Majority world successes and European and American failure to contain COVID‐19: Cultural collectivism and global leadership

Abstract

United Nations and World Health Organization data show a positive correlation, r = .53, p < .0001, N = 189, between COVID‐19 infection rates and the human development index (HDI). Less wealthy, less educated countries with lower life spans were also more successful in maintaining lower fatality rates, r = .46, p < .0001, N = 189 whereas 9 of the top‐10 countries in the world in per capita fatalities due to COVID‐19 were Western societies high in HDI. Similar positive correlations were found between COVID‐19 infection and fatality rates and a smaller sample of 76 countries measured on Schwartz intellectual autonomy (or individualism), and negative correlations of similar magnitude were found for embeddedness (or collectivism). East Asia was a global leader in preventing the spread of COVID‐19 because of a vigilant public concerned for public safety and compliant with public safety measures. African Union leaders coordinated their responses, and bought into a continent‐wide African Medical Supplies Platform that prevented panicked competition for scare supplies. Western global media and scholars have not paid attention to the successes of East Asia, Africa, and the South Pacific in fighting the pandemic. It is worth asking why this should be the case; understand the weaknesses of extreme individualism in fighting a pandemic requiring coordinated and unified public response, and consider the lessons for global scholars from the pandemic for doing research in the future.

The Political Psychology of COVID‐19

“…In many regards, the preventative actions advised by the WHO are luxuries of those living in more privileged circumstances and the wealthier economies of the Global North. But despite these disparities, Liu (2021) reported that the Human Development Index correlated positively with infection rates ( r = .52) and fatality statistics ( r = .46). This indicates that as of the end of 2020, developing countries had reported fewer per capita infections and deaths compared to the wealthy countries such as those in the OECD.…”

Together we can slow the spread of COVID‐19: The interactive effects of priming collectivism and mortality salience on virus‐related health behaviour intentions

“…Based on the numbers of confirmed cases, deaths, and positive COVID‐19 tests (both aggregate and per capita), along with the number of tests per thousand people, the Asian‐Pacific region of the world has been considered most successful in pandemic mitigation, due in large part to successful public health systems, early border closing, and compliance in the general populous (Lowy Institute, 2021 ; Roser, Ritchie, Ortiz‐Ospina, & Hasell, 2020 ). Supporting this, research from Liu ( 2021 ) found a distinct positive correlation between collectivism and successful virus mitigation in terms of significantly lower COVID‐19 infection and fatality rates. On the other hand, Western nations with paradoxically higher human development indices and higher individualism exhibited general failures in handling COVID‐19.…”

“…Indeed, Study 2 shows that individualism had a negative impact on the extent to which participants indicated intentions to get vaccinated against COVID-19 when death was accessible, while collectivism and mortality salience were shown to have a positive impact on health intentions in both studies. This pattern of results may serve to explain differential pandemic-related outcomes in countries with varying levels of individualist or collectivist identity (e.g., Hofstede, 2011;Hofstede et al, 2010;Liu, 2021;Lowy Institute, 2021). Importantly, our studies indicate that using a well-validated means of priming the notions of individualism and collectivism (see Oyserman & Lee, 2008) successfully interacted with mortality awareness to bolster adaptive health behaviour intentions, supporting the efficacy of the TMHM for encouraging the behaviours necessary to reach the conclusion of this pandemic.…”

“…This pattern of results may serve to explain differential pandemic‐related outcomes in countries with varying levels of individualist or collectivist identity (e.g., Hofstede, 2011 ; Hofstede et al., 2010 ; Liu, 2021 ; Lowy Institute, 2021 ). Importantly, our studies indicate that using a well‐validated means of priming the notions of individualism and collectivism (see Oyserman & Lee, 2008 ) successfully interacted with mortality awareness to bolster adaptive health behaviour intentions, supporting the efficacy of the TMHM for encouraging the behaviours necessary to reach the conclusion of this pandemic.…”

“…There is some evidence that the regions of the world that were most successful at containing the pandemic (e.g., countries of the Asian‐Pacific rim, see Lowy Institute, 2021 ; Van Beusekom, 2020 ) also tend to rank high in collectivism (Hofstede, 2011 ; Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010 ); in contrast, the United States, a highly individualistic country (Hofstede, 2011 ; Hofstede et al., 2010 ), ranked 94th out of 98 countries on pandemic responsiveness (Lowy Institute, 2021 ). This observation is supported by the positive correlation between individualism and COVID‐19 fatality rates in Western countries and a negative correlation between collectivism and fatality rates in countries higher in collectivism (Liu, 2021 ). This observation and empirical support, in conjunction with experimental findings that Asian Americans react to reminders of mortality with an increased focus on other people, while European Americans react with a focus on themselves (Ma‐Kellams & Blascovich, 2011 ), suggests that a collectivist mindset in conjunction with salient mortality concerns may facilitate more adaptive health‐based responses in a pandemic.…”