Which of the following does not typically underlie most self defeating trade offs?

References

1. Zhou, F. et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 395, 1054–1062 (2020).

   Nội dung chính Show

   • Which of the following theorists was the first to suggest that people tend to attribute behavior to either internal or external causes?
   • What you believe to be true about yourself is called?

   Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

2. Lunn, P. et al. Using behavioural science to help fight the coronavirus. ESRI Working Paper No. 656 March 2020. http://aei.pitt.edu/102644/ (2020).

3. Scott, S. & Duncan, C.J. Biology of Plagues: Evidence from Historical Populations. (Cambridge University Press, 2001).

4. LeDoux, J. Rethinking the emotional brain. Neuron 73, 653–676 (2012).

   Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

5. Mobbs, D., Hagan, C. C., Dalgleish, T., Silston, B. & Prévost, C. The ecology of human fear: survival optimization and the nervous system. Front. Neurosci. 9, 55 (2015).

   Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

6. Kramer, A. D. I., Guillory, J. E. & Hancock, J. T. Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 8878–8790 (2014).

   Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

7. Cole, S., Balcetis, E. & Dunning, D. Affective signals of threat increase perceived proximity. Psychol. Sci. 24, 34–40 (2013).

   Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

8. Witte, K. & Allen, M. A meta-analysis of fear appeals: implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ. Behav. 27, 591–615 (2000).

   Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

9. Strunk, D. R., Lopez, H. & DeRubeis, R. J. Depressive symptoms are associated with unrealistic negative predictions of future life events. Behav. Res. Ther. 44, 861–882 (2006).

   Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

10. Sharot, T. The optimism bias. Curr. Biol. 21, R941–R945 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

11. Wise, T., Zbozinek, T. D., Michelini, G., Hagan, C. C. & Mobbs, D. Changes in risk perception and protective behavior during the first week of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://osf.io/dz428 (2020).

12. Fischhoff, B. The sciences of science communication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110(Suppl 3), 14033–14039 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

13. Slovic, P. Perception of risk. Science 236, 280–285 (1987).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

14. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E. & MacGregor, D. G. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal. 24, 311–322 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

15. Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K. & Welch, N. Risk as feelings. Psychol. Bull. 127, 267–286 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

16. Peters, E., Lipkus, I. & Diefenbach, M. A. The functions of affect in health communications and in the construction of health preferences. J. Commun. 56, S140–S162 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

17. Evans, A. T. et al. Graphic warning labels elicit affective and thoughtful responses from smokers: results of a randomized clinical trial. PLoS One 10, e0142879 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

18. Noar, S. M. et al. Pictorial cigarette pack warnings: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Tob. Control 25, 341–354 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

19. Rottenstreich, Y. & Hsee, C. K. Money, kisses, and electric shocks: on the affective psychology of risk. Psychol. Sci. 12, 185–190 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

20. Hsee, C. K. & Rottenstreich, Y. Music, pandas, and muggers: on the affective psychology of value. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 133, 23–30 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

21. Peters, E. et al. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol. Sci. 17, 407–413 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

22. Schaller, M. & Neuberg, S. L. Danger, disease, and the nature of prejudice(s). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 46, 1–54 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

23. Feldman, S. & Stenner, K. Perceived threat and authoritarianism. Polit. Psychol. 18, 741–770 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

24. Jackson, J. C. et al. Ecological and cultural factors underlying the global distribution of prejudice. PLoS One 14, e0221953 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

25. Marcus, G. E., Sullivan, J. L., Theiss-Morse, E. & Wood, S. L. With Malice Toward Some: How People Make Civil Liberties Judgments. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995).

26. Cikara, M., Bruneau, E. G. & Saxe, R. R. Us and them: intergroup failures of empathy. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 20, 149–153 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

27. Han, S. Neurocognitive basis of racial ingroup bias in empathy. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22, 400–421 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

28. Kteily, N., Hodson, G. & Bruneau, E. They see us as less than human: metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 110, 343–370 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

29. Han, X. et al. A neurobiological association of revenge propensity during intergroup conflict. eLife 9, e52014 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

30. Cohn, S. K. Pandemics: waves of disease, waves of hate from the Plague of Athens to A.I.D.S. Hist. J. 85, 535–555 (2012).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

31. Russell, A. The rise of coronavirus hate crimes. The New Yorker https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-uk/the-rise-of-coronavirus-hate-crimes (2020).

32. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L. & Saguy, T. Another view of “we”: majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 18, 296–330 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

33. Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T. & Ropp, S. A. The extended contact effect: knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73, 73–90 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

34. Clarke, L. Panic: myth or reality? Contexts 1, 21–26 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

35. Drury, J. The role of social identity processes in mass emergency behaviour: an integrative review. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 29, 38–81 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

36. Booth, R. Community aid groups set up across UK amid coronavirus crisis. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/16/community-aid-groups-set-up-across-uk-amid-coronavirus-crisis (16 March 2020).

