The burden of being certain: National identity certainty predicts support for COVID‐Related restrictive measures and outgroup conspiracy beliefs

Abstract

In dealing with the COVID‐19 pandemic, government officials often encounter two concurrent concerns: they have to enforce necessary public health and safety measures to manage COVID‐19. Meanwhile, they also have to mitigate conspiracy beliefs about COVID‐19. To shed light on these issues, we conducted two studies to investigate national identity certainty (i.e., the extent to which people are certain about their national identity) as a predictor of (a) support for restrictive measures to curtail COVID‐19 and (b) conspiracy beliefs about an outgroup as the culprit of COVID‐19. Study 1 was a three‐week longitudinal study ( N = 301) where we investigated the relationships both on a between‐person level (differences between individuals) and on a within‐person level (week‐by‐week fluctuations of the same individual). We found that individual differences in national identity certainty predicted increased support for restrictive measures and increased outgroup conspiracy beliefs. These relationships emerged, even when we controlled for national identity positivity, that is, the extent to which people see their national identity in positive light. In Study 2 ( N = 316), we used a cross‐sectional correlational design and replicated the findings of Study 1. Moreover, we found that the relationships were explained by distinct threat perceptions: realistic threat explained the increased support for restrictive measures, whereas symbolic threat explained the increased outgroup conspiracy beliefs. Overall, our findings suggest that support for restrictive measures and outgroup conspiracy beliefs can be seen as attempts of people high in national identity certainty to address the distinct threats of COVID‐19.

Tearing apart the “evil” twins: A general conspiracy mentality is not the same as specific conspiracy beliefs

“…It may be that a statement tapping into the very same evaluative sentiment (e.g., "Obama is an untrustworthy person") would show an identical correlation. Likewise, a positive association of national identification with the relatively greater tendency to endorse conspiracy theories involving the outgroup (vs. the ingroup) [36] might be an example of ingroup bias that has little to do with conspiracy beliefs per se. We would thus argue that these findings are surely relevant, but tell us little about the nature of general conspiracy beliefs.…”

Self-uncertainty and conservatism during the COVID-19 pandemic predict perceived threat and engagement in risky social behaviors

“…These include behaviors like socializing without masks or social distancing, going to crowded events, and going out to eat (Infectious Diseases Society of America, n.d.; Kim & Crimmins, 2020; Salimi et al, 2020; Texas Medical Association, 2020). Drawing from previous literature, we expect that perceived realistic threat should be negatively associated with engagement in risky social behaviors (Chen et al, 2022; Kachanoff et al, 2021), and symbolic threat should be positively associated with engagement in risky social behaviors (Enten, 2021; Gollwitzer et al, 2020; Kachanoff et al, 2021; Leventhal et al, 2021). Realistic and symbolic COVID-19 threat perceptions are moderately positively correlated (Chen et al, 2022; Kachanoff et al, 2021), indicating that people who perceive high levels of both types of threat may have competing pressures motivating engagement in risky social behaviors.…”

“…Drawing from previous literature, we expect that perceived realistic threat should be negatively associated with engagement in risky social behaviors (Chen et al, 2022; Kachanoff et al, 2021), and symbolic threat should be positively associated with engagement in risky social behaviors (Enten, 2021; Gollwitzer et al, 2020; Kachanoff et al, 2021; Leventhal et al, 2021). Realistic and symbolic COVID-19 threat perceptions are moderately positively correlated (Chen et al, 2022; Kachanoff et al, 2021), indicating that people who perceive high levels of both types of threat may have competing pressures motivating engagement in risky social behaviors. Study 1 will examine whether self-uncertainty predicts realistic and symbolic threat perceptions more for people high than low in conservatism, and Study 2 will examine whether realistic and symbolic threat perceptions, in turn, are positively or negatively associated with risky social behaviors, and whether conservatism moderates the strength of these relationships.…”

“…The relationship between self-uncertainty and threat has previously been studied in the context of identification with extremist groups (Hogg et al, 2010(Hogg et al, , 2014(Hogg et al, , 2021, intergroup threat (Niedbala & Hohman, 2019;Rast et al, 2017), and self-representation threats (Kuljian et al, 2023). In the context of COVID-19, Chen et al (2022) demonstrated that perceptions that the pandemic threatens physical health, financial well-being, and day-to-day life (realistic threats) partially mediated the positive relationship between American identity certainty and support for restrictive health behaviors. Perceptions that the pandemic threatened the meaning and value of American identity (symbolic threats) partially mediated the positive relationship between American identity certainty and COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs.…”

Introduction to the special issue of the International Journal of Comparative Sociology on “National identity, nationalism, patriotism, and globalization”

“…But one of the most interesting recent examples comes from research on the COVID-19 pandemic. In that context, a positive national identity has been used to predict support for anti-COVID-19 measures, such as contact restrictions or vaccination campaigns (Chen et al, 2022), but interestingly, also as a criterion variable for a successful social recovery after the collective trauma of the pandemic experiences (Ellena et al, 2021).…”