Can a pandemic make people more socially conservative? Political ideology, gender roles, and the case of COVID-19

Delay of Gratification, Gender Role Attitudes, and Death Reflections Predict Death Anxiety

Previous work has established that gender, age, and self-control can predict Death Anxiety (DA), the distress that centers around thoughts of one's mortality. However, it has not been determined if DA is associated with Delay of Gratification (DG; a tendency to forgo immediate rewards to receive a more favorable outcome in the future), attitudes toward gender roles (as compared to gender identity itself), and Death Reflections (DR; positive goals that occur when contemplating death). To examine these relations, 131 adults (45% women; aged 23-67 years) completed questionnaires that assess these constructs. We found that greater DG, egalitarian gender role attitudes, and engagement with DR were all associated with reduced DA. Gender identity was not associated with any variable, including DA. Age correlated independently with DA, but not when included in the regression models. These results demonstrate that elements of self-regulation and prosocial attitudes may predict baseline DA.

How Do Pandemic Policies and Communication Shape Intergroup Outcomes? Initial Findings From the COVID-19 Pandemic and Open Questions for Research and Policy

Government policies can be productive tools for protecting citizens while simultaneously forging more egalitarian societies. At the same time, history has shown that well-intentioned governmental actions, such as those meant to quell pandemics (e.g., blood-donation restrictions), can single out members of marginalized groups (e.g., men who have sex with men). How did government actions shape intergroup outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic? Here, we draw from emerging research to provide informed conjectures regarding whether and how government actions affected stereotypes (e.g., beliefs about gender), prejudice (e.g., anti-Asian bias), and intergroup violence (e.g., hate crimes against Asian individuals) during the COVID-19 pandemic. We discuss research examining the impact of policies intended to curb the spread of the disease, and we consider possible effects of the strategies used to communicate about the virus. Furthermore, we highlight open questions regarding how and why pandemic policies and communication shape intergroup outcomes, propose key directions for future research, and note possible implications for future development of policy and communication strategies.

Taking Stock and Looking Forward to the Future of Pathogen Politics in Light of New Insights and Recommendations: COVID-19 Threat Was Meaningfully Associated With Support for Liberal Policies in the United States

Infectious disease outbreaks are expected to predict support for conservative policies. However, earlier studies (January-June, 2020) reached conflicting findings regarding the association between COVID-19 threat and policy preferences in the United States. We revisit this issue by analyzing five nationally representative surveys conducted during the relatively severe periods of the pandemic (August 2020-December, 2020; total N = 82,753). Using Bayesian inference, we find strong evidence that subjective (e.g., fear of infection and pandemic outrage) but not objective (e.g., local cases and deaths) threat predicted support for liberal policies (e.g., immigration and universal health care). Meta-analyses revealed that the estimates depend on the type of subjective (.05 ≥ r ≤ .60) or objective (.00 ≥ r ≤ .14) COVID-19 threat. We propose an emotion-mediated dual-process model of pathogen management suggesting that infectious disease outbreaks activate both avoidance and caregiving motives that translate, respectively, into support for right-wing and left-wing policies.

[Response to the COVID-19 Health Crisis from a Gender Perspective: Lessons Learned]

OBJECTIVE

To delve deeper from a gender perspective into the lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic to address future health crises.

METHOD

Study with key informants with experience in public health and gender from the Ministerio de Sanidad, ministries of the autonomous communities, Institut Català de la Salut, Hospital de La Princesa, Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública and Universidad País Vasco.

SOURCE OF INFORMATION

individual open-ended questionnaire on health and health inequalities/gender inequalities related to COVID-19. After presenting the findings, the key informants group discussed them in a meeting until reaching a consensus on the lessons learned.

RESULTS

The lack of clinical statistics by sex could compromise epidemiological surveillance, losing the opportunity to characterize the disease. The performance of essential services fell more on women, exhausting them with double and triple shifts; with the differences according to sex in the clinical presentation of COVID-19, and the criteria for hospitalization/admission to the intensive care unit, their access to health care decreased. Increased: gender violence and mental health problems; delaying recognition of the second effects of vaccines in women; partially due to information biases in clinical trials. The gender perspective was lacking in academic, healthcare, and health management areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Women's gender dimensions determined their higher frequency of COVID-19 and played a fundamental role in its control. Broadly considering the lessons learned will strengthen prevention systems and be able to provide effective responses to future health crises.

Did Descriptive and Prescriptive Norms About Gender Equality at Home Change During the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Cross-National Investigation

Using data from 15 countries, this article investigates whether descriptive and prescriptive gender norms concerning housework and child care (domestic work) changed after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results of a total of 8,343 participants (M = 19.95, SD = 1.68) from two comparable student samples suggest that descriptive norms about unpaid domestic work have been affected by the pandemic, with individuals seeing mothers' relative to fathers' share of housework and child care as even larger. Moderation analyses revealed that the effect of the pandemic on descriptive norms about child care decreased with countries' increasing levels of gender equality; countries with stronger gender inequality showed a larger difference between pre- and post-pandemic. This study documents a shift in descriptive norms and discusses implications for gender equality-emphasizing the importance of addressing the additional challenges that mothers face during health-related crises.

Digital contact does not promote wellbeing, but face-to-face contact does: A cross-national survey during the COVID-19 pandemic

With restricted face-to-face interactions, COVID-19 lockdowns and distancing measures tested the capability of computer-mediated communication to foster social contact and wellbeing. In a multinational sample (n = 6436), we investigated how different modes of contact related to wellbeing during the pandemic. Computer-mediated communication was more common than face-to-face, and its use was influenced by COVID-19 death rates, more so than state stringency measures. Despite its legal and health threats, face-to-face contact was still positively associated with wellbeing, and messaging apps had a negative association. Perceived household vulnerability to COVID-19 reduced the positive effect of face-to-face communication on wellbeing, but surprisingly, people's own vulnerability did not. Computer-mediated communication was particularly negatively associated with the wellbeing of young and empathetic people. Findings show people endeavored to remain socially connected, yet however, maintain a physical distance, despite the tangible costs to their wellbeing.

Political orientation, trust and discriminatory beliefs during the COVID-19 pandemic: Longitudinal evidence from the United Kingdom

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the world in many ways; for example, evidence from the United Kingdom indicates that higher rates of discriminatory behaviours against immigrants have been recorded during this period. Prior research suggests that political orientation and trust are instrumental in discriminatory beliefs against immigrants. A longitudinal study (six waves and a follow-up) was conducted in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic (September 2020-August 2021) using convenience sampling (N = 383). The hypotheses enquired about whether political orientation predicts trust in government, trust in science and discriminatory beliefs. Multilevel regression and mediation analyses were conducted, using repeated measures nested within individuals. It was found that conservative views are associated with higher discriminatory beliefs, lower trust in science and higher trust in government. Furthermore, trust in science promotes reduction of discrimination, whereas trust in government, increases discriminatory beliefs. However, a nuance revealed by an interaction effect, shows that a positive alignment between political and scientific authorities may be required to reduce prejudice against immigrants. Exploratory multilevel mediation showed that trust is a mediator between political orientation and discriminatory beliefs.

The Covid-19 pandemic as an accelerator of economic worries and labor-related mental health polarization in Germany? A longitudinal interacted mediation analysis with a difference-in-difference comparison

Objectives

Labor-related mental health polarization refers to exposure to low-paid employment and unemployment decreasing mental health. Previous research identified economic worries as a key mediator. Against this background, the Covid-19 pandemic is often assumed to have accelerated already existing processes and affected vulnerable populations the most. Our study sought to investigate whether the Covid-19 pandemic accelerated the mediation by economic worries between employment type and mental health.

Method

Using the German Socioeconomic Panel (GSOEP) from 2016 onwards, we created a pre-Covid-19 sample (N = 8266) and a per-Covid-19 sample (N = 7294), with each having a t0 wave (2016/2018) and a t1 wave (2018/2020). We applied the mediational g-formula for longitudinal mediation with exposure-mediator (XM) interaction between employment type (X) and economic worries (M). We decomposed the total effect into a direct, indirect, and interacted effect of employment on mental health and provided a difference-in-difference comparison of the effects.

Results

During the Covid-19 pandemic, economic worries increased, and mental health decreased. However, the mediation by economic worries reduced by approx. 18.0% (e.g., from 35.0% to 28.9%). A decreased indirect effect caused the reduction in mediation, while the direct and interacted effect remained rather stable. We also found stark gender differences towards males having a higher total effect but a lower mediated effect during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Conclusion

Our results highlight that mediators competing to economic worries must have emerged during the Covid-19 pandemic. Such mediators could be the risk of infection at the workplace, the possibility of remote work, and gender-specific mediators. Our study is also the first to extend the mediational g-formula with the difference-in-difference approach. It can be used as a blueprint for researchers interested in evaluating the impact of events, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, on preexisting processes.

The Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic Made People Feel Threatened, but Had a Limited Impact on Political Attitudes in the United States

We investigated if the COVID-19 pandemic's onset caused changes in political attitudes. Influential theories predict that the pandemic's onset will cause people to adopt more conservative attitudes, more culturally conservative attitudes, or more extreme attitudes. We comprehensively tested the external validity of these predictions by estimating the causal effect of the pandemic's onset on 84 political attitudes and eight perceived threats using fine-grained repeated cross-sectional data (Study 1, N = 232,684) and panel data (Study 2, N = 552) collected in the United States. Although the pandemic's onset caused feelings of threat, the onset only caused limited attitude change (six conservative shifts, four extremity shifts, 12 liberal shifts, 62 no change). Prominent theories of threat and politics did not make accurate predictions for this major societal threat. Our results highlight the necessity of testing psychological theories' predictive powers in real-life circumstances.

Public Attitudes to Immigration in the Aftermath of COVID-19: Little Change in Policy Preferences, Big Drops in Issue Salience

How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected public attitudes toward immigration? Long-term evidence in Europe and the United States suggests attitudes to immigration are relatively stable and, in some cases, becoming more favorable with high volatility instead of the perceived importance of the issue. However, theoretically a global pandemic could exacerbate people's fears of outsiders or that migration may contribute to the disease. By contrast, attitudes could remain stable if their distal drivers prove to be robust enough to withstand the shock of COVID-19. We draw from Eurobarometer data from 2014 to 2021 across 28 European countries, weekly national survey data during the outbreak from the United States and individual panel data from the United Kingdom and Germany to find little systematic change in immigration preferences and no country-level correlation between the observed changes and the outbreak's severity. Instead, the perceived importance of immigration has consistently and significantly decreased. These findings suggest that, if COVID-19 is to have an impact on attitudes to migration, it is likely to emerge via longer-term means, such as early-life socialization and value change, rather than reactions to the immediate pandemic shock.

Greater traditionalism predicts COVID-19 precautionary behaviors across 27 societies

People vary both in their embrace of their society's traditions, and in their perception of hazards as salient and necessitating a response. Over evolutionary time, traditions have offered avenues for addressing hazards, plausibly resulting in linkages between orientations toward tradition and orientations toward danger. Emerging research documents connections between traditionalism and threat responsivity, including pathogen-avoidance motivations. Additionally, because hazard-mitigating behaviors can conflict with competing priorities, associations between traditionalism and pathogen avoidance may hinge on contextually contingent tradeoffs. The COVID-19 pandemic provides a real-world test of the posited relationship between traditionalism and hazard avoidance. Across 27 societies (N = 7844), we find that, in a majority of countries, individuals' endorsement of tradition positively correlates with their adherence to costly COVID-19-avoidance behaviors; accounting for some of the conflicts that arise between public health precautions and other objectives further strengthens this evidence that traditionalism is associated with greater attention to hazards.

Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Intergroups Inequalities: The Case of Women

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has crucial implications for intergroup inequalities. The main aims of the current study are to examine how the COVID-19 affects inequalities between women and men, understand the causes of increasing gender-based inequalities during pandemic, and offer practical solutions on how these inequalities can be reduced. The results of studies from different countries demonstrated that gender-based inequalities that existed before the pandemic deepened with the COVID-19. After the COVID-19, there has been a serious rise in the level of physical, psychological and economic violence that women are exposed to, the labor they spend on housework and caring has increased dramatically, and the problems they face in business life ascended. Understanding why gender-based inequalities have increased during the COVID-19 is one of the influential steps to achieve gender equality. When the reasons are examined, it has been determined that many factors, including the policies implemented in the struggle against the pandemic and gender roles, play critical roles in this rise. Finally, in order to diminish gender-based inequalities, short and long-term solutions are presented such as carrying out gender-based awareness education, adequate representations of women in decision-making processes, developing gender-sensitive policies, strengthening the mechanisms that support women.

The influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on changes in perceived work pressure for Dutch mothers and fathers

As a result of the first COVID-19 lockdown in the Netherlands in March 2020, more than half of parents in the Netherlands had to work from home while also caring for their children. We found that work-related stressors and resources (working more hours, realistic manager expectations) particularly affect perceived work pressure. Perceived work pressure was higher among egalitarian fathers and mothers, especially compared to traditional fathers and mothers. Furthermore, egalitarian fathers were more negatively affected by arguments with their partners (home stressor) than traditional fathers. We found no differences between traditional and egalitarian mothers.

Purity, politics, and polarization: Political ideology moderates threat‐induced shifts in moral purity beliefs

There is considerable research showing that economic threat influences people's social and political views. There are two prevailing perspectives on threat and political attitudes, broadly defined as the Conservative Shift Hypothesis and the Entrenching Hypothesis. The former predicts that threat induces change in the conservative direction (for both conservatives and liberals), whereas the latter predicts that threat causes people to adhere more strongly to their prexisting political perspective. In two experimental studies (one pre-registered replication), we find evidence in support of the Entrenching Hypothesis. Conservatives responded to Economic Threat with increased endorsement of the conservative moral foundation Purity, whereas liberals responded to Economic Threat with decreased endorsement of the Purity foundation. Economic Threat appears to increase commitment to one's pre-existing political ideology and not conservatism specifically. Implications for psychological theory and future directions are discussed.

Aggressive measures, rising inequalities, and mass formation during the COVID-19 crisis: An overview and proposed way forward

A series of aggressive restrictive measures were adopted around the world in 2020-2022 to attempt to prevent SARS-CoV-2 from spreading. However, it has become increasingly clear the most aggressive (lockdown) response strategies may involve negative side-effects such as a steep increase in poverty, hunger, and inequalities. Several economic, educational, and health repercussions have fallen disproportionately on children, students, young workers, and especially on groups with pre-existing inequalities such as low-income families, ethnic minorities, and women. This has led to a vicious cycle of rising inequalities and health issues. For example, educational and financial security decreased along with rising unemployment and loss of life purpose. Domestic violence surged due to dysfunctional families being forced to spend more time with each other. In the current narrative and scoping review, we describe macro-dynamics that are taking place because of aggressive public health policies and psychological tactics to influence public behavior, such as mass formation and crowd behavior. Coupled with the effect of inequalities, we describe how these factors can interact toward aggravating ripple effects. In light of evidence regarding the health, economic and social costs, that likely far outweigh potential benefits, the authors suggest that, first, where applicable, aggressive lockdown policies should be reversed and their re-adoption in the future should be avoided. If measures are needed, these should be non-disruptive. Second, it is important to assess dispassionately the damage done by aggressive measures and offer ways to alleviate the burden and long-term effects. Third, the structures in place that have led to counterproductive policies should be assessed and ways should be sought to optimize decision-making, such as counteracting groupthink and increasing the level of reflexivity. Finally, a package of scalable positive psychology interventions is suggested to counteract the damage done and improve humanity's prospects.

Not "My" crisis: Social identity and followers' crisis responses to COVID-19

Operationalizing social group identification as political partisanship, we examine followers' (i.e., US residents') affective experiences and behavioral responses during the initial COVID-19 outbreak in the United States (March to May 2020). In Study 1, we conducted content analyses on major news outlets' coverage of COVID-19 (N = 4319) to examine media polarization and how it plays a role in shaping followers' perceptions of the pandemic and leadership. News outlets trusted by Republicans portrayed US President Donald Trump as more effective, conveyed a stronger sense of certainty with less negative affective tone, and had a lower emphasis on COVID-19 prevention compared to outlets trusted by Democrats. We then conducted a field survey study (Study 2; N = 214) and found that Republicans perceived Trump as more effective, experienced higher positive affect, and engaged in less COVID-19 preventive behavior compared to Democrats. Using a longitudinal survey design in Study 3 (N = 251), we examined how emotional responses evolved in parallel with the pandemic and found further support for Study 2 findings. Collectively, our findings provide insight into the process of leadership from a social identity perspective during times of crisis, illustrating how social identity can inhibit mobilization of united efforts. The findings have implications for leadership of subgroup divides in different organizational and crisis contexts.

Morbid Polarization: Exposure to COVID-19 and Partisan Disagreement about Pandemic Response

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the lives of all Americans, but the severity of the pandemic has been experienced unevenly across space and time. Some states saw sharp rises in COVID-19 cases in early March, whereas case counts rose much later in the rest of the country. In this article, we examine the relationship between exposure to COVID-19 and citizens' views on what type of measures are required to deal with the crises and how experience with and exposure to COVID-19 is associated with greater partisan polarization. We find consistent evidence of partisan divergence in pandemic-response policy preferences across the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic: Republicans support national control measures whereas Democrats support welfare policies, and interparty differences grow over time. We find only limited evidence that exposure or experience moderates these partisan differences. Our findings are consistent with the view that Americans interpret the COVID-19 pandemic in fundamentally partisan manner, and that objective pandemic conditions play at most a minor role in shaping mass preferences.

Positive and negative experiences with the COVID-19 pandemic among lonely and non-lonely populations in Germany

The COVID-19 pandemic is causing an epidemic of loneliness. Previous studies have shown the differences in positive and negative experiences of lonely and non-lonely people in a non-pandemic setting. However, it is unclear how the drastic alteration of the COVID-19 pandemic may influence peoples' reactions and beliefs, especially among those who feel lonely. Our study aims to examine the positive and negative experiences among lonely and non-lonely people. We undertook a cross-sectional online survey of the general population in Germany (N = 1,758) from May 2020 to May 2022. We assessed their feelings of loneliness with the short eight-item UCLA Loneliness Scale (ULS-8), their positive and negative experience of living in the COVID-19 pandemic as well as their psychological distress regarding the pandemic with the COVID-19 Peritraumatic Distress Index (CPDI). We found lonely individuals (ULS-8 score ≥ 16) reported fewer positive experiences of living in the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, less time with loved ones [z _{(1, 756)} = -2.5, p = 0.012] and less sense of togetherness [z _{(1, 756)} = -2.39, p = 0.017] as compared to non-lonely individuals. Meanwhile, they experienced more negative experiences, for example, worry and fear [z _{(1, 756)} = 6.31, p < 0.001] compared with non-lonely individuals. Interestingly, lonely people were less likely to view the pandemic as a conspiracy than non-lonely people were [z _{(1, 756)} = -3.35, p < 0.001]. Our results may give insight into attribution bias and the negative affect of lonely people during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as highlight the experience of non-lonely people and raise the question of differences in conspiracy beliefs. For pandemic preparedness and response, decision-makers may focus on interventions to foster social cohesion, empower people, build resilience, and most importantly provide timely social care.

Were Americans' Political Attitudes Linked to Objective Threats From COVID-19? An Examination of Data From Project Implicit During Initial Months of the Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has created objectively threatening situations in everyday life (e.g., unemployment, risk of infection), and researchers have begun to ask whether threats from the pandemic are linked to people's political attitudes. However, scholars currently lack a systematic answer to this question. Here, we examined whether objective COVID-19 threats (cases, deaths, and government restrictions) occurring over the initial months of the pandemic (February-June 2020) were associated with seven different assessments of political attitudes among Project Implicit users in the United States (N = 34,581). We did not consistently observe meaningful associations between COVID-19 threats and political attitudes. The lack of consistent meaningful associations emerged regardless of the level of analysis (country, state, and county) or participant's self-identified ideology. Collectively, these findings failed to find evidence that political attitudes were tied to COVID-19 threats in a meaningful way during the initial months of the pandemic.

Psychological Science in the Wake of COVID-19: Social, Methodological, and Metascientific Considerations

The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively changed the state of psychological science from what research questions psychologists can ask to which methodologies psychologists can use to investigate them. In this article, we offer a perspective on how to optimize new research in the pandemic's wake. Because this pandemic is inherently a social phenomenon-an event that hinges on human-to-human contact-we focus on socially relevant subfields of psychology. We highlight specific psychological phenomena that have likely shifted as a result of the pandemic and discuss theoretical, methodological, and practical considerations of conducting research on these phenomena. After this discussion, we evaluate metascientific issues that have been amplified by the pandemic. We aim to demonstrate how theoretically grounded views on the COVID-19 pandemic can help make psychological science stronger-not weaker-in its wake.

Does persistence make you healthy? An empirical study on female entrepreneurs from China

Background

Nowadays, more and more women are engaging in entrepreneurial activities. Meanwhile, female entrepreneurs’ health problems have been increasingly reported worldwide. What factors would influence female entrepreneurs’ health are the subject of this paper.

Methods

This paper focuses on the effects of entrepreneurial experience and age of firm on female entrepreneurs’ health through the analysis of 2 years of tracking data in the Bohai Economic Rim, which is one of the most developed areas for entrepreneurial activities in China.

Results

Results from the samples of female entrepreneurs demonstrate that increasing entrepreneurial experience and growing firm age could help female entrepreneurs to activate multiple positive identities. These identities can help female entrepreneurs cope with gender stereotype threat and maintain good health.

Conclusion

This paper contributes to entrepreneur health research in two aspects. First, this study focused on entrepreneurial history indexed by entrepreneurial experience and firm age, enriching the field of female entrepreneurship. Second, this study further explored the mechanism that women cope with stereotype threat in the context of entrepreneurship. At the same time, this paper addresses ways that policy-makers and social media are responsible to help female entrepreneurs stay healthy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12905-021-01471-6.

The Advent of the COVID-19 Epidemic Did Not Affect Americans' Endorsement of Moral Foundations

Prior work has suggested that existential threats in the form of terror attacks may shift liberals’ reliance on moral foundations to more resemble those of conservatives. We therefore hypothesized that endorsement of these moral foundations would have increased when the COVID-19 epidemic became a salient threat. To examine this hypothesis we conducted a longitudinal study with 237 American participants across the liberal-conservative spectrum, in which their endorsement of various moral foundations were measured before and after the advent of the pandemic. We did not find evidence of any systematic change in the endorsement of any moral foundation, neither in general nor specifically among liberals or specifically among those who perceived the greatest threat from COVID-19. We conclude that the threat from the pandemic does not seem to have had any substantial effect on the moral foundations that people rely on. We discuss how this finding relates to other longitudinal studies of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on measures related to conservatism.

Of pathogens and party lines: Social conservatism positively associates with COVID-19 precautions among U.S. Democrats but not Republicans

Social liberals tend to be less pathogen-avoidant than social conservatives, a pattern consistent with a model wherein ideological differences stem from differences in threat reactivity. Here we investigate if and how individual responses to a shared threat reflect those patterns of ideological difference. In seeming contradiction to the general association between social conservatism and pathogen avoidance, the more socially conservative political party in the United States has more consistently downplayed the dangers of COVID-19 during the ongoing pandemic. This puzzle offers an opportunity to examine the contributions of multiple factors to disease avoidance. We investigated the relationship between social conservatism and COVID-19 precautionary behavior in light of the partisan landscape of the United States. We explored whether consumption of, and attitudes toward, different sources of information, as well as differential evaluation of various threats caused by the pandemic-such as direct health costs versus indirect harms to the economy and individual liberties-shape partisan differences in responses to the pandemic in ways that overwhelm the contributions of social conservatism. In two pre-registered studies, socially conservative attitudes correlate with self-reported COVID-19 prophylactic behaviors, but only among Democrats. Reflecting larger societal divisions, among Republicans and Independents, the absence of a positive relationship between social conservatism and COVID-19 precautions appears driven by lower trust in scientists, lower trust in liberal and moderate sources, lesser consumption of liberal news media, and greater economic conservatism.

Gender roles during COVID-19 pandemic: The experiences of Turkish female academics

This study aims to explore the COVID-19 experiences of Turkish female academics in terms of gender roles by focusing on how these women have dealt with domestic and academic responsibilities. The study group consisted of 21 female academics working from home, along with their spouses. Interpretative phenomenological analysis was used to analyze the data collected through semistructured telephone interviews. The findings were clustered under five main themes: the early days of the pandemic, work life after the pandemic, domestic responsibilities after the pandemic, family relationships after the pandemic, and the perception of gender roles. The results indicate that the pandemic has deepened gender inequalities, and the academic life of female academics has changed in terms of academic productivity. Therefore, we recommend that more research examining the quarantine process and involving women in other occupations and of different socioeconomic statuses should be done to develop more effective social policies.

Of pathogens and party lines: Social conservatism positively associates with COVID-19 precautions among U.S. Democrats but not Republicans

Social liberals tend to be less pathogen-avoidant than social conservatives, a pattern consistent with a model wherein ideological differences stem from differences in threat reactivity. Here we investigate if and how individual responses to a shared threat reflect those patterns of ideological difference. In seeming contradiction to the general association between social conservatism and pathogen avoidance, the more socially conservative political party in the United States has more consistently downplayed the dangers of COVID-19 during the ongoing pandemic. This puzzle offers an opportunity to examine the contributions of multiple factors to disease avoidance. We investigated the relationship between social conservatism and COVID-19 precautionary behavior in light of the partisan landscape of the United States. We explored whether consumption of, and attitudes toward, different sources of information, as well as differential evaluation of various threats caused by the pandemic-such as direct health costs versus indirect harms to the economy and individual liberties-shape partisan differences in responses to the pandemic in ways that overwhelm the contributions of social conservatism. In two pre-registered studies, socially conservative attitudes correlate with self-reported COVID-19 prophylactic behaviors, but only among Democrats. Reflecting larger societal divisions, among Republicans and Independents, the absence of a positive relationship between social conservatism and COVID-19 precautions appears driven by lower trust in scientists, lower trust in liberal and moderate sources, lesser consumption of liberal news media, and greater economic conservatism.