examples of critical thinking during covid 19

• Principal Leadership
• Volume 21 (2020-2021)
• Principal Leadership: October 2020

Critical Thinking During COVID: October 2020

In uncertain times, it’s human to react with stress and fear. As school leaders, you’re tasked with making big decisions and providing reassurance to staff, students, and families. Crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic require us to lead by example through critical thinking. Critical thinking is a research-validated tool in crisis management because it helps us sort through information, gain an accurate view of the situation, and make decisions.

Tapping Into Critical Thinking

Critical thinking requires us to dig deep and focus on facts and credible sources. Applying critical thinking skills helps us wade through uncertainty and reach sound conclusions.

As a reference point, consider the “9 Traits of Critical Thinking™” from Mentoring Minds:

• Adapt: I adjust my actions and strategies to accomplish tasks.
• Examine: I use a variety of methods to explore and to analyze.
• Create: I use my knowledge and imagination to express new and innovative ideas.
• Communicate : I use clear language to express my thoughts and to share information.
• Collaborate: I work with others to achieve better outcomes.
• Inquire: I seek information that excites my curiosity and inspires my learning.
• Link: I apply knowledge to reach new understandings.
• Reflect: I review my thoughts and experiences to guide my actions.
• Strive: I use effort and determination to focus on challenging tasks.

These traits can help individuals of any age navigate unfamiliar circumstances. The pandemic has had an undeniable impact on education, but critical thinking can help us all cope with the changes and challenges presented by COVID-19.

To keep education moving forward during COVID-19 while also supporting your school community, consider the following tips:

• Seek out factual information, not fast information. Make reasoned, informed decisions by understanding facts, evidence-based data, and credible sources. While it is essential to gather and rely on a variety of information and data, critical thinkers know it’s necessary to check the accuracy and bias of what is read and heard. Inquire: Encourage parents, teachers, and students to ask questions. A crisis causes anxiety, stress, and fear if individuals don’t feel permitted to investigate essential questions. Here are a few examples: How will the COVID-19 pandemic impact jobs? What instructional changes might occur? How will grading procedures change? Technology allows us quick access to an abundance of information, some contradictory and misleading. If we forget to pause and carefully review information, it can be dangerous to us and others. Examine: Caution the use of believing everything that is presented in the media. Remind others of the importance of examining information first. Seek out a variety of credible sources. When information is accurate, it can be used to resolve challenges. Misinformation is common, and it’s also harmful. In fact, the U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres recently remarked that the “global ‘misinfo-demic’ is spreading … hatred is going viral, stigmatizing and vilifying people and groups.” While networking platforms such as Facebook work to combat the overabundance of false content, it’s up to us as consumers of media to assess what we read first—and then share it with others. In a crisis, information changes by the minute. A critical thinker knows updates will be forthcoming and how crucial it is to assimilate the latest facts. Because of the vast amount of content available to us, we must continuously remind ourselves to listen to those in the know and to source trusted information—such as the COVID-19 resources NASSP is compiling.
• Practice proactive planning. Be ready to adapt routines as situations change. School leaders have been tasked with hefty responsibilities. As a principal, you’re accountable for the success of your students and staff—a daunting task on the most normal of days. Link: Use your prior knowledge and experiences to problem-solve. As a school leader, you recognize the importance of making connections—if a crisis exists, then effects appear. Discuss potential barriers and challenges with staff members and identify the various ways students and their families may be impacted. We must prepare our school communities to embrace disruption as learning takes on a new image. Educators are not only trying to plan and deliver academic lessons, but they’re also addressing the social aspect of learning in an entirely new format. Collaborate: Offer guidance and support to your colleagues. Set an example by showing how collaboration can help us navigate the new modes of teaching and learning in which we currently find ourselves. Some parents or caregivers might be recently unemployed, others may be struggling to hold onto their jobs, and some may not have the right equipment for remote learning. There are even parents—and teachers—who are trying to manage their schedules while supervising nonschool-aged children. Communicate: Pave the way for two-way communication. Ensure that information sent to students and families is clear and concise. Offer a range of ways for students to interact and ask questions. Provide an avenue for open communication with parents and teachers. As leaders, we must guide our teachers to support parents in establishing new routines while welcoming flexibility in tasks and choice in activities. Remember to integrate time for reflection or downtime within home-based learning. Help parents see the importance of maintaining certain hours for completing tasks or assignments and managing workload.
• Prioritize positive relationship-building. Be confident and recognize the importance of validating the feelings and perspectives of others. Educators are going the distance to keep learning moving forward while maintaining excellence. School leaders realize the importance of retaining the human element in education. Offering reassurance to one another, our students, and their families is vital. Create: Invite faculty to contribute their ideas for the summer and fall semester. Are there instructional practices that should change? Innovative thinking will be a critical piece of successfully returning to school. Never has it been more important to connect with parents and students. We must encourage them and thank them for embracing this new partnership of virtual communication. We must recognize that all situations and classrooms at home are just as diverse as the classrooms in brick-and mortar buildings. Adapt: You have the power to guide others in adapting to new situations. Educators are teaching from their homes; students are learning in their kitchens and living rooms—diverse, at-home situations require flexibility. We can use this as an opportunity to adapt our practices. Whether it’s offering support for parents, hosting “office” hours for students, or providing devices to those in need, change may be required. Let’s work to openly communicate and collaborate, examine the pulse of others, and frequently inquire about their thoughts. We should model talking about today’s issues so we can emulate the importance of analyzing and interpreting information to solve problems—big or small. Strive: Principals recognize the importance of modeling. While planning high-quality online learning isn’t the easiest task, it is possible when you remain focused. When students see their principal and teachers demonstrating “strive,” they can follow suit. Reflect: Take time to reflect on how you can take care of yourself. Crises are draining. We can easily become impatient, weary, and reactive, which makes situations even more problematic. We must pace ourselves, taking moments to pause and consider our own needs as important. Reflecting helps us push through challenges, improve upon past actions, and face our fears. How can we make better choices? How has COVID-19 changed our lives? What support do we need? By voicing our personal experiences, we can dig deeper to reveal strengths and opportunities.

Put Critical Thinking Into Practice

No matter the crisis, the nine traits can assist individuals of any age in making important decisions about their actions or finding an approach for resolution. We all have the capacity to think skillfully. When we incorporate critical thinking into our personal and professional lives, we can better support the growth of ourselves and our school communities. A critical thinker does not give up, but instead seeks ways to improve or resolve problems. Now is the time for principals to recognize the relevancy of thinking beyond the surface.

Sandra Love, EdD, is the director of education insight and research for Mentoring Minds, an organization that provides critical thinking resources to educators. She is a former elementary principal and recipient of the National Distinguished Principal Award.

• More Networks

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• News & Views
• Matt Morgan: Covid-19...

Covid-19: Complexity thinking for bold decisions and thoughts, and better systems of thought.

Rapid response to:

Matt Morgan: Covid-19 and the need for bold decisions

Read our latest coverage of the coronavirus pandemic.

• Related content
• Article metrics
• Rapid responses

Rapid Response:

Dear Editor

Matt Morgan calls for better systems of thought and bold decisions and thoughts for Covid-19, mentioning complicated decision making (1).

Covid-19 produces issues that are simple, complex, complicated and chaotic, often overlapping, intertwined and changing, requiring decision making in that context. A system of thought to understand and use this to make bold and better decisions is available in chaos, complexity and complex systems thinking and science, and are being used for bold decisions for Covid-19, with examples/references below.

The Cynefin diagram, proposed as a framework for decision making (2) best describes the differences, relationship, overlap and change re simple, complex, complicated and chaos (3). Simple is straightforward and anyone can handle, complicated requires detailed knowledge, expertise and experts, complex means many changing interacting interdependent parts with unpredictability and uncertain outcome requiring feedback, adaptation and change in decision making, chaos means most things novel with the need for creativity and making some of it up, while trying to move to the other more comfortable phases.

Medicine is complex, especially in the ICU during Covid, but it can be changed by training to simple, complicated, easy and even dull, as described by Morgan, an ICU physician. Similarly for a practitioner in a busy office or the ER – who generally feel at home when others would not be, or for air traffic controllers and restaurant managers mentioned, at home, when we would not be.

