A threat like coronavirus (COVID-19) can bring out the best and worst in people. On one hand, we have seen hoarding, fights over toilet paper and a surge in prejudice against particular populations (e.g., Chinese Australians). On the other, we have seen people supporting the most vulnerable in their communities, and widespread compliance with government advice to stay at home and engage in social distancing. In this article we outline how a psychology of collective behaviour is helpful in understanding both the best and the worst behaviours seen during this crisis. We explore how both positive and negative responses are best understood as group-based behaviour, and how this approach is useful in framing and informing Australia’s ongoing COVID-19 response.
Our analysis is grounded in the social identity approach, which distinguishes between our personal identities (our sense of self as a unique individual) and our social identities (our sense of self as derived from our membership of the various social groups to which we belong; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). With this framework in mind, we begin our discussion with a focus on the role that group norms and leaders have played, and will continue to play, in shaping our collective behaviours. We follow this with an exploration of why the pandemic has been accompanied by a surge in intergroup enmity. We conclude by discussing how group solidarity can be a salve that can support our resilience throughout this crisis.
Influence in the world of COVID-19
How we see ourselves is often strongly informed by our membership in various social groups: we Australians, we Sydneysiders, we psychologists. These group memberships, of course, not only tell us something about ourselves, but also tell us about who our companions and allies are – they tell us about our fellow in-group members. In-group members help us clarify the world we inhabit, and guide us toward behaviours that are appropriate, at least within the group itself. In so doing, in-group members exert the greatest and most sustained influence upon us. Simply put, coming to understand ourselves in terms of a particular social identity gives meaning and value to in-group norms, motivating us to behave in ways that are consistent with the behaviours and values of fellow in-group members. Understanding the psychology of this normative social influence helps us to understand aspects of the response to COVID-19 that may, at first glance, appear illogical (such as so-called panic-buying).
The drivers of panic-buying
Media and government narratives almost exclusively sought to portray widespread supermarket shortages as the fault of individual bad eggs who were hoarding essentials. However, these cases were very much the exception rather than the rule. On the contrary, evidence indicates that supermarket shortages were driven by the majority of shoppers increasing the frequency with which they purchased (sensible amounts of) items such as toilet paper, soap or pasta (Kantar, 2020). Just-in-time supply chains were not able to rapidly respond to this unanticipated increase in demand.
But what actually drove the increase in demand? The sight of empty shelves in our own communities, along with media and government narratives depicting mass purchasing around the country, communicates that buying in bulk is normative in our community. This quickly exacerbated the growing tendency towards stocking-up on essentials. Rather than being irrational, it’s an example of where group-level information about what is common and acceptable behaviour (in this case, purchasing behaviour) shapes individual’s (purchasing) choices.
Fortunately, it appears that the major supermarket chains ultimately recognised and harnessed this in-group normative influence to achieve more positive collective behaviour. Coles and Woolworths ran television adverts thanking customers for their restraint in buying. Importantly, these adverts featured two key elements that made their attempt to restructure our behaviours more likely to be successful. First, they shifted the norm from overbuying to restraint and, second, they delivered the message in a way that emphasised the Australian superordinate social identity – an identity broad enough to encapsulate all would-be grocery shoppers. The subsequent reduced purchasing behaviour (and return of toilet paper to our supermarket shelves) aligns with empirical evidence demonstrating that attempts to change behaviour by targeting social norms can be effective, particularly if relevant social identities are harnessed (e.g., Reynolds, Subasic, & Tindall, 2015).
We will get through this together – Leadership during COVID-19
Shared identity is the basis for social influence. Anyone seeking to exert influence within a group, or to lead a group must first create and build a sense of shared identity among group members. Evidence tells us that the leaders who are most effective in achieving this, and who are viewed as representative of the group’s identity (i.e., as ‘one of us’) are able to shape group norms, promote shared goals, and even define and redefine ‘who we are’. State Premiers’ COVID-19 press conferences provide many examples of this, outlining the normative behaviours expected of ‘us Victorians’ or ‘us residents of New South Wales’ in pursuit of the shared goal of flattening the curve.
