Significance: Pathogens, and antipathogen behavioral strategies, affect myriad aspects of human behavior. Recent findings suggest that antipathogen strategies relate to political attitudes, with more ideologically conservative individuals reporting more disgust toward pathogen cues, and with higher parasite stress nations being, on average, more conservative. However, no research has yet adjudicated between two theoretical accounts proposed to explain these relationships between pathogens and politics. We find that national parasite stress and individual disgust sensitivity relate more strongly to adherence to traditional norms than they relate to support for barriers between social groups. These results suggest that the relationship between pathogens and politics reflects intragroup motivations more than intergroup motivations.

Guided by the early findings of social scientists, practitioners have long advocated for greater contact between groups to reduce prejudice and increase social cohesion. Recent work, however, suggests that intergroup contact can undermine support for social change towards greater equality, especially among disadvantaged group members. Using a large and heterogeneous dataset (12,997 individuals from 69 countries), we demonstrate that intergroup contact and support for social change towards greater equality are positively associated among members of advantaged groups (ethnic majorities and cis-heterosexuals) but negatively associated among disadvantaged groups (ethnic minorities and sexual and gender minorities). Specification-curve analysis revealed important variation in the size-and at times, direction-of correlations, depending on how contact and support for social change were measured. This allowed us to identify one type of support for change-willingness to work in solidarity- that is positively associated with intergroup contact among both advantaged and disadvantaged group members.

Summary: In the coronavirus “infodemic,” people are exposed to official recommendations but also to potentially dangerous pseudoscientific advice claimed to protect against COVID‐19. We examined whether irrational beliefs predict adherence to COVID‐19 guidelines as well as susceptibility to such misinformation. Irrational beliefs were indexed by belief in COVID‐19 conspiracy theories, COVID‐19 knowledge overestimation, type I error cognitive biases, and cognitive intuition. Participants (N = 407) reported (1) how often they followed guidelines (e.g., handwashing, physical distancing), (2) how often they engaged in pseudoscientific practices (e.g., consuming garlic, colloidal silver), and (3) their intention to receive a COVID‐19 vaccine. Conspiratorial beliefs predicted all three outcomes in line with our expectations. Cognitive intuition and knowledge overestimation predicted lesser adherence to guidelines, while cognitive biases predicted greater adherence, but also greater use of pseudoscientific practices. Our results suggest an important relation between irrational beliefs and health behaviors, with conspiracy theories being the most detrimental.

Even if a small portion of the population refuses vaccination due to anti-vaccination conspiracy theories or misinformation, this poses a threat to public health. We argue that addressing conspiracy theories with only corrective information is not enough. Instead, considering that they are complex narratives embedded in personal and cultural worldviews, they should be encountered with counternarratives. To identify existing narrative interventions aimed at countering anti-vaccination conspiracy theories and, more generally, map prerequisites for a narrative intervention to be successful, we present a systematic review of experimental effects of exposure to pro-vaccine narratives on a range of vaccination outcomes, based on 17 studies and 97 comparisons. We did not find any narrative interventions aimed directly at conspiracy theories. However, the review allowed us to make evidence-based recommendations for future research and for public communicators. This might help pro-vaccine communication match anti-vaccine communication in its potential to spread and go viral.