37. Canter, D. Fires and Human Behaviour. (David Fulton, 1990).

38. Tierney, K.J., Lindell, M.K. & Perry, R.W. Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and Response in the United States. (Joseph Henry Press, 2001).

39. Quarantelli, E.L. Sociology of panic. in International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences (eds. Smelser, N. J. & Baltes, P. B.) 11020–11023 (Pergamon Press, 2001).

40. Drury, J., Cocking, C. & Reicher, S. The nature of collective resilience: survivor reactions to the 2005 London bombings. Int. J. Mass Emerg. Disasters 27, 66–95 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

41. Carter, H., Drury, J., Rubin, G. J., Williams, R. & Amlôt, R. Applying crowd psychology to develop recommendations for the management of mass decontamination. Health Secur. 13, 45–53 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

42. Stiff, C. The game theory of panic-buying – and how to reduce it. The Conversation http://theconversation.com/the-game-theory-of-panic-buying-and-how-to-reduce-it-134107 (2020).

43. Cialdini, R. B. & Goldstein, N. J. Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55, 591–621 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

44. Wood, W. Attitude change: persuasion and social influence. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 51, 539–570 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

45. Miller, D.T. & Prentice, D.A. The construction of social norms and standards. in Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles 799–829 (Guilford Press, 1996).

46. Dickie, R., Rasmussen, S., Cain, R., Williams, L. & MacKay, W. The effects of perceived social norms on handwashing behaviour in students. Psychol. Health Med. 23, 154–159 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

47. Berkowitz, A.D. An overview of the social norms approach. in Changing the Culture of College Drinking: A Socially Situated Health Communication Campaign (eds. Stewart, L. & Lederman, L. C.) 193–214 (Hampton Press, 2005).

48. Cialdini, R.B., Kallgren, C.A. & Reno, R.R. A focus theory of normative conduct: a theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 24, 201–234 (1991).

49. Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. & Griskevicius, V. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol. Sci. 18, 429–434 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

50. Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A. & Turner, J. C. Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 29, 97–119 (1990).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

51. Centola, D. An experimental study of homophily in the adoption of health behavior. Science 334, 1269–1272 (2011).

52. Christakis, N. A. & Fowler, J. H. Social contagion theory: examining dynamic social networks and human behavior. Stat. Med. 32, 556–577 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

53. Christakis, N. A. & Fowler, J. H. Social network sensors for early detection of contagious outbreaks. PLoS One 5, e12948 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

54. Kim, D. A. et al. Social network targeting to maximise population behaviour change: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet 386, 145–153 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

55. Bond, R. M. et al. A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489, 295–298 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

56. Halpern, D. Inside the Nudge Unit: How Small Changes Can Make a Big Difference (Random House, 2015).

57. Thaler, R.H. & Sunstein, C.R. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. (Yale University Press, 2008).

58. Sparkman, G. & Walton, G. M. Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counternormative. Psychol. Sci. 28, 1663–1674 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

59. HUD Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs Homeless Populations and Subpopulations. https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_PopSub_NatlTerrDC_2019.pdf (US Department of Housing & Urban Development, 2019).

60. Deitz, S. & Meehan, K. Plumbing poverty: mapping hot spots of racial and geographic inequality in U.S. household water insecurity. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109, 1092–1109 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

61. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. Higher wage workers more likely than lower wage workers to have paid leave benefits in 2018. The Economics Daily https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2018/higher-wage-workers-more-likely-than-lower-wage-workers-to-have-paid-leave-benefits-in-2018.htm (2018).

62. Cockerham, W. C., Hamby, B. W. & Oates, G. R. The social determinants of chronic disease. Am. J. Prev. Med. 52(1S1), S5–S12 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

63. Fothergill, A. & Peek, L. A. Poverty and disasters in the United States: a review of recent sociological findings. Nat. Hazards 32, 89–110 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

64. Bolin, B. & Kurtz, L.C. Race, class, ethnicity, and disaster vulnerability. in Handbook of Disaster Research (eds. Rodríguez, H., Donner, W. & Trainor, J. E.) 181–203 (Springer International Publishing, 2018).

65. Kristal, T., Cohen, Y. & Navot, E. Benefit inequality among American workers by gender, race, and ethnicity, 1982–2015. Sociol. Sci. 5, 461–488 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

66. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Communities in Action: Pathways to Health Equity. (National Academies Press, 2017).