The emphasis on ‘us’ is critical. A study of Australian federal election speeches found that the victor tended to use “we” and “us” language 61 per cent more often than the loser (Steffens & Haslam, 2013). If social identities can be primed during the delivery of these messages – such that people retain a feeling that we Australians, Victorians and members of this local community are all in this together and must collectively resolve to act individually – then the behaviours leaders are calling for are more likely to follow. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo put it this way: “Yeah it’s your life do whatever you want, but you are now responsible for my life. You have a responsibility to me. It’s not just about you... we started saying, ‘it’s not about me it’s about we.’ Get your head around the we concept. It’s not all about you. It’s about me too. It’s about we,” (ABC 7 News, 2020).
It appears that Australian leaders are recognising the importance of such collective appeals, with an increasingly strong rhetoric emerging both from the Prime Minister and the State Premiers that ‘we will get through this together’ and that Team Australia are up to this challenge. This has contributed to an unparalleled and rapid shift in the nations’ goals (to flatten the curve), values (to work together in flattening the curve) and behaviours (social distancing). In this sense, the analogies to war seem appropriate – it is hard to imagine another circumstance in which the government could oversee such drastic and negative upheaval to the lives of a whole nation and yet experience a growth in their approval rating. One key message of social psychology is that being ‘one of us’ is the driver of social influence and therefore is the basis of effective leadership.
Challenges for leaders
Nevertheless, delivering these messages effectively remains a substantial challenge for state and national leaders. When politicians have breached their own rules, for instance, this must be dealt with decisively lest it undermine the message that we are all in this together. Furthermore, one of the most important messages that leaders must continue to convey – that we must stay apart to help stop the spread of COVID-19 – has the potential to disengage the very psychological process essential for leadership itself.
This is because the threat from COVID-19 comes, in many ways, from within our valued social groups. Trust in fellow group members could prove deadly. When people perceive a threat as coming from within the group, this undermines their connection to that group, as well as their trust in and cooperation with fellow group members (Greenaway & Cruwys, 2019). In this sense, a solution is to frame the threat as instead originating outside the group, as WA Premier Mark McGowan did when he closed state borders on 4 April stating, “It’s not us. It’s them”. However, intergroup threats also pose specific challenges, as we examine next.
It’s a Chinese virus – Prejudice and COVID-19
While responding to a major threat to Australia can bring out positive collective behaviours like compliance with public health directives and solidarity for local business, there is also a dark side of collective behaviour. There has been a surge in intergroup enmity (prejudice) being expressed around Australia (and indeed the world) – a social pandemic that may remain long after vaccines and anti-viral drugs are developed. We need to see why this increase in prejudice has happened, and how to improve efforts at reducing prejudice.
In response to COVID-19, we are seeing prejudice against specific groups – Asian people in general and Chinese people in particular. Certain people form beliefs (sometimes led and endorsed by leaders, such as the United States President Donald Trump) that the blame for COVID-19 lies with specific groups of people. This can lead to the avoidance of Asian products, food and people. We use the broader phrase ‘increased intergroup enmity’, because most people expressing these views do not see themselves as prejudiced at all, but feel they are expressing accurate interpretations of the world confronting them (Platow, Van Rooy, Augoustinos, Spears, Bar-Tal, & Grace, 2019).
While Asian people have been the main target of prejudice, it would not be correct to conclude that prejudice arises straightforwardly due to the perceived origin of the virus. For instance, there has also been an increase in anti-Semitism (Narunsky, 2020). These attitudes align with long-held conspiracy beliefs about Jewish people. They are being blamed for spreading disease in order to profit from collapsed economies, this is a narrative that has existed since medieval times.
