Friend-shield protection from the crowd: How friendship makes people feel invulnerable to COVID-19.

Abstract

When deciding whether to eat inside a restaurant or how many health protection items to purchase, individuals in the coronavirus disease era tend to consider the infection risk of crowds of generalized others. With a field study and four experiments, the present study identifies associations between COVID-19 and friendship (e.g., thinking of a friend while reading COVID-19-related news, perceiving a friend as the source of infection, noting friends' presence during potential COVID-19 exposure) that decrease both infection risk perceptions and protective behaviors. The sense of safety that stems from psychological closeness of friends reduces perceived virus infection risks associated with third-party crowds. The distinction between psychological closeness and safety toward friends versus acquaintances widens with clear in-group/out-group boundaries, such that this friend-shield effect is especially pronounced among people whose group boundaries are well established. Limiting interactions to close friends and family members is a common protective measure to reduce COVID-19 transmission risk, but the study findings demonstrate that this practice also unintentionally creates other issues, in that people tend to perceive reduced health risks and engage in potentially hazardous health behaviors. By identifying this risk and encouraging more holistic responses, this research offers implications for individuals, health officials, and policymakers. Public Significance StatementEven in the face of health measures designed to limit interactions to reduce coronavirus disease (COVID-19) transmission, people experience reduced risk perceptions and engage in riskier behaviors when COVID-19 is associated with their friends. Noting this link, this research shows individuals, health practitioners, and policymakers that they need to consider the effects of social distancing measures on psychological risk perceptions and behaviors when designing and implementing complementary health campaigns.

Ideologically‐based contact avoidance during a pandemic: Blunt or selective distancing from ‘others’?

“…That those higher in right‐wing ideologies showed more distancing from the outgroup (vs. ingroup) undermines the notion that they particularly worry about contagion. Instead increases in right‐wing ideology coincided with a pull towards the ingroup, highlighting the ‘intimacy paradox’ whereby some people feel safest around, and seek more contact with, those most able to spread disease and harm (De Vries & Lee, 2022). What our studies reveal is that ideologically relevant avoidance of others during a pandemic largely reflects an intergroup dynamic, where ideology is pertinent in understanding and predicting the physical avoidance of and discomfort interacting with outgroups but not ingroups.…”

“…Indeed, research from the beginning of the COVID‐19 pandemic demonstrates that in the US conservatism was more strongly related to germ aversion (e.g., hand sanitizing) regarding outgroups (vs. ingroups) (O'Shea et al., 2022). Problematically, being higher in right‐leaning (vs. left‐leaning) ideology makes people particularly prone to the ‘intimacy paradox’, that is, being drawn to close friends and family members during a pandemic despite the intimate proximity elevating contagion risks (De Vries & Lee, 2022). For these reasons, we expected ideology to become particularly relevant in predicting distancing from outgroups (vs. ingroups) during a pandemic, representing a targeted focal response rather than a blunt or general one.…”

A systematic review on political ideology and persuasion

“…Conservatives' adherence to in‐group norms also increases their sensitivity to close friendship cues. Reminding conservatives of a close friend can decrease their perceived COVID‐19 risk, as it creates a sense of safety (De Vries et al, 2022). This effect is less pronounced for liberals, who tend to blur the distinction between in‐group and out‐group members.…”

“…For instance, in the context of combating fake news (i.e., encouraging consumers to be aware of and take steps to resist being persuaded by and sharing false information), practitioners can develop interventions using social and system-level approaches tailored respectively for conservatives and liberals. Considering that conservatives are more responsive to ingroup norms and close friendship cues (De Vries et al, 2022), an effective strategy might involve using social norms to highlight how those close to them pay attention to accuracy (e.g., "People like you stand against fake news, let's create a fair online environment for those you care about"), which could reduce their inclination to share such misinformation.…”

Psychosocial determinants of handwashing and physical distancing behaviour during the Covid-19 pandemic in the Netherlands: a longitudinal analysis

“…Conversely, we expected that over time, levels of psychosocial factors (H1b) and behaviour (H2b) would reduce due to higher rates of population immunity and possibly also pandemic fatigue (Franzen & Wohner, 2021;Wright, Steptoe, & Fancourt, 2022). Given the relatively high social costs of distancing, particularly with friends and family, and indications that people may see close contact with friends or family as relatively safe (Burton et al, 2022;De Vries & Lee, 2022), we expected that people were more likely to reduce this behaviour when the pandemic situation was less severe and the pandemic lasted longer. Conversely, handwashing behaviour was expected to have been more stable over time because people were familiar with it prior to the pandemic and it does not come at a high personal or social cost (H3) (Schmitz et al, 2022;Zhang et al, 2022).…”