Content uploaded by David Lacko
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Lacko on Jul 13, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Change in Anti-COVID-19 Behavior and Prejudice against Minorities during the COVID-
19 Pandemic: Longitudinal Evidence from Five European Countries
Running head: Change in Anti-COVID-19 Behavior and Prejudice during the Pandemic
Tibor Zingora,1* Michèle D. Birtel,2 Sylvie Graf,1,3 Martina Hrebickova,1 David Lacko,1 Mirjana
Rupar,1,4 Jaroslav Tocik,1 & Shpend Voca5
[This is a preprint version.]
1 Institute of Psychology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Czechia
2 Institute for Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, UK
3 Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Switzerland
4 Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, Poland
5 Faculty of Psychology, AAB College, Kosovo
*Corresponding author: Tibor.Zingora@psu.cas.cz
Abstract:
During a pandemic, it is vital to identify factors that motivate individuals to behave in ways that
limit virus transmission (i.e., anti-COVID-19 behavior). Fear has been suggested to motivate
health-oriented behavior, yet fear of the virus (i.e., fear of COVID-19) could have unintended
consequences, such as an increase in anti-immigrant prejudice. In a three-wave longitudinal
study (NT1 = 4275) in five European countries from April to October 2020, we investigated how
social norms, the impact of the pandemic on individuals, and intergroup contact affected fear of
COVID-19 and – or in turn – anti-COVID-19 behavior and prejudice towards immigrants.
A latent change score model—distinguishing between intra- and inter-individual changes in
outcomes—indicated that fear of COVID-19 influenced neither anti-COVID-19 behavior nor
prejudice. Anti-COVID-19 behavior was increased by anti-COVID-19 norms (i.e., belief that
others perform anti-COVID-19 behaviors), while prejudice was influenced by positive and
negative direct and mass-mediated intergroup contact.
Keywords: pandemic, prejudice, behavior, intergroup contact, norms
Change in Anti-COVID-19 Behavior and Anti-Immigrant Prejudice during the COVID-19
Pandemic: Longitudinal Evidence from Five European Countries
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the quality of people’s lives – in terms of health
deterioration or economic consequences – has been unprecedented in recent history. For
example, states of the European Union (EU) closed their borders for the first time, and the EU’s
recovery plan has exceeded €2 trillion (European Commission, 2021). A crucial strategy to
reduce the spread of COVID-19 is adopting behaviors that can limit COVID-19 transmission
(i.e., anti-COVID-19 behavior). Consequently, anti-COVID-19 behavior does not only decrease
individual chances of getting infected but adds up to a collective effort to limit the spread of the
virus within the whole society (Block et al., 2020). Anti-COVID-19 behavior comprises various
actions such as social distancing, wearing protective aids, or supporting governmental
recommendations or restrictions aimed at fighting the pandemic.
One factor that has been widely used to motivate health-related behavioral change,
including anti-COVID-19 behavior, is fear (Stolow et al., 2020). Preliminary (i.e., cross-
sectional) evidence showed positive associations between fear of COVID-19 and anti-COVID-19
behavior (Håkansson & Claesdotter, 2021). Yet, despite the evidence that fear does not
automatically induce compliance with health-oriented behavior, authorities often employ fear
appeals to increase the willingness of the general public to respond to threatening situations (Kok
et al., 2014; Stolow et al., 2020). This is problematic also because fear can have numerous other,
unintended consequences for relevant domains of societies—such as an increase in anti-
immigrant prejudice (Bavel et al., 2020), through, for example, the belief that these groups may
transmit foreign pathogens (Schaller & Park, 2011). Although fear can have positive effects (i.e.,
an increase in health-oriented behavior) there are also negative effects of fear (i.e., deterioration
of intergroup relations). A simultaneous investigation of both effects has not been carried out so
far.
Importantly, simultaneous intra-individual changes in anti-COVID-19 behavior and
prejudice may only appear to be related due to third unaccounted factors (e.g., time-invariant or
stable traits) as indicated by the inter-individual effects (Hounkpatin et al., 2018; Klopack &
Wickrama, 2020; Li & Wang, 2022), not due to an effect of fear of COVID-19. In order to be
sure whether one variable indeed induces changes in a second variable within an individual, it is
necessary to distinguish the inter-individual from the intra-individual effects. While intra-
individual effects represent the influence of predictors on changes in anti-COVID-19 behavior
and prejudice—the focus of our research—inter-individual effects indicate that two variables are
merely correlated but otherwise causally or developmentally unrelated (Hounkpatin et al., 2018;
Klopack & Wickrama, 2020; Li & Wang, 2022).
The focal outcomes of our research that relate to critical aspects of societies amidst a
pandemic, namely anti-COVID-19 behavior and prejudice, are shaped by other relevant factors
beyond fear of COVID-19. By combining literature on change in health-oriented behavior and on
the psychology of intergroup relations, we derived factors influencing fear of COVID-19, which
could in turn influence anti-COVID-19 behavior and prejudice. Specifically, social norms based
on behavior perceived in one’s social environment, the impact of the pandemic on people’s lives,
and various forms of both positive and negative intergroup contact – direct or mass-mediated –
that could affect the potentially detrimental effects of fear of COVID-19 on increase in prejudice.
The Effect of Fear of COVID-19 on Anti-COVID-19 Behavior
Changes in anti-COVID-19 behavior and prejudice can be intertwined via other COVID-
19 related variables, particularly fear of COVID-19. Yet, while an increase in anti-COVID-19
behavior following fear of COVID-19 is desirable, an increase in prejudice is not. To this end,
we combined and tested predictions drawn from the Fear-Appeal Theory about a positive link
between fear of COVID-19 and anti-COVID-19 behavior (e.g., the Extended Parallel Process
model; Witte & Allen, 2000) and predictions about a positive link between fear of COVID-19
and prejudice (e.g., Behavioral Immune System model; Schaller & Neuberg, 2012).
Fear of disease is linked to behaviors that limit the chances of getting the disease (Epstein
et al., 2008). In line with fear appeal theories, campaigns aimed at facilitating anti-COVID-19
behavior could be more effective if they increase fear of COVID-19, especially under certain
conditions (e.g., when the threat seems manageable; Witte & Allen, 2000). Based on cross-
sectional data, fear of COVID-19 was associated with anti-COVID-19 behavior (Håkansson &
Claesdotter, 2021; Harper et al., 2020; Jørgensen et al., 2021). Although fear appeals are
common means to promote health-oriented behavior, there is evidence suggesting undesirable
side-effects of campaigns using such “scare tactics” (Stolow et al., 2020). Stimulating fear may
not lead to health-oriented behaviors, especially when coupled with high threat and low self-
efficacy (Peters et al., 2013). Exactly these conditions apply to pandemics when the widespread
virus is highly threatening, and for its eradication coordinated efforts of the whole population are
inevitable. Moreover, the quality of studies on fear appeals in promoting health-oriented
behaviors has been criticized due to a lack of research that would capture behavioral change,
which limits our understanding of the causal relationship between fear appeal and behavior (Kok
et al., 2018). Especially in the context of the pandemic, the existing evidence is limited to
individual countries, employing cross-sectional design, and not distinguishing inter- and intra-
individual changes (c.f., Legate et al., 2022). In conclusion, it remains unclear whether the fear
of a virus predicts behaviors that should limit virus transmission, crucially on the intra-individual
level.
The Effect of Fear of COVID-19 on Prejudice
Except for its potential positive effect on anti-COVID-19 behavior, fear of COVID-19
can simultaneously have a disruptive effect on intergroup relations (Bavel et al., 2020). A
societal threat in general (Feldman & Stenner, 1997; Jackson et al., 2019) and fear of a disease,
in particular, could worsen intergroup relations (e.g., in line with pathogen-prevalence
hypothesis; Faulkner et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2016; Prati & Pietrantoni, 2016; Schaller &
Neuberg, 2012). Multiple theoretical accounts predict that fear of COVID-19 could facilitate
prejudice. Theoretical models rooted in the evolutionary perspective surmise that people have
developed strategies that decrease the chances of transmitting a virus. According to the
Behavioral Immune System model (BIS; Schaller & Neuberg, 2012), people react to cues
suggesting the presence of pathogens with increases in prejudice, ethnocentrism, or xenophobia.
In these accounts, outgroup members were suggested to be seen as a potential source of infection
transmitting novel pathogens. Fear of disease should therefore motivate negative outgroup
reactions, such as outgroup avoidance or prejudice (Fincher & Thornhill, 2008; Meleady et al.,
2021). This tendency should emerge especially if the outgroup is perceived as foreign (Faulkner
et al., 2004). Immigrants from the Middle east are a highly salient outgroup that have been the
focus of public discourse in Europe, and as such were chosen as a target group for our research
on the change in prejudice during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Another theoretical account containing relevant predictions for the link between fear of
COVID-19 and prejudice is the terror management theory, arguing that the fear of death brought
on by the COVID-19 pandemic alters attitudes and behavior (Pyszczynski et al., 2021). Next, the
intergroup threat theory puts forward that prejudice is increased by threats perceived by outgroup
members (Riek et al., 2006; Stephan et al., 2009). During health crises, such perception of threats
could be further enhanced by the danger of virus transmission by immigrants, ultimately leading
to increased prejudice. Moreover, according to the cognitive scarcity theory, environmental
stressors, such as disease threats, negatively influence cognitive functioning and could lead to
hostility towards outgroups (Daniels et al., 2021; Mani et al., 2013).
