Personal biases warp COVID-19 memories, posing a challenge for future pandemic policies

In a recent study published within the journal Nature, researchers checked out 4 separate studies across 11 countries to systematically evaluate the impacts of motivational bias on historical narratives regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Their results show that the strength of private bias, whether towards vaccination or from media discourse, can significantly alter memory related to the pandemic. They further discuss how this might impact historical narratives in regards to the pandemic, which in turn would affect future pandemic policy and preparedness. They recommend that future pandemic measures deal with long-term effects on societal trust and cohesion, not only addressing immediate public health implications.

Study: Historical narratives in regards to the COVID-19 pandemic are motivationally biased. Image Credit: DisobeyArt / Shutterstock

What will we remember in regards to the COVID-19 pandemic?

Large-scale surveillance data collated by the World Health Organization (WHO) reveals the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to be considered one of the worst in human history. For the reason that starting of the outbreak in late 2019, the pandemic has infected greater than 771 million people and claimed almost 7 million lives globally. The event of anti-COVID-19 vaccines and large-scale global vaccination drives resulted in a considerable decline in infection and mortality, courtesy of which most pandemic restrictions have been lifted in 2023.

This ‘post-pandemic phase’ has been characterised by reviews of COVID-19-related policies and efforts to organize for future disease outbreaks. Despite the supply of quantitative data from surveillance and surveys, these reviews and efforts are influenced by public and media opinion, each prone to personal bias.

“Because memory formation is a constructive process, retrospective narratives about historical events comparable to the pandemic are liable to significant distortion. Beyond easy forgetting, recall and ex-post evaluation are liable to various types of bias, reflecting differences in motivation and purpose (for instance, a wish to evolve with one’s own or the prevailing opinion).”

In the current study, the authors propose that evaluations of the recent pandemic are skewed by individual bias and that almost all, if not all, of this bias is negative, given the high costs universally incurred from COVID-19. They use views towards vaccination for instance – regardless of private beliefs, most people were forced to comply with government policy that required vaccination. Nevertheless, polarizing animosity towards individuals who opposed their beliefs can have led one faction to discriminate against the opposite, thereby altering an unbiased recall of the pandemic as a complete.

Concerning the study

The researchers report 4 separate empirical studies examining the sort and severity of private bias in narratives in regards to the COVID-19 pandemic. Study 1 assessed recall and evaluation bias, tinted by evaluations of political restrictions and policy and overshadowed by the prevalence of opinion-based cohorts, especially those pertaining to vaccination. Studies 2 and three assessed techniques and techniques by which recall bias could also be attenuated. Finally, Study 4 aimed to research nation-specific bias in evaluations of the pandemic and examine if these evaluations spilled over to post-pandemic preparations.

The role of perceptions

Study 1 was conducted on a cohort of 1,644 German adults surveyed in the summertime of 2020 or winter of 2020-21 after which repeat surveyed in late 2022. Of those, 1,216 (74%) had received at the least one vaccination dose against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. The survey comprised questions on their perceptions and fears regarding the pandemic, affinity to government and scientific recommendations, and their frequency of adherence to social distancing and anti-COVID-government policy. They were further queried about their current life satisfaction and to what degree they felt the pandemic was exaggerated.

Linear regression analyses of their perceptions across the 2 time points revealed that their recall was significantly affected by variables regarding perceived risk, compliance behavior, and trust were strongly related to current perceptions of the pandemic’s influence on their well-being. These aspects, in turn, were influenced by their identification of vaccination status (a proxy for whether or not they supported or opposed vaccination). Vaccinated individuals recalled the pandemic and risk of infections as more severe than those that remained unvaccinated.

Affinity with government policy was observed to have similar effects, with individuals who readily complied with government restrictions more more likely to be vaccinated and, in turn, have a better infection risk perception than those that found government policy exaggerated and inappropriate.

“This means that greater bias when recalling the past was related to a more extreme evaluation of political motion—in either direction.”

Can we reduce the results of bias on future pandemic policy?

Study 2 had two principal objectives – 1. To research if monetary incentives could end in more accurate recall and, 2. If providing metacognitive information that recall bias is rampant could end in more precise recall. These objectives derive from previous research, which has shown that each aspects in other domains coax individuals into correcting their very own judgments, thereby reducing bias.

The study cohort comprised 3,105 German and Austrian participants studied during January 2023, of whom 71% had received vaccination against the pandemic. Participants were randomly assigned to the intervention conditions (monetary or informative) or control groups, following which their perceptions of the pandemic were queried. Interventions included the possibility to win 100 Euros within the monetary cohort and data regarding the extent of bias within the metacognitive cohort.

Across each intervention and control groups, linear regression analyses once more revealed inherent biases between vaccinated and unvaccinated participants. While unable to statistically alter excepted vaccination-status-specific response, each interventions did end in a non-zero change in perceptions and recall, indicated by results exceeding regions of practical equivalence (ROPE) for infection probability.

Study 3 aimed to research if the strength of interventions (on this case, incentives) would alter Study 2’s findings and involve a greater probability of winning the 100 Euro money prize, given participants’ greater recall accuracy. The study comprised 906 vaccinated German adults surveyed in July 2023. Participants were divided into intervention and control cohorts following the randomization methodology of Study 2. Study findings revealed that despite bias still influencing an overestimate of pandemic-related risk assessment, recall accuracy was significantly improved over Study 2.

“…a mixed-effects regression (controlling for multiple answers from the identical individual, including n = 5,360 answers, see Prolonged Data Table 5) revealed that offering an incentive decreased directional bias (principal effect: b = −0.35, s.e.m. = 0.10, P = 0.001) and increased the influence of past rankings (interaction effect of incentive and past rankings: b = 0.08, s.e.m. = 0.02, P = 0.002), indicating a discount of recall bias.”

Taken together, the findings from studies 2 and three reveal that metacognitive interventions are unable to affect cohort-specific personal bias, and while stronger incentive can reduce biased recall, it fails to eliminate it entirely.

Does it matter where you reside?

Constructing upon previous 2020 research in 10 countries, namely Australia, Italy, Germany, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, Spain, the UK (UK), and the US (US), Study 3 comprised 5,121 participants from these countries, 88% of whom had received vaccination against COVID-19. Spain had the very best vaccination rate (96%), while Japan had the bottom (72%).

The methodology comprised the identical questionnaires utilized in studies 1-3, and results were compared against the previous benchmark study that Study 4 followed up on. Most participants across nationalities were found to overestimate perceived infection probability, and with Japan and Mexico being notable exceptions, underestimated the severity of illness. Bias pertaining to government effectiveness was found to differ significantly across evaluated countries (31% in Italy and 81% in Japan).

Perceived illness severity was related to government effectiveness evaluations – overestimating severity was correlated with higher perceived government effectiveness.

“The outcomes suggest that although a vaccinated majority has a more positive view of the measures taken in the course of the pandemic, as warranted by respective perceptions of the past, a small segment of society has a powerful desire to take revenge on those that spoke out or took responsibility in the course of the pandemic. In summary, we observed polarized evaluations of the pandemic and indicators of social tension in lots of countries and across continents.”

Conclusions

In the current report, researchers carried out 4 studies geared toward evaluating the character and strength of bias in historical assessments and memory recall pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic. Their findings revealed that individual bias plays a considerable role in affecting memory recall and perception, with individuals who avoided vaccination depicting polar opposite assessments of the severity of the pandemic and the effectiveness of presidency interventions in comparison with those that were vaccinated.

“…the 4 studies reported here highlight the complex nexus of attitudes, memories and behaviors surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. Motivational aspects related to identity and behavior in extreme situations seem pivotal on this context, linking the past to biased memories and future behaviors. Researchers and policymakers must pursue a greater understanding of those connections to develop more fruitful ways of learning from the past to enhance crisis preparedness and response.”