Tell me what you are like and I will tell you what you believe in: Social representations of COVID-19 in the Americas, Europe and Asia

Papers on Social Representations Volume 29, Issue 2, pages 2.1-2.38 (2020) Peer Reviewed Online Journal ISSN 1021-5573 © 2020 The Authors [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] Tell me what you are like and I will tell you what you believe in: Social representations of COVID-19 in the Americas, Europe and Asia JOSÉ J. PIZARRO1, HUSEYIN CAKAL2, LANDER MÉNDEZ1, SILVIA DA COSTA1, LARRAITZ N. ZUMETA1, MARCELA GRACIA-LEIVA1, NEKANE BASABE1, GINÉS NAVARRO-CARRILLO3, ANA-MARIA CAZAN4, SAEED KESHAVARZI5, WILSON LÓPEZ-LÓPEZ6, ILLIA YAHIIAIEV7, CAROLINA ALZUGARAY-PONCE8, LORETO VILLAGRÁN9, EMILIO MOYANO-DÍAZ10, NEBOJŠA PETROVIĆ11, ANDERSON MATHIAS12, ELZA M. TECHIO13, ANNA WLODARCZYK14, LAURA ALFAROBERACOECHEA15, MANUEL L. IBARRA16, CHARIS PSALTIS17, ANDREAS MICHAEL17, SUMEET MHASKAR18, GONZALO MARTÍNEZ-ZELAYA19, MARIAN BILBAO20, GISELA DELFINO21, CATARINA L. CARVALHO22, ISABEL R. PINTO22, FALAK ZEHRA MOHSIN23, AGUSTÍN ESPINOSA24, ROSA MARÍA CUETO24, and STEFANO CAVALLI25 1 University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Spain 2 Keele University, UK 3 University of Jaén, Spain 4 Transilvania University of Brasov, Department of Psychology, Education and Teacher Training, Romania 5 Shiraz University, Iran 6 Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia 7 Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine 8 Universidad Santo Tomás, Chile 9 Universidad de Concepción, Chile 10 Universidad de Talca, Chile Correspondence should be addressed to: José J. Pizarro at jose.pizarro@ehu.eus 2.1 11 Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Serbia 12 University of Paraíba, Brazil 13 Federal University of Bahia, Brazil 14 Universidad Católica del Norte, Chile 15 University of Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico 16 Autonomous University of Mexico State, Mexico 17 University of Cyprus, Cyprus 18 O. P. Jindal Global University, India 19 Universidad Viña del Mar, Chile 20 Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chile 21 Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina, Argentina 22 University of Porto, Portugal 23 Department of Social Sciences and Liberal Arts, Institute of Business Administration, Pakistan 24 Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Perú 25 University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Switzerland This study analyzes the range and content of Social Representations (SRs) about the COVID-19 pandemic in 21 geographical zones from 17 countries in the Americas, Europe and Asia (N = 4430). Based on Social Representations Theory, as well as the psychosocial consequences of pandemics and crises, we evaluate the perceptions of severity and risks, the agreement with different SRs, and participants’ Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA). Different sets of beliefs are discussed as SRs, together with their prevalence and association with contextual variables. Results show that severity and risk perceptions were associated with different SRs of the pandemic. Specifically, those focused on Emerging Externalizing zoonotic and ecological factors (the virus is due to Chinese unhygienic habits and the overexploitation of the planet), Polemic Conspiracies (the virus is a weapon), views of Elite and Mass Villains (the elites deceive us and profit with the pandemic), and Personal Responsibility (the neglectful deserves contagion) during the pandemic. Furthermore, most of the SRs are anchored in SDO and, more strongly, in RWA orientations. Additional meta-analyses and multi-level regressions show that the effects are replicated in most geographical areas and that risk perception was a consistent explanatory variable, even after controlling for demographics and ‘real risk’ Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.2 (i.e., actual numbers of contagion and death). Results suggest that, while coping with and making sense of the pandemic, authoritarian subjects agree with SR that feed a sense of social control and legitimize outgroup derogation, and support punishment of ingroup lowstatus deviants. Keywords: COVID-19, Social Representations, Conspiracy Beliefs, Risk Perception, Socio-political orientations A large volume of studies evidence the negative impact of a pandemic, and of people’s physical isolation, on various forms of well-being; moreover, studies show how a pandemic forces the mobilization of diverse resources to cope with the situation (Brooks et al., 2020; Taylor, 2019). The current COVID-19 pandemic produced by the SARS-CoV-2 virus – commonly known as Coronavirus – in addition to the confinement of a third of the world population in their homes, is an unusual and unprecedented experience for the vast majority. Therefore, different pleas have been made stressing the importance of knowledge for efficient forms of coping (e.g., Sigurvinsdottir, Thorisdottir & Gylfason, 2020), as well as the necessity of multidisciplinary approaches to better understand the pandemic’s scope (Chew, Wei, Vasoo, Chua, & Sim, 2020; Holmes et al., 2020; van Bavel et al., 2020). In this regard, Social Representation Theory (SRT) (Moscovici, 1984; see also Jodelet, 1984) is a particularly useful approach to understand how people experience a pandemic of this magnitude and integrate new and significant concepts, events, and realities. Social Representations (SRs) are oriented toward communicating and understanding the social environment, and have specific characteristics regarding their content and the mental operations that they require (Jodelet, 1984). Understood as a product, SRs are the mental models groups share. As a process, conversely, they are the way these shared models are generated through interpersonal and intergroup communication (Abric, 1993; Pérez, 2004). This article explores different SRs of the COVID-19 pandemic that have been shared through mass media and social networks. It also seeks to understand how these SRs are associated with the perception of risk felt by people in different countries and geographical regions, as well as with variables of a socio-political nature. Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.3 SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS OF COVID-19 In health-related domains, SRs are constantly formed and shared by using information from past situations. In particular, it can be seen how people develop and transmit infectious diseases, finding connections with different elements of the disease in general or a pandemic in particular (Eicher & Bangerter, 2015). Considering the COVID-19 pandemic, and taking into account the great variety of domains it affects (e.g., social, labor, economic, cultural; van Bavel et al., 2020), there is a generalized and ongoing perception of threat, fear of infection, and distrust of the unknown. As Wagner and Hayes (2005) indicate, SRs act as collective forms of symbolic coping. Beginning of hegemonic Social Representations On the one hand, the transmission of information by the World Health Organization (WHO), diverse governments, mass media and social networks is a source for lay thinking or commonsense beliefs. In this context, the modality of information dissemination favors the unconscious imitation of what other people do or think (Pérez, 2004), and people in power (i.e., those in prestigious positions, such as local leaders) become a source of imitation (Henrich & McElreath, 2007). Consequently, the fear of an infectious disease boosts conformism in a community (Murray & Schaller, 2016), creating a social rejection ethos to those who act or behave in a different form. Majoritarian opinion is thus established and helps to reduce uncertainty, offer solutions, and reinforce social cohesion and ingroup solidarity (Páez & Pérez, 2020). In addition, it is manifested across several contexts; for instance, in the unanimity among political parties, social agents or, at least, a generalized absence of criticism. A hegemonic representation of COVID-19 as a viral pandemic became dominant (see Cinelli et al., 2020). Opposition to hegemony: Emerging Social Representations Scientific discourses are assimilated and recreated in the common sense. Along with hegemonic SRs, emerging and even polemic SRs are generated, thus maintaining significance while adapting to realities that are more concrete. Emerging SRs are based on information propagation, which emphasize different views without the intrinsic necessity of contradiction. Conversely, polemic SRs are primarily based on propaganda, social conflicts, and value-related contradictions (Páez & Pérez, 2020), which in turn can undermine the possibility of true engagement with alternative representations (Gillespie, 2008). This process is characterized by the mechanisms of Anchoring and Objectification that intervene in the elaboration of collective Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.4 symbolic productions, which allow individuals to face the negative emotional charge that is produced (e.g., uncertainty, fear, anxiety). Anchoring refers to the mechanism by which non-expert thinking, through pre-existing metaphors and categories, transforms what is new or strange into something familiar (see Abric, 1996). In the case of epidemics, a link is established between a new disease and previous ones through this anchorage mechanism, which integrates the understanding of the new disease by framing it within previous ones (Jaspal & Nerlich, 2020; Sherlaw & Raude, 2013). Closely related, objectification is the process through which lay thought schematizes and materializes allowing SRs to occur (Abric, 1993, 1996). In Barlett’s (1995) terms, it is the simplification and concretion of information to make something ‘visible’. Through objectification, discourses are selectively assimilated and new and integrative discourses are created. Some attributes are selected, unified, and integrated into a figurative pattern (Vala & Castro, 2017). For the time being, the mask and the generalization of its use appear as the pandemic’s prototypical image (e.g., Jaspal, & Nerlich, 2020). Besides making the strange familiar, and decreasing anxiety (Thalgott, 1986), anchoring also serves to defend collective self-esteem (Páez & Pérez, 2020) by linking the disease to outgroups, such as immigrants or the stigmatized. This is seen in Reny and Barreto’s (2020) study showing unfavorable feelings toward Asian Americans and, in particular, the Chinese in a scenario where US president Donald Trump has constantly blamed these social groups directly and indirectly. This is congruent with what has been found in various studies on Ebola, AIDS and the H1N1 bird flu. The disease is linked to an ‘other’ or outgroup, distant from the social identity of the person interviewed: ‘the African’ for the British (Ebola or AIDS) and the ‘mainland Chinese’ for people in Hong Kong (H1N1) (Smith, O’Connor & Joffe, 2015). In the current scenario, thus, a controversial SR of COVID-19 as a Chinese foreign disease emerged and has been sustained by the propaganda actions of governments such as the United States (see Chiu, 2020). In addition to politically driven misinformation and propaganda, a scientific discourse that gave rise to this anchoring process was that of COVID-19 as a zoonosis: a disease that is transmitted from animals to humans.1 1 This argument is explicit in a piece of news that was found in many different news websites. The news alerted about a large reservoir of SARS-CoV-2-like viruses in bats, along with the culture of eating exotic mammals in southern China, suggesting it is a time bomb. This was published by scientists at the State Key Laboratory of Emerging Infectious Diseases at the University of Hong Kong in Clinical Microbiology Reviews, in October 2007 (Cheng, Lau, Woo, & Kwok, 2007). Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.5 Previous studies on epidemics have shown that these external – and often subordinate – groups are considered responsible for unhygienic and/or immoral practices or conspiracies to spread the disease (Eicher & Bangerter, 2015). In England, the British media, when reporting on SARS or previous viral zoonosis, tended to explain the diseases’ appearances in China, appealing to the group’s hygienic and culinary habits, such as eating ‘exotic’ animals and the tendency to spit on the floor (Eicher & Bangerter, 2015; Smith, O’Connor & Joffe, 2015). The zoonotic character of COVID-19 activated the image or social representation of the unhygienic or ‘disgusting’ practices of the Chinese – from a mainstream Western view – such as eating wild animals (e.g., pangolins, bats), from which viruses are transmitted and adapted to humans. These behaviors are portrayed as a deviation from the Western spirit of self-control, which is in line with the stereotypes of non-Western cultural groups – or stigmatized groups within Western society – lacking the instrumentality to justify their inferior status. Therefore, stigmatization toward China has spread in many countries (Roberto, Johnson, & Rauhaus, 2020), and has even reached scientific circles (Zeng, Wang & Zhang, 2020). This zoonotic representation of China, in addition to distancing the infectious disease, opposes the ‘civilized self’ against the ‘primitive self’ found in representations of HIV/AIDS around the world (Joffe & Staerkle, 2007).2 This antagonism is also in line with several different theoretical models that clearly describe a marked orientation of human beings to preserve the ingroup (see Burke & Stets, 2000, for Social Identity Theory), which is stronger when death becomes more salient (see Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 1991, for Terror Management Theory; see also Murray & Schaller, 2016, for the Behavioral Immune System). Another important discourse has given rise to representations aimed at just punishment for what humans have done to the planet. In several interviews, the renowned anthropologist Jane Goodall has blamed the abuse of natural resources as the primary reason for this pandemic: “It’s because we disregard our place in the natural world and we disrespect the environment 2 Chan and Montt’s (2020) newspaper article accurately describes the arguments described above regarding this pandemic. The division between ‘us’ and ‘you’ in the US and China has consequences beyond the two countries, because for many observers, the ‘war’ is between the West and the East. On the one hand, China is criticized for censoring doctors who wanted to warn the government and citizens of the pandemic, while at the same time, the Chinese culture is blamed for eating bats and other unusual animals that have been suggested as the cause of the spread of the virus. Even for some people who do not hold these opinions, Eastern culture – which sometimes contrasts, and sometimes equates Chinese people, the Chinese government, and communism – should change its savagery and its orientation towards authoritarianism. Indeed, this was even suggested by Mario Vargas Llosa who put it this way: “none of this could be happening in the world if People's China was a free and democratic country and not the dictatorship that it is” (Chan & Montt, 2020, para. 4). The perception is that China is an epicenter of disease or the place where viruses ‘belong’ and according to this logic, what happened in China and Asia would not happen in Europe or the Americas. Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.6 and animals that COVID-19 happened” (Wray, 2020, para. 3). The disease is thus attributed to modern social structures and practices (e.g., mass tourism and over-exploitation of wildlife). In turn, this SR can be anchored in post-materialistic values (e.g., see Steel, Lovrich, & Pierce, 2005) and in the differentiation between ecological, civilized vegan and clean (i.e., ‘we’) and environmentally irresponsible, carnivorous and dirty (i.e., ‘they’) – the ingroup-outgroup differentiation. Conspiracy-related Social Representations From a more polemic and conspiracy-related viewpoint, political propaganda has also proposed that the virus is a biological weapon generated by the United States (or China) to weaken China and the European Union (or the United States) (Agence France-Presse & Agencia EFE-Pekín, 2020). Other SRs emphasize similar ideas related to the pandemic and blame powerful groups from abroad for a conspiracy. These SRs focus on beliefs about the manipulative role of governments, big pharmaceutical companies, and the utilitarian use of the pandemic to provide a ‘solution’ for different social problems that have appeared 3 . All in all, during seriously threatening and uncertain times, people need explanations to these phenomena and thus, conspiracy SRs are born and spread to give meaning to those happenings (Franks, Bangerter, & Bauer, 2013). By doing so, they can gain a sense of control. In fact, conspiracy beliefs are associated with psychosocial traits and motivational goals. For instance, anxiety (Grzesiak-Feldman, 2013); the need to exercise control over one’s social environment (Knight, 2000); the need to make sense of the world (Ali, 2020); or with obedience and agreement with authoritarian policies, a mentality rooted in traditional values, and a general opposition towards governmental establishment (Imhoff & Lamberty, 2020). This latter orientation – Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) (see Duckitt, Bizumic, Krauss, & Heled, 2010) – is further linked to the belief on the existence of deviated and high power group members, such as Jewish or communists. In addition, Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) (i.e., the preference for maintenance of inequality among social groups; see Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994) is also associated with conspiracy theories, particularly those implying deviations of low-status members (e.g., homosexuals or ethnic minorities) since they also threaten the status quo (Goreis & Voracek, 2019). 3 In the French case, these theories of the plot can be appreciated in this journalistic note of Febbro (2020), where the author describes the union of shared sensations of deception and conspiracy, the (Jewish) plot of big pharmaceutical companies and the possibility of future coups d'état. Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.7 Heroes and villains in Social Representations Previous studies suggest that, in crises such as epidemics, heroes, villains and victims are commonly personified through the application of the common narrative scheme of folktales, which is a cultural tool available in all societies (Páez & Pérez, 2020). Heroes are scientific experts (e.g., epidemiologists and researchers) and health-care personnel, who are mainly perceived as credible, trustworthy, and carrying the burden of healing the sick (Martín-Aragón & Terol-Cantero, 2020). This objectification is present in the current pandemic. However, in some cases, the labels have been exchanged. For instance, a polemic physician openly promoted campaigns against governmental plans (see Febbro, 2020), and health-care workers have been stigmatized and discriminated against as a risk factor, just as has happened in previous pandemics (Taylor, 2019). On the one hand, the villains, for many, are the journalists, who are accused of using fear for their own interests, and perceived as subordinates of the powerful (e.g., Idoiaga Mondragon, Gil de Montes & Valencia, 2016). The media is also accused of stirring up fear, panic, and collective hysteria, and spreading sensational news to gain a larger audience. On the other hand, the role of the villains is also attributed to businessmen in general and the pharmaceutical industry in particular, who profit from the sale of preventive and curative materials and vaccines (Páez & Pérez, 2020). Finally, critical representations of the government for the mismanagement of new threats to human health, for the corruption and the concealment of the problem and/or the limitations of resources to prevent and cure the spread of the disease are frequent – although more in some countries than in others (Washer, 2006). These critical representations of the economic, media and political elites have been manifested during the COVID-19 pandemic and have been also influenced by misinformation and propaganda. Nonetheless, there is a great deal of consensus in believing that governments reacted late, badly, with a significant cost in human lives, and an overburdening of health workers (Martín-Aragón & Terol-Cantero, 2020). Finally, the actual people who are suffering and dealing with the pandemic can be portrayed in terms of villains versus heroes. In critical phases of pandemics, predictions and descriptions of panic are issued, and it is suggested that we are facing a collective lack of control. The selfish and irrational behavior of many people (e.g., panic buying and subsequent shortages, such as toilet paper) is criticized, and cases of excessive shopping and riots are named and shamed (Eicher & Bangerter, 2015). This negative and LeBonian view of the masses legitimizes Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.8 social control and the need for authoritarian government intervention (Páez & Pérez, 2020; Sabucedo, Alzate, & Hur, 2020), and permeates scientific discourses4. Conversely, there is also the generation of a discourse of collective resilience, with an emphasis on prosocial behaviors, an absence of panic and selfishness, and an emphasis on solidarity and self-control (Chen & Bonanno, 2020; Smith, Ng & Ho Cheung Li, 2020). In all, this last thought line would undoubtedly attribute the causes of disease to individual behaviors and responsibilities (see Moscovici, 2020). As health systems inform people of what they should do to avoid contagion, they reinforce the belief of individual responsibility for health/disease. This happens regardless of the actual effectiveness of the preventive behaviours and the difficulties that people may have (e.g., due to their living conditions) in carrying them out (i.e., maintaining physical distance, regular handwashing, etc.). The person who is careless and has little control will be considered ‘a full-blown villain’, and in this sense, the label of ‘bad person’ has been used extensively, even to the point of public lynching amid growing tensions (Montalto Monela & Crowcroft, 2020). THE PRESENT RESEARCH This study seeks to answer the following questions: How does the current COVID-19 pandemic affect the SRs held by people from different parts of the world? Further, what are the variables that can explain this relationship? The first general objective seeks to understand the prevalence and structures of beliefs and their relationship to contextual variables – particularly, the subjectively felt severity. We propose (H1) the psychological anchoring of representations in the perception of threat (i.e., the perception of impact and subjective risk) will be associated with the SRs of the pandemic, particularly externalizing, conspiracy and elite and mass villains SRs. In addition, anchoring in sociopolitical values and orientations will be examined; concretely, we propose (H2) that SDO and RWA beliefs are positively associated with the SRs of the pandemic – particularly, externalizing, conspiracy and elite political and mass villains SRs – and negatively with the heroic mass representations. In the latter, we do foresee a particular relationship between RWA and the elite economic villains because of its characteristic economic conservatism. Finally (H3), we will contrast whether the perception of impact, severity and risk, as well as sociopolitical beliefs, predict agreement with the externalizing and 4 Van Bavel and colleagues (2020) outline the fact that, in the context of this pandemic, there could be even further spreading of conspiracy theories, fake news and misinformation. A somewhat similar line is discussed in Salas’ (2020) article, where the author presents how different biases affect people even though they are more likely to be attributed to laypeople. Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.9 conspiratorial SRs, and those of the elite and mass villains of the pandemic, controlling for the interrelationship between the variables and the real threat (i.e., number of infections and deaths). The pre-registration of these hypotheses can be consulted at https://osf.io/dp5zt METHOD Participants and Design The final sample consisted of 4,430 participants (M = 34.05, SD = 14.23, 66.45% female, 30.45% male, and 3.09% who identified as non-binary or did not want to respond) from 21 different geographical zones (17 countries) from the Americas, Europe and Asia (see Supplementary Table A). Participants took in a survey (see https://osf.io/es8qx/ for materials) conducted via the online platform Qualtrics. Data collection was conducted in the participants’ languages (10 different languages), primarily during May 2020, and took about 25 minutes. The present analyses only include data from participants who completed at least 70% of the survey. Instruments We assessed Impact and Severity Perception with 3 items (ω = .74; e.g., ‘Do you feel that your life was disrupted by the coronavirus pandemic?’ or ‘Has this pandemic marked a turning point in your life?’), on a 7-point scale (1 = Not at all; 7 = Severely)5. Risk Perception related to COVID-19 was measured by a two-factor structure (ω = .66). The first 4 items aimed at examining the infection-related risks (e.g., ‘I am afraid of falling ill with the coronavirus, or I am afraid I would pass it on to others’). On the other hand, the consequence-related anxiety was measured with 3 items (e.g., ‘I am worried of losing my job and/or that a close one does’, or ‘I am worried about having more conflicts with someone in my household’). They were measured on a 7-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree). Agreement with Social Representations of COVID-19 was evaluated by 15 items, on a 5-point scale (1 = Completely disagree; 5 = Completely agree). The set of beliefs were proposed from the literature review and were grouped in the following types: (a) Hegemonic Viral (1 item: ‘The virus is an infectious disease generated by the mutation of a virus’); (b) Emerging Externalizing Zoonotic Chinese (1 item: ‘The virus is a product of the unhygienic habits of We conducted McDonald’s Omega (1999) for reliability analyses due to its sensibility to recognize possible sub-dimensions in the constructs analyzed which were previously explored through parallel and exploratory factor analyses. 5 Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.10 eating wild animals such as bats in China’) and Ecological (1 item: ‘The virus is a product of the overexploitation of the planet’); (c) Polemic Conspiracy (2 items, ω = 0.74; ‘The virus is used to kill old people and ‘fix’ the retirement problem’ and ‘The virus is a biological weapon created by one superpower to attack another’); (d) Objectification on Political Elite Villains (3 items, ω = 0.62: ‘The government deceives us and hides information about the Coronavirus’, ‘The problems are the product of corruption by government officials who have squandered the money’ and ‘Ineffective hospital management has exacerbated the coronavirus pandemic’); (e) Objectification on Economic Elite Villains (3 items, ω = 0.73: ‘The pharmaceutical industry is taking advantage of the Coronavirus epidemic to make money’, ‘Entrepreneurs in general and in the pharmaceutical industry in particular are making money from the sale of medical equipment at the price of gold’, and ‘The media feeds fear, giving negative and alarmist news in order to have more audience’); (f) Objectification on Mass or Underdog Villains (1 item: ‘People have acted selfishly and irrationally (e.g., excessive purchases, hoarding resources, etc.)’); g) Objectification on Mass Heroes or Collective Resilience (2 items; ω = 0.60: ‘People have respected the rules of hygiene and social distance’ and ‘People have been supportive and have helped others’); and finally, (g) Personal Responsibility (1 item: ‘The neglectful person, who does not respect the rules of hygiene and social distance, receives what he deserves if he gets sick’). We evaluated Social Dominance Orientation (Pratto et al., 1994) through 3 items (ω = .65, e.g., ‘It's ok if some groups have more of a chance in life than others’) on a scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). Right-Wing Authoritarianism (Duckitt et al., 2010) was measured as follows: through 2 items we evaluated the individual orientation to support and submit to authorities that employ hostility and aggression to people (ω = .73, e.g., ‘Our society needs a tougher government and stricter laws’). Finally, we asked for general Demographic information. We also accompanied the survey with questions about gender (1 = Male, 2 = Female, 3 = Non-binary, 4 = I don’t want to respond), age, and education (1 = Less than 6 years, 2 = Primary school, 3 = Secondary school, 4 = University, no degree, 5 = University graduated, 6 = Master, 7 = Doctor). Data Analysis First, to examine organization of the beliefs, we assessed the factorial structures of the used scales through parallel analysis, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFAs and CFAs), as well as their reliability (McDonald’s Omega). Then, t-test pairs and mean comparisons were Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.11 carried out to examine prevalence of beliefs. Third, correlational analyses were conducted between belief, and individual and contextual variables. Fourth, correlations between impact or perceived risk and the SRs were meta-analyzed using a random model. Finally, we predicted the agreement with the SRs in different multi-level regression models. All analyses were conducted both in SPSSS.25 and in R (R Core Team, 2014) with RStudio (RStudioTeam, 2015). For CFAs and reliability analysis, we used the packages lavaan (Rosseel, 2014) and semTools (Jorgensen, Pornprasertmanit, Schoemann & Rosseel, 2019). For correlations, apaTables (Stanley, 2018) was used; for meta-analysis, metafor (Viechtbauer, 2015) was used; for multilevel-analyses, lme4 (Bates et al., 2014) was used; and for recursive binary partitioning, party (Hothorn, Hornik & Zeileis, 2006) was used (supplementary analyses can be seen at https://osf.io/p8ycx). RESULTS Severity Impact and Risk Perception Figure 1 shows the distribution of responses of Severity and Risk Perceptions for the complete sample. A great proportion of participants stated that the pandemic has had a severe impact in their lives (more than 50% scoring 4.3 or higher). Furthermore, most participants indicate higher scores regarding the fear of the infection (e.g., being infected or infecting others, with more than the 50% scoring 4.25 or higher), than the consequences to lose their job or having more arguments in their household (more than 50% with 3 or less). Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.12 Figure 1. Perceptions of Severity and Risk Perception (SP and RP, respectively) about the COVID19 pandemic. SP1 Item SP2 SP1. Life disruption SP3 SP2. Traumatic experience SP4 SP3. Turning point RP1 SP4. Total RP2 RP1. Fear of contagion RP2. Little control RP3 RP3. Surviving unlikelihood RP4 RP4. Fear of infect others RP5 RP5. Risk acceptance RP6 RP6. Worry of unemployment RP7 RP7. Worry of conflicts household RP8. Worry of domestic violence RP8 RP9. Infection-related (total) RP9 RP10. Worry-related (total) RP10 RP11. Total RP11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean of agreement N = 4430, from 21 different regions (17 countries). The dotted line marks the scale mid-point. As seen in Figure 1, and despite most responses indicating that COVID-19 has marked their lives (i.e., Item SP1) and that they have fears of a possible contagion, most people agree that they do not think they would die in case of being infected (i.e., item RP3). It is interesting to point out that there is indeed a significant number of participants who indicate being worried about conflicts in their household, and – though to a lesser extent – about suffering from domestic violence. Regarding the content of SRs, Supplementary Table B shows descriptive analyses for each item regarding beliefs of SRs. The scale construction – based on parallel analysis, EFAs and CFAs – allowed grouping these SRs as described in the Instrument section, and can be compared based on word regions in Figure 2. Level of Agreement with SRs To examine the prevalence of beliefs, descriptive analyses and paired t-test comparisons were performed between the sample mean and the theoretical mean (i.e., 3), as well as between beliefs. The results show that people (see Supplementary Table B for items’ means and standard deviations) agree with the dominant hegemonic representation that COVID-19 is a viral disease Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.13 (67 % according to scores 4 and 5; t = 49.65, p < .0001) and disagree with the Chinese Zoonotic SRs (i.e., product of the unhygienic habits of eating wild animals: 34.5% agree, t = -22.54, p < .0001). However, there is neither agreement nor disagreement with an Emerging Ecological SR (i.e., overexploitation of the planet: 39% agree; t = 1.64, p = .10). In addition, participants express general disagreement with controversial conspiracy SR as a biological weapon (i.e., virus as a biological weapon: 26% agree; t = -22.54, p < .0001) and as a way to ‘solve problems’ (i.e., used to kill old people: 16% agree; t = -49.06, p < .0001). With respect to the SRs of objectification in Political Elite Villains, there was a slight majority agreement with two items (i.e., government deceives us: 52% agreement; t = 21.51, p < .0001; and the problems are the product of corruption: 52% agreement, t = 23.32, p < .0001) and an important agreement with another (i.e., ineffective hospital management: 46% agreement; t = 11.12, p < .0001). With regard to the SRs of Objectification Economic Elite Villains, there was majority agreement on all items (i.e., The pharmaceutical industry profiting: 57% agreement; t =30.74, p < .0001; Entrepreneurs in general and in the pharmaceutical industry in particular profiting: 67% agreement; t =55.7, p < .0001; and The media feeds fear: 63% agreement; t = 41.7, p < .0001). With respect to the RRSS objectified in the masses as villains (i.e., people acted selfishly and irrationally) there was majority agreement (68% agreement; t = 57.14, p < .0001). Regarding SRs of objectified masses as heroes, people were discouraged from respecting hygiene rules and social distance (24% agreement; t = -15.38), although there was relative agreement that people were supportive and helped others (48% agreement; t = 28.21, p < .0001). Finally, regarding the individualistic representation of responsibility within the pandemic, there was general disagreement (28% agreement; t = -47.88, p < .0001) – exploratory models that predict the highest scores (i.e., Totally agree vs the rest) through recursive binary partitioning can be seen in the supplementary materials. As a general tendency (Figure 2), we observe that participants from the Americas (i.e., Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru) present the highest means of agreement with SRs about all the pandemic Villains, the worst perception of people and an above-themean score regarding individual responsibility. In contrast, participants from the South of Europe (i.e., Italy, Portugal and Spain) are those with the greatest agreement with a positive view of people (i.e., Mass Heroes) and the lowest agreement with Polemic externalizing and conspiracy SRs and about individual responsibility. Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.14 Figure 2. Agreement with the different types of Social Representations by world regions. Mean of agreement 5 4 3 2 1 He g em on i cV ira l E m erg ing E m erg ing -E xte r n a liz ing -E c loog ica l Po lem i cC on s pir ac y El ite V illa ins -P oli ti ca l El ite V illa ins Type of Social Representations U n de rdo g V illa ins -E c o no m ic C lo le cti ve Re is lie nc e. Pe rs . Re sp on s ab ilit y N = 4430, from 21 different regions (17 countries). The dotted line marks the scale mid-point. Error bars represent the 95% CI on the mean. Americas World region South Europe East and Southeast Europe South Asia West Asia 2.15 Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Gender1 - - 2. Age 34.05 14.23 -.07** 3. Ed. Lvl. 4.76 1.16 -.00 .36** 4. New cases2 47.23 80.26 -.01 -.11** -.15** 5. New deaths2 1.89 3.78 .04** -.03 6. Sub. Per. 4.42 1.49 .04* 7. Risk Per. 3.75 1.01 .05** -.09** -.08** .17** .08** .41** 8. SRs HV 3.86 1.17 .03 -.00 9. EEx 2.86 1.38 -.02 -.12** -.06** .01 -.01 .09** .13** .08** 10. EEc 3.03 1.39 .03* .04* .01 .10** .13** .14** .25** 11. PC 2.29 1.20 .05** -.04* -.12** .06** -.04** .12** .10** -.07** -.07** .02 12. EVP 3.39 1.05 .04* -.13** -.10** .18** .08** .10** .19** .07** .02 .13** .29** 13. EVE 3.78 0.98 .03 -.01 .11** .31** .44** 14. UV 3.94 1.10 .05** -.19** -.08** .07** -.02 15. CR 3.09 0.83 .05** .17** .13** -.14** -.04* -.00 16. PR 2.64 1.38 -.07** -.02 17. SDO 2.27 1.27 -.12** -.09** -.05** -.10** -.13** -.08** -.01 18. RWA 3.58 1.85 .02 13 14 15 16 17 -.05** .47** .07** .00 .04* .09** .08** .05** .04* .05** .02 -.02 .13** .02 -.08** -.03 .08** .14** .06** .09** .04** -.02 .07** .15** .11** .06** .09** .12** .21** .32** -.08** .02 -.07** .06** .08** .04* -.03* -.07** -.17** -.17** .01 .02 .02 .15** .03 -.05** -.15** -.04* -.18** .11** .04** -.00 -.08** .06** -.04** .14** -.01 .05** .02 .11** -.01 .18** .00 .11** -.03 -.01 .01 .00 .17** .03* .12** -.04* .24** .24** 2.16 Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] M Note. 1 Gender was dummy coded as 1 for Masculine and 2 for Feminine. 2 New cases and new deaths are for 1 million inhabitants. M and SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively. Risk Per. = Risk Table 1. Descriptive and Correlation Analyses of Interest Variables. Variable Perception; Sub. Per. = Subjective Perception of Risk; HV = Hegemonic Viral; EEx = Emerging Externalizing; EEc = Emerging Ecological; PC = Polemic Conspiracy; EVP = Elite Villains – Political; EVE = Elite Villains Economic; UV = Underdog Villains; CR = Collective Resilience; PR = Personal Responsibility; SDO = Social Dominance Orientation; RWA = Right-Wing Authoritarianism; Ed. Lvl. = Educational level. Values in square brackets indicate the 95% confidence interval for each correlation. * indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01. Contextual Variables, Severity and Risk Perception, SDO, RWA and SRs Correlation analyses in Table 1 shows the associations between contextual variables, Severity and Risk Perceptions, SDO and RWA with the different types of SRs. First, we can see that national rates of new cases of contagion and death during data collection was associated to Severity and Risk Perception (r = .09 and .17, respectively; ps < .01) and to most SRs. In detail, the rates are positively and significantly associated with Emerging Ecological, Political Conspiracy, Elite Villains (Politics and Economic), underdog Villains (r = .05, .06, .18, .13, and .07; ps < .01), and inversely with Collective Resilience (r = -.14; p < .01). These associations suggest the congruence between contextual objective variables and individual beliefs about the pandemic. Table 2. Meta-Analyses of the Relationship of Risk Perception and the different types of SSRRs. Meta-Analysis Type of SSRR Pooled rs [95% CI] Heterogeneity tests Hegemonic Viral .12 [.09, .15] Q(16) = 17.468, p = 0.356; I2 = 0.00% Emerging Externalizing .11 [.08, .15] Q(16) = 22.864, p = 0.117; I2= 30.77% Emerging Ecological .12 [.08, .16] Q(16) = 31.992, p = 0.010; I2= 42.55% Polemic Conspiracy .08 [.05, .12] Q(16) = 22.488, p = 0.128; I2= 29.33% Elite Villains - Political .18 [.14, .22] Q(16) = 26.309, p = 0.049; I2= 41.91% Elite Villains - Economic .10 [.06, .14] Q(16) = 30.314, p = 0.016; I2= 49.54% Underdog Villains .15 [.11, .19] Q(16) = 28.867, p = 0.025; I2= 42.96% Collective Resilience -.04 [-.07, -.01] Q(16) = 25.885, p = 0.056; I2= 10.64% Personal Responsibility .08 [.04, .11] Q(16) = 24.131, p = 0.087; I2= 18.71% Note. Analyses were performed using random-effect model across the countries (k = 17; N = 4430), using Pearson’s r as an effect size. In order to have a more precise test of H1, we conducted random-effects meta-analyses and these are summarized in Table 2. The analyses show that pooled effects are significant for each association, being the highest for the perception of Political Elite Villains and the smallest, for Collective Resilience. Homogeneity analyses with the Q and the I2 statistics further indicate Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.17 that there is no considerable source of heterogeneity in most of the associations; more specifically, in the associations with Hegemonic, Emerging Externalizing, Polemic Conspiracy, Mass Heroes (i.e., Collective Resilience) and Individual Responsibility. However, analyses do show possible sources of heterogeneity in the relationship with Emerging Ecological, Political Elite Villains, Economic Elite Villains, and Masses or Underdog Villains. The meta-analyses suggest that the most adequate way of analyzing predictive models between Risk Perception and SRs are conducted through a random model that allows for varying the relationship among the different samples (H3). Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7 show the last step of several multi-level regressions predicting agreement with SRs of COVID-19 using descriptive information (i.e., Gender, Age, Educational Level), information of real risk (i.e., New Cases and Deaths for 1 million inhabitants), Risk Perception, SDO and RWA (full analyses can be seen in supplementary materials online). Table 3. Multilevel-linear regressions: Effects of Risk Perception on Hegemonic, and Emerging Externalizing SRs. Hegemonic Viral Emerging Externalizing Variable b SE t b SE t Intercept 3.149 0.155 20.346*** 2.409 0.188 12.786*** Gender1 0.009 0.042 0.220 -0.066 0.049 -1.340 Age -0.001 0.001 -0.570 -0.009 0.002 -5.198*** 0.047 0.019 2.507* 0.012 0.022 0.531 0.000 0.000 -0.453 -0.001 0.000 -1.434 New Deaths2 0.000 0.006 -0.060 0.007 0.007 0.931 Risk Perception 0.157 0.019 8.116*** 0.143 0.023 6.246*** SDO -0.076 0.016 -4.770*** 0.050 0.019 2.651** RWA 0.037 0.011 3.216** 0.059 0.014 4.327*** BIC 12069.29 13254.59 AIC 12000.58 13185.9 -2 x Log(lh) 11978.58 13163.9 Df 11 11 R2m .028 .033 Ed. Lvl. New Cases 2 R2c .042 2 2 .067 2 Notes. R m and R c represent marginal and conditional R , respectively. 1 Gender was dummy coded as 1 for Masculine and 2 for Feminine. 2 New cases and new deaths are for 1 million inhabitants. Ed. Lvl. = Educational level; SDO = Social Dominance Orientation; RWA = Right-Wing Authoritarianism; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; -2 x Log(lh) = - 2 log likelihood. Df = Degrees of freedom. R2m and R2c = Marginal and conditional R2, respectively. The analyses were based on 3809 observations grouped in 20 different country regions. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.18 Table 4. Multilevel-linear regressions: Effects of Risk Perception on Emerging Ecological and Polemic Conspiracy SRs. Emerging Ecological Polemic Conspiracy Variable b SE t b SE t Intercept 1.741 0.184 9.467*** 1.545 0.168 9.219*** Gender1 0.150 0.0501 2.999** 0.151 0.041 3.675*** Age 0.003 0.002 1.540 0.003 0.001 1.836 Educ. Lvl. 0.077 0.022 3.445*** -0.092 0.018 -4.992*** New Cases2 0.000 0.000 0.148 0.000 0.000 0.282 New Deaths2 -0.009 0.007 -1.259 -0.010 0.006 -1.635 Risk Perception 0.169 0.023 7.306*** 0.070 0.019 3.673*** SDO -0.008 0.019 -0.430 0.104 0.016 6.586*** RWA -0.004 0.014 -0.291 0.083 0.011 7.272*** BIC 13399.64 11896.46 AIC 13330.94 11827.75 -2 x Log(lh) 13308.94 11805.75 Df 11 11 2 Rm 0.022 .052 R2c 0.034 .129 Notes. R2m and R2c represent marginal and conditional R2, respectively. 1 Gender was dummy coded as 1 for Masculine and 2 for Feminine. 2 New cases and new deaths are for 1 million inhabitants. Ed. Lvl. = Educational level; SDO = Social Dominance Orientation; RWA = Right-Wing Authoritarianism; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; -2 x Log(lh) = - 2 log likelihood. Df = Degrees of freedom. R2m and R2c = Marginal and conditional R2, respectively. The analyses were based on 3809 observations grouped in 20 different country regions. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.19 Table 5. Multilevel-linear regressions: Effects of Risk Perception on Elite Villains (Political and Economic) SRs. Elite Villains - Politic Elite Villains - Economic Variable b SE t b SE t Intercept 2.851 0.165 17.272*** 3.308 0.151 21.960*** Gender1 0.043 0.036 1.186 0.031 0.034 0.922 Age -0.006 0.001 -4.400*** 0.002 0.001 1.905 Educ. Lvl. -0.009 0.016 -0.533 -0.002 0.015 -0.143 New Cases2 0.000 0.000 -0.860 -0.001 0.000 -1.607 New Deaths2 0.000 0.005 0.088 -0.002 0.005 -0.360 Risk Perception 0.174 0.017 10.414*** 0.091 0.016 5.816*** SDO 0.013 0.014 0.950 0.015 0.013 1.196 RWA -0.006 0.010 -0.652 0.008 0.009 0.857 BIC 10873.28 10353.69 AIC 10804.57 10284.98 -2 x Log(lh) 10782.57 10262.98 Df 11 11 2 Rm .034 .011 R2c .202 .165 Notes. R2m and R2c represent marginal and conditional R2, respectively. 1 Gender was dummy coded as 1 for Masculine and 2 for Feminine. 2 New cases and new deaths are for 1 million inhabitants. Ed. Lvl. = Educational level; SDO = Social Dominance Orientation; RWA = Right-Wing Authoritarianism; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; -2 x Log(lh) = - 2 log likelihood. Df = Degrees of freedom. R2m and R2c = Marginal and conditional R2, respectively. The analyses were based on 3809 observations grouped in 20 different country regions. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.20 Table 6. Multilevel-linear regressions: Effects of Risk Perception on Underdog Villains and Collective Resilience SRs. Underdog Villains Collective Resilience Variable b SE t b SE t Intercept 3.956 0.142 27.942*** 2.663 0.113 23.571*** Gender1 0.040 0.036 1.103 0.085 0.029 2.907** Age -0.012 0.001 -9.509*** 0.007 0.001 6.298*** Educ. Lvl. -0.052 0.016 -3.174 0.048 0.013 3.696*** New Cases2 0.000 0.000 -0.493 -0.001 0.000 -2.334* New Deaths2 -0.009 0.005 -1.807 0.004 0.004 0.915 Risk Perception 0.132 0.017 7.852*** -0.025 0.014 -1.845 SDO -0.032 0.014 -2.269* 0.015 0.011 1.329 RWA 0.074 0.010 7.354*** -0.022 0.008 -2.731** BIC 10947.88 9.307.178 AIC 10879.18 9238.47 -2 x Log(lh) 10857.18 9216.47 Df 11 11 2 Rm .077 .034 R2c .124 .076 Notes. R2m and R2c represent marginal and conditional R2, respectively. 1 Gender was dummy coded as 1 for Masculine and 2 for Feminine. 2 New cases and new deaths are for 1 million inhabitants. Ed. Lvl. = Educational level; SDO = Social Dominance Orientation; RWA = Right-Wing Authoritarianism; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; -2 x Log(lh) = - 2 log likelihood. Df = Degrees of freedom. R2m and R2c = Marginal and conditional R2, respectively. The analyses were based on 3809 observations grouped in 20 different country regions. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.21 Table 7. Multilevel-linear regressions: Effects of Risk Perception on Personal Responsibility SRs. Personal Responsibility Variable b SE t Intercept 2.043 0.181 11.274*** Gender1 -0.163 0.048 -3.402*** Age 0.002 0.002 1.127 Ed. Lvl. -0.058 0.021 -2.701** New Cases2 0.000 0.000 -0.140 New Deaths2 -0.012 0.007 -1.703 Risk Perception 0.074 0.022 3.326*** SDO 0.130 0.018 7.090*** RWA 0.145 0.013 11.071*** BIC 13047.45 AIC 12978.75 -2 x Log(lh) 12956.75 Df 11 2 Rm .079 R2c .107 Notes. R2m and R2c represent marginal and conditional R2, respectively. 1 Gender was dummy coded as 1 for Masculine and 2 for Feminine. 2 New cases and new deaths are for 1 million inhabitants. Ed. Lvl. = Educational level; SDO = Social Dominance Orientation; RWA = Right-Wing Authoritarianism; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; -2 x Log(lh) = - 2 log likelihood. Df = Degrees of freedom. R2m and R2c = Marginal and conditional R2, respectively. The analyses were based on 3809 observations grouped in 20 different country regions. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Final multi-level models show that, while controlling for demographics and ‘real risks’, Risk Perception is a significant predictor of all but one SR (i.e., Collective Resilience – Table 6). Furthermore, scores of SDO and RWA were significant predictors of different types of SRs. Specifically, both were significant and positive predictors of Emerging Externalizing, Polemic Conspiracy and Personal Responsibility SRs (Table 3, Table 4 and Table 7). Differentially, on the other side, SDO negatively predicted Hegemonic Viral and Underdog Villains, while RWA did it positively (Table 3 and Table 6); further, the latter was a negative predictor of Collective resilience (Table 6). Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.22 DISCUSSION The aim of this work was to understand the psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in different countries in Europe, Asia, and the Americas. We analyzed the way in which individuals and groups perceive and socially represent the pandemic and its consequences, and how this relates to preconceived sociopolitical values and beliefs. Findings strongly support our hypotheses and suggest that a majoritarian SR is shared among virtually all countries. However, there is significant agreement on the opportunistic use of economic and media elites, the critical view of the political elite as poor managers of the pandemic, and the selfish and irrational behavior of the masses who do not respect the rules of hygiene and social distance – although there is agreement that they have been supportive. A major rejection of externalizing SRs, as well as conspiracy-related and individual responsibility-related SRs, is seen. Although, a significant percentage of people – two or three out of ten – do agree with them. Furthermore, overall differences between geographical zones suggest that the relatively higher socioeconomic level might buffer the impact of the pandemic. Globally, H1 is confirmed, and we can see that Severity and Risk Perception anchor SRs, particularly those that allow the defence of an in-group social identity and the management of uncertainty (Smith et al., 2015). Further analyses show that, while controlling for demographics and real risks (i.e., real numbers of contagion and death) as well as individual orientations (i.e., SDO and RWA), Risk Perception is still a significant predictor for all but one SR. In all, the analyses support the view that perceived risk and a lack of control psychologically anchor these agreements and externalize the disease on others (e.g., Idoiaga Mondragon, Gil de Montes, & Valencia, 2018). Empirically, people tend to make attributions about manipulations by the powerful and reinforce their agreement with beliefs about mismanagement among the economic, media and political elites. In addition, our data also shows the reinforcement of a negative view of the ordinary person, who is ultimately responsible for the disease. In addition (H2), correlational and multi-level analyses confirmed the proposed influence of SDO and RWA with a greater agreement with externalizing, conspiracy-related and individual responsibility-related SRs. What is more, RWA was positively associated with SRs of people and elite villains, and negatively associated with mass heroes (i.e., collective resilience). In contrast, SDO was not associated with SRs of elite villains or mass villains, as was expected among those who believe in the superiority of dominant groups. Further analyses indicated that SDO significantly and positively predicted Polemic Conspiracy, as well as Emerging Externalizing. In this sense, SDO was less of an anchoring variable for these SRs, Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.23 suggesting that those who rank higher on right-wing conservatism are more threatened by the pandemic, and pursue the positive maintenance of in-group identity – that is, engage in greater attributions of externalizing SRs. In a similar vein, they also agree more with a sense of causality and manipulation from the powerful and the use of the virus as a tool. Altogether, these results are coherent with previous studies that show RWA and SDO are more associated with greater prejudice to outgroups as well as conspiracy-related visions of social problems (Goreis & Voracek, 2019). Finally, individuals higher on RWA also share a more negative view of people in general, which can legitimize an authoritarian response from the authorities. Conversely, those oriented to a greater SDO minimize the pandemic threat, and reject the overexploitation of the planet resources. This also converges with studies showing people high in SDO have a competitive worldview, while those high in RWA view the world as a dangerous place (Duckitt et al., 2010). The general idea is that, in the current context, authoritarian people are those who perceive the pandemic as generating irrational and non-solidary responses in people. Finally (H3), and in line with theoretical proposals, we could see quite clearly that the subjective perception of risk is a powerful variable that explains the agreement with different SRs. Taking into account a global perspective for this study, we suggest that the need to make sense and gain control could indeed provoke a more authoritarian turn in those who are more threatened by the pandemic. This is particularly stronger among those who have more traditional values and who do not care too much about subordinate and stigmatized groups. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank all the people who have participated in this project. In these uncertain times, thank you very much for your collaboration. We would also like to thank the members of Culture, Cognition and Emotion research team for their valuable comments on this article, and particularly to Darío Páez for his valuable insights and opinions on early versions of this manuscript. This research was in part made possible by support provided by the Spanish and Basque Governments (PSI2017-84145-P and IT-1187-19, respectively) and the University of The Basque Country (ref: DOCREC20/23 to J.J.P.). In addition, CONICYT (ref: 72180394 to M.G.