Despite these theories suggesting a link between fear of COVID-19 and prejudice,
empirical evidence is mixed. Perceived sensitivity to pathogen threat did not predict outgroup
prejudice or outgroup social distancing in British adults during the COVID-19 pandemic
(Meleady et al., 2021). Importantly, in this very study, disgust sensitivity—which was expected
to be associated with the avoidance of COVID-19—predicted social distancing towards both
outgroup and ingroup, implying its association with social distancing from people in general, not
from outgroups in particular. In a similar vein, California adults’ prejudice against Asian
Americans did not increase after being primed with questions about the COVID-19 pandemic
(Daniels et al., 2021). Similarly, support for a diverse society in Germany did not differ between
times of higher vs. lower incidence of COVID-19 (Drouhot et al., 2021), and pathogen-
avoidance tendencies were not associated with attitudes towards foreigners in Japan (Yamagata
et al., 2020). Moreover, experimental manipulation of pathogen threat did not increase prejudice
against a minimal group in participants from the US (Makhanova et al., 2022). In contrast, a
cross-sectional study suggests that fear of COVID-19 has both enhancing and reducing effects on
prejudice (Adam-Troian & Bagci, 2021). Specifically, cross-sectional data from Turkish
respondents showed that the positive indirect association between fear of COVID-19 and
prejudice against Syrian refugees through fear of Syrian refugees was stronger than the negative
indirect association between fear of COVID-19 and prejudice through common ingroup
identification with Syrian refugees. This geographically-constrained cross-sectional evidence
implies that an increase in prejudice as a result of threat should be larger than a decrease in
prejudice due to common ingroup identification. Critically, forming a common ingroup
identification can be challenging in the case of geographically distant and unfamiliar groups
(e.g., immigrants from the Middle East in Europe) that are perceived as more different than
citizens of a neighboring country (i.e. Syrian refugees in Turkey).
Previous studies brought first insights into the predictors of prejudice in the context of the
COVID-19 pandemic in general and into the role of fear of COVID-19 in particular, whereby
COVID-19 related variables were usually unrelated to prejudice (c.f., Adam-Troian & Bagci,
2021). Nevertheless, previous research was mostly cross-sectional (Adam-Troian & Bagci, 2021;
Alston et al., 2020; Håkansson & Claesdotter, 2021; Jørgensen et al., 2021; Meleady et al.,
2021), making it impossible to draw conclusions about relationships between variables over
time. Moreover, although most above-mentioned theories (e.g., the BIS; Schaller & Park, 2011),
predict intra-individual changes in prejudice, the employed analytical approaches rarely separate
intra- from inter-individual changes.
Anti-COVID-19 Norms and Impact of the Pandemic as Predictors of Anti-COVID-19
Behavior and Prejudice
The focal effect of fear of COVID-19 on anti-COVID-19 behavior and prejudice is likely
to be influenced by other relevant factors in the situation of a global pandemic. Complex and
new situations are difficult to navigate and, thus, people tend to rely on cues from their social
environment—such as descriptive norms that help guide behavior (Hardin & Conley, 2001). In
line with social identity theory (Terry & Hogg, 1996), social norms shape attitudes and
behaviors; in the pandemic context, anti-COVID-19 norms—or perceptions of how others
behave with respect to limiting virus transmission—could directly stimulate anti-COVID-19
behavior. Social norms become even more important in the presence of danger represented, for
example, by the COVID-19 pandemic (Fritsche et al., 2011; Giannakakis & Fritsche, 2011;
Jonas et al., 2008). Except for this direct link between anti-COVID-19 norms and anti-COVID-
19 behavior, anti-COVID-19 norms can shape anti-COVID-19 behavior also indirectly through
fear of COVID-19. Anti-COVID-19 behavior observed among ingroup members communicates
the severity of COVID-19 perceived by the ingroup. This is likely to impact individuals’
perception of COVID-19 as threatening since people generally tend to share beliefs with others
(Hardin & Conley, 2001). Consequently, fear of COVID-19 could not only mediate an effect of
anti-COVID-19 norms on anti-COVID-19 behavior but also create a link to an otherwise
unrelated factor – prejudice.
Although the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced everyone, people’s lives have been
affected to a different extent. People who were more affected by COVID-19 could be more
motivated to stop the spread of the virus and, thus, perform anti-COVID-19 behavior more
consequently than those less affected. For this reason, we have included the impact of the
pandemic on health, social and economic aspects of individuals’ life, and the lives of people in
their close social circle as another predictor of anti-COVID-19 behaviors. Since the personal
relevance of a threat was shown to evoke a larger fear response (Stussi et al., 2015), we expected
that the impact of the pandemic on an individual would also influence fear of COVID-19. In line
with this argumentation, the perceived risk of COVID-19, such as the risk for loved ones, was
found to be correlated with fear of the virus (Mertens et al., 2020).
In sum, based on the presented theoretical rationale, we included both anti-COVID-19
norms and the individual impact of the pandemic as relevant predictors of fear of COVID-19 and
anti-COVID-19 behavior. Since fear of COVID-19 should affect both anti-COVID-19 behavior
and prejudice, we expected that both anti-COVID-19 norms and the impact of the pandemic on
individuals would exercise an indirect effect on prejudice through fear of COVID-19.
Change in Prejudice in the Context of a Pandemic
Generally, past evidence warns against an increase in prejudice toward social minorities
during crises, such as the 2008 financial crisis, especially if their causes are attributed to minority
groups (Becker et al., 2011). Specifically, in the context of pandemics, intergroup hostility
pointing to an increase in prejudice was observed in the past, although the evidence is mixed
(Cohn, 2015). The COVID-19 pandemic could be particularly linked to an increase in prejudice
against ethnic outgroups because its outburst has been associated with China, framing the
pandemic in an intergroup context. Indeed, connecting China or Asia with COVID-19 was
associated with prejudice and xenophobia (Croucher et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2020; Jakovljevic et
al., 2020; Mandalaywala et al., 2020; Rzymski & Nowicki, 2020; Tabri et al., 2020; Tsai et al.,
2020; Zeng et al., 2020). The potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on increasing
prejudice does not only concern groups directly associated with the virus (e.g., Chinese people)
but also other groups. According to the pathogen-prevalence hypothesis and the Behavioral
Immune System model, the high prevalence of pathogens could increase generalized xenophobia
and outgroup avoidance (Murray et al., 2011, 2013; Schaller & Park, 2011). Consequently, all
immigrants arriving from outside could be perceived as more likely to carry the disease than
ingroup members, which can enhance anti-immigrant prejudice in general (Faulkner et al., 2004).
Ethnic groups that were already stigmatized and negatively perceived prior to the pandemic, such
as immigrants from the Middle East employed in our research, could be especially vulnerable to
an increase in prejudice.
Nevertheless, it is possible that prejudice has not increased within individuals as a
response to the fear of a virus. Instead, similar changes in fear of a virus and prejudice could be
due to other time-independent factors, such as personality traits or third unaccounted variables. It
is also possible that the pandemic provided people with an opportunity to act on their prejudice,
which could be mistaken for an increase in prejudice. Consequently, distinguishing intra- from
inter-individual effects would help to determine the effect of fear of COVID-19 on prejudice.
Different Forms of Intergroup Contact Influence Prejudice
Intergroup contact is a promising way to counter the potential increase in prejudice
resulting from fears of the virus during a pandemic. Positive intergroup contact decreases
prejudice (Paluck et al., 2018; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006) and negative intergroup contact
increases prejudice (Barlow et al., 2012; Graf et al., 2014). While fear of COVID-19 could
increase prejudice, direct positive intergroup contact could retain its reducing effect on prejudice
during the pandemic and at least partially cancel out the detrimental effect of fear of COVID-19
on increasing prejudice. In line with this argument, previous research showed that past positive
contact can protect against an increasing effect of negative contact on prejudice (Paolini et al.,
2014). The protective role of positive contact could be theoretically extended to other factors that
have an increasing effect on prejudice, including the fear of a pathogen. The protective role of
positive intergroup contact against prejudice during the COVID-19 pandemic was suggested by a
study using a cross-sectional design (Alston et al., 2020). Yet, more conclusive evidence about
the effect of intergroup contact on intra-individual change in prejudice during the COVID-19 is
to be established.
Problematically, the social distancing recommended as one of the ways to fight the
pandemic dramatically reduced opportunities for interpersonal contact, including intergroup
contact that may have already been limited prior to the pandemic (e.g., Meleady et al., 2021).
Thus, intergroup contact as a tool to reduce prejudice was likely not widespread due to social
distancing and similar restrictive measures imposed during the pandemic. Nevertheless, past
positive contact experiences before the pandemic could still protect against an increase in
prejudice that could happen due to the fear of COVID-19. In our research, we did not investigate
how likely it was to experience intergroup contact during the pandemic but whether intergroup
contact – experience prior to or during the pandemic – predicted changes in prejudice on an
intra-individual level.
When opportunities for direct contact are missing, prejudice can be challenged by
indirect forms of intergroup contact (Christ et al., 2014; White et al., 2020), such as via
information about outgroups from mass media (i.e., mass-mediated contact; Graf et al., 2014;
Schiappa et al., 2005). During a crisis such as a pandemic, mass media predominantly focus on a
coverage of the crisis to such extent that the frequency of mass-mediated contact with outgroups
is significantly reduced. However, mass-mediated intergroup contact could be intentionally
employed as a more easily implementable and more widely accessible type of intergroup contact
than direct contact, especially during pandemics when direct interpersonal contact is
discouraged. Although the relative effect sizes of direct and mass-mediated contact were not
hypothesized a priori, we have contrasted them in an exploratory fashion to inform the theory as
well as potential future interventions in times where opportunities for direct contact are lacking.
While positive intergroup contact is a promising strategy to reduce a potential increase in
prejudice during a pandemic, negative contact could contribute to increasing prejudice,
potentially even more than positive contact contributes to the reduction in prejudice (Barlow et
al., 2019; Graf et al., 2014; Zingora et al., 2020). We investigated the effects of negative contact
– both direct and mass-mediated – on prejudice to illuminate whether negative contact could
exacerbate potential negative effects of the pandemic on prejudice.
