Blaming the unvaccinated during the COVID-19 pandemic: the roles of political ideology and risk perceptions in the USA

Individuals unvaccinated against COVID-19 (C19) experienced prejudice and blame for the pandemic. Because people vastly overestimate C19 risks, we examined whether these negative judgements could be partially understood as a form of scapegoating (ie, blaming a group unfairly for an undesirable outcome) and whether political ideology (previously shown to shape risk perceptions in the USA) moderates scapegoating of the unvaccinated. We grounded our analyses in scapegoating literature and risk perception during C19. We obtained support for our speculations through two vignette-based studies conducted in the USA in early 2022. We varied the risk profiles (age, prior infection, comorbidities) and vaccination statuses of vignette characters (eg, vaccinated, vaccinated without recent boosters, unvaccinated, unvaccinated-recovered), while keeping all other information constant. We observed that people hold the unvaccinated (vs vaccinated) more responsible for negative pandemic outcomes and that political ideology moderated these effects: liberals (vs conservatives) were more likely to scapegoat the unvaccinated (vs vaccinated), even when presented with information challenging the culpability of the unvaccinated known at the time of data collection (eg, natural immunity, availability of vaccines, time since last vaccination). These findings support a scapegoating explanation for a specific group-based prejudice that emerged during the C19 pandemic. We encourage medical ethicists to examine the negative consequences of significant C19 risk overestimation among the public. The public needs accurate information about health issues. That may involve combating misinformation that overestimates and underestimates disease risk with similar vigilance to error.

Why scapegoating can ruin an apology: The mediated-moderation model of appropriate crisis response messages in the context of South Korea

Introduction

As South Korean companies frequently use apologies for various crisis situations and pair them with other types of crisis response strategies (i.e., scapegoating), theory-driven recommendations for crisis response messages may fall short in practice. This study empirically examines the effectiveness of two crisis response messages (i.e., apology + compensation vs. apology + scapegoating) by integrating the theory of communicative responsibility and situational crisis communication theory.

Methods

South Korean participants (n = 392) read one of two vignettes: the vignettes described an automobile company's apology for malfunctioning seat belts which included either compensation or scapegoating. The participant's perceived communicative responsibility, appropriateness of the apology, and reputation of the company were measured. Process analysis was conducted to examine the mediated-moderation effect of the crisis response messages.

Results and Discussion

The findings indicate that an apology that is provided with compensation is more appropriate than those with scapegoating. The appropriateness is moderated by the perceived symmetry in communicative responsibility, and fully mediates the relationship between apology type and reputation. This study integrates two theoretical models to examine the mechanism behind the crisis response strategies from the perspective of the message receivers, while considering the cultural and normative context of South Korea.

Parental Narcissism Leads to Anxiety and Depression in Children via Scapegoating

The clinical literature on narcissistic families has often described the presence of a family scapegoat. To date, however, no research has empirically explored this phenomenon. This study investigated the relationship between perceived parental vulnerable and grandiose narcissism and scapegoating, and the impact of these on the symptoms of anxiety and depression in emerging adults, in a sample of 504 Australian adults (M_age = 22.38, SD_age = 3.63; 59.72% female, 38.09% male). A path model was tested, with perceived parental vulnerable and grandiose narcissism as predictors, scapegoating as a mediator, and participants' anxiety and depression as outcomes, controlling for demographic variables and participants' vulnerable and grandiose narcissism. Results indicated that higher perceived paternal grandiose narcissism had a direct effect on anxiety and depression, whereas perceived maternal vulnerable narcissism, perceived paternal vulnerable narcissism, and perceived maternal grandiose narcissism had indirect effects on anxiety and depression via scapegoating. Effect sizes were generally small to medium. These findings show that scapegoating is an important variable linking parental narcissism with negative psychological outcomes such as anxiety and depression in emerging adults.

The stigma system: How sociopolitical domination, scapegoating, and stigma shape public health

Stigma is a fundamental driver of adverse health outcomes. Although stigma is often studied at the individual level to focus on how stigma influences the mental and physical health of the stigmatized, considerable research has shown that stigma is multilevel and structural. This paper proposes a theoretical approach that synthesizes the literature on stigma with the literature on scapegoating and divide-and-rule as strategies that the wealthy and powerful use to maintain their power and wealth; the literatures on racial, gender, and other subordination; the literature on ideology and organization in sociopolitical systems; and the literature on resistance and rebellion against stigma, oppression and other forms of subordination. we develop a model of the "stigma system" as a dialectic of interacting and conflicting structures and processes. Understanding this system can help public health reorient stigma interventions to address the sources of stigma as well as the individual problems that stigma creates. On a broader level, this model can help those opposing stigma and its effects to develop alliances and strategies with which to oppose stigma and the processes that create it.

Has Pandemic Threat Stoked Xenophobia? How COVID-19 Influences California Voters' Attitudes toward Diversity and Immigration

Sociological theory and historical precedent suggest that pandemics engender scapegoating of outgroups, but fail to specify how the ethnoracial boundaries defining outgroups are drawn. Using a survey experiment that primed half of the respondents (California registered voters) with questions about COVID-19 during April 2020, we ask how the pandemic influenced attitudes toward immigration, diversity and affect toward Asian Americans. In the aggregate, the COVID prime did not affect attitudes toward immigrants, but did reduce support for policies opening a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and reduced appreciation of California's diversity. Respondents reported rarely feeling anger or fear toward Asian Americans, and rates were unaffected by the COVID prime. A non-experimental comparison between attitudes toward immigrants in September 2019 and April 2020 found a positive change, driven by change among Asian-American and Latino respondents. The results provide selective support for the proposition that pandemics engender xenophobia. At least in April 2020 in California, increased bias crimes against Asian Americans more likely reflected politicians' authorization of scapegoating than broad-based racial antagonism.

Culturally Grounded Scapegoating in Response to Illness and the COVID-19 Pandemic

For years, violence against doctors and healthcare workers has been a growing social issue in China. In a recent series of studies, we provided evidence for a motivated scapegoating account of this violence. Specifically, individuals who feel that the course of their (or their family member's) illness is a threat to their sense of control are more likely to express motivation to aggress against healthcare providers. Drawing on existential theory, we propose that blaming and aggressing against a single individual represents a culturally afforded scapegoating mechanism in China. However, in an era of healthcare crisis (i.e., the global COVID-19 pandemic), it is essential to understand cultural variation in scapegoating in the context of healthcare. We therefore undertook two cross-cultural studies examining how people in the United States and China use different scapegoating responses to re-assert a sense of control during medical uncertainty. One study was conducted prior to the pandemic and allowed us to make an initial validating and exploratory investigation of the constructs of interest. The second study, conducted during the pandemic, was confirmatory and investigated mediation path models. Across the two studies, consistent evidence emerged that, both in response to COVID-related and non-COVID-related illness scenarios, Chinese (relative to U.S.) individuals are more likely to respond by aggressing against an individual doctor, while U.S. (relative to Chinese) individuals are more likely to respond by scapegoating the medical industry/system. Further, Study 2 suggests these culture effects are mediated by differential patterns of primary and secondary control-seeking.

Tacit knowledge and risk perceptions: Tullow Oil and lay publics in Ghana's offshore oil region

This study examines how local residents make sense of offshore oil production risks in Ghana's nascent petroleum industry. From a naturalistic-interpretive perspective, it is primarily based on in-depth interviews with community residents: 8 opinion leaders, 15 residents, and 1 journalist. Residents associate Tullow's oil activities with health concerns (e.g. conjunctivitis), environmental challenges (e.g. the emergence of decomposed seaweeds along the shore), and socio-economic concerns (e.g. loss of livelihoods, decline in fish harvest, and increased rent and cost of living). Focusing on how the local, practical knowledge of interviewees manifest in their sense of offshore oil risks, the study identifies two strategies-scapegoating and tacit knowing-underlying how residents construe offshore oil risks and benefits. Beyond its theoretical contribution to the social construction of risk process, the study illustrates the challenge the expert-lay publics dichotomy poses (and the potential bridging this dichotomy has) for corporate and societal risk management.

Judgement days: moral attitudes in the wake of local disasters

The deaths and destruction stemming from a disaster are traumatic enough to implicate victims' beliefs not only about disasters themselves but also about other social and political concerns. In particular, disasters are associated with the scapegoating of out-groups, suggesting that even deep-rooted moral concerns may shift, at least temporarily, after disasters. This study uses exposure to local natural disaster fatalities to examine moral judgements regarding gays in United States surveys from 1984-98. Survey respondents whose county has suffered a disaster feel appreciably more negatively towards gays, even though most of the disasters in this data set are relatively small and local. The increased antipathy towards gays dissipates within months, and is most marked among those who had, before the disaster, considered themselves more religious. These results raise the possibility that some groups, especially those already marginalised by society, may suffer in a backlash in the wake of a natural disaster.