The novel coronavirus, COVID-19, proliferates as a contagious psychological threat just like the physical disease itself. Due to the growing death toll and constant coverage this pandemic gets, it is likely to activate mortality awareness, to greater or lesser extents, depending on a variety of situational factors. Using terror management theory and the terror management health model, we outline reactions to the pandemic that consist of proximal defences aimed at reducing perceived vulnerability to (as well as denial of) the threat, and distal defences bound by ideological frameworks from which symbolic meaning can be derived. We provide predictions and recommendations for shifting reactions to this pandemic towards behaviours that decrease, rather than increase, the spread of the virus. We conclude by considering the benefits of shifting towards collective mindsets to more effectively combat COVID-19 and to better prepare for the next inevitable pandemic.COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2, was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization Director-General on 11 March 2020. In countries most severely impacted by the disease, case fatality rates are thought to be as high as 15% (e.g., Belgium, 15.2%; 'Mortality Analyses', 2020). COVID-19 poses both a physical threat, due to its contagiousness, and a psychological threat through the fear it provokes (a phenomenon referred to as 'coupled contagion' by Epstein, 2020;Epstein et al., 2008). Terror management theory (TMT; Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1986), which offers predictions for how people behave in response to fear associated with mortality, helps shed light on this unprecedented existential threat. In this paper, we rely on an extension of TMT, the terror management health model (TMHM; Goldenberg & Arndt, 2008), to investigate and make predictions about this pandemic, and provide recommendations for encouraging behaviour to slow the spread of COVID-19 and other potential pandemic diseases in the future.

Behaviours recommended for reducing transmission of COVID-19social distancing, wearing masks, and now, vaccinationare aimed at not only reducing one's own risk, but risk to others. We posited that a collectivist mindset, versus individualistic, would facilitate intentions to engage in behaviours aimed at curtailing the spread of the virus when the awareness of mortality is activated. This hypothesis was informed by the terror management health model and tested in two studies. In each study, collective 'we' (vs. the individual 'I') was primed, in conjunction with mortality salience compared to a control condition. The results were generally consistent, with Study 1 showing that when collectivism, but not individualism, was primed, individuals responded to a COVID-19based mortality reminder with a significant increase in health intentions, including social distancing and mask wearing. In Study 2, when mortality was salient, priming individualism led to reduced vaccination intention compared to collectivism. We discuss limitations to the research and conclude with the recommendation that COVID-19-based communications highlight the dangers of the virus in conjunction with a focus on the collective 'we' to best encourage optimal virus mitigation behaviour.

Fierce public discussion has centered on anti‐Islamic attitudes and tolerance in America and the West more broadly. The present research explored whether the awareness of mortality (a common theme in politics, e.g., war/terrorism, health care, abortion, and so on) and tolerance salience might influence (1) the endorsement of anti‐Islamic attitudes in American politics and (2) political orientation. Study 1 (n = 79) was conducted in lab and Study 2 (preregistered, n = 396) replicated it online; both obtained the same results. In a neutral‐value‐prime condition, American participants reminded of mortality (vs. control topic) more strongly endorsed a Congressman’s anti‐Islamic statements about Rep. Ellison. However, in a tolerance‐value‐prime condition, participants reminded of mortality maintained their acceptance of Rep. Ellison’s beliefs and practices. Political orientation was not impacted. Implications for terror management theory (TMT), other theories of existential dynamics and motivated conservative political ideology, and both recent and contemporary American politics are discussed.

Over (2020; this issue) puts forth seven challenges for what she terms the dehumanization hypothesis (i.e., that out-group members are viewed as nonhuman and that this underlies the harm inflicted on them). For the most part we do not disagree with her points, but we disagree that those points constitute a challenge. Previous research, by us and by others, leads to the expectation that dehumanization is conditional, which suggests that the real challenge for dehumanization researchers is to determine the conditions under which the hypothesis is correct.

Self‐objectification, the internalization of an observer’s appearance‐based perspective of one’s body, has been theorized and demonstrated to reduce body awareness among women. In this field study, we propose self‐objectification as the mechanism to explain the oft‐observed phenomenon where women wearing little clothing appear unbothered by cold weather, positing that self‐objectification obstructs women’s feelings of cold. We surveyed women outside nightclubs on cold nights, assessed self‐objectification, and asked participants to report how cold they felt. Anonymous photos were taken and coded for amount of skin exposure. We hypothesized that self‐objectification would moderate the relationship between clothing coverage and reports of feeling cold. Our hypothesis was supported: women low in self‐objectification showed a positive, intuitive, relationship between skin exposure and perceptions of coldness, but women more highly focused on their appearance did not feel colder when wearing less clothing. These findings offer support for the relationship between self‐objectification and awareness of bodily sensations in the context of a naturalistic setting. We discuss implications of these findings, and also consider limitations, an alternative explanation, and directions for future research.