The Present Research
To determine changes in anti-COVID-19 behavior and prejudice against immigrants from
the Middle East during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic, we longitudinally tested
the effect of fear of COVID-19 on both outcomes, separating intra- from inter-individual
changes. Moreover, we included the effects of anti-COVID-19 norms, the impact of COVID-19
on individuals as predictors of changes in fear of COVID-19 (i.e., a mediator), anti-COVID-19
behavior, and prejudice (i.e., endogenous variables; see Figure 1 for all hypothesized
relationships). Intergroup contact was further expected to predict prejudice and thus at least
partially counter potential prejudice-increasing effects of other predictors. We selected
immigrants from the Middle East as the target outgroup because they represent a common
relevant outgroup in all countries under study. Immigration from the Middle East has been in the
spotlight of public discourse across Europe in recent years. Moreover, immigrants from the
Middle East are not an established but newly-arriving group in the investigated countries. This
fact is suitable for testing theories rooted in the evolutionary perspective predicting that foreign
groups represent a higher risk of carrying pathogens (Faulkner et al., 2004; Murray et al., 2013;
Schaller & Park, 2011). Yet, we also employed another outgroup in the case of the Czech
Republic – Vietnamese people – for the sake of a robustness check (i.e., to determine that the
effect of the predictors on prejudice does not concern only migrants from the Middle East but
also other groups, including established immigrant groups).
Figure 1
Hypothesized relationships between variables.
Note. Green arrows indicate positive influence. Black arrows represent the effects of
positive/negative direct/mass-mediated contact, which were combined in the figure to provide a
more comprehensible representation of the hypotheses. Fear represents a hypothetical joint factor
of fear of COVID-19 and intergroup threat; the resulting fear factor will depend on the analysis.
To account for the potential role of social context in shaping prejudice and anti-COVID-
19 behavior and to obtain more robust results, we wanted to select countries that differed in terms
of the COVID-19 situation (see Figure 2) as well as immigration history and where sampling was
convenient. Thus, we tested our hypotheses across five European countries – the Czech Republic,
Kosovo, Poland, Serbia, and Switzerland – which satisfied our criteria. With respect to the
epidemiological situation in the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the steepest increase
in COVID-19 cases was reported in the Czech Republic and Switzerland. In contrast, the smallest
increase was reported in Kosovo and Serbia. The strictest anti-COVID-19 measures were
introduced in the Czech Republic and Poland and the most lenient measures in Switzerland. As for
cross-cultural differences in migration history, Western-European countries (e.g., Switzerland)
have generally hosted more foreign nationals than Central and Eastern European countries (e.g.,
Czech Republic, Poland). For instance, about a quarter of the Swiss population is foreign nationals,
while Poland registers about 1.2% of foreign nationals with a residence permit. Moreover, Western
Europeans typically report more positive attitudes towards immigrants than Eastern Europeans
(Graf et al., under review; European Commission, 2018; TNS Medium Gallup, 2017).
We tested whether our proposed model applies to all countries similarly and whether the
paths between variables differed between countries. We also explored whether prejudice will be
less affected by predictors in countries with rich migration history (i.e., Switzerland) than in
more ethnically homogenous countries (e.g., Czech Republic). More extensive experience with
migration and a widespread presence of outgroups in a country, implying more opportunities for
intergroup contact, can influence the link between intergroup contact and prejudice in the context
of the pandemic.
Figure 2
Change in new COVID-19 cases and anti-COVID-19 restrictions across countries from April till
November 2020 (the span of data sampling)
Note. New COVID-19 cases per 100 000 people (New cases = new cases of infected people per
100 000 citizens - blue line; data source: Hasell et al., 2020) and anti-COVID-19 measures
introduced by the government (A-C restrictions = the severity of restrictions introduced by the
government - orange line; data source: Hale et al., 2020) are plotted on the y-axis.
This study aims to extend the current knowledge of factors that influence prejudice and
behaviors aimed at reducing virus transmissions in the context of a pandemic. From a theoretical
perspective, we combined premises of the Fear-Appeal Theory and theories predicting an
increase in prejudice as a consequence of being afraid of a pathogen, such as the Behavioral
Immune System model (Schaller & Park, 2011; Witte & Allen, 2000), to hypothesize a mutual
increase in anti-COVID-19 behavior and prejudice due to a common predictor – fear of COVID-
19. Drawing on health-oriented behavior and intergroup literature, we identified two factors that
could affect fear of COVID-19 – anti-COVID-19 norms as well as an impact of COVID-19 on
individuals – and, in turn, anti-COVID-19 behavior as well as prejudice. Furthermore, we
employed intergroup contact theory in investigating protective factors that could at least partially
level out the hypothesized increasing effect of fear of COVID-19 on prejudice.
In summary, the contribution of the present research is a rich cross-pollination of various
theoretical accounts that address distinct but related aspects of social reality amidst the
unprecedented situation of a global pandemic. Unlike past research, the methodological and
analytical approach employed in the present study (i.e., longitudinal design across countries,
distinguishing between intra- and inter-individual change) promises currently missing high-
quality evidence that represents an adequate test of the hypotheses derived from a multi-faceted
theoretical background.
Method
Procedure
Our initial preregistered plan was to collect two-waves of longitudinal data from at least
300 participants in the Czech Republic, Kosovo, Poland, Serbia, Switzerland, and the United
Kingdom. Based on the changing and ongoing pandemic situation, we also decided to collect a
third wave of data. Using three-waves instead of two-waves of data enabled us to capture more
reliable and complex relationships between variables in the context of the pandemic, since we
could determine developmental trends in participants (Hamaker et al., 2015). Details on the
sample size justification can be found in the Online Supplemental Materials (OSM). The United
Kingdom sample was not included in the analysis because we were not able to sample the third
wave in the UK due to financial limits. In the OSM, we present findings of a cross-lagged panel
model that included two waves from all six countries. The invariance test showed that the UK
did not differ from the other five countries, indicating that its exclusion did not alter the results.
All analyses were conducted after the third wave was collected in all countries.
The completion of the survey took approximately 30 minutes and was administered via
the formr survey framework (Arslan et al., 2020). The first data collection was conducted in the
second half of May 2020, the second data collection in the second half of June 2020, and the
third data collection in mid-October 2020. Czech participants were contacted via an already
existing research participant pool, Polish and Serbian participants were contacted via social
networks (e.g., Facebook), Kosovo and Swiss participants were contacted through university
mailing lists, UK participants were contacted via the participant-recruiting service Prolific. All
participants were included in a financial draw, except for participants in the UK who were paid
for the completion of the survey.
The research was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (see
https://osf.io/kszx2/?view_only=1c53728255124d839f92d001999ecc46). The questionnaire,
analysis code, and data are publicly available (see
https://osf.io/p7kg8/?view_only=9ff598325df741efb40181c61404a20a). Deviations from the
preregistration, including new analytical steps, are listed in Tables A1 and A2 in OSM.
The study was approved by the Ethics board of the Institute of Psychology, Academy of
Sciences of the Czech Republic (Ref. no.: PSU-503/Brno/2020) and the Ethics committee of the
Faculty of Human Sciences, University of Bern. The study was evaluated as a minimum-risk
procedure, finding it compliant with the guidelines for human subject research in the Czech
Republic and the EU. The English version of the questionnaire was translated into other
language versions; back-translation ensured that the translation into different languages did not
compromise the findings.
Participants
In the final sample, participants with less than 80% of missing values and those who
completed the survey in the first wave were included, resulting in 3899 participants (NT2 =
1793, NT3 = 1660) without UK participants. Descriptive statistics of participants are shown in
Table D1 in the OSM. In line with the preregistration, we collected data from at least 300
respondents in each country.
Measures
The description of items and variables is presented in Table 1. The full questionnaire is
available online (https://osf.io/p7kg8/?view_only=2429c033be704f339bae7f02bf787a01). The
endogenous variables—fear of COVID-19, anti-COVID-19 behavior, and prejudice—were
treated as latent variables. The exogenous variables—anti-COVID-19 norms, the impact of
COVID-19, and intergroup contact—were treated as manifest variables. Factor analysis
supported the expected construct structure. Control variables included education, income, age,
gender, and minority background. Before the main analysis, we constructed scales using
exploratory and multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (for more details see the OSM). Anti-
COVID-19 behavior was estimated using four indicators capturing important aspects of behavior
that should limit the transmission of the virus during the pandemic—support for governmental
restrictions, social distancing, following other recommendations such as washing hands more
frequently since the outbreak of the pandemic, and wearing protective clothing such as face-
masks and gloves. Prejudice was indicated by distancing from an outgroup, intergroup threat,
and intergroup bias, which are often used as indicators of prejudice. Further, prejudice also
comprised support for policies such as a) preferential treatment of ingroup members in hospitals
during the pandemic, b) a restricted entry to a country for migrants from the Middle East, and c)
the restriction of spending resources by a government to help migrants from the Middle East.
Fear of COVID-19 was estimated by four indicators—fear of getting infected, fear of being
economically affected, fear that one’s loved ones and the country will be adversely affected by
the pandemic.
We also inspected whether fear of COVID-19 and intergroup threat create a common
factor called fear of the unknown. The analysis revealed that this was not the case, instead,
intergroup threat was an indicator of prejudice (for more details on scale construction please see
the OSM).
Table 1
Variable Description
Endogenous variables (latent)
Anti-COVID-19 behavior
Indicator
Number
of items
Example items
Supporting
governmental
restrictions
4
To what extent do you support the following measures that should stop the
spread of COVID-19?
Closing borders
Social distancing
3
Estimate how many times you have gone out to engage in activities that
involved people from outside of your household (e.g., going for a walk) in the
last 5 days.
Following other
recommendations
3
I wash my hands more intensely than before the spread of COVID-19.
Wearing protective
clothing
2
I cover my mouth in public places (e.g., shops, workplace).
Prejudice
Indicator
Number
of items
Example items
Social distance
4
Would you mind if a migrant from the Middle East becomes your neighbor?
Support for policies
3
If medical equipment and care get scarce during the COVID-19 pandemic,
[country] people should get preferential treatment in hospitals over migrants
from the Middle East.
Intergroup threat
4
Migrants from the Middle East in the [country] would endanger the safety of
[national] people.
Ingroup bias
1
Score on feeling thermometer towards immigrants subtracted from feeling
thermometer towards ingroup.
Fear of COVID-19
Indicator
Number
of items
Example items
Fear of getting
infected
2
I am stressed around other people because I worry I’ll get the coronavirus
(COVID-19) from them.
Fear of the impact
on the country
2
I am afraid that the COVID-19 pandemic will worsen the economic situation
of [country].