67. Quiñones, A. R. et al. Racial/ethnic differences in multimorbidity development and chronic disease accumulation for middle-aged adults. PLoS One 14, e0218462 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

68. Marsden, P. V. Core discussion networks of Americans. Am. Sociol. Rev. 52, 122–131 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

69. Granovetter, M. S. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78, 1360–1380 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

70. Demaris, A. & Yang, R. Race, alienation, and interpersonal mistrust. Sociol. Spectr. 14, 327–349 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

71. Brehm, J. & Rahn, W. Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 41, 999–1023 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

72. Smith, T. W. Factors relating to misanthropy in contemporary American society. Soc. Sci. Res. 26, 170–196 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

73. Claibourn, M. P. & Martin, P. S. Trusting and Joining? An empirical test of the reciprocal nature of social capital. Polit. Behav. 22, 267–291 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

74. Alesina, A. & La Ferrara, E. Who trusts others? J. Public Econ. 85, 207–234 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

75. Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol. Rev. 98, 224–253 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

76. Triandis, H.C. Individualism And Collectivism. (Westview Press, 1995).

77. Kitayama, S., Park, H., Sevincer, A. T., Karasawa, M. & Uskul, A. K. A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: comparing North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97, 236–255 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

78. San Martin, A. et al. Self-assertive interdependence in Arab culture. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 830–837 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

79. Kitayama, S. et al. Behavioral adjustment moderates the link between neuroticism and biological health risk: a U.S.-Japan comparison study. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 44, 809–822 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

80. Betsch, C., Böhm, R., Korn, L. & Holtmann, C. On the benefits of explaining herd immunity in vaccine advocacy. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 56 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

81. Kraus, B. & Kitayama, S. Interdependent self-construal predicts emotion suppression in Asian Americans: an electro-cortical investigation. Biol. Psychol. 146, 107733 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

82. Gelfand, M. J. et al. Differences between tight and loose cultures: a 33-nation study. Science 332, 1100–1104 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

83. Gelfand, M. J., Harrington, J. R. & Jackson, J. C. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12, 800–809 (2017). The strength of social norms across human groups.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

84. Harrington, J. R. & Gelfand, M. J. Tightness-looseness across the 50 United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 7990–7995 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

85. Roos, P., Gelfand, M., Nau, D. & Lun, J. Societal threat and cultural variation in the strength of social norms: an evolutionary basis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 129, 14–23 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

86. Gelfand, M. Rule Makers, Rule Breakers: How Tight and Loose Cultures Wire Our World. (Scribner, 2018).

87. Westwood, S. J. et al. The tie that divides: cross-national evidence of the primacy of partyism. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 57, 333–354 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

88. Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N. & Westwood, S. J. The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 22, 129–146 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

89. Hetherington, M.J. & Weiler, J.D. Authoritarianism and polarization in American politics, still? in American Gridlock: The Sources, Character, and Impact of Polarization (eds. Thurber, J. A. & Yoshinaka, A.) 86–112 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).

90. Abramowitz, A. I. & Webster, S. The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century. Elect. Stud. 41, 12–22 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

91. Van Bavel, J. J. & Pereira, A. The partisan brain: an identity-based model of political belief. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22, 213–224 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

92. Bakshy, E., Messing, S. & Adamic, L. A. Political science. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348, 1130–1132 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

93. Lelkes, Y., Sood, G. & Iyengar, S. The hostile audience: the effect of access to broadband internet on partisan affect. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 61, 5–20 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

94. Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A. & Van Bavel, J. J. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7313–7318 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

95. Minozzi, W., Song, H., Lazer, D. M. J., Neblo, M. A. & Ognyanova, K. The incidental pundit: who talks politics with whom, and why? Am. J. Pol. Sci. 64, 135–151 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

96. Ahler, D. J. & Sood, G. The parties in our heads: misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. J. Polit. 80, 964–981 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

97. Lees, J. & Cikara, M. Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 279–286 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

98. Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N. & Cook, F. L. The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Polit. Behav. 36, 235–262 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

99. Ellis, E.G. The coronavirus outbreak is a petri dish for conspiracy theories. Wired https://www.wired.com/story/coronavirus-conspiracy-theories/ (2020).

100. Gertz, B. Coronavirus may have originated in lab linked to China’s biowarfare program. The Washington Times https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/26/coronavirus-link-to-china-biowarfare-program-possi/ (2020).

101. Sommer, W. QAnon-ers’ magic cure for coronavirus: just drink bleach! The Daily Beast https://www.thedailybeast.com/qanon-conspiracy-theorists-magic-cure-for-coronavirus-is-drinking-lethal-bleach (2020).

102. Leman, P. & Cinnirella, M. A major event has a major cause: evidence for the role of heuristics in reasoning about conspiracy theories. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 9, 18–28 (2007).

     Google Scholar 

103. McCauley, C. & Jacques, S. The popularity of conspiracy theories of presidential assassination: a Bayesian analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37, 637–644 (1979).

