When alterations are violations: Moral outrage and punishment in response to (even minor) alterations to rituals

Threat Rejection Fuels Political Dehumanization

Americans disagree about many things, including what threats are most pressing. We suggest people morally condemn and dehumanize opponents when they are perceived as rejecting the existence or severity of important perceived threats. We explore perceived “threat rejection” across five studies ( N = 2,404) both in the real-world COVID-19 pandemic and in novel contexts. Americans morally condemned and dehumanized policy opponents when they seemed to reject realistic group threats (e.g., threat to the physical health or resources of the group). Believing opponents rejected symbolic group threats (e.g., to collective identity) was not reliably linked to condemnation and dehumanization. Importantly, the political dehumanization caused by perceived threat rejection can be soothed with a “threat acknowledgement” intervention.

Balancing the Freedom-Security Trade-Off During Crises and Disasters

During crises and disasters, such as hurricanes, terrorist threats, or pandemics, policymakers must often increase security at the cost of freedom. Psychological science, however, has shown that the restriction of freedom may have strong negative consequences for behavior and health. We suggest that psychology can inform policy both by elucidating some negative consequences of lost freedom (e.g., depression or behavioral reactance) and by revealing strategies to address them. We propose four interlocking principles that can help policymakers restore the freedom-security balance. Careful consideration of the psychology of freedom can help policymakers develop policies that most effectively promote public health, safety, and well-being when crises and disasters strike.

Alterations in Religious Rituals Due to COVID-19 Could Be Related to Intragroup Negativity: A Case of Changes in Receiving Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Community in Poland

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected various domains of everyday life, including important religious rituals. In the Roman Catholic Church in Poland, the reception of Holy Communion was substantially altered. The suggestion of the Polish Episcopal Conference and diocesan bishops was to receive Holy Communion on the hand during the pandemic, while receiving on the tongue had been the default form before the pandemic. The present studies investigated whether alterations in the form of receiving Holy Communion during the pandemic resulted in intragroup negativity. A total of 376 Polish Roman Catholics participated in two online studies. The most ambivalent emotions toward their religious community were experienced by the followers who recognized reception of Holy Communion on the hand only. Intergroup bias occurred within the “hand only” and the “mouth only” groups and consisted in out-group favoritism (within the “hand only”) and out-group derogation (“mouth only”) in their perception of religious orientation. Intergroup empathy bias occurred in the “hand only” and “spiritual reception” groups, which reported less empathy toward those of the out-group (“mouth only”) infected with SARS-CoV-2. The highest legitimacy of the Church authority was agreed upon by the supporters of both forms of receiving Holy Communion.