Fear of being
economically
affected
1
I am afraid that the COVID-19 pandemic will significantly worsen my
economic situation.
Fear of impact on
close ones
1
I am afraid that my close ones will have problems because of the COVID-19
pandemic.
Exogenous variables (manifest)
Variable
Number
of items
Example items
Anti-COVID-19
norms
5
To what extent do you think that [national ingroup] people avoid meeting
people from outside of their household during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Impact of COVID-
19
4
To what extent has the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted your social
life?
Direct intergroup
contact
1/1*
How often do you have positive/negative contact with migrants from the
Middle East?
Mass-mediated
intergroup contact
1/1*
How often do you encounter positive/negative information about migrants
from the Middle East in the media?
Note. * = both direct and mass-mediated intergroup contact included positive and negative contact,
which were treated separately in the analysis. We used four intergroup contact variables in total—
positive and negative direct contact; positive and negative mass-mediated contact.
Analytical Approach
We analyzed the three-waves of data using a latent change score model (LCSM), which
enabled us to capture various types of temporal links between variables (Hounkpatin et al., 2018;
Kievit et al., 2018; Klopack & Wickrama, 2020). In LCSM, intra-individual effects refer to
prospective temporal relations between variables, thus, one variable predicts latent change score
in a second variable within an individual, after accounting for inter-individual variance in growth
patterns. This means that the LCSM can also estimate and control for inter-individual differences
– latent growth patterns or mean-level change – which are random effects allowed to vary across
individuals.
The investigation of intra- and inter-individual factors helps identify whether two
variables are related in time or whether different factors can be responsible for their similar
developmental trajectories, which improves (but does not enable) causal inferences (Kievit et al.,
2018; Klopack & Wickrama, 2020). A relationship between two inter-individual factors means
that two variables change in a similar manner over time, however, this does not mean that one
variable precedes the other in time. If trajectories of two variables are related, but intra-
individual effects are missing, this implies a confounding effect of a third unobserved factor
(Hounkpatin et al., 2018). Furthermore, the LCSM allows the investigation of initial levels in
variables (i.e., intercepts at T1). It is possible that initial levels of two variables are related,
which could be used as tentative evidence for one affecting another in cross-sectional studies.
However, developmental trajectories and prospective changes might not be related, implying that
temporal relations between variables do not exist. In our research, we estimated changes in
endogenous variables – fear of COVID-19, anti-COVID-19 behavior, and prejudice. We tested
whether exogenous variables at Time X – anti-COVID-19 norms, the impact of COVID-19, and
intergroup contact – predicted changes in endogenous variables that occurred between Time X-1
and Time X (X to be substituted either for 2 or 3). Such effects represent exogenous shocks (i.e.,
effects of exogenous variables on changes in endogenous variables after taking into account the
general growth pattern). In the model, we included effects of endogenous variables on exogenous
variables at a subsequent wave, however, these effects are not described in this article because
they were not related to our hypotheses.
We first determined measurement invariance (see Table 2) by sequentially constraining
parameters over time and countries. If the model fit is not significantly worsened by introducing
new restrictions on parameters, a more parsimonious model is preferred because it improves the
interpretation of the results (Ferrer et al., 2008; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). Step-by-step,
configural equivalence is contrasted with metric invariance and metric invariance with scalar
invariance. We focused on invariance across time, which was necessary for investigating the
change in constructs. In the case of countries, we focused on the equality of regression paths,
which indicates whether relationships between variables differed among countries.
All variables were scaled before they were analyzed. We included control variables into
each model (i.e., age, gender, education, income, and belonging to an ethnic, sexual, or religious
minority). We used Full-Information Maximum likelihood (FIML) to handle missing values.
Standardized coefficients from the final model were bootstrapped using 1500 samples. We report
bootstrapped point estimates of regression coefficients, standard errors, and 95% confidence
intervals.
The statistical analyses were performed in R (v4.0.3), using the following packages
lavaan (v0.6-7; Rosseel, 2012) and sjstats (v0.18; Lüdecke, 2020).
Table 2
Contrasting Models to Establish Measurement Invariance
Level
RMSEA [90% CI]
SRMR
CFI
Configural
.037 [.035, .038]
.079
.936
Metric-time
(excluding manifest variables)
.037 [.035, .038]
.079
.935
Metric-time
(including manifest variables)
.035 [.034, .036]
.076
.912
Partial-scalar-time
.037 [.036, .038]
.078
.903
Partial-scalar-time & metric-country & paths
restricted across countries
.038 [.037, .039]
.076
.890
Partial-scalar-time & metric-country & paths
restricted across countries & controls
.040 [.039, .041]
.082
.864
Note. The configural model did not include manifest variables. Thus, we provide fit indices for
configural and metric-time-invariant models that do not contain manifest variables to compare two
models containing only different equality restrictions. The following models included manifest
variables. Models should be compared as follows: 1. Configural vs. metric-time (excluding
manifest variables); 2. Metric-time (including manifest variables) vs. partial-scalar-time; 3. Partial-
scalar-time vs. partial-scalar-time & metric-country; 4. Partial-scalar-time & metric-country vs.
partial-scalar-time & metric-country & controls. Criteria used to compare model fits (Chen, 2007):
models are considered to yield the same model fit if adding equality constraints does not worsen
CFI for .01 and simultaneously RMSEA for .015, and change in SRMR for .03. Due to the high
complexity of our model, values slightly higher than these thresholds are considered to support
measurement invariance.
Results
Measurement invariance
We established partial scalar time-invariance in the case of fear of COVID-19 and anti-
COVID-19 behavior and full scalar time-invariance in the case of prejudice. When it comes to
differences between countries, we were interested only in metric invariance to establish that
indicators referred to the same construct. Regression paths were equaled between countries, and
the likelihood ratio test confirmed that the paths did not differ between countries. This also
indicates that differences in sampling strategies did not result in an exaggeration of differences in
path coefficients across countries. Although a chi-square difference was significant, Δχ2 = 308.5,
Δdf = 156, p < .001, information criteria AIC and BIC, AIC: 239742 vs. 239738, BIC: 247862
vs. 246887, as well as comparison in CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR gave preference to a model
containing restricted paths across countries. This illustrates no differences in effect sizes between
countries, thus, prejudice was affected by predictors to a similar extent regardless of the
migration history of the country. The configural model did not converge when manifest variables
were included; however, this was expected since the LCSM model is highly complex (Kievit et
al., 2018). Therefore, we contrasted the configural model with a time-metric-invariant model that
did not include the manifest variables. The next comparisons were based on models that
contained the manifest variables. In the final model, we included control variables and regressed
them with all other variables. Although the inclusion of controls worsened the model fit, it did
not have any effect on the interpreted effects (i.e., the model with and without controls did not
differ).
Intra-individual effects: Test of the hypotheses
Hypothesis testing was based on intra-individual effects. In Table 3, we present all intra-
individual effects concerning endogenous variables. We also indicate whether significant effects
were hypothesized (i.e., preregistered) or non-hypothesized to ease interpretation. Hypothesized
effects are generally considered more reliable than non-hypothesized significant effects. Intra-
individual effects are also graphically presented in Figure 3.
Effect of fear of COVID-19 on outcomes
Fear of COVID-19 and anti-COVID-19 behavior were associated on an intra-individual
level, however, disentangling the temporal precedence showed that anti-COVID-19 behavior
increased fear of COVID-19 but fear of COVID-19 did not influence anti-COVID-19 behavior,
thus rejecting H1. This means that fear of COVID-19 did not motivate anti-COVID-19 behavior,
but people more frequently performing anti-COVID-19 behavior felt greater fear of COVID-19.
Moreover, the general changes in fear of COVID-19 and in anti-COVID-19 behavior were
related, suggesting that a confounding factor, such as a third unobserved factor, was responsible
for their similar change beyond the intra-individual influence of anti-COVID-19 behavior on fear
of COVID-19.
Fear of COVID-19 did not predict prejudice on an intra-individual level, rejecting H2.
Initial levels of fear of COVID-19 and prejudice were significantly related but their trajectories
on the inter-individual level differed. Thus, the higher the initial fear of COVID-19, the more
likely respondents reported higher prejudice. Otherwise, changes in fear of COVID-19 and
prejudice were unrelated, suggesting no temporal relationship.
Exogenous predictors of outcomes
In line with H3, anti-COVID-19 behavior was facilitated by anti-COVID-19 norms. The
impact of COVID-19 on individuals’ lives did not affect anti-COVID-19 behavior, thus not
supporting H4. Unexpectedly, negative direct and negative mass-mediated contact with
immigrants from the Middle East predicted an increase in anti-COVID-19 behavior but the
effects were small. Prejudice negatively predicted anti-COVID-19 behavior on an intra-
individual level, thus, the higher the prejudice, the more likely a decrease in anti-COVID-19
behavior.
H5 and H6 were supported in that positive direct and negative direct contact affected
intra-individual change in prejudice. Similarly and in line with H5 and H6, positive and negative
mass-mediated contact predicted an intra-individual change in prejudice. The direction of the
effect depended on the valence of intergroup contact; positive contact decreased, while negative
contact increased prejudice. However, the effects of intergroup contact on prejudice were small.
We exploratively contrasted the effects of direct and mass-mediated contact by comparing model
fits of the model in which effects of direct and mass-mediated contact were freely estimated and
the model in which effects of direct and mass-mediated contact were constrained to be equal. In
both models, effects of intergroup contact on prejudice were estimated separately within each
country. We conducted two comparisons separately for positive and negative contact. We did not
find a significant difference between the effects of direct and mass-mediated contact (positive
contact: Δχ2 = 8.26, Δdf = 5, p = .142; negative contact: Δχ2 = 4.49, Δdf = 5, p = .481).
Unexpectedly, anti-COVID-19 norms predicted an increase in prejudice, meaning that
participants’ perception that others engage in behaviors limiting the virus transmission increased
participants’ prejudice against migrants from the Middle East. Anti-COVID-19 behavior did not
predict prejudice.
