Historical narratives about the COVID-19 pandemic are motivationally biased

Abstract

How people recall the SARS-CoV2 pandemic is likely to prove crucial in future societal debates on pandemic preparedness and appropriate political action. Beyond simple forgetting, previous research suggests that recall may be distorted by strong motivations and anchoring perceptions on the current situation. [1][2][3][4][5][6] Here, based on four studies across 11 countries (total N = 10,776), we show that recall of perceived risk, trust in institutions and protective behaviours depended strongly on current evaluations. While both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals were affected by this bias, people who identified strongly with their vaccination status-whether vaccinated or unvaccinated-tended to exhibit greater and, importantly, opposite distortions of recall. Biased recall was not reduced by providing information about common recall errors or small monetary incentives for accurate recall, but partially by high incentives. Thus, it seems that motivation and identity influence the direction in which the recall of the past is distorted. Biased recall was further related to the evaluation of past political action and future behavioural intent, including adhering to regulations during a future pandemic or punishing politicians and scientists. Taken together, the findings indicate that historical narratives about the COVID-19 pandemic are motivationally biased, sustain societal polarization and affect preparation for future pandemics. Consequently, future measures must look beyond immediate public health implications to the longer-term consequences for societal cohesion and trust.

Asymmetric affective polarization regarding COVID-19 vaccination in six European countries

“…The debate about the benefits of vaccination and vaccine mandates was highly politicized during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous research also suggests that divisions based on vaccination status emerged during the pandemic 1 – 3 . Thus, we consider it likely that the issue of COVID-19 triggered opinion-based group identification, as it was highly salient at the time and prompted individuals to take sides during this watershed public health crisis 16 .…”

“…However, the vaccination efforts have not unfolded without controversy. Initially seen as a unifying element against the disease, the vaccine has paradoxically become a source of contention that continues to divide societies even after the pandemic has lost its threat 1 – 3 . While a majority of people supported and received the vaccine, a consistent minority refused it 2 , 4 , 5 .…”

The Scabbard of Excalibur: An Allegory on the Role of an Efficient and Effective Healthcare System under Universal Health Coverage during the Pandemic Response

“…Therefore, how people recall the COVID-19 pandemic may be crucial in future societal debates on pandemic preparedness and appropriate political action [25,26].…”

Experimental testing of three categorization‐based interventions to reduce prejudice and discrimination against the unvaccinated in the aftermath of COVID‐19

“…While the need for restrictive measures decreased with the emergence of the Omicron variants, these two broad groups remain polarized (Henkel et al, 2023); for instance, one online poll in the US revealed that 61% of vaccinated respondents would refuse to work with an unvaccinated coworker if afforded that option (Paczka, 2022). This polarization may not only disturb individual interactions, but it may also affect cohesion, trust, and health on a societal level (Sprengholz et al, 2023b). For instance, unvaccinated individuals who face prejudice and discrimination by vaccinated individuals may suffer from decreased wellbeing, lose important relationships, surround and radicalize themselves with like-minded people and oppose future recommendations from health authorities they feel are favoring vaccinated over unvaccinated people.…”