-L.), and Viña del Mar University Research Fund (ref: FIIUVM-EN-1904 to G.M.-Z.). Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.24 AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS Cakal, Pizarro, Navarro-Carrillo, Méndez, da Costa and Gracia-Leiva, participated in the planning and supervision of the overall project and all authors participated in the data collection. Pizarro conducted the data analyses and wrote a preliminary version of the manuscript, which was then reviewed and accepted by all authors. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors state that this research was conducted in the absence of competing interests. REFERENCES Abric, J. C. (1993). Central system, peripheral system: Their functions and roles in the dynamics of social representations. Papers on Social Representations, 2(2), 75–78. Abric, J. C. (1996). Specific processes of social representations. Papers on Social Representations, 5(1), 77–80. Agence France-Presse & Agencia EFE-Pekín (2020). China acusa al ejército de EE.UU. de instalar el coronavirus [China accuses the U.S. military of installing the coronavirus]. El País. Retrieved from https://www.elpais.com.uy/mundo/china-acusa-ejercito-ee-uu- instalar-coronavirus.html Ali, I. (2020). The COVID-19 Pandemic: Making sense of rumor and fear. Medical Anthropology: Cross Cultural Studies in Health and Illness, 39(5), 376–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2020.1745481 Barlett, F. C. (1995). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., & Rubin, G. J. (2020). The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. The Lancet, 395(10227), 912–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01406736(20)30460-8 Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2000). Identity theory and social identity Theory. Social Psychology Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.25 Quarterly, 63(3), 224. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695870 Chan, C., & Montt, M. (2020, April 2). Pandemia, orientalismo y discriminación [pandemic, orientalism and discrimination]. El Mostrador. Retrieved from https://www.elmostrador.cl/noticias/opinion/2020/04/02/pandemia-orientalismo-ydiscriminacion/ Chen, S., & Bonanno, G. A. (2020). Psychological adjustment during the global outbreak of COVID-19: A resilience perspective. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12, 51–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000685 Cheng, V. C. C., Lau, S. K. P., Woo, P. C. Y., & Kwok, Y. Y. (2007). Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus as an agent of emerging and reemerging infection. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 20(4), 660–694. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00023-07 Chew, Q. H., Wei, K. C., Vasoo, S., Chua, H. C., & Sim, K. (2020). Narrative synthesis of psychological and coping responses towards emerging infectious disease outbreaks in the general population: practical considerations for the COVID-19 pandemic. Singapore Medical Journal, 61(7), 350–356. https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2020046 Chiu, A. (2020). Trump has no qualms about calling coronavirus the ‘Chinese Virus.’ That’s a dangerous attitude, experts say. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/03/20/coronavirus-trump-chinese-virus/ Cinelli, M., Quattrociocchi, W., Galeazzi, A., Valensise, C. M., Brugnoli, E., Schmidt, A. L., … Scala, A. (2020). The COVID-19 social media infodemic, 1–18. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/2003.05004 Duckitt, J., Bizumic, B., Krauss, S. W., & Heled, E. (2010). A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalism model. Political Psychology, 31(5), 685–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00781.x Eicher, V., & Bangerter, A. (2015). Social representations of infectious diseases. In G. Sammut, E. Andreouli, & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Handbook of social representations (pp. 385–396). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107323650.031 Febbro, E. (2020). ¿Por qué Francia pone trabas al tratamiento del coronavirus del doctor Raoult? [Why is France putting obstacles in the way of Dr. Raoult’s coronavirus treatment?]. Página12. Retrieved from https://www.pagina12.com.ar/256789-por-quefrancia-pone-trabas-al-tratamiento-del-coronavirus-d Franks, B., Bangerter, A., & Bauer, M. W. (2013). Conspiracy theories as quasi-religious Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.26 mentality: an integrated account from cognitive science, social representations theory, and frame theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 1–12. 4(July), https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00424 Gillespie, A. (2008). Social representations, alternative representations and semantic barriers. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38(4), 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2008.00376.x Goreis, A., & Voracek, M. (2019). A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological research on conspiracy beliefs: Field characteristics, measurement instruments, and associations with personality traits. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(FEB), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00205 Grzesiak-Feldman, M. (2013). The effect of high-anxiety situations on conspiracy thinking. Current Psychology, 32(1), 100–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-013-9165-6 Henrich, J., & McElreath, R. (2007). Dual-inheritance theory: the evolution of human cultural capacities and cultural evolution. In R. I. M. Dumbar & L. Barrett (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 555–570). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Holmes, E. A., O’Connor, R. C., Perry, V. H., Tracey, I., Wessely, S., Arseneault, L., … Bullmore, E. (2020). Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science. The Lancet Psychiatry, 547–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30168-1 Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., & Zeileis, A. (2006). Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15(3), 651–674. https://doi.org/10.1198/106186006X133933 Idoiaga Mondragon, N., Gil de Montes, L., & Valencia, J. (2016). Understanding an Ebola outbreak: Social representations of emerging infectious diseases. Journal of Health Psychology, 22(7), 951–960. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105315620294 Idoiaga Mondragon, N., Gil de Montes, L., & Valencia, J. (2018). Understanding the emergence of infectious diseases: Social representations and mass media. Communication and Society, 31(3), 319–330. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.31.3.319-330 Imhoff, R., & Lamberty, P. (2020). A Bioweapon or a hoax? The link between distinct conspiracy beliefs about the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak and pandemic behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620934692 Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.27 Jaspal, R., & Nerlich, B. (2020). Social representations, identity threat, and coping amid COVID-19. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12, 249–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000773 Jodelet, D. (1984). Les représentations sociales: Phénomènes, concept et théorie [The social rep- resentations: Phenomena, concept and theory]. In S. Moscovici (Ed.), La psychologie Sociale (pp. 357–378). Paris: PUF. Joffe, H., & Staerkle, C. (2007). The centrality of the self-control ethos in western aspersions regarding outgroups: A social representational approach to stereotype content. Culture and Psychology, 13(4), 395–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X07082750 Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., & Rosseel, Y. (2019). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. R package version 0.5-2. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/package=semTools Knight, P. (2000). ILOVEYOU: Viruses, paranoia, and the environment of risk. The Sociological Review, 17–30. 48(2_suppl), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 954x.2000.tb03518.x McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Martín-Aragón, M., & Terol-Cantero, M. C. (2020). Intervención psicosocial post COVID-19 en personal sanitario [psychosocial intervention post COVID-19 in health-care workers]. International Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2020.1783854 Montalto Monela, L., & Crowcroft, O. (2020). “Stay home, idiot!”: Neighbours turn on each other as Europe’s coronavirus lockdown tensions rise. Euronews. Retrieved from https://www.euronews.com/2020/04/03/stay-home-idiot-neighbours-turn-on-each-otheras-europe-s-coronavirus-lockdown-tensions-r Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representation. In R. M. Farr & S. Moscovici (Eds.) Social Representations (pp. 3–69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moscovici, S. (2020). Reflections on the popularity of ‘conspiracy mentalities.’ International Review of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.432 Murray, D. R., & Schaller, M. (2016). The behavioral immune system: Implications for social cognition, social interaction, and social influence. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 75–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.09.002 Páez, D., & Pérez, J. A. (2020). Representaciones sociales del COVID-19 [Social representations of COVID-19]. International Journal of Social Psychology, 35(2), 12–21. Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.28 Pérez, J. A. (2004). Las representaciones sociales [Social representations]. In D. Páez, I. Fernández, S. Ubillos, & E. Zubieta (Eds.), Psicología social, cultura y educación [Social psychology, culture and education] (pp. 413–442). Madrid: Prentice-Hall Inc. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741 R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Reny, T. T., & Barreto, M. A. (2020). Xenophobia in the time of pandemic: othering, anti-Asian attitudes, and COVID-19. Politics, Groups, and Identities, (May), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2020.1769693 Roberto, K. J., Johnson, A. F., & Rauhaus, B. M. (2020). Stigmatization and prejudice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Administrative Theory & Praxis, (June), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2020.1782128 Rosseel, Y. (2014). lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02 RStudioTeam. (2015). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. Boston, MA: RStudio, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.rstudio.com/ Sabucedo, J. M., Alzate, M., & Hur, D. (2020). El COVID-19 y la métafora de guerra [COVID19 and the war metafor]. International Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2020.1783840 Salas, J. (2020). Los sesgos que engañan al cerebro durante la pandemia [The biases that trick the brain during the pandemic]. El País. Retrieved from elpais.com/ciencia/2020-0326/los-sesgos-que-enganan-al-cerebro-durante-la-pandemia.html Sherlaw, W., & Raude, J. (2013). Why the French did not choose to panic: A dynamic analysis of the public response to the influenza pandemic. Sociology of Health and Illness, 35(2), 332–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2012.01525.x Sigurvinsdottir, R., Thorisdottir, I. E., & Gylfason, H. F. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on mental health: The role of locus on control and internet use. International Journal of Enviromental Research and Public Health, 17, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17196985 Smith, G. D., Ng, F., & Ho Cheung Li, W. (2020). COVID-19: Emerging compassion, courage and resilience in the face of misinformation and adversity. Journal of Clinical Nursing, Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.29 29(9–10), 1425–1428. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15231 Smith, N., O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2015). Social representations of threatening phenomena: The self-other thema and identity protection. Papers on Social Representations, 24(2), 1– 23. Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (1991). A terror managment theory of social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 93–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60328-7 Stanley, D. (2018). Package “apaTables”: Create American Psychological Association (APA) Style Tables. R package version 2.0.5. Retrieved from https://github.com/dstanley4/apaTables Steel, B. S., Lovrich, N. P., & Pierce, J. C. (2005). Trust in natural resource information sources and postmaterialist values: A comparative study of U.S. and Canadian citizens in the Great Lakes area. Journal of Environmental Systems, 22(2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.2190/yyjn-pvbq-cwyr-ba81 Taylor, S. (2019). The psychology of pandemics: Preparing for the next global outbreak of infectious disease. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Thalgott, M. R. (1986). Anchoring: A “cure” for Epy. Intervention in School and Clinic, 21(3), 347–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/105345128602100314 Vala, J., & Castro, P. (2017). Pensamento social e representacoes sociais [Social thought and social representations]. In J. Vala & M. B. Monteiro (Eds.), Psicología Social (pp. 569– 600). Lisboa: Fundacao Gulbelkian. Van Bavel, J. J., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., … Weeden, K. A. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(May), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-0200884-z Viechtbauer, W. (2015). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03 Wagner, W., & Hayes, N. (2005). Everyday discourse and common sense: The theory of social representations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Washer, P. (2006). Representations of mad cow disease. Social Science and Medicine, 62(2), 457–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.06.001 Wray, M. (2020). Jane Goodall says ‘disrespect’ for animals, nature caused coronavirus pandemic. Global News. Retrieved from https://globalnews.ca/news/6857969/jane- Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.30 goodall-coronavirus-earth-day-message/ Zeng, G., Wang, L., & Zhang, Z. (2020). Prejudice and xenophobia in COVID-19 research manuscripts. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(September), 41562. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00948-y JOSÉ J. PIZARRO is a psychologist from the Universidad de Talca (Talca, Chile) and doctor in social psychology from the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU (Donostia, Spain). His research mainly focuses on the psychosocial effects of collective participation (e.g., collective rituals and gatherings), as well as different mechanisms that promote intra- and intergroup effects, such as collective emotions and more inclusive social identities. He is a member of the research team Cultura, Cognición & Emoción at the Faculty of Psychology (UPV/EHU), where he is currently doing his post-doctorate. Email: jose.pizarro@ehu.eus HÜSEYIN ÇAKAL, PhD, holds his doctorate in social psychology from the University of Oxford. He is a lecturer in psychology at the University of Keele. His research investigates intergroup contact, social identity processes, and collective action, and mental health among severely disadvantaged communities. Email: h.cakal@keele.ac.uk LANDER MÉNDEZ is a PhD student in the Department of Social Psychology, University of the Basque Country. He is a social psychologist with research interests in the remembering of both individual and socio-historical events over the life course and well-being. He is particularly interested in the lived collective memory in contexts where traumatic phenomena such as crisis or collective violence have occurred. Most recently, he has studied how collective violence influences individuals’ autobiographical memory regarding historical events, and how affect socioemotional climate in a recent post-conflict society. Email: lander.mendez@ehu.eus SILVIA DA COSTA has a PhD in Psychology, and is a member of the CCE Consolidated Research Group (UPV/EHU, GV, MICINN). Her research, at a macro- and meso-level, examines social representations or common sense knowledge originated in the communication within and among social groups. In the period 2013-2020 she has co-published more than 30 scientific-and-technical articles and made more than 70 presentations at international and Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.31 national conferences. She focuses, among others, on advanced methodologies in research, university-business knowledge transfer, gender perspective, sustainability, society 5.0 and currently the sars-cov-2 pandemic. Email: silviacristina.dacosta@ehu.eus LARRAITZ N. ZUMETA works as a researcher and professor in the Department of Social Psychology at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) in San Sebastian, Spain. She integrates several theoretical perspectives, among others, intergroup contact theory, collective rituals perspective, positive psychology, and collective action theory. She is particularly interested in exploring the mechanisms involved in participation in collective rituals, gatherings, and actions, and their correlates associated with personal and collective empowerment, social cohesion and integration, and endorsement of self-transcendent values and beliefs. Email: larraitznerea.zumeta@ehu.eus MARCELA GRACIA-LEIVA is a PhD student from the Department of Social Psychology at the University of the Basque Country, and Master in Women and Health, from the Complutense University of Madrid. Her research mainly focuses on the prevention of gender-based violence and health promotion and especially, on risk and protective factors associated with dating violence, as well as its implications for well-being and health. Currently, she is researching how relationship power, coping, and perceived attachment influence the victimization of dating violence (off and online) in women in different countries. Email: Mgracia006@ikasle.ehu.eus NEKANE BASABE Ph.D., is a Full Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Basque Country in Spain and a member of the Research Group “Culture, Cognition and Emotion”. The main topics of her research are: 1) Health social psychology, 2) Migration, cultural shock, acculturation, and ethnic identities, and 3) Collective processes of cognition and emotion and cross-cultural social psychology. Since 1991 she teaches several undergraduate and graduate courses: health social psychology, social psychology, group and organizational social psychology, psychology and communication. Email: nekane.basabe@ehu.eus GINÉS NAVARRO-CARRILLO (PhD, University of Granada, Spain) is an Assistant Professor of Social Psychology in the Department of Psychology at the University of Jaén (Spain). His research areas include economic threat, socioeconomic status, and social emotions. Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.32 He is also interested in the psychological impact of collective behavior. Email: gnavarro@ujaen.es ANA-MARIA CAZAN is an associate professor at Transilvania University of Brasov, Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences. Her teaching and research work is focused on educational psychology and psychological assessment. Her main fields of interest are learning psychology and positive psychology, focusing on self-regulated learning and academic adjustment, resilience and well-being. Email: ana.cazan@unitbv.ro SAEED KESHAVARZI holds a Ph.D. in political sociology from Shiraz University. He was also a Visiting Scholar at the Scuola Normale Superiore in Florence, Italy. His research focuses on different fields of study, including social movements, mobilization, collective action, political and social psychology, migration, and youth studies. Email: Saeed.Keshavarzi.21@gmail.com WILSON LÓPEZ-LÓPEZ is a PhD in Basic and Social Psychology from the University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain. He is professor at the Pontifical Xavierian University, (Colombia) editor of Universitas Psychologica, leader of the "Social links and Peace Cultures" research group, and president of the Political Psychology Division of the International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP). His research has focused on mass media and conflict, and related topics such as forgiveness, legal issues and, even, drugs. Among the recognitions, he has been awarded there is the Interamerican Psychology Award from the Interamerican Society of Psychology in 2017). Email: lopezlopezwilson@gmail.com ILLIA YAHIIAIEV is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine. He is interested in personality and social psychology, positive psychology, the psychology of secularism, and morality. Email: askamah@gmail.com CAROLINA ALZUGARAY-PONCE (PhD, Social Psychology, UPV/EHU) has actively participated in research at a national and international level within the Consolidated Research Group in Social Psychology at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU). She has 10 years of academic experience, teaching community intervention, current psychosocial Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.33 problems, Childhood and Adolescence Psychology, Social Project