The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have been felt across the globe. While health experts work to spread life-saving information, misinformation and fake news about the virus undermine these efforts. What actions can people take when confronting COVID-19 misinformation, and what factors motivate people to take these actions? We propose that people can engage in investigative behaviors (e.g., fact-checking, seeking alternative opinions) to scrutinize the validity of the information they encounter, and we examine intellectual humility as a predictor of these important behaviors. In three studies ( N = 1,232) examining both behavioral intentions (Studies 1 and 2) and real behavior (Study 3), we find that those higher in intellectual humility are more likely to engage in investigative behaviors in response to COVID-19 misinformation.

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitates adherence to scientifically supported prevention strategies, such as social distancing. Although most Americans support social distancing, a subset of conservatives reject the scientific consensus on this matter. We explored why some conservatives reject social distancing, focusing on how trust in science contributes to ideological differences in social distancing intentions. In two studies, we replicated recent research demonstrating that conservatives report lower support for social distancing compared to liberals. However, in Study 1 we found support for a moderating role of trust in science, such that conservatives reported stronger intentions to socially distance when they had high trust in science. In Study 2, we enhanced trust in messaging about social distancing – and in turn, social distancing intentions among conservatives – by having the messages come from a Republican (vs. unidentified) government official. These studies provide insight into how we can increase adherence to public health recommendations regarding COVID-19.

The spread of online political misinformation has ramifications for political polarization, trust in political systems, and the functioning of democracy. In this article, we advance findings on investigative behaviors—actions aimed at determining the veracity of information encountered online—in response to political misinformation. Across three preregistered studies ( N = 889), we find that investigative behaviors increase accuracy discernment of political misinformation (Study 1), that intellectual humility reliably predicts investigative behaviors in this context (Study 2), and test a novel fallibility salience manipulation to increase intellectual humility (Study 3). We discuss the implications of these findings for reducing the impacts of political misinformation.

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitates ubiquitous adherence to prevention strategies—such as social distancing—that have been recommended by medical and scientific communities. Although most Americans support and engage in social distancing, a subset of conservatives reject the scientific consensus on this matter. In this paper, we explored why some conservatives reject social distancing, focusing on how trust in science contributes to ideological differences in social distancing intentions. Using both correlational (Study 1) and experimental (Study 2) methods, we replicated recent research demonstrating that conservatives report lower support for social distancing compared to liberals. However, in both studies we found support for a moderating role of trust in science, such that conservatives reported stronger intentions to socially distance when they had high trust in science. These studies provide insight into why some conservatives refrain from social distancing and how we can increase their adherence to public health recommendations regarding COVID-19.

Liberals and conservatives in the United States dislike and dehumanize those on the other side. This divide leads to political stalemates, destroyed relationships, and even violence. We examined the benefits of humanizing members of the political outgroup by providing people with humanizing information—cues that signal a person’s cognitive and emotional complexity. We examined the effectiveness of humanizing information in three preregistered experiments (N = 1389). Study 1 tested whether learning humanizing information about an outgroup member would reduce bias towards them, relative to a control containing only political information. Study 2 sought to replicate this effect by comparing the humanizing information to a control that contained non-humanizing individuating information. Study 3 tested this effect in the timely context of social media feeds, while also testing whether the benefits of learning humanizing information extended to additional members of the outgroup. Each methodology revealed that, compared to those who read non-humanizing controls, participants who learned humanizing information about a political outgroup member were less hostile and more empathic toward that outgroup member. All three studies also provided evidence that judging the outgroup member as more human contributed to this reduction in bias. Further, Study 3 revealed that the benefits of humanizing information extended to members of the outgroup that were connected to the humanized member. The current studies thus identify a promising avenue for reducing interparty hostility.