This is a novel system of thought that can be used for Covid-19, and is being used for the simple, complex, complicated and chaos of covid-19. A short BMJ letter does not allow me to elaborate, but you can search, with a few random/selected examples given, including specific real world “coal face” practical uses and bold decisions, not just theoretical and conceptual:

Santa Fe Institute, home of complexity, the science for a complex world: research, teaching and transmission of ideas on all aspects of the pandemic to policymakers, governments, decision makers, etc. New England Complex Systems Institute: stopping the corona virus and endcoronavirus.org - complexity used for research, policy, decision making and practical advice for individuals, groups, governments, etc., Stephen Hawking: says he thinks complexity will be the science for the 21st century. Complexity Institutes, societies, etc at universities, other agencies in UK and globally, addressing Covid-19. “Complexity Explained” webpage with downloadable PDF, as an intro, Complexity Digest, and posts on complexity Covid including on decision making in medicine, health, health systems, business, etc.

Can Google chaos complexity Covid-19 for many more examples, with a few BMJ eletters submitted by this writer, and pre-Covid-19 – a book on medicine from a complexity perspective, and “Tsunami Chaos Global Heart” book made available free online, subtitled “using complexity science to rethink and make a better world” (3).

Chaos and complexity thinking is proposed as a different and possibly better system of thought for bold decisions and thoughts for Covid-19.

1 Morgan M. Covid-19 and the need for bold decisions BMJ 2020; 369:m2320 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2320 (Published 16 June 2020). 2 Snowden D, Boone M. A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review Nov 2007. https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making Accessed April 20, 2020. 3 Rambihar VS, Rambihar SP, Rambihar VS Jr. Tsunami Chaos and Global Heart: using complexity science to rethink and make a better world. 2005. Vashna Publications. Toronto, Canada. http://femmefractal.com/FinalwebTsunamiBK12207.pdf (accessed June 20, 2020).

Competing interests: No competing interests

COVID-19: A Context to Promote Critical Thinking and Argumentation in Secondary and University Students

• First Online: 02 January 2023

Cite this chapter

• Blanca Puig 3 &
• Maria Evagorou 4  

Part of the book series: Integrated Science ((IS,volume 12))

1151 Accesses

3 Altmetric

Science education faces urgent challenges related to the increase of “fake news” on socio-scientific issues (SSI) that affect citizens’ lives. This situation affects teaching and learning and critical decisions on health issues. During the COVID-19 pandemic, citizens worldwide were called for actions and decisions to stop the spread of the disease. People were confronted with a rise of disinformation regarding potential ways to prevent and recover from COVID-19. Educators tried to find ways to support their students to understand issues related to COVID-19 and apply their critical thinking to understand SSI. The purpose of this chapter is to describe two case studies of educators as they tried to engage their students in COVID-19 as an SSI during the lockdown.

Graphical Abstract/Art Performance

Teaching science in the pandemic context. (Made by Santi Jiménez).

Education must enable one to shift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction . The function of education , therefore, is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically . Martin Luther King

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Fostering Preservice Science Teachers’ Global Awareness Through a Socioscientific Issues Approach Set in the Context of COVID-19

Pre-Service Teachers’ Analysis of Claims About COVID-19 in an Online Course

Critical STEM Literacy and the COVID-19 Pandemic

https://reliefweb.int/report/world/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-situation-report-153-21-june-2020 .

See ‘Eight ways to spot misinformation: https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-020-01834-3/d41586-020-01834-3.pdf ’.

https://www.who.int/es/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters?gclid=Cj0KCQjws536BRDTARIsANeUZ5-DZIfUfpXJsV6JPs8oJVVTOSkGsISgcjn1sUVhO9YYaZdItlwwn9AaAm1rEALw_wcB#bleach .

Evagorou M, Dillon J (2020) Introduction: socio-scientific issues as promoting responsible citizenship and innovation. In: Evagorou M, Nielsen D (eds) Science teacher education for responsible citizenship. Springer, pp 1–11

Google Scholar  

Dawson VM, Venville G (2010) Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socio-scientific issues in high school genetics. Res Sci Educ 40(2):133–148

Article   Google Scholar  

Zeidler DL, Berkowitz MW, Bennett K (2014) Thinking (scientifically) responsibly: the cultivation of character in a global science education community. In: Mueller MP et al (eds) Assessing schools for generation R (Responsibility). Springer, Dordrecht, pp 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2748-9_7

Evagorou M, Jimenez-Aleixandre M, Osborne J (2012) ‘should we kill the grey squirrels?’ a study exploring students’ justifications and decision-making. Int J Sci Educ 34(3):401–428

Sadler TD (2011) Socio-scientific issues-based education: what we know about science education in the context of SSI. In: Sadler T (ed) Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom, vol 39. Springer, Netherlands, pp 355–369

Chapter   Google Scholar  

UNESCO (2018) Journalism, ‘fake news’ and disinformation. Handbook for Journalism Education and Training. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, France. Available via UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/journalism_fake_news_disinformation_print_friendly_0_0.pdf . Accessed June 15, 2020

Bencze L, Halwany S, Zouda M (2020) Critical and Active Public Engagement in Addressing Socio-scientific Problems Through Science Teacher Education. In: Evagorou M, Nielsen JA, Dillon J (eds) Science teacher education for responsible citizenship. Springer, pp 63–83

Puig B, Blanco-Anaya P, Bargiela I, Crujeiras-Pérez B (2019) A systematic review on critical thinking intervention studies in higher education across professional fields. Stud High Educ 44(5):860–869. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1586333

Vincent-Lacrin S, González-Sancho C, Bouckaert M et al (2019) Fostering students’ creativity and critical thinking: what it means in school. Educ Res Innov OED Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/62212c37-en

Boekaerts M (1997) Self-regulated learning: a new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learn Inst 7:161–186

Perkins DN (1993) Teaching for understanding. Am Educ 17:28–35

Winch C (2006) Education, autonomy and critical thinking. Routledge, London

Kennedy M, Fisher MB, Ennis RH (1991) Critical thinking: literature review and needed research. In: Idol L, Jones BP (eds) Educational values and cognitive instruction: implications for reform. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

Jiménez Aleixandre MP, Puig B (2022) Educating critical citizens to face post-truth: the time is now. In: Puig B, Jiménez-Aleixandre MP (eds) Critical thinking in Biology and Environmental Education. Facing challenges in a post-truth world, Springer, Switzerland, pp 3–19

Jiménez-Aleixandre MP, Puig B (2012) Argumentation, evidence evaluation and critical thinking. In: Tobin K, McRobbie C (eds) Fraser B. Second international handbook of science education Dordrecht, Springer, pp 1001–1015

Fairclough N (1995) Critical discourse analysis. The critical study of language. Longman, Harlow

Anderman EM, Sinatra GM, Gray DL (2012) The challenges of teaching and learning about science in the twenty-first century: exploring the abilities and constraints of adolescent learners. Stud Sci Educ 48(1):89–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2012.655038

Giri V, Paily MU (2020) Effect of scientific argumentation on the development of critical thinking. Sci Educ 29:673–690

Sadler TD, Zeidler DL (2004) The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues: applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Sci Educ 89(1):71–93

Topcu MS, Sadler TD, Yilmaz Tuzun O (2010) Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning about socio-scientific issues: the influence of issue context. Int J Sci Educ 32(18):2475–2495. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903524779

Angell RB (1964) Reasoning and logic. Appleton-Centure-Crofts, New York

Duschl R (2008) Practical reasoning and decision making in Science: struggles for truth. Educ Psychol 55(3):187–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1784735

Lai ER (2011) Critical thinking: a literature review research report. Pearson’s Res Rep 6:40–41. Available via PEARSON. http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/CriticalThinkingReviewFINAL.pdf . Accessed June 18, 2020

Tsui L (2002) Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy: evidence from four institutional case studies. J Higher Educ 73(6):740–763

Kuhn D (2019) Critical thinking as discourse. Hum Dev 62(3):146–164

Barnett R (1997) Higher education: a critical business. Open University Press, Milton Keynes

Εnnis RH (1987) A taxonomy of critical thinking abilities and dispositions. In: Baron JB, Sternberg RJ (eds) Teaching thinking skills: theory and practice. New W. H. Freeman, York, pp 9–26

Ennis RΗ (2018) Critical thinking across the curriculum. Topoi 37(1):165–184

Dewey J (1910) How we think. D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, MA

Chinn CA, Barzilai S, Duncan RG (2020) Disagreeing about how to know: the instructional value of explorations into knowing. Educ Psychol 55(3):167–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1786387

National Research Council (2010) Surrounded by science: learning science in informal environments. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/12614 .

Willingham DT (2008) Critical thinking: why it is so hard to teach? Arts Educ Policy Rev 109(4):21–32. https://doi.org/10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32

Sinatra GM, Lombardi D (2020) Evaluating sources of scientific evidence and claims in the post-truth era may require plausibility judgments. Educ Psychol 55(3):120–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1730181

Fleming N (2020) Coronavirus misinformation, and how scientists can help to fight it. Nature. Available via NATURE: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01834-3

Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (MECD) (2015) Real Decreto 1105/2014, de 26 de diciembre, por el que se establece el currículo básico de la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria y del Bachillerato

Ministerio de Sanidad, Consumo y Bienestar Social—Profesionales—Enfermedad por nuevo coronavirus, COVID-19 (2020) Available via Ministerio de Sanidad, Consumo y Bienestar Social. https://www.mscbs.gob.es/profesionales/saludPublica/ccayes/alertasActual/nCov-China/home.htm

Evagorou M, Nisiforou E (2020) Engaging pre-service teachers in an online STEM fair during COVID-19. J Techn Teach Educ 28(2):179–186. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA

Gee JP (2011) An introduction to discourse analyses. In: Theory and method. Routledge, UK

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was carried out within the RODA research group (code ED431C2021/05). It was supported by the project The Spanish Ministry of Science, Education, and Universities, partly funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Grant code: PGC2018-096581-B-C22. We gratefully acknowledge the participants and the illustration provided by the artist Santi Jiménez and Blandine’s draw developed during the lockdown in Spain.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Avd./XoánXXIII, s/n CP: 15782, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

Blanca Puig

University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus

Maria Evagorou

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Blanca Puig .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Universal Scientific Education and Research Network (USERN), Stockholm, Sweden

Nima Rezaei

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Puig, B., Evagorou, M. (2023). COVID-19: A Context to Promote Critical Thinking and Argumentation in Secondary and University Students. In: Rezaei, N. (eds) Brain, Decision Making and Mental Health. Integrated Science, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15959-6_12

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15959-6_12

Published : 02 January 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-15958-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-15959-6

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Thinking about life in COVID-19: An exploratory study on the influence of temporal framing on streams-of-consciousness

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Communication, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

• Constance M. Bainbridge, 

• Published: April 28, 2023
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285200
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

The COVID-19 global pandemic led to major upheavals in daily life. As a result, mental health has been negatively impacted for many, including college students who have faced increased stress, depression, anxiety, and social isolation. How we think about the future and adjust to such changes may be partly mediated by how we situate our experiences in relation to the pandemic. To test this idea, we investigate how temporal framing influences the way participants think about COVID life. In an exploratory study, we investigate the influence of thinking of life before versus during the pandemic on subsequent thoughts about post-pandemic life. Participants wrote about their lives in a stream-of-consciousness style paradigm, and the linguistic features of their thoughts are extracted using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC). Initial results suggest principal components of LIWC features can distinguish the two temporal framings just from the content of their post-pandemic-oriented texts alone. We end by discussing theoretical implications for our understanding of personal experience and self-generated narrative. We also discuss other aspects of the present data that may be useful for investigating these thought processes in the future, including document-level features, typing dynamics, and individual difference measures.

Citation: Bainbridge CM, Dale R (2023) Thinking about life in COVID-19: An exploratory study on the influence of temporal framing on streams-of-consciousness. PLoS ONE 18(4): e0285200. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285200

Editor: Michal Ptaszynski, Kitami Institute of Technology, JAPAN

Received: November 4, 2022; Accepted: April 18, 2023; Published: April 28, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Bainbridge, Dale. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data and analysis script is available on Github: https://github.com/conbainbridge/covid_thoughts DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7809317 .