     Article  Google Scholar 

104. van Prooijen, J.-W. & Douglas, K. M. Conspiracy theories as part of history: the role of societal crisis situations. Mem. Stud. 10, 323–333 (2017).

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

105. Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M. & Cichocka, A. The psychology of conspiracy theories. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 26, 538–542 (2017).

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

106. Graeupner, D. & Coman, A. The dark side of meaning-making: how social exclusion leads to superstitious thinking. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 69, 218–222 (2017).

     Article  Google Scholar 

107. Jolley, D. & Douglas, K. M. The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions. PLoS One 9, e89177 (2014).

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

108. Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E. & Oberauer, K. The robust relationship between conspiracism and denial of (climate) science. Psychol. Sci. 26, 667–670 (2015).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

109. van Prooijen, J.-W., Krouwel, A. P. M. & Pollet, T. V. Political extremism predicts belief in conspiracy theories. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 6, 570–578 (2015).

     Article  Google Scholar 

110. Jolley, D., Meleady, R. & Douglas, K. M. Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups. Br. J. Psychol. 111, 17–35 (2020).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

111. Kofta, M., Soral, W. & Bilewicz, M. What breeds conspiracy antisemitism? The role of political uncontrollability and uncertainty in the belief in Jewish conspiracy. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000183 (2020).

112. Marchlewska, M., Cichocka, A., Łozowski, F., Górska, P. & Winiewski, M. In search of an imaginary enemy: Catholic collective narcissism and the endorsement of gender conspiracy beliefs. J. Soc. Psychol. 159, 766–779 (2019).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

113. Jolley, D. & Douglas, K. M. Prevention is better than cure: addressing anti‐vaccine conspiracy theories. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 47, 459–469 (2017).

     Article  Google Scholar 

114. Zollo, F. et al. Debunking in a world of tribes. PLoS One 12, e0181821 (2017).

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

115. Frenkel, S., Alba, D. & Zhong, R. Surge of virus misinformation stumps Facebook and Twitter. The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/08/technology/coronavirus-misinformation-social-media.html (2020).

116. Allen, J., Howland, B., Mobius, M., Rothschild, D. & Watts, D. J. Evaluating the fake news problem at the scale of the information ecosystem. Sci. Adv. 1, eaay3539 (2020).

     Article  Google Scholar 

117. Allcott, H. & Gentzkow, M. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. J. Econ. Perspect. 31, 211–236 (2017).

     Article  Google Scholar 

118. Guess, A., Nagler, J. & Tucker, J. Less than you think: prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Sci. Adv. 5, u4586 (2019).

     Article  Google Scholar 

119. Berinsky, A. J. Rumors and health care reform: experiments in political misinformation. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 47, 241–262 (2017).

     Article  Google Scholar 

120. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N. & Cook, J. Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 13, 106–131 (2012).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

121. Guess, A. & Coppock, A. Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. Br. J. Polit. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123418000327 (2018).

122. Schmid, P. & Betsch, C. Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3, 931–939 (2019).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

123. Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. Displacing misinformation about events: an experimental test of causal corrections. J. Exp. Political Sci. 2, 81–93 (2015).

     Article  Google Scholar 

124. Wittenberg, C. & Berinsky, A.J. Misinformation and its correction. in Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field (eds Persily, N. & Tucker, J. A.) (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).

125. Swire, B. & Ecker, U.K.H. Misinformation and its correction: Cognitive mechanisms and recommendations for mass communication. in Misinformation and Mass Audiences (eds. Southwell, B. G., Thorson, E. A. & Sheble, L.) 195–2011 (University of Texas Press, 2018).

126. Wood, T. & Porter, E. The elusive backfire effect: mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Polit. Behav. 41, 135–163 (2018).

     Article  Google Scholar 

127. Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y. & Rand, D. Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy nudge intervention. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/uhbk9 (2020).

128. McGuire, W. J. Some contemporary approaches. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 1, 191–229 (1964).

     Article  Google Scholar 

129. van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S. & Maibach, E. Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Glob. Chall. 1, 1600008 (2017).

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

130. Banas, J. A. & Rains, S. A. A meta-analysis of research on inoculation theory. Commun. Monogr. 77, 281–311 (2010).

     Article  Google Scholar 

131. Basol, M., Roozenbeek, J. & van der Linden, S. Good news about bad news: gamified inoculation boosts confidence and cognitive immunity against fake news. J. Cogn. 3, 2 (2020).

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

132. Roozenbeek, J. & van der Linden, S. Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Palgrave Commun. 5, 65 (2019).

     Article  Google Scholar 

133. Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S. & Nygren, T. Prebunking interventions based on “inoculation” theory can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016//mr-2020-008 (2020).

134. Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Lazy, not biased: susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition 188, 39–50 (2019).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

135. Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. J. Pers. 88, 185–200 (2020).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

136. Bronstein, M. V., Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Rand, D. G. & Cannon, T. D. Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 8, 108–117 (2019).

     Article  Google Scholar 

137. Bago, B., Rand, D. G. & Pennycook, G. Fake news, fast and slow: deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/xge0000729 (2020).

138. Dias, N., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Emphasizing publishers does not effectively reduce susceptibility to misinformation on social media. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-001 (2020).

139. Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 2521–2526 (2019).

     Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

140. Clayton, K. et al. Real solutions for fake news? Measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact-check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media. Polit. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09533-0 (2019).

141. Trevena, L.J. et al. Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 13 Suppl 2, S7 (2013).

142. Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19, 123–205 (1986).

     Google Scholar 

143. Briñol, P. & Petty, R. E. Source factors in persuasion: a self-validation approach. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 20, 49–96 (2009).

     Article  Google Scholar 

144. O’Keefe, D.J. Persuasion: Theory and Research. (SAGE, 2016).

145. Greyling, C. et al. Lessons from the faith-driven response to the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Rev. Faith Int. Aff. 14, 118–123 (2016).

     Article  Google Scholar 

146. Teeny, J., Siev, J., Briñol, P. & Petty, R.E. A review and conceptual framework for understanding personalized matching effects in persuasion. J. Consum. Psychol. (in the press).

147. Grant, A. M. & Hofmann, D. A. It’s not all about me: motivating hand hygiene among health care professionals by focusing on patients. Psychol. Sci. 22, 1494–1499 (2011).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

148. Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. Moral reframing: a technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 13, e12501 (2019).

     Article  Google Scholar 

149. Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E. & Vaughan, S. The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 399–404 (2013).

     Article  Google Scholar 

150. Linden, S. V., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. Scientific agreement can neutralize politicization of facts. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 2–3 (2018).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

151. van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. The gateway belief model: a large-scale replication. J. Environ. Psychol. 62, 49–58 (2019).

     Article  Google Scholar 

152. Drummond, C. & Fischhoff, B. Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9587–9592 (2017).

     Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

153. Kahan, D. M. et al. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2, 732–735 (2012).

     Article  Google Scholar 

154. Druckman, J. N. & McGrath, M. C. The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 111–119 (2019).

     Article  Google Scholar 

155. Rucker, D., Tormala, Z. L., Petty, R. E. & Briñol, P. Consumer conviction and commitment: an appraisal-based framework for attitude certainty. J. Consum. Psychol. 24, 119–136 (2014).

     Article  Google Scholar 

156. Barden, J. & Petty, R. E. The mere perception of elaboration creates attitude certainty: exploring the thoughtfulness heuristic. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95, 489–509 (2008).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

157. Luttrell, A., Petty, R. E., Briñol, P. & Wagner, B. C. Making it moral: merely labeling an attitude as moral increases its strength. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 65, 82–93 (2016).

     Article  Google Scholar 

158. Greene, J. Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap between Us and Them (Penguin Press, 2013).

159. Haidt, J. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol. Rev. 108, 814–834 (2001).

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

160. Haidt, J. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. (Vintage, 2012).

161. Tomasello, M. Why We Cooperate. (MIT Press, 2009).

162. Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. Groups in mind: the coalitional roots of war and morality. in Human Morality and Sociality (ed. Høgh-Olesen, H.) 191–234 (2010).

163. Leach, C.W., Bilali, R. & Pagliaro, S. Groups and morality. in APA handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 2: Group Processes 123–149 (American Psychological Association, 2015).

164. Ellemers, N. Morality and the Regulation of Social Behavior. (Routledge, 2017).

165. Ellemers, N. & van den Bos, K. Morality in groups: on the social-regulatory functions of right and wrong. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 6, 878–889 (2012).

     Article  Google Scholar 

166. Boyer, P. & Petersen, M. B. Folk-economic beliefs: an evolutionary cognitive model. Behav. Brain Sci. 41, 1–51 (2017).

     Google Scholar 

167. Meegan, D. V. Zero-sum bias: perceived competition despite unlimited resources. Front. Psychol. 1, 191 (2010).

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

168. Folch, E., Hernandez, I., Barragan, M. & Franco-Paredes, C. Infectious diseases, non-zero-sum thinking, and the developing world. Am. J. Med. Sci. 326, 66–72 (2003).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

169. Goodwin, G. P. & Landy, J. F. Valuing different human lives. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143, 778–803 (2014).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

170. Awad, E. et al. The Moral Machine experiment. Nature 563, 59–64 (2018).

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

171. Everett, J. A. C., Pizarro, D. A. & Crockett, M. J. Inference of trustworthiness from intuitive moral judgments. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145, 772–787 (2016).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

172. Funk, C., Hefferon, M., Kennedy, B. & Johnson, C. Trust and Mistrust in Americans’ Views of Scientific Experts. Pew Research Center Science & Society https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts/ (2019).

