How do we respond when a crisis occurs? And how do we know what to do? Catherine Sanderson, a renowned psychologist who has done pioneering research on social norms and the author of Why We Act: Turning Bystanders into Moral Rebels, tells us that we tend to look to each other for answers—and that’s why it’s important we model proper behavior for those around us.
In October of my senior year at Stanford, I was in a psychology class on the fourth floor of a building when the Loma Prieta earthquake hit. All of a sudden, everything changed. Classes were cancelled—and in 1989, there was no option for “online learning.” Students couldn’t reach their parents—and there were no cell phones. Some dorms were closed due to structural damage. I had a single room, but shared it that night with four friends—not wanting to be alone as aftershocks continued throughout the night.
I’ve thought about that day repeatedly over the last few days, as multiple colleges, including my own and the ones my two sons attend, are sending students home. I’ve thought about what I needed at the time—as a 21-year-old 3,000 miles from home and totally freaked out—and what I want to do now to help ease anxiety—as a professor for my students at Amherst College and as a mom.
Here’s what research in psychology tells us about how people act in times of crisis—and how we can push people to act in more prosocial ways.
Ambiguity inhibits action. People are far more willing to take action in the case of a clear emergency than in an ambiguous situation. This finding explains why people rush to donate blood following mass shootings and send food and supplies to victims of national disasters. We recognize what’s going on, we want to help, and we have tangible ways to do so. But almost everything about the current pandemic is entirely uncertain: what causes it? how dangerous is it? how long will it last? That leads most of us to feel simultaneously like we are overreacting (they are closing colleges because of the flu?) and underreacting (I need to buy enough food to last for three months). And this ambiguity makes it hard to know how to respond. Is it safe to work out at the gym? Go out to dinner with a few friends? Get my hair cut?
In ambiguous situations, most of us experience evaluation apprehension, meaning a fear that our behavior will be judged by others. Our desire to do the right thing is therefore complicated, because we really don’t want to be seen as overreacting. So what do we do when we’re facing an ambiguous situation and we don’t know what’s going on or how to react? We look to how other people are reacting.
Unfortunately, many high-profile people erred on the side of underreaction early on, which made it harder for others to take this threat seriously. Florida Representative Matt Gaetz wore a large gas mask on the floor of the House to illustrate how silly concerns were about the virus; he’s now under self-quarantine due to his own contact with someone infected with COVID-19. An NBA player ridiculed concern with the virus by deliberately touching all of the microphones during a press conference; two days later, he tested positive for the virus himself.
But here’s the good news: psychology research can also tell us how we can act more rationally, even during times of great uncertainty.
First, role models of all types—parents, professors, politicians—need to model the right behavior. That means elbow bumping or bowing instead of shaking hands or hugging. That means canceling travel plans, avoiding large crowds, canceling social engagements, and washing hands. When my college decided on Monday night to send students home for the rest of the semester, many people—students, parents, faculty—thought it seemed like a draconian response. After all, college students are a pretty hearty group, and no one on campus—or in the community—had tested positive. But three days later, this decision hardly seems like an overreaction, based on the social distancing recommendations now provided by the CDC.
Second, we need to emphasize that these norms are—at least for now—the new normal. Why? Because people are highly motivated to follow norms—once they know what they are. In one study, researchers compared different types of messages given to hotel guests to encourage reusing their towels. Some guests received the standard pro-environmental message: “Help Save the Environment: You can show your respect for nature and help save the environment by reusing your towels during your stay.” Others received a similar message, but with a twist: “Join Your Fellow Guests in Helping to Save the Environment: Almost 75 percent of guests who are asked to participate in our new resource savings program do help by using their towels more than once. You can join your fellow guests to help save the environment by reusing your towels during your stay.” Guess which one was more effective? The second, by far: if we think that most other people are engaging in a certain behavior, then many more of us will decide that we should be, too. Research on messages that inspire voting shows precisely the same point: informing people about (high) rates of voting in their neighborhood is far more effective at increasing voter turnout than simply telling people that voting is a civic duty.
So what does research tell us about how to fight the corona virus? Our civic duty is to reduce the spread of the disease. But we push people to take preventative actions by emphasizing that’s the choice most others are making. And the sooner we all embrace the new normal, the better off we all will be.