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

What is the semantic structure of free-flowing thought? How do meanings come up in our thoughts, and how are they linked over time? Human experience is filled with this structure, while we stand in line for our groceries, wait in line at the bus station or even in a moment of mind wandering while conversing with a friend. In this paper, we explore recent events surrounding COVID as a domain to tap into this semantic structure. We devised a “stream-of-consciousness” task in which participants imagined the future beyond COVID, and quantified how their free-flowing thought varied as a function of how they were prompted before this writing. We find that if participants are prompted with the present COVID situation vs. the pre-COVID times, their structure of thought changes. Our exploratory analyses suggest language from the future-oriented responses reflects its temporal priming, i.e., the pre-pandemic vs. during the pandemic prompt that came before. These results offer hints at the semantic patterns that characterize these self-reflections, and how context is central to the forms they take. We end by arguing that a generalized notion of “self-communication” may organize phenomena such as these in intriguing ways.

When the COVID-19 global pandemic spread rapidly in late 2019 and early 2020, major life impacts reverberated globally. These effects were felt across many aspects of everyday life, from direct health impacts to more indirect effects on the economy and social life. People began referring to life before the pandemic colloquially as the “before times,” and there was a sense of a new normal. These effects were also significant in the lives of younger individuals, such as students, with virtual schooling, diminished social interaction, and limited hands-on learning (e.g., [ 1 ]). Evidence suggests an alarming impact of the pandemic on the mental health of college students, including increased stress moderated by self-regulation efficacy [ 2 ], increased depression and anxiety [ 3 ], and negative changes to student relationships [ 4 ]. The effect of perceived threat of COVID-19 on mental well-being appears to be mediated by future anxiety as well, showing the potential to impact mental health in the long run as decisions about the future may be impacted [ 5 ]. The pandemic thus provides a unique opportunity to study how major events influence perceptions of life and mental health, and their relationship to other dimensions.

To study these perceptions, we investigate how student participants construct a narrative text about their lives. Our approach is inspired by methods used in essay writing and journaling [ 6 ], self-talk [ 7 ], and think aloud [ 8 ]. These domains suggest that when we speak to ourselves, ruminate, or reflect on aspects of our lives, our linguistic styles and strategies may be a signature for underlying mental or emotional states and processes. Intriguingly, such intrapersonal communication has been frequently the topic of discussion, yet remains largely an understudied construct. Self-communication occurs when both sender and receiver of a communicative instance are contained within a single individual, such as in dialogical self-talk [ 7 ], and can include transcending across time and space [ 9 ]. Here we use this process as a source of data about these life perceptions.

While not all aspects of intrapersonal communication may be easily accessible for study, such as the seemingly endless streams-of-consciousness we engage in every day, various methods have been employed to tap into self-talk through writing or speech. Raffaelli et al. [ 8 ] used a think aloud paradigm in which individuals are instructed to speak aloud their thoughts. Negative valence in the words used correlated with a narrowing of conceptual scope, such that thoughts became more semantically similar when they were more negative. Social context may play a role, too. Oliver et al. [ 10 ] used a think aloud task to study mental health outcomes. Changing social context to more supportive environments led to greater use of positive emotion words, fewer negative emotion words, fewer swear words, and fewer first-person references compared to a control condition that lacked emotional recognition or meaningful rationale. Recent work has shown that self-talk also links to mental health outcomes during COVID-19. In a questionnaire study conducted on an Iranian sample, there were significant relationships found between self-talk, death anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and coping strategies in relation to the pandemic [ 11 ].

As noted above, the onset of COVID for some may present a distinct point in time at which everyday life changed. This temporal effect of COVID may alter the way we contextualize and think about events before, during, and after this distinct transition. Changing the temporal framing of one’s thoughts or self-talk may have an influence on the language that we use. For example, construal-level theory hypothesizes that increased psychological distances are linked to increased abstractness of hypotheticals [ 12 ]. The further away something is in time, space, or relatability (e.g., feeling similar to or different from an individual), the further the perceived psychological distance and the less concrete related thoughts become. Similarly, increasing concreteness, such as through writing about a given event, may decrease psychological distance to that event in time [ 13 ]. High-level construals, or higher abstractions when mentally representing objects or concepts, may better facilitate self-control, such as attenuating the impact of future discounting on economic decision making [ 14 ]. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, entries in an online journaling platform used increasingly psychologically distant language in their daily writings, suggesting major events can impact our relationships with time [ 15 ]. However, prior work suggests that writing about emotional experiences such as trauma may provide benefits for both mental and physical health [ 16 ].