Tellingly, however, in Australia we have not seen increases in prejudice against Italian, English or American people, despite Italy, the UK and US all experiencing extremely high COVID-19 infection and death rates (and thus people arriving from these countries posing realistic threats to others). The COVID-19 pandemic, then, has created a context that serves to justify or intensify, more than create, the expression of intergroup enmity.
Solving the problem of prejudice remains an ongoing pursuit for psychologists. The most well-established approach to reducing prejudice is to facilitate positive intergroup contact (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Unfortunately, this has been far more difficult during the COVID-19 pandemic because contact is the primary thing that we are being asked to eliminate from our lives. Given this, there is a need to direct our efforts to different strategies.
Research from the USA suggests that we can reduce prejudice by either emphasising individuals’ uniqueness and deemphasising intergroup relations or emphasising the shared, collective human identity we all have. Although both approaches seem to work, evidence suggests that emphasising our shared common identities is preferable because this seems to enhance evaluations of ‘them’ to the relatively high level of ‘us’, while the alternative (emphasising personal identities) seems to reduce evaluations of ‘us’ to the relatively low level of ‘them’ (Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio, 1989). In the final section, we outline some of the other benefits of developing and maintaining a shared identity during the COVID-19 crisis.
Staying connected while apart
In the time of global lockdown, when people are being discouraged from leaving their homes around the world, it might seem like we are more isolated than ever. Even before COVID-19 Australians experienced high levels of loneliness, particularly among young adults (Mance, 2018). This is worrying because there is clear evidence that loneliness is a major risk factor for a decline in health – particularly mental health (Saeri et al., 2018). Initial evidence already suggests that levels of loneliness and psychological distress have increased markedly in Australia since February, with Lifeline and BeyondBlue crisis lines reporting unprecedented demand (Liddy, Hanrahan, & Byrd, 2020).
What can social psychology tell us about how to best ameliorate loneliness during the crisis? The first important lesson here is that being alone is not the same as feeling lonely. Studies have repeatedly found that the frequency of contact with others is much less important than the meaning of that contact – in other words, we should be prioritising quality over quantity (Sani et al., 2015).
The second lesson is that the medium of contact – face-to-face, phone, videoconference, or even snail mail – should not receive too much focus. People are adaptive and can find meaningful connection in a wide variety of ways. Technology has facilitated new ways to connect even while physically distancing, and many are likely to persist post COVID-19. The third, and perhaps most important, lesson is that while interpersonal one-on-one connections are beneficial, it is the sense of community and belonging we derive from our membership in social groups that is particularly protective. For example, a study among people with depression found that for every social group joined over a two-year period, the risk of depression relapse was reduced by 24 per cent (Cruwys et al., 2013).
In this way, the degree to which our community is able to come together (psychologically rather than physically) and tackle the crisis with solidarity has a direct bearing not only on our capacity to control COVID-19, but also on our wellbeing as a nation in the aftermath. This is especially relevant when facing traumatic events, as people are most likely to be resilient when they have a sense of collective efficacy to overcome adversity (Muldoon et al., 2017). Knowing that ‘we’ can get through this is as important as knowing that ‘I’ can get through this. Sustaining this sense of solidarity and community in the months and years ahead will be our next major challenge.
Take-home message
The study of collective psychology offers important insights into how we have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. The key message is that many of our actions are the result of group processes. ‘I’ stockpiled because ‘we’ in the neighbourhood emptied shelves. My national and state leaders reminded me that “we are in this together”, and this motivated me to contribute to a collective coordinated effort to flatten the curve. Increased enmity towards certain groups arises when we see ‘them’ as not one of ‘us’. Finally, the sense of shared identity with various groups – neighbours, the nation, humanity – allow us to feel connected even while isolated in our homes. It is essential we maintain this sense of ‘us’ as the pandemic evolves, not only for our compliance with public health directives, but to ensure community resilience as we build a post-COVID-19 society.
The first author can be contacted at [email protected]