In line with H8, fear of COVID-19 was increased by the impact of COVID-19 but, in contrast to
H7, fear of COVID-19 was unaffected by anti-COVID-19 norms. Unexpectedly, positive direct
and negative mass-mediated contact were positively related to the change in fear of COVID-19.
However, these effects were small.
Table 3
Intra-Individual Effects
Endogenous variable
Exogenous variable
Point estimate β
95% CI
SE
Anti-COVID-19 behavior
Hypothesized effects
Fear of COVID-19
.137
-.184, .458
.164
Anti-COVID-19 norms
.246***
.160, .333
.044
Impact of COVID-19
-.023
-.143, .097
.061
Non-hypothesized effects
Prejudice
-.242**
-.415, -.069
.088
Positive direct contact
-.032
-.105, .041
.037
Negative direct contact
.092*
.012, .172
.041
Positive mass-media
contact
.043
-.026, .113
.035
Negative mass-media
contact
.085*
.008, .163
.040
Prejudice
Hypothesized effects
Fear of COVID-19
-.058
-.316, .200
.131
Positive direct contact
-.064*
-.123, -.004
.030
Negative direct contact
.133***
.067, .199
.034
Positive mass-media
contact
-.077*
-.143, -.011
.034
Negative mass-media
contact
.121**
.038, .204
.042
Non-hypothesized effects
Anti-COVID-19
behavior
-.009
-.274, .256
.135
Anti-COVID-19 norms
.252***
.152, .352
.051
Impact of COVID-19
-.053
-.167, .061
.058
Fear of COVID-19
Hypothesized effects
Anti-COVID-19 norms
.024
-.035, .083
.030
Impact of COVID-19
.448***
.358, .537
.046
Non-hypothesized effects
Anti-COVID-19
behavior
.421***
.201, .641
.112
Prejudice
.017
-.078, .112
.049
Positive direct contact
.059*
.011, .108
.025
Negative direct contact
-.025
-.077, .026
.026
Positive mass-media
contact
.010
-.037, .057
.024
Negative mass-media
contact
.072**
.024, .121
.025
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Note. Significant effects are bold.
Figure 3
Latent change score model
Note. Changes in fear of COVID-19, anti-COVID-19 behavior, and prejudice are modeled. We
report all modeled links between endogenous variables. For the sake of clarity, hypothesized
effects are highlighted in black, and other estimates are grey. All coupling effects between
endogenous variables are also black because the model allows for testing temporal precedence,
except for the links between anti-COVID-19 behavior and prejudice because their relationship was
not hypothesized. In the case of exogenous variables, we only report their effects on latent change
scores (i.e., intra-individual changes in endogenous variables); these effects are highlighted with
green arrows. The effects of exogenous variables on endogenous variables were estimated twice–
an effect of exogenous variables measured at T1/T2 on endogenous variables estimated at T2/T3–
and averaged because it did not worsen model fit.
Inter-individual effects
Inter-individual factors included slopes (i.e., latent growth trajectories) and intercepts
(i.e., initial levels) of fear of COVID-19, anti-COVID-19 behavior, and prejudice. We did not
test our hypotheses using inter-individual effects, however, they provide more detailed insights
into relations between endogenous variables.
A mean change in fear of COVID-19 copied the increase in new COVID-19 cases in
countries (see Figure 2). In the country with the highest increase in COVID-19 cases, the Czech
Republic, fear of COVID-19 had a tendency to increase during the early six months of the
COVID-19 pandemic, est = 1.32, 95% CI [.89, 1.76], SE = .22. In the country with about half of
the increase in COVID-19 cases in comparison to the Czech Republic, Switzerland, fear of
COVID-19 did not change, est = -.26, [-1.13, .61], SE = .44. In countries with the smallest
increase in COVID-19 cases–Kosovo, Poland, Serbia–fear of COVID-19 had a tendency to
decrease, Kosovo: est = -.76, [-1.50, -.02], SE = .38, Poland: est = -1.34, [-2.09, -0.59], SE = .38,
Serbia: est = -1.19, [-1.64, -.74], SE = .23,.
Intercepts and slopes of endogenous variables were not associated with each other, which
means that the mean change of endogenous variables did not depend on the initial level of any
endogenous variable. For instance, the general change in anti-COVID-19 behavior was not
influenced by initial levels of anti-COVID-19 behavior, fear of COVID-19, or prejudice, thus,
anti-COVID-19 behavior changed similarly across respondents regardless of their initial levels of
anti-COVID-19 behavior, fear of COVID-19, or prejudice. We found three noticeable
associations between inter-individual variables. Intercepts of fear of COVID-19 and anti-
COVID-19 behavior were associated with each other, which means that the higher the fear of
COVID-19 at T1, the higher the anti-COVID-19 behavior at T1. Slopes of fear of COVID-19
and anti-COVID-19 behavior were also associated with each other, which means that both
variables changed in the same direction, indicating that a third unobserved factor beyond those
included in the model could be responsible for their similar change. Intercept and slope of anti-
COVID-19 behavior were negatively associated, which indicates that anti-COVID-19 behavior
was more likely to decrease among participants who reported more frequent anti-COVID
behavior at T1. Associations between slopes and intercepts of endogenous variables are
presented in Figure 4; green represents a positive association, red a negative association; the
darker the color, the stronger the association between factors.
Figure 4
Correlations between slopes and intercepts of endogenous variables – fear of COVID-19, anti-
COVID-19 behavior, and prejudice
Note. I = intercept, S = slope.
Robustness Check: Prejudice
Prejudice against one outgroup is more likely to generalize to another outgroup if
outgroups are perceived as similar (Harwood et al., 2011). Because the outbreak of the pandemic
was linked to China, prejudice against groups that are perceived as similar to Chinese people
could have been affected more than prejudice against dissimilar groups. Furthermore, prejudice
may have increased most significantly at the start of the pandemic when people were first
confronted with the virus. Therefore, in a robustness check, we accounted for two potential
issues related to the change in prejudice in the context of the pandemic: We examined 1)
prejudice against an outgroup that is viewed as more similar to the Chinese than the immigrants
from the Middle East, Vietnamese people; and 2) change in prejudice prior to the outbreak of the
pandemic. This robustness check was conducted only in the Czech Republic due to the
availability of data before the pandemic from an existing research participant pool. We focused
on Vietnamese people, as they are one of the largest ethnic minorities in the otherwise very
homogenous Czech Republic, where other Asian minorities are much rarer. Moreover, thanks to
data availability, we could investigate individual changes in prejudice against Vietnamese people
that occurred before and after the onset of the pandemic.
This robustness check supported our findings; the results of models that contained either
prejudice against Vietnamese people or immigrants from the Middle East resembled each other
(for more details about this robustness check please see the OSM).
Previous research on terror management theory suggested that mortality salience
increases prejudice only among individuals with certain characteristics, such as right-wing
authoritarianism (Weise et al., 2012). Thus, we included political orientation, which is related to
RWA as a control variable in another robustness check. The results did not significantly change
when including and excluding political affiliation as a covariate from the analysis.
Finally, the indicator of prejudice “support for policies aimed at migrants from the
Middle East” could be specific for the COVID-19 pandemic situation at a given time and
obscure the results. A performed robustness check showed that dropping this indicator from the
main model did not influence the results.
Discussion
In a three-wave longitudinal study spanning six months at the beginning of the COVID-
19 pandemic across five European countries, we investigated whether: 1) fear of COVID-19
increased both anti-COVID-19 behavior and prejudice; 2) anti-COVID-19 norms and the impact
of the COVID-19 pandemic on an individual influenced anti-COVID-19 behavior and prejudice
either directly or indirectly through fear of COVID-19; 3) intergroup contact affected prejudice
in the course of the pandemic. We tested our hypotheses using intra-individual effects (i.e., what
affects changes within single participants) while controlling for inter-individual effects (i.e.,
mean-level changes between participants and initial levels of outcomes).
Fear of COVID-19 did not predict an increase in anti-COVID-19 behavior or prejudice
on an intra-individual level, rejecting H1 and H2. In other words, while we did not find support
for the notion that fear of COVID-19 increased prejudice, fear of COVID-19 did not increase
anti-COVID-19 behavior either. This finding addresses theories that postulate an important role
of fear of a virus in shaping prejudice and behavior that should reduce the virus transmission.
Specifically, we found no support for fear-appeal theories suggesting that inducing fear of
COVID-19 within individuals should stimulate their anti-COVID-19 behavior (Witte & Allen,
2000). We also did not find support for theories predicting that virus-related threat leads to a rise
in prejudice, such as the Behavioral Immune System model (Schaller & Park, 2011).
Consequently, fear of COVID-19 could not function as a factor mediating the influence of other
predictors, and was not directly related to anti-COVID-19 behavior or prejudice. In this study,
we uniquely combined health-related and intergroup literature to show that fear of COVID-19
did not affect anti-COVID-19 behavior and prejudice, due to the missing link from fear of
COVID-19 to anti-COVID-19 behavior or prejudice within individuals. These findings have far-
reaching consequences for re-evaluation of existing theories (often based on less
methodologically-refined evidence) that predict intra-individual effects of fear of COVID-19 on
both anti-COVID-19 and prejudice.
In contrast, we found evidence that COVID-19 norms stimulated anti-COVID-19
behavior, supporting H3. This finding enriches our understanding of how people navigate their
behavior during pandemics. Our results indicate that social norms, rather than fear, should be the
focus of strategies aiming to induce behavior that limits virus transmission during pandemics. In
the case of prejudice, positive intergroup contact predicted its decrease, while negative contact
had an increasing effect, supporting H5 and H6. This evidence complements intergroup contact
research searching for an answer to whether intergroup contact influences prejudice even in the
context of the COVID-19 pandemic, in cases where longitudinal data were not employed or
intra-individual changes were not tested (e.g., Alston et al., 2020).
