy aspect pertains to the difference of Wuhan residents’ interpretation of pandemic prevention measures in different situations. NATs and general pandemic prevention measures were deemed as others’ self-protection, while the repetitive NATs and inconsistent prevention measures were perceived as discriminatory. Despite calls for more research on changes in discrimination experiences during critical periods (Gee et al., 2012), most previous studies were quantitative (e.g., Rosenthal et al., 2015). This qualitative approach allows us to capture the nuanced understanding and evolving perceptions of discrimination among marginalized groups, complementing existing knowledge.

Thirdly, our findings highlight the role of social responsibility and pandemic-related cognitive levels as protective factors in interpreting discriminatory behaviors. This facet received limited attention in prior research (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008) but carries profound practical implications. Enhancing individuals’ social responsibility could not only increase willingness to adopt prevention measures (Carvalho et al., 2020) but reduce the risk of intergroup conflicts and the negative impact of intergroup bias in the COVID-19. Moreover, the role of science popularization and knowledge of virus transmission should be emphasized (Tso & Cowling, 2020). Timely public dissemination of COVID-19-related knowledge and prevention information is crucial, especially when the virus spread rapidly (Callaway, 2021).

In regard to the second research question, we delved into Wuhan residents’ perceptions of social categorization during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings also revealed three noteworthy aspects that contribute to the existing literature:

Firstly, drawing from social identity theory, researchers proposed that as the pandemic unfolds, identity itself is destabilized, leading to the constant creation of new social identities and intergroup relations (Abrams et al., 2021). Our study captured the perspective of a marginalized group (i.e., Wuhan residents), transitioning from formation to isolation and initially integration with other groups. These intricate processes elude the detailed description provided by previous quantitative studies. The simplicity of dichotomous social categorization may serve an adaptive role in rapidly changing environments (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2010), such as the sudden outbreak of a novel virus, as it conserves cognitive resources and facilitates prompt decision-making (Cruwys et al., 2020). Whether dealing with the novel virus or early-stage prevention measures, both Wuhan residents and members of other groups needed to assimilate and apply an abundance of information to make informed decisions and guide their actions. Social categorization helps individuals preserve cognitive resources for other aspects of their lives. Additionally, the uncertainty-identity theory posits that during times of environmental uncertainties, social categorization diminishes feelings of uncertainty and anxiety (Hogg, 2007). Given that the COVID-19 pandemic introduced significant uncertainty and was a primary driver of mental health issues (Li et al., 2020), rapid social categorization may also serve as an emotional adaptive mechanism.

The second noteworthy aspect of our study revolves around the identification of a hierarchically nested structure within the social categorization model, a concept that has been previously postulated in the social categorization perspective (Turner, 1985) and applied to intergroup cooperation (Lee et al., 2012). Our research expands on this notion, extending it to the domain of intergroup bias. Moreover, our findings indicate that as the hierarchy takes shape, subgroups at various levels also face potential risks associated with social categorization, such as prejudice and discrimination. Thus, our study sheds light on the covert presence of discrimination within marginalized groups. Through in-depth qualitative analysis, we underscore the dynamic and diverse nature of marginalized groups (i.e., Wuhan residents in our case), highlighting that they should not be perceived as a homogenous entity.

Finally, as we unravel the factors influencing intergroup integration, we discovered that apart from “sporadic emergence of confirmed COVID-19 cases”, all other factors that weaken intergroup boundaries follow a top-down process. This process includes the national government’s management and control of the COVID-19 pandemic, media publicity, and measures to promote group integration from the perspective of economic development. Although these measures did not explicitly aim to promote group integration, they did play positive roles in the integration process after the lockdown was lifted in Wuhan. These findings expand our understanding of leadership and governmental roles in the context of the pandemic (Abrams et al., 2021). However, it is essential to note that the current study’s time frame is limited to the short period from the outbreak of the pandemic to post-lockdown in Wuhan. The impact of governmental efforts to reduce discrimination has often been regarded as limited and conditional in previous intervention studies (Fang et al., 2019). Therefore, our findings provide only a partial glimpse into the situation and warrant cautious interpretation.

