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