Change in Anti-COVID-19 Behavior
Fear of COVID-19 did not predict change in anti-COVID-19 behavior on an intra-
individual level. This finding supports the notion that fear of disease alone may not be sufficient
to induce health-related behavior. A potential reason for why fear of COVID-19 did not promote
anti-COVID-19 behavior could be a lack of self-efficacy (Kok et al., 2018). During a pandemic,
a collective effort is needed to fight the spread of a virus. Consequently, people may feel no
control over getting infected or over avoiding the negative effects of the pandemic. In a similar
vein, the importance of communication styles when inducing support for anti-COVID behavior
was demonstrated in a cross-national experiment, whereby an autonomy-supportive
communication style was more effective than a controlling style (Legate, 2022). The autonomy-
supportive communication style was characterized by endorsing perspective-taking, providing
meaningful rationale, and supporting individual agency. Theoretically, inducing such autonomy
in conjunction with fear of COVID-19 could result in an increase in observing anti-COVID-19
behavior. Alternatively, it may be more efficient to induce self-efficacy rather than fear of a virus
to increase behavior that should limit virus transmission in the context of a pandemic (Jørgensen
et al., 2021). Future research could investigate whether self-efficacy is an important barrier for
stimulating behavior that should limit virus transmission in the context of a pandemic.
Despite fear of COVID-19 not predicting change in anti-COVID-19 behavior on an intra-
individual level, fear of COVID-19 was associated with anti-COVID-19 behavior on an inter-
individual level. Specifically, mean-level changes and initial levels of fear of COVID-19 and
anti-COVID-19 behavior were associated beyond their intra-individual relationship, indicating a
confounding effect of a potential third unobserved factor that could affect both of them.
Critically, this finding could have been previously mistaken for the influence of fear of COVID-
19 on anti-COVID-19 behavior reported by cross-sectional studies or potentially even in
longitudinal studies where intra- and inter-level changes were not distinguished (Hounkpatin et
al., 2018). Moreover, anti-COVID-19 behavior increased fear of COVID-19, highlighting the
importance of determining temporal precedence. The effect of anti-COVID-19 behavior on fear
of COVID-19 could be explained in light of research on cognitive dissonance, whereby people
seek justification for their actions (Harmon-Jones & Mills, 2019). Nevertheless, it is possible that
a certain level of fear of COVID-19 was necessary at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic
for people to willingly perform anti-COVID-19 behaviors; the determined, strong link between
the initial levels of these two variables in our research may suggest such a tendency.
Of all the predictors, anti-COVID-19 norms were the only factor that shaped anti-
COVID-19 behavior on the intra-individual level, meaning that it was the behaviors of others
observed in one’s social environment that influenced participants’ behavior. This finding applied
even after controlling for a general change in anti-COVID-19 behavior among participants. The
determined effect of anti-COVID-19 norms on anti-COVID-19 behavior supports the argument
that norms are crucial for guiding relevant behaviors, especially in the presence of danger such as
the COVID-19 pandemic (Fritsche et al., 2011; Giannakakis & Fritsche, 2011; Jonas et al.,
2008), corroborating theories such as the social identity theory (Terry & Hogg, 1996).
The other predictor, the impact of COVID-19 on participants, was unrelated to an intra-
individual change in anti-COVID-19 behavior. This does not support our expectation that the
more participants or their close ones were affected by the pandemic, the more likely they were to
behave in line with guidelines aimed to flatten the COVID-19 incidence curve in the population.
The reason for this may be that being significantly affected by the governmental restrictions
could result in fatigue or low support for anti-COVID-19 behavior which would extend the
impact of the pandemic on the personal situation even further (Petherick et al., 2021).
Consequently, the impact of the pandemic could be unrelated to the anti-COVID-19 behavior.
However, the individual impact of the pandemic increased fear of COVID-19, supporting our
hypothesis. Yet, because fear of COVID-19 did not influence anti-COVID-19 behavior, fear of
COVID-19 could not mediate a link between the individual impact of the pandemic and anti-
COVID-19 behavior.
Change in Prejudice
On average, prejudice did not increase over the studied six months, and fear of COVID-
19 did not enhance prejudice on the intra-individual level. This finding is especially important
for theories that make direct predictions about the impact of fear of a virus on prejudice such as
the BIS model (Meleady et al., 2021; Schaller & Park, 2011). One reason for not supporting the
BIS could be an incorrect assumption rooted in the evolutionary perspective, namely that
outgroups are associated with the spreading of a virus. For instance, the pathogen-prevalence
hypothesis implies that prejudice should increase when pathogens become more prevalent and
more dangerous, as in the case of a pandemic. Avoiding outgroups is supposed to help to isolate
oneself from those who are seen as more likely transmitters of foreign pathogens (Faulkner et al.,
2004; Murray et al., 2011, 2013).
Moreover, we found no support for the expectation based on the intergroup threat theory
(Stephan et al., 2009), whereby people could perceive increased intergroup competition over
limited resources during the pandemic or fear of the transmission of the virus from the outgroup,
resulting in a link between fear of COVID-19 and prejudice. The determined lack of association
between fear of COVID-19 and prejudice could indicate that the ethnic outgroups that we
researched were not linked to fear of COVID-19, which could be different in other contexts
when, for instance, ethnic groups are used as scapegoats. Resources that alleviate the burdens of
the pandemic might not have become a source of intergroup tension, at least in the researched
contexts, and, thus, fear of COVID-19 did not relate to prejudice. The non-existent effect of fear
on prejudice in our research is in line with evidence presented in the historical review of the link
between pandemics and prejudice, which found that the consequences of pandemics ranged from
having no apparent effect on intergroup relations to massive violence against outgroups (Cohn,
2015). Yet, it is possible that a pandemic could still be misused for awakening dormant prejudice
or as an excuse for intergroup conflict (Huo, 2020). This could mean that a pandemic leads to an
increase in prejudice only under certain conditions. For instance, Becker and colleagues (2011)
found that threat elicited by the 2008 financial crisis led to an increase in prejudice only if the
crisis was causally attributed to the outgroup.
A combination of literature on health-oriented behaviors and intergroup processes
provides insights into how fear of a virus shapes prejudice and behaviors that should limit the
virus transmission. In both cases, fear of COVID-19 did not lead to an increase in the outcome.
Thus, fear of COVID-19 did not increase the undesirable outcome – prejudice, nor the desirable
outcome – anti-COVID-19 behavior. Prior literature argued that self-efficacy might be necessary
for fear to stimulate health-oriented behavior, otherwise, fear could even negatively impact on
health-oriented behavior (Peters et al., 2013). However, there is no reason to expect that fear
coupled with self-efficacy would positively affect prejudice, illustrating a different function of
fear of the virus across literature on health-oriented behavior and intergroup processes.
We found the only significant, albeit small, relationship between initial levels of
prejudice and fear of COVID-19; the more fear of COVID-19 participants initially expressed, the
higher prejudice they reported. In studies that do not distinguish the intra- from the inter-
individual effects, such a significant link between initial levels of prejudice and fear of COVID-
19 could mask a non-existent intra-individual influence of fear of COVID-19 on prejudice. Our
data indicated that prejudice did not automatically increase due to the pandemic or due to fear of
COVID-19.
Prejudice was affected only by intergroup contact in the expected directions; positive
direct and mass-mediated contact reduced prejudice, while negative direct and mass-mediated
contact increased prejudice (Barlow et al., 2012; Graf & Sczesny, 2019; Paluck et al., 2018;
Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Schiappa et al., 2005; Zingora et al., 2020; Zingora & Graf, 2019).
The effects of direct and mass-mediated contact were of a similar size, suggesting that mass-
mediated contact could be an efficient substitute for direct contact in times when the frequency
of direct contact is reduced. This applied to prejudice against immigrants from the Middle East
across five countries as well as prejudice against Vietnamese people in the Czech Republic. The
effects of intergroup contact were small, however, their cumulative effect over a longer period of
time could bring about desired and more substantial change in prejudice. A cumulative effect of
intergroup contact on prejudice could be especially important in the context of a pandemic when
direct intergroup contact becomes less frequent (Meleady et al., 2021). Effects of contact
experienced during or even prior to the pandemic could carry over a longer period of time,
cumulate, and shape a change in prejudice in the longer term. We did not find that fear of the
pandemic exacerbated prejudice, thus, we cannot claim that positive intergroup contact protected
against negative effects of the pandemic on prejudice. Nevertheless, our findings enrich the
evidence about the intra-individual effects of intergroup contact on prejudice, especially in
circumstances when the frequency of contact is reduced, as in the case of a pandemic.
The exacerbating effect of negative intergroup contact through mass-media on prejudice
during the pandemic calls for a careful presentation of ethnic minorities and other outgroups in
mass media during such a crisis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, interpersonal contact in
general and intergroup contact in particular was reduced (Meleady et al., 2021), making mass-
media a more relevant source of information about outgroups. Whereas previous research
documented that direct positive contact is usually more frequent than direct negative contact
(Graf et al., 2014), this ratio is mostly reversed in the case of mass mediated contact, with
negative content prevailing over positive content especially in the case of the news (in post-
conflict societies: Rupar et al., 2022; with respect to immigrants: Visintin et al., 2017).
Consequently, when direct positive contact becomes rarer during crises such as the COVID-19
pandemic, it is especially important that mass media balance negative and positive information
about outgroups.
Unexpectedly, the strongest predictor of anti-COVID-19 behavior—anti-COVID-19
norms—also increased prejudice. This means that behavior aimed at stopping COVID-19
observed in participants social environment increased their prejudice. Future research should
investigate the potential negative side-effect effects of using social norms to promote desirable
behavior on prejudice. This finding was not hypothesized; we can only speculate that social
norms can make group membership salient, and as a consequence, the salient boundaries
between groups enhance prejudice.
Limitations
Regarding limitations of our findings, we accounted for potential cross-cultural
differences, including data from five European countries, but we did not collect representative
samples. The pandemic could differently affect people from various social groups, especially in
countries with high economic or social inequalities. Second, although we applied advanced
modelling for disentangling intra- from inter-individual effects, our results should be interpreted
with caution regarding causality. Third, we tracked the trajectory of and relations between
variables during the first six months of the pandemic. As the pandemic has developed over a
longer span, the reported effects may have changed. Fourth, concerning prejudice, we have
focused on one of the most vulnerable and stigmatized groups in the current European context—
migrants from the Middle East who have entered Europe in large numbers since 2015—and
extended our finding to the less stigmatized ethnic group—Vietnamese people in the Czech
Republic. Future research should test prejudice against other relevant outgroups.
