COVID-19 has drastically changed human behaviors and posed a threat to globalism by spurring a resurgence of nationalism. Promoting prosocial behavior within and across borders is of paramount importance for global cooperation to combat pandemics. To examine both self-report and actual prosocial behavior, we conducted the first empirical test of global consciousness theory in a multinational study of 35 cultures (N = 18,171 community adults stratified by age, gender, and region of residence). Global consciousness encompassed cosmopolitan orientation, identification with all humanity, and multicultural acquisition, whereas national consciousness reflected ethnic protection. Both global consciousness and national consciousness positively predicted perceived risk of coronavirus and concern about coronavirus, after controlling for interdependent self-construal. While global consciousness positively predicted prosocial behavior in response to COVID-19, national consciousness positively predicted defensive behavior. These findings shed light on overcoming national parochialism and provide a theoretical framework for the study of global unity and cooperation.
ArielyG. (2017). Global identification, xenophobia, and globalization: A cross-national exploration. International Journal of Psychology, 52(1), 87–96.
2.
ArielyG. (2019). The nexus between globalization and ethnic identity: A view from below. Ethnicities, 19(5), 763–783.
BarraganR. C.OliveiraN.KhalvatiK.BrooksR.ReineckeK.RaoR. P.MeltzoffA. N. (2021). Identifying with all humanity predicts cooperative health behaviors and helpful responding during COVID-19. PLOS ONE, 16(3), Article e0248234.
5.
BondM. H. (2021). Social psychologists grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic: How are we in Asia distinctive?Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1), 18–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12462
6.
BrislinR. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In LonnerW. J.BerryJ. W. (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). SAGE.
7.
BuchanN. R.GrimaldaG.WilsonR.BrewerM.FatasE.FoddyM. (2009). Globalization and human cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(11), 4138–4142. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809522106
8.
ChenS. X.LamB. C. P.HuiB. P. H.NgJ. C. K.MakW. W. S.GuanY.BuchtelE. E.TangW. C. S.LauV. C. Y. (2016). Conceptualizing psychological processes in response to globalization: Components, antecedents, and consequences of global orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(2), 302–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039647
9.
ChenS. X.LamB. C. P.LiuJ. H.ChoiH.-S.KashimaE.BernardoA. B. I. (2021). Effects of containment and closure policies on controlling the COVID-19 pandemic in East Asia. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 42–47.
10.
ChenS. X.NgJ. C. K.HuiB. P. H.AuA. K. Y.WuW. C. H.LamB. C. P.MakW. W. S.LiuJ. H. (2021). Dual impacts of coronavirus anxiety on mental health in 35 societies. Scientific Reports, 11, Article 8925. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-87771-1
11.
ChoiS. Y.LiuJ. H.MariS.GarberI. (2021). Content analysis of Living Historical Memory around the world: Terrorization of the Anglosphere, and national foundations of hope in developing countries. Memory Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698021995974
12.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
D’AmicoA.ScrimaF. (2016). The Italian validation of Singelis’s Self-Construal Scale (SCS): A short 10-item version shows improved psychometric properties. Current Psychology, 35(1), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9378-y
14.
DengX. (2021). Identification with all humanity and willingness to help people in COVID-19 affected countries: Testing a moderated mediation model. Personality and Individual Differences, 181, Article 111012.
FincherC. L.ThornhillR.MurrayD. R.SchallerM. (2008). Pathogen prevalence predicts human cross-cultural variability in individualism/collectivism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 275(1640), 1279–1285. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0094
17.
GygliS.HaelgF.PotrafkeN.SturmJ.-E. (2019). The KOF Globalisation Index—Revisited. The Review of International Organizations, 14(3), 543–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-019-09344-2
18.
HofstedeG. H. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. SAGE.
19.
HuiB. P. H.NgJ. C. K.BerzaghiE.Cunningham-AmosL. A.KoganA. (2020). Rewards of kindness? A meta-analysis of the link between prosociality and well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 146(12), 1084–1116. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000298
20.
KashimaY. (2021). COVID-19, societal threats, and social psychology’s self-imposed constraint. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1), 30–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12464
21.
KimH. S.ShermanD. K.UpdegraffJ. A. (2016). Fear of Ebola: The influence of collectivism on xenophobic threat responses. Psychological Science, 27(7), 935–944. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616642596
22.
LeungA. K. Y.KohK.TamK. P. (2015). Being environmentally responsible: Cosmopolitan orientation predicts pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.05.011
23.
LiuJ. H. (2021). Majority world successes and European & American failure to contain COVID-19: Cultural collectivism and global leadership. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12461
24.
LiuJ. H.MacdonaldM. (2016). Towards a psychology of global consciousness through an ethical conception of self in society. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 46(3), 310–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12101
25.
LiuJ. H.ZhangR. J.LeungA.K-ydeZúñigaH. G.Gastardo-ConacoC.VasiutynskyiV.Kus-HarbordL. (2020). Empirical correlates of cosmopolitan orientation: Etiology and functions in a worldwide representative sample. Political Psychology, 41(4), 661–678. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12644
26.
Lorenzo-SevaU.Ten BergeJ. M. (2006). Tucker’s congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology, 2(2), 57–64.
27.
ManiaciM. R.RoggeR. D. (2014). Caring about carelessness: Participant inattention and its effects on research. Journal of Research in Personality, 48(1), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.008
28.
McFarlandS.WebbM.BrownD. (2012). All humanity is my ingroup: A measure and studies of identification with all humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 830–853. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028724
MuthénB. O.AsparouhovT. (2011). Beyond multilevel regression modeling: Multilevel analysis in a general latent variable framework. In HoxJ. J.RobertsJ. K. (Eds.), The handbook of advanced multilevel analysis (pp. 23–48). Routledge.
31.
MuthénB. O.SatorraA. (1995). Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. Sociological Methodology, 25, 267–316.
32.
NapperL. E.FisherD. G.ReynoldsG. L. (2012). Development of the perceived risk of HIV scale. AIDS and Behavior, 16(4), 1075–1083. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-011-0003-2
33.
NeuliepJ. W.McCroskeyJ. C. (1997). The development of a U.S. and generalized ethnocentrism scale. Communication Research Reports, 14(4), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099709388682
34.
RomanoA.SutterM.LiuJ. H.YamagishiT.BallietD. (2021). National parochialism is ubiquitous across 42 nations around the world. Nature Communications, 12, Article 4456. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24787-1
35.
SalvadorC. E.BergM. K.YuQ.San MartinA.KitayamaS. (2020). Relational mobility predicts faster spread of COVID-19: A 39-country study. Psychological Science, 31(10), 1236–1244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620958118
36.
SingelisT. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205014
37.
SproullL.ConleyC. A.MoonJ. Y. (2005). Prosocial behavior on the net. In Amichai-HamburgerY. (Ed.), The social net: The social psychology of the Internet (pp. 139–161). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00120
38.
TriandisH. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Westview.
39.
TuckerL. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies (Personnel research section report no. 984). Educational Testing Service.
Van BavelJ. J.BaickerK.BoggioP. S.CapraroV.CichockaA.CikaraM.CrockettM. J.CrumA. J.DouglasK. M.DruckmanJ. N.DruryJ.DubeO.EllemersN.FinkelE. J.FowlerJ. H.GelfandM.HanS.HaslamS. A.JettenJ.. . . WillerR. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 460–471. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z
42.
van de VijverF. J. R.LeungK. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. SAGE.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
