The role of ingroup assortative sociality in the COVID-19 pandemic: A multilevel analysis of google trends data in the United States

Heightened religiosity proactively and reactively responds to the COVID-19 pandemic across the globe: Novel insights from the parasite-stress theory of sociality and the behavioral immune system theory

“…On the one hand, BIS reactive responses are activated when pathogen cues are made salient ( Culpepper et al, 2018 , Karwowski et al, 2020 , Schaller et al, 2015 , Tybur et al, 2011 , Wu et al, 2015 ). As exposing to pathogen cues (e.g., dirty objects) increased individuals’ in-group bias ( Faulkner et al, 2004 , Navarrete and Fessler, 2006 , Wu and Chang, 2012 ), valuing strong in-group assortative sociality could be a BIS reactive response ( Ma, 2022 , Ma and Ye, 2021b ). On the other hand, some BIS responses are more proactive ( Schaller et al, 2015 ).…”

“…Given that features of in-group assortative sociality (e.g., xenophobia) are adaptive anti-pathogen strategies developed under localized host-parasite coevolutionary races ( Fincher & Thornhill, 2012 ), strong in-group assortative sociality functions as a social defensive mechanism for reducing transmissible risks of novel infectious diseases in the long run ( Morand & Walther, 2018 ). Thus, heightened in-group assortative sociality could be a BIS proactive response ( Ma, 2022 , Ma and Ye, 2021b ).…”

“…Meanwhile, regions valuing strong in-group assortative sociality (e.g., collectivism) had better control of the novel coronavirus ( Canatay et al, 2021 , Gokmen et al, 2021 , Liu, 2021 , Maaravi et al, 2021 , Rajkumar, 2021 ). Thus, in-group assortative sociality could reactively and proactively respond to the COVID-19 pandemic ( Ma, 2022 , Ma and Ye, 2021b ). Indeed, Ma and Ye (2021b) have tested the parasite-stress theory of sociality from the BIS perspective and showed that strong family ties and heightened religiosity, two extended elements of in-group assortative sociality ( Fincher & Thornhill, 2012 ), significantly and negatively predicted COVID-19 severity across American states.…”

“…Thus, in-group assortative sociality could reactively and proactively respond to the COVID-19 pandemic ( Ma, 2022 , Ma and Ye, 2021b ). Indeed, Ma and Ye (2021b) have tested the parasite-stress theory of sociality from the BIS perspective and showed that strong family ties and heightened religiosity, two extended elements of in-group assortative sociality ( Fincher & Thornhill, 2012 ), significantly and negatively predicted COVID-19 severity across American states. Using Google Trends, a big data tool which is frequently employed to track the public interests on specific topics during the pandemic ( Adam-Troian and Bagci, 2021 , Ma, 2022 , Ma and Ye, 2021a , Ma and Ye, 2021b ), Ma and Ye (2021b) found that increases in collective concerns regarding the threat of COVID-19 predicted increases in American people’s interests in searching for information related to family ties and religions.…”

“…Using Google Trends, a big data tool which is frequently employed to track the public interests on specific topics during the pandemic ( Adam-Troian and Bagci, 2021 , Ma, 2022 , Ma and Ye, 2021a , Ma and Ye, 2021b ), Ma and Ye (2021b) found that increases in collective concerns regarding the threat of COVID-19 predicted increases in American people’s interests in searching for information related to family ties and religions. Importantly, heightened religiosity, compared with strong family ties, was more strongly related to the COVID-19 pandemic ( Ma & Ye, 2021b ). This finding suggests that religions have their own unique functions during the deadly pandemic.…”