Societies characterized by higher importance of religion or higher degree of church attendance reported higher likelihood of staying at home behavior

Cooperation and Trust Across Societies During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Angelo Romano et al. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, April 13, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022120988913

Abstract: Cross-societal differences in cooperation and trust among strangers in the provision of public goods may be key to understanding how societies are managing the COVID-19 pandemic. We report a survey conducted across 41 societies between March and May 2020 (N = 34,526), and test pre-registered hypotheses about how cross-societal differences in cooperation and trust relate to prosocial COVID-19 responses (e.g., social distancing), stringency of policies, and support for behavioral regulations (e.g., mandatory quarantine). We further tested whether cross-societal variation in institutions and ecologies theorized to impact cooperation were associated with prosocial COVID-19 responses, including institutional quality, religiosity, and historical prevalence of pathogens. We found substantial variation across societies in prosocial COVID-19 responses, stringency of policies, and support for behavioral regulations. However, we found no consistent evidence to support the idea that cross-societal variation in cooperation and trust among strangers is associated with these outcomes related to the COVID-19 pandemic. These results were replicated with another independent cross-cultural COVID-19 dataset (N = 112,136), and in both snowball and representative samples. We discuss implications of our results, including challenging the assumption that managing the COVID-19 pandemic across societies is best modeled as a public goods dilemma.

Keywords: cooperation, trust, COVID-19, institutions, social dilemmas, culture

Discussion

Recent review papers have suggested that many behaviors required to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., maintaining social distance, washing hands, self-imposed quarantine) can be construed as social dilemmas, involving a conflict between short-term immediate self-interests and long-term collective benefits (Johnson et al., 2020; Van Bavel et al., 2020). If the COVID-19 pandemic indeed creates a social dilemma, then research on cross-societal differences on cooperation and trust should help predict responses to COVID-19 and potentially offer insights into policies that could regulate behaviors in response to COVID-19 (Johnson et al., 2020).

To address this question, we utilized a survey across 41 societies linking country-level predictors (cooperation, trust, institutional quality, religion, historical prevalence of pathogens) with individual-level prosocial COVID-19 responses, behaviors, and support for behavioral regulations to address COVID-19. Results revealed substantial cross-societal variation in individuals’ self-reported willingness to engage in prosocial COVID-19 behaviors (e.g., social distancing, donating to charities), self-reported actual prosocial COVID-19 behaviors (e.g., hand washing, staying at home), and support for behavioral regulation policies (e.g., mandatory quarantine, vaccination). We applied theory and research on cooperation and trust across societies to predict these outcomes related to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, we did not find any consistent support for our pre-registered hypotheses that these cross-societal differences in prosocial COVID-19 responses and support for policies would be associated with country-level differences in cooperation or trust among strangers. These results were replicated using an additional dataset which included a larger sample of countries, and also when restricting the analyses in the present study to only include countries with age-gender representative samples of around 1,000 participants.

We also examined how several societal-level factors may play a role in responding to the pandemic. Several theories explain why societies differ in cooperation among strangers, emphasizing the quality of institutions (Hruschka & Henrich, 2013), religiosity (Norenzayan et al., 2014), and historical prevalence of pathogens (Fincher & Thornhill, 2012). The current results, however, revealed no consistent association between these cross-societal factors and prosocial COVID-19 responses. We also did not find consistent support for our hypotheses that societies characterized by lower levels of cooperation (and trust) would implement stricter government policies. Societies with lower cooperation and trust also did not display larger increases in prosocial COVID-19 responses in relation to more stringent rules. Taken together, the results of this study question the value of using cross-cultural research on social dilemmas to guide policy making in response to the pandemic.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic may still create a large-scale public goods dilemma among strangers, cross-societal differences in cooperation and trust among strangers may not be relevant to individual decision-making in response to an emerging pandemic. Instead, COVID-19 responses may be understood in light of (1) individual differences in tendencies to trust and cooperate with strangers (Aschwanden et al., 2020), (2) proself motivations instead of prosocial, that is, people may engage in costly self-sacrifices (e.g., social distancing) to benefit themselves, their families, co-habitants, co-workers, and/or neighbors (not anonymous strangers), (3) a psychology functionally specialized for disease avoidance (Schaller, 2011; Tybur et al., 2013) instead of cooperation, and/or (4) differences in information about the pandemic across societies, which might play a major role in shifting how people perceive this situation (independent of whether the situation is truly a social dilemma). Accordingly, people may not even recognize their mutual dependence with broader societal members, and could frame the situation entirely different than a public goods dilemma, such as total independence from others (i.e., own and others’ social distancing decisions don’t affect others’ outcomes) or as a situation with asymmetrical dependence (i.e., only the elderly benefit from one’s costly cooperation; Balliet et al., 2017; Gerpott et al., 2018).

Another possibility is that COVID-19 does not create a public goods dilemma, but instead creates a different interdependent situation, which would produce a different set of expectations for behavior. For example, social distancing during the dilemma may best be understood as a chicken game (Smith & Price, 1973), where the most favorable outcome for each person is doing the opposite of what others choose to do. In this frame, costly self-sacrifices may result in the best outcome for an individual when others are not engaging in costly self-sacrifices (e.g., social distancing), but when other people are engaging in these costly behaviors, then people would achieve the best outcome by not making the sacrifices. However, in this kind of situation, everyone would receive a better outcome if each person engages in social distancing, relative to when each person does not. If the COVID-19 pandemic represents a chicken game, this would question the relevance of cooperation and trust in public goods dilemmas to understand responses to the pandemic. Indeed, we tested a number of pre-registered hypotheses based on the assumption that cooperation in a public goods dilemma among strangers would be key to understand variation across societies in responses to the pandemic, but we failed to find consistent support for these hypotheses across different datasets. Therefore, researchers wanting to extend implications of cross-societal cooperation research to policy in response to the pandemic would be advised to follow along these lines of inquiry, and collect data to test their assumptions and theory prior to making policy recommendations.

One limitation of the present research is worth noting. We used country-level indicators of cooperation and trust. Although we found considerable between-country variation in responses to the pandemic, this variation was not explained by cross-societal differences in cooperation and trust. While cross-societal differences in cooperation and trust have been widely used in past research to predict individual behaviors across societies (e.g., Gächter & Schulz, 2016; Romano et al., 2017; Schulz et al., 2019), future research can measure individual differences in cooperation and trust, and then examine whether these measures are able to detect cross-societal variation in individual behaviors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite this limitation, the present study embodies several strengths, including (1) being guided by theory and pre-registered hypotheses about cooperation across societies, (2) utilizing a sample comprised of a large and varied set of societies, (3) revealing results which were robust across different operationalizations of the predictor variables (i.e., cooperation and trust) and outcome variables (i.e., motivations, behaviors), and (4) cross-validating the results with alternative datasets which comprised even larger number of societies and representative samples, addressing the possible concern that our results may be due to the sampling strategy and methods (see SI).

To conclude, we applied theory of human cooperation across societies to generate pre-registered hypotheses about prosocial COVID-19 responses across 41 societies and found no consistent support for these hypotheses. Previous papers have claimed that a social dilemma framework can guide policy making in response to the pandemic, without offering any empirical evidence about whether the pandemic actually poses a social dilemma, and whether theory and research from this domain apply to predict variation in behaviors in response to the pandemic. To guide evidence-based policies to address the pandemic, it is necessary to offer robust evidence that previous theory and research apply to this context. Cooperation may still be relevant to understanding responses to the pandemic, but the current findings strongly suggest the need to revisit fundamental assumptions about the nature of COVID-19 responses and do the relevant empirical research prior to making policy recommendations.