Evaluation and Social Project Management. She currently supervises professional practices in the line of Community Psychology for senior psychology students, at Universidad Santo Tomás, Concepción campus (Chile). Email: LORETO VILLAGRÁN, PhD, is an associate professor at the Universidad de Concepción, Chile. She graduated in psychology at the Universidad de Concepción (2006) and obtained her PhD in psychology from the Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain. Her main research interests cover psychosocial trauma, posttraumatic growth, social well-being, social identity, intergroup relations, and positive psychology. She currently participates in research projects on psychosocial effects of trauma and participation in collective action. Email: lorevillagran@udec.cl EMILIO MOYANO-DÍAZ, Psychologist (U. Católica de Chile), Doctor of the Université Catholique de Louvain (Belgium), has researched in the main universities of Chile publishing on environmental issues, traffic and quality of life. Co-founder of the Faculty of Psychology of the U. de Santiago, founder of the Faculty of Psychology of the U. de Talca, and of the first Faculty of Psychology of the universities of the Consortium of Universities of the State of Chile (2015). Former Vice-rector for Undergraduate Teaching at the University of Talca (Chile), works there, having been distinguished as Professor of Excellence in 2017. Today he conducts research on commuting accidents in workers, and on decision-making and emotions. Email: emoyano@utalca.cl NEBOJŠA PETROVIĆ is a social psychologist and a professor at the University of Belgrade. His main area of study and research include political and peace psychology and especially topics on reconciliation, authoritarianism, but also human challenges related to fast technological changes, violence in youth sport, and other themes where it is possible to apply psychological knowledge in explaining social problems and issues. Email: npetrovi@f.bg.ac.rs ANDERSON MATHIAS is a post-doctoral researcher in the Department of Psychology, University of Paraíba, Brazil. He is a social psychologist with research interests in collective memory and social representations of history. Most recently, he has studied the relations Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.34 between the social representations of history and current issues such as authoritarianism. Email: anderson.mathias@yahoo.com.br ELZA M. TECHIO is a Lecturer in the Institute of Psychology, Federal University of Bahia, Brazil. She is a social psychologist with research interests in intergroup relations. She is particularly interested in stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination. Most recently, she has studied the racial discrimination: the moderating role of emotions and psychosocial values on attitudes towards tolerance of police violence. Email: elzamt@ufba.br ANNA WLODARCZYK is an assistant professor at the School of Psychology at the Universidad Católica del Norte (Chile). She graduated in sociology at the University of Warsaw and received her PhD in psychology from the University of the Basque Country. Her main research interests cover: coping and emotional regulation, posttraumatic growth, political psychology, social identity, intergroup relations, gender and positive psychology. Email: anna.wlodarczyk@ucn.cl LAURA ALFARO-BERACOECHEA is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication and Psychology in the University of Guadalajara. Her research interests include psychosocial factors, emotions and well-being. She is particularly interested in how social emotions and social identity are linked with different aspects of life satisfaction and social and psychological well-being. Email: nadhielii.alfaro@academicos.udg.mx MANUEL L. IBARRA is a full-professor and researcher in the Department of Health Education and Health Sociology, UC Nezahualcóyotl, Autonomous University of Mexico State, Mexico. He is particularly interested in health qualitative research; social representations about health, illness, attention and care process; culture, cognition and health; social response in health; knowledge and practices in health and others. He is collaborator in the IWAHLAB (Identification With All Humanity) where he tests equivalence of the IWAH scale in Mexico, researching the universality of the associations between IWAH and a range of humanitarian measures. Email: mlibarrae@uaemex.mx CHARIS PSALTIS is an Associate Professor of Social and Developmental Psychology at the Department of Psychology of the University of Cyprus. His research interests concern the Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.35 development of a Genetic Social Psychological theoretical framework relating to the microgenesis, ontogenesis and sociogenesis of social representations, integroup relations and social identities relating to post-conflict settings and deeply divided societies and the role of social interaction in cognitive development. Email: cpsaltis@ucy.ac.cy ANDREAS MICHAEL is a PhD student at the University of Cyprus, Cyprus. He graduated in psychology in the same institution, and completed his master at Kent University, mainly oriented at group processes and relationships. He has worked as an external collaborator at the University Center for Field Studies (UCFS) at the University of Cyprus and currently, he focuses his thesis on system justification theory and transitional justice in Cyprus. Email: antre19@hotmail.com SUMEET MHASKAR is an Associate Professor at the Jindal School of Government and Public Policy, O. P. Jindal Global University. His research explores the multi-faced vulnerabilities workers experience at the lower end of India’s rising economy. He has examined retrenched workers responses to joblessness, their politics for rehabilitation, and how gender, religion, caste and negative emotions influences labouring choices. He is currently examining the urban experience of rural labour migrants in Mumbai city. Email: smhaskar@jgu.edu.in GONZALO MARTÍNEZ-ZELAYA is an academic from the School of Legal and Social Sciences at the Universidad Viña del Mar. His research mainly focuses on wellbeing, and particularly, on the dynamics between host societies, immigrants and different facets of wellbeing. He is also interested in how highly stressful social situations harness the wellbeing of people, and has several publications on Latin American immigration in Chile, and on Chilean society as a receiving society. Email: gonzalomartinezphd@gmail.com MARIAN BILBAO is a psychologist and master in Public Health (University of Chile) and doctor in Psychology (University of the Basque Country), whose main interest of research is the subjective well-being and its associated antecedents and consequences. She teaches developmental psychology (undergraduate) and quantitative methodology (undergraduate and doctorate). Since 2018 she has been an Associate Professor in the Psychology Faculty at the Alberto Hurtado University, where she directs the Master in Research in Psychology. Email: mbilbao@uahurtado.cl Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.36 GISELA DELFINO is a graduate and doctor in psychology. She is an adjunct researcher of the National Scientific and Technical Research Council National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET) of Argentina at the Center for Research in Psychology and Psychology of the UCA. She also teaches at the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina (UCA) and she is visiting professor of the Doctorado en Educacion y Sociedad at the Universidad Andres Bello de Chile. Her main areas of specialization are social, cultural and political psychology. Email: gisela_delfino@uca.edu.ar CATARINA L. CARVALHO is a PhD student at the University of Porto, Portugal, member of the Social Psychology Lab and the Center for Psychology at University of Porto (CPUP). Her research focuses on civic and political participation, social movements, collective action, social change, and the psychological mechanisms associated with individuals’ support for groupbased social hierarchy and inequality. Currently, she is also working on adherence to nationalisms and populism, discrimination towards minority groups and hate crime. Email: anacarvalho@fpce.up.pt ISABEL R. PINTO is a social psychologist, member of the Social Psychology Lab and the Center for Psychology at University of Porto (CPUP), and an Associate Professor at the University of Porto, Portugal. Her research interests focus on the identitary intergroup processes underlying deviance, discrimination and extremisms in social groups, and their consequences on individuals’ commitment to an inclusive vs exclusive social cohesion. Email: ipinto@fpce.up.pt FALAK ZEHRA MOHSIN is a visiting faculty at the Department of Social Sciences and Liberal Arts, Institute of Business Administration. Her research interest lies in Psychometric Testing, Social Psychology, Personality, Gender Roles, Gender Perspective, Family Marriages and Relationship dynamics, Interpersonal Psychology, Socio-Cultural Psychology, Attitudes and Emotion and Educational Psychology. Email: f.zehra.m@outlook.com AGUSTIN ESPINOSA is full professor in the Department of Psychology, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. He is a social psychologist with research interests in intergroup relations, national and social identity processes. He is also interested in political psychology Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.37 where he has studied about political violence and political cynicism processes. Email: agustin.espinosa@pucp.pe ROSA MARIA CUETO is a Social Psychologist, PhD in Psychology, Master in Community Psychology with experience in psychosocial research, coordination and advice in research projects and intervention with vulnerable groups; construction and facilitation of participatory processes. She is full-time principal professor of the Department of Psychology and the Graduate School of the PUCP and a member of the Group of Political and Social Psychology at PUCP. Her teaching and research interests, among others, are focused on political and community psychology, intergroup relations, collective identities, communities, social conflicts, prejudice, discrimination and social exclusion. Email: rcueto@pucp.pe STEFANO CAVALLI is Professor at the University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland (SUPSI) and the head of the Centre of Competence on Ageing. His main areas of interest are sociology of the life course and aging, with particular focus on transitions, life events and turning points, autobiographical and collective memories, vulnerability and social exclusion. Email: stefano.cavalli@supsi.ch Papers on Social Representations, 29 (2), 2.1-2.38 (2020) [http://psr.iscte-iul.pt/index.php/PSR/index] 2.38