Limitations and future directions

In the interpretation and consideration of the findings from the current study, some limitations should be noted, with an eye toward future research. Firstly, given the Wuhan lockdown, conducting online interviews was the only feasible method to ensure research continuity and security. However, we were cognizant of its potential impact on the interview process. For instance, the inability of researchers to interact with participants in person might influence their emotional expression and nonverbal communication.

Secondly, this study described the process of group categorization and the characteristics of integration from the perspective of outgroup members (i.e., Wuhan residents). However, the ingroup perspective (i.e., non-Wuhan people) was lacking. Therefore, the model constructed in the current study and the questions that can be answered are limited to the social categorization process perceived by outgroup members. Additionally, recovered COVID-19 patients, a group with a solid identity, were also described from the perspective of Wuhan residents who were “uninfected by COVID-19”. Future studies could explore more diverse group perspectives, focusing on the characteristics and challenges of intergroup interactions faced by recovered COVID-19 patients and their mental health.

Moreover, the constructed social categorization model embedded within developmental stages of the pandemic only covered the period from the outbreak of COVID-19 to the initial stage of normalized pandemic prevention. Therefore, in different stages of the pandemic, issues such as changes in the categorization criteria of ingroups and outgroups and characteristics of the group interaction process should be explored in future studies.

Finally, this study constructed a theoretical model of group interaction in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic through qualitative research. More studies in the future are needed to examine such question from different qualitative and quantitative perspectives and provide more empirical evidence for this theoretical model.

Implications

The current study, set against the unique background of post-lockdown intergroup interactions in Wuhan during the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizes the marginalized groups’ understanding of their experiences with discrimination and the dynamic intergroup interactions that evolve alongside the pandemic. These findings hold potential practical significance for governments and for social workers. For instance, government authorities can utilize the discovered influencing factors from the current study to mitigate individuals’ subjective perceptions of discrimination and foster positive intergroup interactions in similar future events (although such occurrences might not be desirable). Additionally, social workers should recognize that marginalized group members often exhibit heterogeneity, and individuals with certain identities (COVID-19 patients in our case) may struggle to overcome experiences of discrimination, necessitating greater external support and assistance.

Conclusion

The current study delves into the perception of prejudice and discrimination among Wuhan residents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative approach helps to reveal the richness and diversity of marginalized groups’ understanding of discrimination, which evolves with the pandemic’s progression. Moreover, from the social categorization perspective, our research provided a unique opportunity to depict the dynamic transformation of marginalized groups, from their inception to initial integration in the context of COVID-19.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Wuhan residents perceptions of prejudice and discrimination and the social categorization processes during and after the COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study

Supplemental Material for Wuhan residents perceptions of prejudice and discrimination and the social categorization processes during and after the COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study by Tong Zhou, Yihao Hu, Wenyi Jiang, Robert J. Coplan, Muzi Yuan, Dan Li and Junsheng Liu in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Wuhan residents for their participation in the current study. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and constructive comments, which greatly improved the quality of this work.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Research Project of Shanghai Science and Technology Commission (20dz2260300).

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are cannot be publicly shared but are available upon request. The data can be obtained or by emailing: jsliu@psy.ecnu.edu.cn. The materials used in the research can be publicly posted. The materials can be obtained at: the file.

ORCID iD

Tong Zhou

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Abrams

Lalot

Hogg

M. A.

(2021). Intergroup and intragroup dimensions of COVID-19: A social identity perspective on social fragmentation and unity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(2), 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220983440

Allport

G. W.

Clark

Pettigrew

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

Brewer

M. B.

Miller

(1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In Miller

Brewer

M. B.

(Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 281–302). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-497780-8.50019-X

Brown

Hewstone

(2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), An integrative theory of intergroup contact (Vol. 37, pp. 255–343). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37005-5

Callaway

(2021). Fast-spreading COVID variant can elude immune responses. Nature, 589(7843), 500–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00121-z

Carvalho

L. D. F.

Pianowski

Gonçalves

A. P.

(2020). Personality differences and COVID-19: Are extroversion and conscientiousness personality traits associated with engagement with containment measures? Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, 42(2), 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1590/2237-6089-2020-0029

Cruwys

Stevens

Greenaway

K. H.

(2020). A social identity perspective on COVID-19: Health risk is affected by shared group membership. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(3), 584–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12391

Cui

(2020, April 30). Makeshift hospitals turned tide. China Daily Global. https://epaper.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202004/30/WS5eaa218aa3102640f4a62da7.html

Dovidio

J. F.

Gaertner

S. L.

(2010). Intergroup bias. In Fiske

S. T.

Gilbert

D. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 1084–1121). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

10.

Durrheim

Quayle

Dixon

(2016). The struggle for the nature of “prejudice”: “Prejudice” expression as identity performance. Political Psychology, 37(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12310

11.

Fang

A. H.

Guess

A. M.

Humphreys

(2019). Can the government deter discrimination? Evidence from a randomized intervention in New York city. The Journal of Politics, 81(1), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1086/700107

12.

Fiske

S. T.

(2005). Social cognition and the normality of prejudgment. In Dovidio

J. F.

Glick

Budman

L. A.

(Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 36–53). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470773963.ch3

13.

Flick

(2018). Ethics in qualitative research. In Flick

(Ed.), Designing qualitative research (pp. 68–77). Sage Publications, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529622737.n7

14.

Gaertner

S. L.

Dovidio

J. F.

(2000). The aversive form of racism. In Stangor

(Ed.), Stereotypes and prejudice: Essential readings (pp. 289–304). Psychology Press.

15.

Gan

Chen

Zhu

Hall

B. J.

(2022). Immediate and delayed psychological effects of province-wide lockdown and personal quarantine during the COVID-19 outbreak in China. Psychological Medicine, 52(7), 1321–1332. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291720003116

16.

Gee

G. C.

Walsemann

K. M.

Brondolo

(2012). A life course perspective on how racism may be related to health inequities. American Journal of Public Health, 102(5), 967–974. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300666

17.

Giorgi

A. P.

Giorgi

(2010). Phenomenological psychology. In The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 165–178). SAGE Publications Ltd.

18.

Hasnain

Pasha

M. F.

Ghani

(2020). Combined measures to control the COVID-19 pandemic in wuhan, Hubei, China: A narrative review. Journal of biosafety and biosecurity, 2(2), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobb.2020.10.001

19.

Hogg

M. A.

(2007). Uncertainty–identity theory. In Zanna

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 69–126). Elsevier Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)39002-8

20.

Hopkins

Greenwood

R. M.

Birchall

(2007). Minority understandings of the dynamics to intergroup contact encounters: British muslims'(sometimes ambivalent) experiences of representing their group to others. South African Journal of Psychology, 37(4), 679–701. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630703700402

21.

Hopkins

Kahani-Hopkins

(2006). Minority group members' theories of intergroup contact: A case study of British muslims' conceptualizations of Islamophobia and social change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(Pt 2), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466605X48583

22.

Hopkins

Kahani-Hopkins

(2009). Reconceptualizing extremism and moderation: From categories of analysis to categories of practice in the construction of collective identity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(Pt 1), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608X284425

23.

Imran

Afzal

Aamer

Hashmi

Shabbir

Asif

Farooq

(2020). Scarlett letter: A study based on experience of stigma by COVID-19 patients in quarantine. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 36(7), 1471–1477. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.7.3606

24.

Kantamneni

(2020). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on marginalized populations in the United States: A research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 119, Article 103439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103439

25.

Kawakami

Amodio

D. M.

Hugenberg

(2017). Intergroup perception and cognition: An integrative framework for understanding the causes and consequences of social categorization. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 55, pp. 1–80). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.10.001

26.

Kline

Rose

E. K.

Walters

C. R.

(2022). Systemic discrimination among large U.S. Employers. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 137(4), 1963–2036. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjac024

27.