Conclusion
All in all, the COVID-19 pandemic that has affected all countries around the world in an
unprecedented manner represents an immense challenge for governments and state institutions.
One of the challenges is the lack of information on how to motivate behaviors that can prevent
the spreading of COVID-19; while protecting vulnerable social groups beyond the direct effects
of the pandemic. Using an advanced analytical approach, our study brings important insights into
the role of social norms in guiding adequate behaviors that should limit virus transmission and
the role of intergroup contact and mass media in shaping prejudice in the context of the
pandemic. Our results indicate that fear of a virus did not lead to the desirable increase in
behaviors that should limit virus transmission during a pandemic, but it also did not bring about
an undesirable increase in prejudice. This implies that fear of a virus is not an efficient tool in
motivating anti-COVID-19 behavior. Although prior research indicated that fear coupled with
self-efficacy could increase anti-COVID-19 behavior (Jørgensen et al., 2021), it is questionable
how effectively self-efficacy could be induced along with the fear of the virus. In the context of
the pandemic, one’s ability to avoid the virus depends on the actions of others, which could limit
the perception of being self-efficacious in avoiding the virus. This contrasts with the widespread
use of inducing fear of COVID-19 in, for instance, campaigns directed to promote anti-COVID-
19 behavior (Stolow et al., 2020). Since fear of the virus does not enhance behavior that should
counter the virus transmission, other strategies should be considered. Specifically, based on our
findings, we propose that descriptive social norms about the functional behavior of others in
one’s social environment become the central foci of future research as well as strategies aimed at
inducing health-promoting behavior in the context of pandemics. Importantly, we found that
positive direct intergroup contact, even when experienced before the pandemic, represents a
promising tool for challenging prejudice during the pandemic, while negative direct contact
exacerbates prejudice towards outgroups. Social contact in general and direct intergroup contact
in particular, could become scarcer during the pandemic (Meleady et al., 2021), highlighting the
crucial influence of news about outgroup members from the mass-media on prejudice. Critically,
mass-mediated intergroup contact comprises both positive and negative information, and,
consequently, people working in mass media should be aware of and take responsibility for the
widespread risk of exacerbating prejudice in their audience.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed to the study design and data collection. Data preparation and
analysis were performed by T. Zingora and D. Lacko. T. Zingora drafted the manuscript. All
authors provided critical revisions and approved the final version of the manuscript for
submission.
References
Adam-Troian, J., & Bagci, S. C. (2021). The pathogen paradox: Evidence that perceived
COVID-19 threat is associated with both pro- And anti-immigrant attitudes. International
Review of Social Psychology, 34(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.469
Alston, L., Meleady, R., & Seger, C. R. (2020). Can past intergroup contact shape support for
policies in a pandemic? Processes predicting endorsement of discriminatory Chinese
restrictions during the COVID-19 crisis. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220959710
Arslan, R. C., Walther, M. P., & Tata, C. S. (2020). formr : A study framework allowing for
automated feedback generation and complex longitudinal experience-sampling studies
using R. 376–387.
Barlow, F. K., Hornsey, M. J., Hayward, L. E., Houkamau, C. A., Kang, J., Milojev, P., &
Sibley, C. G. (2019). Why Do We Hold Mixed Emotions About Racial Out-Groups? A
Case for Affect Matching. Psychological Science, 30(6), 917–929.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619844269
Barlow, F. K., Paolini, S., Pedersen, A., Hornsey, M. J., Radke, H. R. M., Harwood, J., Rubin,
M., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). The Contact Caveat: Negative Contact Predicts Increased
Prejudice More Than Positive Contact Predicts Reduced Prejudice. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1629–1643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212457953
Bavel, J. J. V., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., Crockett, M. J.,
Crum, A. J., Douglas, K. M., Druckman, J. N., Drury, J., Dube, O., Ellemers, N., Finkel, E.
J., Fowler, J. H., Gelfand, M., Han, S., Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., … Willer, R. (2020). Using
social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human
Behaviour, 4(5), 460–471. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z
Becker, J. C., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Consequences of the 2008 financial crisis for
intergroup relations: The role of perceived threat and causal attributions. Group Processes
and Intergroup Relations, 14(6), 871–885. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211407643
Block, P., Hoffman, M., Raabe, I. J., Dowd, J. B., Rahal, C., Kashyap, R., & Mills, M. C. (2020).
Social network-based distancing strategies to flatten the COVID 19 curve in a post-
lockdown world. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0898-6
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance.
Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
Christ, O., Schmid, K., Lolliot, S., Swart, H., Stolle, D., Tausch, N., Ramiah, A. Al, Wagner, U.,
Vertovec, S., & Hewstone, M. (2014). Contextual effect of positive intergroup contact on
outgroup prejudice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America, 111(11), 3996–4000. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320901111
Cohn, S. K. (2015). Pandemics: waves of disease, waves of hate from the Plague of Athens to
A.I.D.S. 85(June 2011), 535–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2281.2012.00603.x.Pandemics
Croucher, S. M., Nguyen, T., & Rahmani, D. (2020). Prejudice Toward Asian Americans in the
Covid-19 Pandemic: The Effects of Social Media Use in the United States. Frontiers in
Communication, 5(June). https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00039
Daniels, C., DiMaggio, P., Mora, G. C., & Shepherd, H. (2021). Has Pandemic Threat Stoked
Xenophobia How COVID‐19 Influences California Voters .pdf. Sociological Forum, 36(4).
https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12750
Drouhot, L. G., Petermann, S., Schönwälder, K., & Vertovec, S. (2021). Has the Covid-19
pandemic undermined public support for a diverse society? Evidence from a natural
experiment in Germany. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 44(5), 877–892.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2020.1832698
Epstein, J. M., Parker, J., Cummings, D., & Hammond, R. A. (2008). Coupled contagion
dynamics of fear and disease: Mathematical and computational explorations. PLoS ONE,
3(12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003955
European Commission. (2018). Special Eurobarometer 469: Integration of immigrants in the
European Union (Issue April 2018).
European Commission. (2021). The EU’s 2021-2027 long-term budget and NextGenerationEU.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d3e77637-a963-11eb-9585-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en
Faulkner, J., Schaller, M., Park, J. H., & Duncan, L. A. (2004). Evolved disease-avoidance
mechanisms and contemporary xenophobic attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup
Relations, 7(4), 333–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430204046142
Feldman, S., & Stenner, K. (1997). Perceived threat and authoritarianism. Political Psychology,
18(4), 741–770. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00077
Ferrer, E., Balluerka, N., & Widaman, K. (2008). Factorial Invariance and The Specification of
Second-Order Latent Growth Models. Methodology, 4(1), 22–36.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.4.1.22
Fincher, C. L., & Thornhill, R. (2008). Assortative sociality, limited dispersal, infectious disease
and the genesis of the global pattern of religion diversity. Proceedings of the Royal Society
B: Biological Sciences, 275(1651), 2587–2594. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0688
Fritsche, I., Jonas, E., & Kessler, T. (2011). Collective Reactions to Threat: Implications for
Intergroup Conflict and for Solving Societal Crises. Social Issues and Policy Review, 5(1),
101–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2011.01027.x
Giannakakis, A. E., & Fritsche, I. (2011). Social identities, group norms, and threat: On the
malleability of ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(1), 82–93.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210386120
Graf, S., Paolini, S., & Rubin, M. (2014). Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but
positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact
prevalence in five Central European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology,
44(6), 536–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2052
Graf, S., & Sczesny, S. (2019). Intergroup contact with migrants is linked to support for migrants
through attitudes, especially in people who are politically right wing. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 73(August), 102–106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.09.001
Graf, S., Rubin, M., Assilamehou-Kunz, Y., Bianchi, M., Carnaghi, A., Fasoli, A., Finell,
E., Gustafsson Sendén, M., Shamloo, S., Tocik, J., Lacko, D., & Sczesny,
S. (2022). Migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees: Different labels for immigrants influence
attitudes through perceived benefits in nine countries. Manuscript under review.
Håkansson, A., & Claesdotter, E. (2021). Fear of COVID-19, compliance with recommendations
against virus transmission, and attitudes towards vaccination in Sweden. Heliyon,
8(December 2021), e08699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08699
Hale, T., Angrist, N., Goldszmidt, R., Kira, B., Petherick, A., Phillips, T., Webster, S., Cameron-
blake, E., Hallas, L., Majumdar, S., & Tatlow, H. (2020). A global panel database of
pandemic policies (Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker). Nature Human
Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01079-8
Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M., & Grasman, R. P. P. P. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged
panel model. Psychological Methods, 20(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038889
Hardin, C. D., & Conley, T. D. (2001). A relational approach to cognition: Shared experience
and relationship affirmation in social cognition. In Cognitive social psychology: {The}
{Princeton} {Symposium} on the {Legacy} and {Future} of {Social} {Cognition} (pp. 3–17).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (2019). An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an
overview of current perspectives on the theory. In E. Harmon-Jones (Ed.), Cognitive
dissonance: Reexamining a pivotal theory in psychology (pp. 3–24). American
Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000135-001
Harper, C. A., Satchell, L. P., Fido, D., & Latzman, R. D. (2020). Functional Fear Predicts
Public Health Compliance in the COVID-19 Pandemic Craig.
Harwood, J., Paolini, S., Joyce, N., Rubin, M., & Arroyo, A. (2011). Secondary transfer effects
from imagined contact: Group similarity affects the generalization gradient. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 50(1), 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X524263
Hasell, J., Mathieu, E., Beltekian, D., Macdonald, B., Giattino, C., Ortiz-Ospina, E., Roser, M.,
& Ritchie, H. (2020). A cross-country database of COVID-19 testing. Scientific Data, 7(1),
1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-00688-8
Hounkpatin, H. O., Boyce, C. J., Dunn, G., & Wood, A. M. (2018). Modeling bivariate change in
individual differences: Prospective associations between personality and life satisfaction.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(6), e12–e29.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000161
Hu, Z., Yang, Z., Li, Q., Zhang, A., & Huang, Y. (2020). Infodemiological Study on COVID-19
Epidemic and COVID-19 Infodemic. March.
https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202002.0380.v2
Huo, Y. (2020). Prejudice and discrimination. In J. Jetten, S. D. Reicher, S. A. Haslam, & T.
