The burden of being certain: National identity certainty predicts support for COVID-Related restrictive measures and outgroup conspiracy beliefs

In dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, government officials often encounter two concurrent concerns: they have to enforce necessary public health and safety measures to manage COVID-19. Meanwhile, they also have to mitigate conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19. To shed light on these issues, we conducted two studies to investigate national identity certainty (i.e., the extent to which people are certain about their national identity) as a predictor of (a) support for restrictive measures to curtail COVID-19 and (b) conspiracy beliefs about an outgroup as the culprit of COVID-19. Study 1 was a three-week longitudinal study (N = 301) where we investigated the relationships both on a between-person level (differences between individuals) and on a within-person level (week-by-week fluctuations of the same individual). We found that individual differences in national identity certainty predicted increased support for restrictive measures and increased outgroup conspiracy beliefs. These relationships emerged, even when we controlled for national identity positivity, that is, the extent to which people see their national identity in positive light. In Study 2 (N = 316), we used a cross-sectional correlational design and replicated the findings of Study 1. Moreover, we found that the relationships were explained by distinct threat perceptions: realistic threat explained the increased support for restrictive measures, whereas symbolic threat explained the increased outgroup conspiracy beliefs. Overall, our findings suggest that support for restrictive measures and outgroup conspiracy beliefs can be seen as attempts of people high in national identity certainty to address the distinct threats of COVID-19.