173. Ransohoff, K.J. Patients on the Trolley Track: The Moral Cognition of Medical Practitioners and Public Health Professionals. (Harvard Univ. Press, 2011).

174. Gino, F., Norton, M. I. & Weber, R. A. Motivated Bayesians: feeling moral while acting egoistically. J. Econ. Perspect. 30, 189–212 (2016).

     Article  Google Scholar 

175. Garcia, T., Massoni, S. & Villeval, M. C. Ambiguity and excuse-driven behavior in charitable giving. Eur. Econ. Rev. 124, 103412 (2020).

     Article  Google Scholar 

176. Kappes, A. et al. Uncertainty about the impact of social decisions increases prosocial behaviour. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 573–580 (2018).

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

177. Barclay, P. & Willer, R. Partner choice creates competitive altruism in humans. Proc. Biol. Sci. 274, 749–753 (2007).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

178. Milinski, M., Semmann, D. & Krambeck, H.-J. Reputation helps solve the ‘tragedy of the commons’. Nature 415, 424–426 (2002).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

179. Cushman, F. & Young, L. Patterns of moral judgment derive from nonmoral psychological representations. Cogn. Sci. 35, 1052–1075 (2011).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

180. Ritov, I. & Baron, J. Reluctance to vaccinate: omission bias and ambiguity. J. Behav. Decis. Making 3, 263–277 (1990).

     Article  Google Scholar 

181. Ritov, I. & Baron, J. Status-quo and omission biases. J. Risk Uncertain. 5, 49–61 (1992).

     Article  Google Scholar 

182. Tetlock, P. E. & Boettger, R. Accountability amplifies the status quo effect when change creates victims. J. Behav. Decis. Making 7, 1–23 (1994).

     Article  Google Scholar 

183. Nowak, M. A. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314, 1560–1563 (2006).

     Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

184. Van Lange, P. A. M., Joireman, J. & Milinski, M. Climate change: what psychology can offer in terms of insights and solutions. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 27, 269–274 (2018).

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

185. Milinski, M., Hilbe, C., Semmann, D., Sommerfeld, R. & Marotzke, J. Humans choose representatives who enforce cooperation in social dilemmas through extortion. Nat. Commun. 7, 10915 (2016).

     Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

186. Reinders Folmer, C. P. et al. One for all: what representing a group may do to us. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48, 1047–1056 (2012).

     Article  Google Scholar 

187. Yamagishi, T. The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 110–116 (1986).

     Article  Google Scholar 

188. Rand, D. G., Dreber, A., Ellingsen, T., Fudenberg, D. & Nowak, M. A. Positive interactions promote public cooperation. Science 325, 1272–1275 (2009).

     Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

189. Dal Bó, E. & Dal Bó, P. “Do the right thing:” the effects of moral suasion on cooperation. J. Public Econ. 117, 28–38 (2014).

     Article  Google Scholar 

190. Capraro, V., Jagfeld, G., Klein, R., Mul, M. & de Pol, I. V. Increasing altruistic and cooperative behaviour with simple moral nudges. Sci. Rep. 9, 11880 (2019).

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

191. Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S. & Fehr, E. Are people conditionally cooperative? evidence from a public goods experiment. Econ. Lett. 71, 397–404 (2001).

     Article  Google Scholar 

192. Kraft-Todd, G., Yoeli, E., Bhanot, S. & Rand, D. Promoting cooperation in the field. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 3, 96–101 (2015).

     Article  Google Scholar 

193. Christensen, D., Dube, O., Haushofer, J., Siddiqi, B. & Voors, M. Community-based crisis response: evidence from Sierra Leone’s Ebola outbreak. Am. Econ. Rev. Pap. Proc. (in the press).

194. Tsai, L.L., Morse, B.S. & Blair, R.A. Building credibility and cooperation in low-trust settings: persuasion and source accountability in Liberia during the 2014–2015 Ebola crisis. Comp. Polit. Stud. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019897698 (2020).

195. Blair, R. A., Morse, B. S. & Tsai, L. L. Public health and public trust: survey evidence from the Ebola virus disease epidemic in Liberia. Soc. Sci. Med. 172, 89–97 (2017).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

196. Morse, B., Grépin, K. A., Blair, R. A. & Tsai, L. Patterns of demand for non-Ebola health services during and after the Ebola outbreak: panel survey evidence from Monrovia, Liberia. BMJ Glob. Health 1, e000007 (2016).