Cruwys (Eds.), Together apart: The psychology of COVID-19 (pp. 113–118). Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.
Jackson, J. C., Van Egmond, M., Choi, V. K., Ember, C. R., Halberstadt, J., Balanovic, J.,
Basker, I. N., Boehnke, K., Buki, N., Fischer, R., Fulop, M., Fulmer, A., Homan, A. C., Van
Kleef, G. A., Kreemers, L., Schei, V., Szabo, E., Ward, C., & Gelfand, M. J. (2019).
Ecological and cultural factors underlying the global distribution of prejudice. PLoS ONE,
14(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221953
Jakovljevic, M., Bjedov, S., Jaksic, N., & Jakovljevic, I. (2020). Covid-19 pandemia and public
and global mental health from the perspective of global health security. Psychiatria
Danubina[revista en internet] 2020 [acceso 25 de agosto del 2020]; 31(1): 6-14. 32(1), 6–
14. https://doi.org/10.24869/psyd.2020.6
Jonas, E., Martens, A., Kayser, D. N., Fritsche, I., Sullivan, D., & Greenberg, J. (2008). Focus
Theory of Normative Conduct and Terror-Management Theory: The Interactive Impact of
Mortality Salience and Norm Salience on Social Judgment. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 95(6), 1239–1251. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013593
Jørgensen, F., Bor, A., & Petersen, M. B. (2021). Compliance without fear: Individual-level
protective behaviour during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. British Journal of
Health Psychology, 26, 679–696. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12519
Kievit, R. A., Brandmaier, A. M., Ziegler, G., van Harmelen, A. L., de Mooij, S. M. M.,
Moutoussis, M., Goodyer, I. M., Bullmore, E., Jones, P. B., Fonagy, P., Lindenberger, U., &
Dolan, R. J. (2018). Developmental cognitive neuroscience using latent change score
models: A tutorial and applications. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 33(October
2017), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2017.11.007
Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., & Updegraff, J. A. (2016). Fear of Ebola: The Influence of
Collectivism on Xenophobic Threat Responses. Psychological Science, 27(7), 935–944.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616642596
Klopack, E. T., & Wickrama, K. (2020). Modeling Latent Change Score Analysis and
Extensions in Mplus: A Practical Guide for Researchers. Structural Equation Modeling,
27(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1562929
Kok, G., Bartholomew, L. K., Parcel, G. S., Gottlieb, N. H., & Fernandez, M. E. (2014). Finding
theory‐ and evidence‐based alternatives to fear appeals Intervention Mapping (pp. 98–107).
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12001
Kok, G., Peters, G. J. Y., Kessels, L. T. E., ten Hoor, G. A., & Ruiter, R. A. C. (2018). Ignoring
theory and misinterpreting evidence: the false belief in fear appeals. Health Psychology
Review, 12(2), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2017.1415767
Legate, N. (2022). A global experiment on motivating social distancing during the COVID-19
pandemic. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111091119/-/DCSupplemental.Published
Li, T., & Wang, Z. (2022). Disaggregating the between-person and within-person associations
between peer acceptance and academic achievement in early elementary school. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 78(May 2021), 101357.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101357
Makhanova, A., Plant, E. A., Ketterman, A. B., & Maner, J. K. (2022). Evolution and Human
Behavior Pathogen threat and intergroup prejudice using the minimal group paradigm :
Evidence from a registered report. Evolution and Human Behavior, March.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2022.05.002
Mandalaywala, T. M., Gonzalez, G., & Tropp, L. R. (2020). Early perceptions of COVID-19
intensity and anti-Asian prejudice among White Americans Tara. Preprint.
Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E., & Zhao, J. (2013). Poverty impedes cognitive function.
Science, 341(6149), 976–980. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1238041
Meleady, R., Hodson, G., & Earle, M. (2021). Person and situation effects in predicting outgroup
prejudice and avoidance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Personality and Individual
Differences, 172(October 2020), 110593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110593
Mertens, G., Gerritsen, L., Duijndam, S., Salemink, E., & Engelhard, I. M. (2020). Fear of the
coronavirus (COVID-19): Predictors in an online study conducted in March 2020. Journal
of Anxiety Disorders, 74(April), 102258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102258
Murray, D. R., Schaller, M., & Suedfeld, P. (2013). Pathogens and Politics: Further Evidence
That Parasite Prevalence Predicts Authoritarianism. PLoS ONE, 8(5).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062275
Murray, D. R., Trudeau, R., & Schaller, M. (2011). On the origins of cultural differences in
conformity: Four tests of the pathogen prevalence hypothesis. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 37(3), 318–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210394451
Paluck, E. L., Green, S. A., & Green, D. P. (2018). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated.
Behavioural Public Policy, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25
Paolini, S., Harwood, J., Rubin, M., Husnu, S., Joyce, N., & Hewstone, M. (2014). Positive and
extensive intergroup contact in the past buffers against the disproportionate impact of
negative contact in the present. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(6), 548–562.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2029
Peters, G. J. Y., Ruiter, R. A. C., & Kok, G. (2013). Threatening communication: A critical re-
analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory. Health Psychology Review,
7(SUPPL1). https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2012.703527
Petherick, A., Goldszmidt, R., Andrade, E. B., Furst, R., Hale, T., Pott, A., & Wood, A. (2021).
A worldwide assessment of changes in adherence to COVID-19 protective behaviours and
hypothesized pandemic fatigue. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(9), 1145–1160.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01181-x
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
Prati, G., & Pietrantoni, L. (2016). Knowledge, Risk Perceptions, and Xenophobic Attitudes:
Evidence from Italy During the Ebola Outbreak. Risk Analysis, 36(10), 2000–2010.
https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12537
Pyszczynski, T., Lockett, M., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (2021). Terror Management Theory
and the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 61(2), 173–189.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167820959488
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes:
A Meta-Analytic Review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 336–353.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan : an R package for structural equation modeling and more Version 0 .
5-12 ( BETA ). 12.
Rupar, M., Graf, S., & Voca, Sh. (2022). Contact with former adversaries through mass-media is
linked to forgiveness after dyadic and multiethnic conflicts. Manuscript accepted for
publication. European Journal of Social Psychology. Manuscript accepted for publication.
Rzymski, P., & Nowicki, M. (2020). COVID-19-related prejudice toward Asian medical
students: A consequence of SARS-CoV-2 fears in Poland. Journal of Infection and Public
Health, 13(6), 873–876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2020.04.013
Schaller, M., & Neuberg, S. L. (2012). Danger, Disease, and the Nature of Prejudice(s). In
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (1st ed., Vol. 46). Elsevier Inc.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00001-5
Schaller, M., & Park, J. H. (2011). The Behavioral Immune System ( and Why It Matters ).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411402596
Schiappa, E., Gregg, P. B., & Hewes, D. E. (2005). The parasocial contact hypothesis.
Communication Monographs, 72(1), 92–115.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0363775052000342544
Sep, M. S. C., Steenmeijer, A., & Kennis, M. (2019). The relation between anxious personality
traits and fear generalization in healthy subjects: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 107(September), 320–328.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.09.029
Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Morrison, K. R. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In T. D. Nelson
(Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. (pp. 43–59). US:
Psychology Press.
Stolow, J. A., Moses, L. M., Lederer, A. M., & Carter, R. (2020). How Fear Appeal Approaches
in COVID-19 Health Communication May Be Harming the Global Community. Health
Education and Behavior, 47(4), 531–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198120935073
Stussi, Y., Brosch, T., & Sander, D. (2015). Learning to fear depends on emotion and gaze
interaction: The role of self-relevance in fear learning. Biological Psychology, 109, 232–
238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.06.008
Tabri, N., Hollingshead, S. J., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2020). Framing Covid-19 as an Existential
Threat predicts Anxious Arousal and Prejudice. Preprint.
Terry, D. I., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role
for group identification.
TNS Medium Gallup. (2017). TNS Medium Gallup Attitudes towards the Impact of the Refugee
and Migrant Crisis in Serbia’s Municipalities. August.
Tsai, J.-Y., Phua, J., Pan, S., & Yang, C. (2020). Intergroup Contact, COVID-19 News
Consumption, and the Moderating Role of Digital Media Trust on Prejudice Toward Asians
in the United States: Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(9),
e22767. https://doi.org/10.2196/22767
Vandenberg, R., & Lance, C. (2000). A Review and Synthesis of the Measurement Invariance
Literature: Suggestions, Practices, and. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.
http://orm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/3/1/4
White, F. A., Borinca, I., Vezzali, L., Reynolds, K. J., Blomster Lyshol, J. K., Verrelli, S., &
Falomir-Pichastor, J. M. (2020). Beyond direct contact: The theoretical and societal
relevance of indirect contact for improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues,
October 2020, 132–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12400
Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public
health campaigns. Health Education and Behavior, 27(5), 591–615.
https://doi.org/10.1177/109019810002700506
Yamagata, M., Teraguchi, T., & Miura, A. (2020). The Relationship between Infection-
Avoidance Tendency and Exclusionary Attitudes towards Foreigners: A Case Study of the
COVID-19 Outbreak in Japan. 1–36. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/vhrqn
Zeng, G., Wang, L., & Zhang, Z. (2020). Prejudice and xenophobia in COVID-19 research
manuscripts. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(9), 879. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-
00948-y
Zingora, T., & Graf, S. (2019). Marry who you love: Intergroup contact with gay people and
another stigmatized minority is related to voting on the restriction of gay rights through
threat. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(11), 684–703.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12627
Zingora, T., Vezzali, L., & Graf, S. (2020). Stereotypes in the face of reality : Intergroup contact
inconsistent with group stereotypes changes attitudes more than stereotype-consistent
contact. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220946816