Abstract
Whereas the COVID-19 pandemic induces in people both uncertainty and angst, the latter may not be a direct consequence of uncertainty as such, but rather of the possible negative outcomes whose subjective certainty increased under the pandemic. From this perspective, we discuss the psychological determinants of people’s reactions to the pandemic and their modes of self-affirmation in response to pandemic-implied threats. Those reactions are guided by value-oriented narratives that may variously drive people’s pro- and anti-social behaviors during the pandemic.
At the time of writing, the world finds itself in the grip of an unprecedented pandemic, the worst such outbreak in living memory. Starting at the Chinese city of Wuhan in December 2019, the 2019 coronavirus disease has spread quickly across the planet. Nearly 32 million persons, globally, have been infected with the virus so far, of whom nearly a million have died of the disease. In the US alone, almost 7 million were infected, and over 200,000 died. As Fall 2020 unfolds, millions more are expected to succumb to the plague (Mega, 2020). The lockdowns and restrictions are inflicting a historic hit on the world’s economy. People are losing jobs, some never to be recovered. Factories and small business are shuttered, many never to reopen. Health systems of the world’s nations are severely challenged, as are social services and functions (transportation, education, entertainment, leisure). Millions are cooped up in their homes, lonely and disoriented, the structures of their daily routines in shambles. The spreading “quarantine fatigue” leads many to flout the guidelines, and throw caution to the wind, making matters worse.
These somber circumstances induce a sense of fragility and helplessness in millions of individuals. And a fundamental question to psychological science is what impact this has on people’s states of mind, social relations, attitudes, and worldviews. Would the pandemic tear apart the fabric of society, or mend it? Would it boost a sense of self, or harm it? In this article, we offer some thoughts on people’s psychological reactions to the pandemic and their determinants.
Uncertainty
A striking feature of the COVID-19 epidemic is its unprecedented nature. This ushers in a profound sense of uncertainty. People do not know what to think or how to make head or tail of these utterly unfamiliar circumstances. In some places, the uncertainty is compounded by the declining trust in governments’ releases and policies, and the mounting politicization of the authorities’ communications to the public. Unanswered questions abound: Who is in danger? Will a vaccine be available? Can we trust it? How long will the pandemic last? What about our work? Our income? Our children’s education? Will we ever see life return to normal?
The notion that uncertainty is aversive and anxiety-inducing is commonplace and uncritically accepted by lay folk and scientists alike. Nonetheless, it is also true, however, that some people fear uncertainty less than others, and that some people, in fact, seek out and thrive under uncertainty. Moreover, all persons desire certainty and closure in some situations more than in others. Why is that so? In the present article, we propose that it is not the uncertainty as such that is disturbing, but rather the “big, bad” happenings that uncertainty brings to mind and that, ironically, may appear more (not less) certain in the unknown situation. Consider the COVID-19 pandemic. The way most people think about it is in terms of the highly negative outcomes it threatens to inflict in the domains of health and economics. But it is also possible to think of the opportunities it affords, for instance, helping others and attending to their needs, enjoying nature, cultivating one’s neglected hobbies and interests, renewing (via electronic means) one’s contact with long-lost friends and relatives, and so on.
In other words, uncertainty as such need not be viewed with fear and apprehension. Indeed, there are many things we are uncertain about, yet we couldn’t care less. Unless we were planning an outdoor hike, uncertainty about the weather may not matter to us much, nor would uncertainty concerning a political contest in which we had no interest, or the outcome of an athletic competition between teams we cared nothing about. To reiterate, it is not uncertainty as such that is upsetting but rather the possible negative events that might come to mind (hence appear more certain) in the time of the pandemic, and/or the positive outcomes that appear less certain. It is the latter that induce fear and anxiety, rather than mere uncertainty (see Abrams et al., 2021, for a discussion of uncertainty and social identity processes during the COVID-19 pandemic).
Reactions to Uncertainty
If people have a reasonable grasp on reality, reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic should at least partially track actual risk of experiencing negative outcomes. Available data support this hypothesis. For instance, older people, who are particularly prone to severe symptoms or death from COVID-19, are much more anxious and concerned than younger people known to be less vulnerable (see Swift & Chasteen, 2021, for a discussion of age differences during COVID-19). A Pew Research Center Poll of March 18, 2020 found that 33% of people who are aged 65 years or older view the pandemic as a major threat to their health as compared with 25% of people in the 18–29 years age range (Pew Research Center, 2020). People of color, known to be affected particularly severely by COVID-19 (Hooper et al., 2020), are more anxious and worried than are Whites. Forty-six per cent of African Americans, and 39% of Latinos, compared to 21% of Whites, view the coronavirus as a major threat to their health (see Marshburn et al., 2021, for a discussion of racial differences during COVID-19). Thirty-three per cent of people without a college education (whose work often exposes them to the virus) versus 19% of people with college education view the pandemic as a major threat to their health, and 33% of people in urban, high-density areas, are more likely to view it as a major threat as compared with people in suburban and rural areas at 25%. In other words, it is the greater the certainty of negative outcomes (a major health threat) that matter rather than uncertainty per se. Just think about it: the greatest uncertainty exists where the likelihood of an outcome is at exactly 50% (the outcome is equally as like to happen as to not happen), yet most people would prefer the 50% likelihood of a bad outcome to a 95%, i.e., near certainty!
Accentuating the Positive, Minimizing the Negative
As noted earlier, the possibilities that the pandemic brings to mind are upsetting because of the increase in subjective likelihood of negative outcomes. The anticipation of negative outcomes may depend on a variety of individual-level factors such as optimism (Carver & Scheier, 2014) mindset (Dweck, 2006), attachment style (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2017), or neuroticism (Lahey, 2009). All such variables may affect the degree of people’s catastrophizing versus focusing their attention on exploring possible “silver linings” of the novel circumstance in which one finds oneself.
Recent research suggests it to be possible to induce a focus on the positive aspects of life under the constraints of the pandemic, which may protect individuals from suffering and improve their sense of well-being. Ewa Szumowska and her colleagues (2020) at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow recently conducted several studies in which participants were instructed to think either about goals they are able to pursue/attain under the pandemic-related restrictions, or about goals that they are prevented from pursuing because of these restrictions. Participants in the control condition received no goal-related instructions. The goals that people listed as being uniquely able to attain during the lockdown included: spending more time reading, developing cooking skills, re-decorating one’s apartment, spending more time with one’s family, and working on one’s gardening. The goals that people reported foregoing because of the lockdown included: finding a new job, dining in restaurants, movies, going to the gym, bars, seeing one’s friends, one’s family, and taking children to college. Though the specific results differed somewhat across the studies, focusing on goal pursuits that were facilitated by the restrictions appeared to induce feelings of freedom, positive affect, and optimism regarding the eventual removal of the restrictions, whereas focusing on pursuits that were frustrated by the restrictions had the opposite effects.
Countering the Threat
The idea that the threat of uncertainty depends on perceived likelihood of undesirable outcomes is implicit in the research programs on self, or personal, uncertainty (e.g., Hogg, 2012; McGregor & Marigold, 2003; Van den Bos, 2009). Uncertainty regarding what goals to pursue, how to pursue one’s goals, how one is perceived by others, and whether one is accepted, may all induce the feeling of self-doubt, and a threat to one’s sense of self-worth, what we have called the sense of significance and mattering (Kruglanski et al., 2013; Kruglanski, Bélanger & Gunaratna, 2019; Kruglanski et al., 2009, 2017, 2020; Kruglanski, Webber & Koehler, 2019).
Significance loss is troubling and aversive. Naturally, it motivates attempts at significance restoration. In this vein, McGregor and Marigold (2003, e.g., Study 3) found that inductions of self-uncertainty motivate enhanced conviction on socially important issues, and Hogg (2012) described research where self-uncertainty increased the appeal of extreme groups whose tight consensus and clear norms offer a way to restore one’s self-assurance and self-respect. More generally, when faced with a disturbing uncertainty that threatens one’s sense of self-worth, individuals have been shown to self-affirm by reminding themselves and others about their commitment to important social values (cf. Sherman & Cohen, 2006; Steele, 1988).
Self-Affirming Narratives
Beyond the mere affirmation of one’s values, one may engage in various actions deemed to be significance-bestowing, such as fighting the enemies of one’s group and making far-reaching sacrifices for the group’s cause. The actions that are deemed significance-bestowing are determined by narratives endorsed by the individual’s ingroups or social networks, which constitute a shared reality (Higgins, 2019); an accepted worldview within the individual’s reference group.
The particular narratives that guide people’s actions vary in their content. Some persons have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by affirming the pro-social narrative of scientists that urges mask wearing, maintaining social distance, avoiding crowds, and generally following the recommendations offered by experts for containing the pandemic. Others, however, affirmed by word and deed the rebellious narrative that such recommendations comprise efforts by a conspiracy of elites (represented by the likes of Big Pharma, YouTube, and Bill Gates) to dominate and enslave ordinary Americans (Marcus, 2020). In view of the contrasting narratives people use to counter COVID-19-induced threats, the pandemic appears to be contributing to the fragmentation of societies across the globe and the deepening of their divisions.
An interesting question is what value-supporting narratives people will embrace for the purpose of self-affirmation. In part, their choice may be driven by the social and political issues of the day, and people’s political leanings and affiliations. In the summer of 2020, these issues fueled an unprecedented wave of protests and demonstrations. Between 24 May and 22 August, more than 10,600 demonstration events have been recorded by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project across the US. Most of these concerned the Black Lives Matter Movement and the COVID-19 pandemic (ACLED, 2020).
Intriguingly, despite the real possibility that public events would increase the spread of the virus and spur new waves of infection, millions of people, not only in the US but in fact worldwide, have been taking to the streets in support of their favored social and political causes. Apparently, their need to self-assert in time of the current, significance-undermining pandemic overrode their concerns about the threats to health that participation in mass events might have augmented. This suggests something about the strength of the significance-restoration motive for large numbers of people.
Health versus Economic Threats
Beyond socio-political orientations, the social values people might affirm may be variously driven by different threats. Two major significance-undermining threats the pandemic brings to mind are to one’s (1) health and physical well-being, and (2) economic security. Intriguingly, each may activate different values that end up promoting opposite patterns of self-affirmation. Health threats address individuals’ physical selves. These may lower one’s sense of agency (Milyavsky et al., in press), heighten one’s feelings of dependency on others, and evoke communal values of caring and being cared for by others. A threat to one’s health and physical well-being is reminiscent of one’s infancy; it may therefore evoke the childlike feelings of helplessness and neediness. This may trigger communal values and invite pro-social activities that those values imply.
In contrast, threats to one’s financial well-being may evoke entirely different values, namely those of agency, rivalry and competition. Rather than perceiving others as benign helpers and caregivers, threats to one’s economic standing may motivate their perceptions as adversaries and opponents. Prior research suggests indeed that economic threats may reduce people’s emphasis on communion, and instead promote an emphasis on agency (see Milyavsky et al., in press, for a review).
These notions received support in a recent study (Lemay et al., 2020) with a sample of over 60,000 participants across 115 societies, based on a survey that participants completed between March 19 and July 6, 2020. Specifically, participants responded to questions concerning their perceived likelihood, and degree of upset in case of contracting the virus, as well as about the likelihood of their being economically impacted by the pandemic and their job security. At the individual level, it was found that participants who were more concerned about contracting the virus were more likely to report communal values, whereas participants concerned about the economic consequences of the pandemic were less likely to report communal values. These findings were echoed by the country-level results where countries whose denizens were primarily concerned about the infection tended to more strongly value communion, whereas countries whose denizens’ primary concerns were economic tended to devalue communion as compared to countries whose denizens experienced lower levels of economic threat.
Moreover, at both individual and country levels of analysis, infection threat indirectly predicted greater prevention behaviors (mask wearing, social distancing) mediated by greater endorsement of communal values, whereas economic threat indirectly predicted reduced enactment of prevention behaviors mediated by a lower endorsement of communal values. Finally, infection threat predicted less frequent in-person contact and more frequent online contact, whereas economic threat predicted less frequent in-person and online social contact at the individual level. These data are consistent with the self-affirmation account of responses to the pandemic’s threats, and also support our analysis concerning the differential evocation of self-affirming values by the threats to people’s health and finances (for details see Lemay et al., 2020). It is appropriate to note here, however, that this research has not yet undergone peer review, so its findings, although promising, should be considered preliminary.
In summary then, the angst that the COVID-19 pandemic has pervasively caused appears to have stemmed not as much from uncertainty per se, but rather from the highly negative outcomes whose likelihood became more certain under the pandemic. People’s subjective assessment of their likelihood to incur such outcomes is both a matter of stable individual differences but also on situational factors such as support by attachment figures, mindset, and the inclination to focus on positive opportunities versus on threats implied by the pandemic.
Beyond threat assessment, attempts to self-affirm and regain one’s menaced sense of personal significance under the pandemic are driven by value-imbued narratives that persons may embrace. Encouraging people to “accentuate the positive” possibilities that the pandemic affords and to embrace pro-social, communal narratives that highlight unity with others rather than divisiveness, may help individuals and societies in coping with the formidable challenges that COVID-19 has been posing.
