A hierarchical bayesian analysis of parasite prevalence and sociocultural outcomes: The role of structural racism and sanitation infrastructure

The role of the behavioural immune system on covid-19 lockdown attitudes: The relationship with authoritarianism and collectivism

Background and objectives

The behavioural immune system (BIS) is a motivational system that facilitates the avoidance of pathogens and is thought to have evolved as a less costly mechanism to combat infectious diseases compared to the physiological immune system. The Parasite Stress Theory of Social Values predicts that authoritarianism and collectivist attitudes may impact the BIS by predisposing people to support disease control measures, including severe restrictions like lockdowns or stay-at-home orders. This study investigates the relationship between authoritarianism, collectivism and Covid-19 worry on support for lockdown measures during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Methodology

A total of 187 UK participants were recruited to complete an online survey, which was administered between 22 June and 7 July 2020. The survey included measures of authoritarianism, collectivism, Covid-19 worry and support for lockdown measures. The data were analysed using moderated parallel mediation analysis.

Results

Covid-19 worry had a direct effect on support for and enforcement of lockdown measures, but not on the idea that adherence to lockdown rules should be an individual choice. The relationship between Covid Worry and Support for and Enforcement of lockdown measures was not mediated by authoritarianism, nor was it moderated by Collectivism. Collectivism and Authoritarianism were related to increased levels of support for lockdown independently from Covid Worry but were not related to enforcement.

Conclusions and implications

Support for lockdown restrictions and enforcement was mainly associated with covid worry. Our findings do not support the parasite stress theory of social values and indicate that the BIS manifested in a more direct way, and not through social values.

What Role Does Pathogen-Avoidance Psychology Play in Pandemics?

A substantial body of research has illuminated psychological adaptations motivating pathogen avoidance, mechanisms collectively known as the behavioral immune system. Can knowledge about these mechanisms inform how people respond to widespread disease outbreaks, such as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)] pandemic? We review evidence suggesting that the evolutionary history of the behavioral immune system, and the cues that activate it, are distinct in many ways from modern human experiences with pandemics. Moreover, the behaviors engaged by this system may have limited utility for combating pandemic diseases like COVID-19. A better understanding of the points of distinction and points of overlap between our evolved pathogen-avoidance psychology and responses to pandemics may help us realize a more precise and intervention-ready science.

A biocultural approach to psychiatric illnesses

RATIONALE

As a species, humans are vulnerable to numerous mental disorders, including depression and schizophrenia. This susceptibility may be due to the evolution of our large, complex brains, or perhaps because these illnesses counterintuitively confer some adaptive advantage. Additionally, cultural and biological factors may contribute to susceptibility and variation in mental illness experience and expression. Taking a holistic perspective could strengthen our understanding of these illnesses in diverse cultural contexts.

OBJECTIVES

This paper reviews some of these potential factors and contextualizes mental disorders within a biocultural framework.

RESULTS

There is growing evidence that suggests cultural norms may influence inflammation, neurotransmitters, and neurobiology, as well as the illness experience. Specific examples include variation in schizophrenia delusions between countries, differences in links between inflammation and emotion between the United States and Japan, and differences in brain activity between Caucasian and Asian participants indicating that cultural values may moderate cognitive processes related to social cognition and interoception.

CONCLUSIONS

Research agendas that are grounded in an appreciation of biocultural diversity as it relates to psychiatric illness represent key areas for truly interdisciplinary research that can result in culturally sensitive treatments and highlight possible biological variation affecting medical treatment.

Parasites and politics: why cross-cultural studies must control for relatedness, proximity and covariation

A growing number of studies seek to identify predictors of broad-scale patterns in human cultural diversity, but three sources of non-independence in human cultural variables can bias the results of cross-cultural studies. First, related cultures tend to have many traits in common, regardless of whether those traits are functionally linked. Second, societies in geographical proximity will share many aspects of culture, environment and demography. Third, many cultural traits covary, leading to spurious relationships between traits. Here, we demonstrate tractable methods for dealing with all three sources of bias. We use cross-cultural analyses of proposed associations between human cultural traits and parasite load to illustrate the potential problems of failing to correct for these three forms of statistical non-independence. Associations between parasite stress and sociosexuality, authoritarianism, democracy and language diversity are weak or absent once relatedness and proximity are taken into account, and parasite load has no more power to explain variation in traditionalism, religiosity and collectivism than other measures of biodiversity, climate or population size do. Without correction for statistical non-independence and covariation in cross-cultural analyses, we risk misinterpreting associations between culture and environment.

Stability and Change in In-Group Mate Preferences among Young People in Ethiopia Are Predicted by Food Security and Gender Attitudes, but Not by Expected Pathogen Exposures

There is broad anthropological interest in understanding how people define "insiders" and "outsiders" and how this shapes their attitudes and behaviors toward others. As such, a suite of hypotheses has been proposed to account for the varying degrees of in-group preference between individuals and societies. We test three hypotheses related to material insecurity, pathogen stress, and views of gender equality among cross-sectional (n = 1896) and longitudinal (n = 1002) samples of young people in Ethiopia (aged 13-17 years at baseline) to explore stability and change in their preferences for coethnic spouses. We show that food insecurity is associated with a greater likelihood of intolerant mate preferences. We also find that young people who hold more gender equitable attitudes tended to hold more tolerant mate preferences. Finally, we find no support for the hypothesis that expected pathogen exposure is associated with intolerant mate preferences. Our results most strongly support a material insecurity hypothesis of in-group bias, which assumes that uncertainty over meeting basic needs leads people to favor those in their in-group. As such, our findings join a small but growing group of studies that highlight the importance of material insecurity for understanding tolerance, xenophobia, in-group bias, and favoritism.

A Multi-Level Bayesian Analysis of Racial Bias in Police Shootings at the County-Level in the United States, 2011-2014

A geographically-resolved, multi-level Bayesian model is used to analyze the data presented in the U.S. Police-Shooting Database (USPSD) in order to investigate the extent of racial bias in the shooting of American civilians by police officers in recent years. In contrast to previous work that relied on the FBI’s Supplemental Homicide Reports that were constructed from self-reported cases of police-involved homicide, this data set is less likely to be biased by police reporting practices. County-specific relative risk outcomes of being shot by police are estimated as a function of the interaction of: 1) whether suspects/civilians were armed or unarmed, and 2) the race/ethnicity of the suspects/civilians. The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more. Finally, analysis of police shooting data as a function of county-level predictors suggests that racial bias in police shootings is most likely to emerge in police departments in larger metropolitan counties with low median incomes and a sizable portion of black residents, especially when there is high financial inequality in that county. There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates.