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.

Objectives Design Methods Results Conclusions There is growing evidence of intergroup hostility between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, a process of polarization that threatens to derail population health efforts. This study explores the moral underpinnings of intergroup antipathy between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.A cross‐sectional design was employed to investigate the associations between the view of vaccination as a social contract or individual choice, perceived vulnerability to disease, perceptions of outgroup morality, feelings of warmth, and experiences of schadenfreude.Data were extracted from an online, quantitative survey of 233 vaccinated and 237 unvaccinated participants collected between June and July 2022.Results revealed that vaccinated people had stronger negative attitudes towards unvaccinated people than vice versa. In line with hypotheses, the extent to which vaccinated people saw vaccination as a social contract was significantly associated with perceiving unvaccinated people as immoral. For unvaccinated people, seeing vaccination as an individual choice (the opposite of a social contract) was significantly associated with perceiving vaccinated people as immoral. Among both groups, viewing the other as immoral was associated with feeling significantly less warmth towards the opposing vaccination group, and more schadenfreude in the face of an outgroup member's suffering. Participants' perceived vulnerability to disease played a relatively small role in explaining polarization between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.This research builds on previous studies by identifying moral mechanisms associated with intergroup antipathy in the vaccine debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We analysed a recently released corpus of climate-related tweets to examine the macro-level factors associated with public declarations of climate change scepticism. Analyses of over 2 million geo-located tweets in the U.S. showed that climate scepticism – and the aggressiveness of climate-related tweets – was greater in states with higher per capita carbon emissions. This pattern remained significant after controlling for political conservatism, GDP per capita, education, and gender, and was replicated across 126 nations from around the world. The findings are consistent with a vested interest hypothesis—misinformation around climate change is most likely to be distributed in regions where there is high fossil fuel reliance, and where the economic stakes of acknowledging climate change are high. Understanding the macro-level patterns that are implicated in climate scepticism can help inform structural interventions for those seeking a low-carbon future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Standard-accented job candidates are perceived as more hireable than non-standard-accented candidates. Two broad perspectives have emerged as to what drives this effect: (a) that it is a pragmatic response to the perception that non-standard accents can impede job-relevant communication (processing fluency explanation) and/or (b) that non-standard accents signal "otherness" and candidates are devalued as a result (prejudice explanation). This meta-analytic integration of 139 effect sizes (N = 4,576) examined these two perspectives. Standard-accented candidates were considered more hireable than non-standard-accented candidates (d = 0.47)—a bias that was stronger for high communication jobs. Other findings, however, are difficult to explain from a processing fluency explanation: candidates' relative comprehensibility was not a significant moderator of hiring bias. Moreover, the degree of accent bias was associated with perceptions of the candidates' social status, and accent bias was particularly pronounced among female candidates and for candidates who spoke in foreign (as compared with regional) accents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By middle childhood, children become aware that discriminatory behavior is unacceptable; however, the development of their anti‐prejudice sentiments is largely unknown. Across two studies, 333 Australian 5‐ to 10‐year‐olds (51% female, majority White) were asked how acceptable they thought it was to have prejudicial sentiments toward 25 different targets. Children responded privately through a novel digital paradigm designed to minimize social‐desirability biases. With age, children were more likely to display anti‐prejudice sentiments toward targets who are prosocial, vulnerable, and of minority race and linguistic backgrounds. In contrast, they judged prejudice as "okay" for targets who are antisocial and negatively regarded in society. These findings suggest that children's perceptions of prejudice become increasingly nuanced and adult‐like across the primary school years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]