Lee

Adair

W. L.

Mannix

E. A.

Kim

(2012). The relational versus collective “We” and intergroup allocation: The role of nested group categorization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1132–1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.04.008

28.

Yang

Qiu

Wang

Jian

(2020). Anxiety and depression among general population in China at the peak of the COVID-19 epidemic. World Psychiatry: Official Journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 19(2), 249–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20758

29.

Lou

N. M.

Noels

K. A.

Kurl

Zhang

Y. S. D.

Young-Leslie

(2023). COVID discrimination experience: Chinese Canadians’ social identities moderate the effect of personal and group discrimination on well-being. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 29(2), 132–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000519

30.

Macaranas

A. R.

ElTohamy

Hyun

Chae

D. H.

Stevens

Chen

J. A.

Liu

C. H.

(2023). COVID-19-related direct and vicarious racial discrimination: Associations with psychological distress among U.S. college students. Journal of Affective Disorders, 325, 747–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2023.01.009

31.

Paolini

Maricchiolo

Pacilli

M. G.

Pagliaro

(2020). COVID-19 lockdown in Italy: The role of social identification and social and political trust on well-being and distress. Current Psychology, 41(8), 5652–5659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01141-0

32.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-Analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504

33.

Philogène

(2012). Understanding social categories: An epistemological journey. In Wiley

Philogène

Revenson

T. A.

(Eds.), Social categories in everyday experience (pp. 31–43). American Psychological Association.

34.

Rosenthal

Earnshaw

V. A.

Lewis

T. T.

Reid

A. E.

Lewis

J. B.

Stasko

E. C.

Tobin

J. N.

Ickovics

J. R.

(2015). Changes in experiences with discrimination across pregnancy and postpartum: Age differences and consequences for mental health. American Journal of Public Health, 105(4), 686–693. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301906

35.

Smith

Flowers

Larkin

(2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. Sage.

36.

Sun

Zhai

(2020). The efficacy of social distance and ventilation effectiveness in preventing COVID-19 transmission. Sustainable Cities and Society, 62, Article 102390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102390

37.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel

Austin

W. G.

(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.

38.

Taylor

Landry

C. A.

Rachor

G. S.

Paluszek

M. M.

Asmundson

G. J. G.

(2020). Fear and avoidance of health care workers: An important, underrecognized form of stigmatization during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 75, Article 102289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102289

39.

Teti

Schatz

Liebenberg

(2020). Methods in the time of COVID-19: The vital role of qualitative inquiries. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19(51), Article 160940692092096. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920920962

40.

The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China . (2020-05-08). Guidance on COVID-19 prevention and control work on a regular basis. https://www.scio.gov.cn/xwfbh/xwbfbh/wqfbh/42311/43043/xgzc43049/Document/1679170/1679170.htm

41.

The Xinhua News Agency . (2020-01-28). Academician Zhong Nanshan gave an exclusive interview to Xinhua news agency about his latest views on the epidemic. https://www.sc.gov.cn/10462/10464/13722/2020/1/28/be7e828be547427b9aa10960aa181ef0.shtml

42.

Toprakkiran

Gordils

(2021). The onset of COVID-19, common identity, and intergroup prejudice. The Journal of Social Psychology, 161(4), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2021.1918620

43.

Tso

R. V.

Cowling

B. J.

(2020). Importance of face masks for COVID-19: A call for effective public education. Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 71(16), 2195–2198. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa593

44.

Turner

J. C.

(1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In Lawler

E. J.

(Ed.), Advances ingroup processes (Vol. 2, pp. 77–122). JAI Press.

45.

Yzerbyt

Demoulin

(2010). Intergroup relations. In Fiske

S. T.

Gilbert

D. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 1024–1083). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

46.

Zhou

Nguyen

T. V. T.

Zhong

Liu

(2020). A COVID-19 descriptive study of life after lockdown in Wuhan, China. Royal Society open science, 7(9), 200705. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200705

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB