Search

The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively changed the state of psychological science from what research questions psychologists can ask to which methodologies psychologists can use to investigate them. In this article, we offer a perspective on how to optimize new research in the pandemic's wake. Because this pandemic is inherently a social phenomenon-an event that hinges on human-to-human contact-we focus on socially relevant subfields of psychology. We highlight specific psychological phenomena that have likely shifted as a result of the pandemic and discuss theoretical, methodological, and practical considerations of conducting research on these phenomena. After this discussion, we evaluate metascientific issues that have been amplified by the pandemic. We aim to demonstrate how theoretically grounded views on the COVID-19 pandemic can help make psychological science stronger-not weaker-in its wake.

Although stressors are common in group life, people cope better when group authorities treat them with care/concern. However, it remains unclear whether such treatment affects individuals' physiological stress. In this experiment, individuals engaged in an interview known to increase cortisol (stress biomarker). Surrounding the interview, an ingroup supervisor treated them with standard professionalism (politeness [control]), explicit care/concern (high-quality treatment), or disregard (poor-quality treatment). While those in the control condition experienced a spike in cortisol, individuals in the high-quality treatment condition did not experience this physiological stress (cortisol). Those given poor-quality treatment also did not exhibit stress, suggesting the explicit disregard for them may have undermined the interview's legitimacy, thereby removing social evaluative threat. Paralleling past research, self-reported stress did not reflect individuals' physiological stress (cortisol). Overall, results suggest that to alleviate group members' physiological stress, supervisors need to be more than polite and professional–also demonstrating care/concern for them as individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on social identity and leadership rarely examines leadership processes from the perspective of leaders themselves. Three studies (experimental, longitudinal, cross-sectional) help fill this gap. Integrating social identity principles with a reflected appraisals perspective, we demonstrate that as individuals come to see themselves as (informal) leaders in a group, it positively affects their own sense of fit to the group prototype. Their own perceived prototypicality, in turn, yields a strengthened attachment to the group (identification). Importantly, we demonstrate this in racial and ethnic minority groups – an understudied context, yet where individuals develop meaningful conceptions of leadership and identification, with implications for their health and commitment to collective action. Altogether, this provides insights on social identity processes, and minority group leadership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We propose a theoretical framework for when and why members of dominant groups experience threat and express intolerant attitudes in response to social change. Scholarship on symbolic threat suggests that the detection of intergroup differences in values and norms is sufficient to elicit negative intergroup attitudes. Building on this theory, we argue that the experience of threat is actually shaped by prospective beliefs about difference (i.e., expectations of whether outgroups will assimilate to ingroup norms over time or not). Across two studies and two accompanying pilots, we show how outgroup assimilation expectation shapes dominant groups' experiences of threat, specifically as it relates to their ability to define the norms of their superordinate category (prototypicality threat). We observe that members of dominant groups are surprisingly tolerant of both social change and intergroup difference in the present, so long as they expect outgroup assimilation in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]