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

197. Vinck, P., Pham, P. N., Bindu, K. K., Bedford, J. & Nilles, E. J. Institutional trust and misinformation in the response to the 2018-19 Ebola outbreak in North Kivu, DR Congo: a population-based survey. Lancet Infect. Dis. 19, 529–536 (2019).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

198. Alsan, M. & Wanamaker, M. Tuskegee and the health of black men. Q. J. Econ. 133, 407–455 (2018).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

199. Reicher, S., Haslam, S. A. & Hopkins, N. Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. Leadersh. Q. 16, 547–568 (2005).

     Article  Google Scholar 

200. Haslam, S.A., Reicher, S.D. & Platow, M.J. The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence, and Power. (Routledge, 2011).

201. Fransen, K. et al. Believing in “us”: exploring leaders’ capacity to enhance team confidence and performance by building a sense of shared social identity. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 21, 89–100 (2015).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

202. Haslam, S. A. & Reicher, S. Stressing the group: social identity and the unfolding dynamics of responses to stress. J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 1037–1052 (2006). Stressing the group.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

203. Haslam, S. A. & Platow, M. J. The link between leadership and followership: how affirming social identity translates vision into action. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27, 1469–1479 (2001).

     Article  Google Scholar 

204. Hogg, M. A. A social identity theory of leadership. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 5, 184–200 (2001).

     Article  Google Scholar 

205. Nielsen, J.S. The Myth Of Leadership: Creating Leaderless Organizations. (Davies-Black Publishing, 2004).

206. Mooijman, M., van Dijk, W. W., van Dijk, E. & Ellemers, N. On sanction-goal justifications: How and why deterrence justifications undermine rule compliance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 112, 577–588 (2017).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

207. Tyler, T.R. Why People Cooperate: The Role of Social Motivations. (Princeton Univ. Press, 2011).

208. Ellemers, N., Spears, R. & Doosje, B. Self and social identity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53, 161–186 (2002).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

209. Schnall, S., Roper, J. & Fessler, D. M. T. Elevation leads to altruistic behavior. Psychol. Sci. 21, 315–320 (2010).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

210. Schnall, S. & Roper, J. Elevation puts moral values into action. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 3, 373–378 (2012).

     Article  Google Scholar 

211. Yang, X.-F., Pavarini, G., Schnall, S. & Immordino-Yang, M. H. Looking up to virtue: averting gaze facilitates moral construals via posteromedial activations. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 13, 1131–1139 (2018).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

212. de Zavala, A. G., Cichocka, A., Eidelson, R. & Jayawickreme, N. Collective narcissism and its social consequences. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97, 1074–1096 (2009).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

213. Cichocka, A. Understanding defensive and secure in-group positivity: the role of collective narcissism. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 27, 283–317 (2016).

     Article  Google Scholar 

214. Cichocka, A. & Cislak, A. Nationalism as collective narcissism. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 69–74 (2020).

     Article  Google Scholar 

215. Cichocka, A., Marchlewska, M., Golec de Zavala, A. & Olechowski, M. ‘They will not control us’: ingroup positivity and belief in intergroup conspiracies. Br. J. Psychol. 107, 556–576 (2016).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

216. Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117, 497–529 (1995).

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

217. Jetten, J., Haslam, C., & Haslam, S. A. (eds.) The Social Cure: Identity, Health and Well-being. (Psychology Press, 2012).

218. Jetten, J. et al. Advancing the social identity approach to health and well-being: progressing the social cure research agenda. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 47, 789–802 (2017).

     Article  Google Scholar 

219. Rimé, B. Emotion elicits the social sharing of emotion: theory and empirical review. Emot. Rev. 1, 60–85 (2009).

     Article  Google Scholar 

220. Williams, W. C., Morelli, S. A., Ong, D. C. & Zaki, J. Interpersonal emotion regulation: Implications for affiliation, perceived support, relationships, and well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 115, 224–254 (2018).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

221. Haslam, C. et al. The New Psychology of Health: Unlocking the Social Cure. (Routledge, 2018).

222. Hawkley, L. C. & Cacioppo, J. T. Loneliness matters: a theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Ann. Behav. Med. 40, 218–227 (2010).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

223. Luo, Y., Hawkley, L. C., Waite, L. J. & Cacioppo, J. T. Loneliness, health, and mortality in old age: a national longitudinal study. Soc. Sci. Med. 74, 907–914 (2012).

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

224. Cacioppo, J.T. & Patrick, W. Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection. (Norton, 2009).

225. Doré, B. P., Morris, R. R., Burr, D. A., Picard, R. W. & Ochsner, K. N. Helping others regulate emotion predicts increased regulation of one’s own emotions and decreased symptoms of depression. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 43, 729–739 (2017).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

226. Helliwell, J. F. & Huang, H. Comparing the happiness effects of real and on-line friends. PLoS One 8, e72754 (2013).

     Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

227. Verduyn, P. et al. Passive Facebook usage undermines affective well-being: experimental and longitudinal evidence. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 144, 480–488 (2015).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

228. Schroeder, J., Kardas, M. & Epley, N. The humanizing voice: speech reveals, and text conceals, a more thoughtful mind in the midst of disagreement. Psychol. Sci. 28, 1745–1762 (2017).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

229. Waytz, A. & Gray, K. Does online technology make us more or less sociable? a preliminary review and call for research. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13, 473–491 (2018).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

230. Brooks, S. K. et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. Lancet 395, 912–920 (2020).

     Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

231. Ellemers, N. & Jetten, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 17, 3–21 (2013). The many ways to be marginal in a group.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

232. Greenaway, K. H., Jetten, J., Ellemers, N. & van Bunderen, L. The dark side of inclusion: undesired acceptance increases aggression. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 18, 173–189 (2015).

     Article  Google Scholar 

233. Owen, L. Five ways the coronavirus is hitting women in Asia. BBC News https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51705199 (2020).

234. Karney, B.R. Socioeconomic status and intimate relationships. Annu. Rev. Psychol. (in the press).

235. Karney, B.R. & Neff, L.A. Couples and stress: how demands outside a relationship affect intimacy within the relationship. in The Oxford Handbook of Close Relationships (eds. Simpson, J. A. & Campbell, L.) 664–684 (Oxford Univ.Press, 2013).

236. Cohan, C. L. & Cole, S. W. Life course transitions and natural disaster: marriage, birth, and divorce following Hurricane Hugo. J. Fam. Psychol. 16, 14–25 (2002).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

237. Finkel, E.J. The All-or-Nothing Marriage: How the Best Marriages Work. (Dutton, 2017).

238. Crum, A. J., Jamieson, J. P. & Akinola, M. Optimizing stress: an integrated intervention for regulating stress responses. Emotion 20, 120–125 (2020).

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

239. Jamieson, J. P., Crum, A. J., Goyer, J. P., Marotta, M. E. & Akinola, M. Optimizing stress responses with reappraisal and mindset interventions: an integrated model. Anxiety Stress Coping 31, 245–261 (2018).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

240. Dienstbier, R. A. Arousal and physiological toughness: implications for mental and physical health. Psychol. Rev. 96, 84–100 (1989).

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

241. Epel, E. S., McEwen, B. S. & Ickovics, J. R. Embodying psychological thriving: physical thriving in response to stress. J. Soc. Issues 54, 301–322 (1998).

     Article  Google Scholar 

242. Hazeldine, J., Arlt, W. & Lord, J. M. Dehydroepiandrosterone as a regulator of immune cell function. J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 120, 127–136 (2010).

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

243. Tedeschi, R. G. & Calhoun, L. G. Posttraumatic growth: conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychol. Inq. 15, 1–18 (2004).

     Article  Google Scholar 

244. Crum, A. J., Akinola, M., Martin, A. & Fath, S. The role of stress mindset in shaping cognitive, emotional, and physiological responses to challenging and threatening stress. Anxiety Stress Coping 30, 379–395 (2017).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

245. Crum, A. J., Salovey, P. & Achor, S. Rethinking stress: the role of mindsets in determining the stress response. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 104, 716–733 (2013).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

246. Soper, G. A. The lessons of the pandemic. Science 49, 501–506 (1919).

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

247. Byrne, S. & Hart, P. S. The boomerang effect a synthesis of findings and a preliminary theoretical framework. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 33, 3–37 (2009).

     Article  Google Scholar 

248. Burgoon, M., Alvaro, E., Grandpre, J. & Voulodakis, M. Revisiting the theory of psychological reactance: Communicating threats to attitudinal freedom. in The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice (eds. Dillard, J. P. & Pfau, M.) 213–232 (SAGE, 2002).

249. Garcia, D. & Rimé, B. Collective emotions and social resilience in the digital traces after a terrorist attack. Psychol. Sci. 30, 617–628 (2019).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

250. Brady, W. J., Crockett, M. & Van Bavel, J. J. The MAD model of moral contagion: the role of motivation, attention and design in the spread of moralized content online. Persp. Psychol. Sci. (in the press).

251. Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J. & Klebanov, P. K. Economic deprivation and early childhood development. Child Dev. 65, 296–318 (1994).

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

252. Jin, R. L., Shah, C. P. & Svoboda, T. J. The impact of unemployment on health: a review of the evidence. CMAJ 153, 529–540 (1995).

     CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

253. Rimal, R. N. & Lapinski, M. K. Why health communication is important in public health. Bull. World Health Organ. 87, 247–247a (2009).

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Which of the following theorists was the first to suggest that people tend to attribute behavior to either internal or external causes?

What you believe to be true about yourself is called?