Considering these findings, one might expect that writing about “the before times,” pre-pandemic, would influence how one perceives their future, perhaps with increased abstraction leading to greater possibilities and allowing distance from such a troubling and disruptive event. Relatedly, a focus on life during the pandemic may have negative impacts on one’s perceptions of their future after the pandemic, with lower levels of construal leading to ruminative tendencies.

To test this idea, we collect and analyze a text-based “stream-of-consciousness” dataset. Participants carried out this open-ended response task online, typing in their thoughts about COVID-19 life under different temporal conditions. The task was designed to elicit a naturalistic and uninterrupted flow of thought. Participants were first told to consider and write about life either before or during the pandemic. This prompt (before vs. during) served as a frame for a subsequent writing prompt, where participants were instructed to share their thoughts about a post-pandemic life. This future-oriented prompt is the same for all participants and is the focus of our analysis, and participants only differed in which writing prompt preceded this one (before vs. during the pandemic). This open-ended writing task generates a large and rich dataset of text. We thus took a preliminary, exploratory approach to investigate the influence of this temporal framing on their responses. In the Analyses section, we consider prior research that frames some factors guiding our exploratory analysis, and we introduce the ways in which these texts can be measured and analyzed.

Data collection was conducted during two separate college quarters: in the first quarter (fall, 2021), classes were hybrid (both in-person and online), with students returning to campus for the first time since the pandemic began. This research was approved by the UCLA North General Institutional Review Board. 134 undergraduate students (female = 95, male = 38, other = 0) contributed data to this first phase of sampling. The second phase of sampling occurred the following quarter (winter, 2022), which had returned to online-only for the first four weeks due to the rapid spread of a particularly contagious strain of the virus, labeled “omicron.” In this phase, 91 undergraduate students (female = 70, male = 19, other = 2) contributed data. The students completed the study online for course credit in an introductory communication course. The goal of the study was to collect a rich dataset for exploratory analyses, and several aspects of the data were not included for analysis. Because of the pandemic-related constraints participants encountered at the start of the winter quarter, we first use this second phase dataset for our main analyses. We then use the fall dataset for exploratory comparison.

The experiment was built using jsPsych [ 17 ] in conjunction with https://cognition.run to store the data. First, participants encountered a consent page, then click to continue only if they agree to consent to participate in the study. After the initial consent page, participants selected on a slider where in the COVID-19 timeline they considered the current moment to be. For the main portion of the study, participants wrote in a stream-of-consciousness style manner for ten minutes per prompt, responding to three total writing prompts. The first prompt asked participants to write either as if it is before the pandemic, or as if during the pandemic. Following the initial prompt, participants responded to a similar prompt asking to write as though it is after the pandemic. The final prompt included whichever temporal framing was not responded to in the first prompt. This resulted in two possible conditions: before-after-during the pandemic, or during-after-before the pandemic. Our focus here is on how the before vs. during prompt, chosen randomly as the first temporal framing, influences the way participants write about the future, after the pandemic.

During all writing prompts, a countdown timer was visible on the screen during writing, and on multiple pages throughout the study, mental health resources were provided. After completion of the three prompts, participants responded to questions about demographics, COVID-19 experiences, journaling experience, as well as three individual difference measures: a rumination scale [ 18 ], an 18-item adaptation of the need-for-cognition scale [ 19 ], and a social connectedness and belonging scale [ 20 ].

Measures and analyses

In the analyses that follow we focus on document-wide features, taking an exploratory approach. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) [ 21 ] categorizes the words in a text based on a range of concepts, including emotions, cognitive tension words, causal words. LIWC provides one methodological tool for enabling indirect inferences about mental states. The most recent version of LIWC at the time of analysis features over 100 word categories, capturing a large variable space. This version of LIWC was tested and validated using a “Test Kitchen Corpus” of around 31 million words pooled from a wide range of corpora, including blogs, emails, movie dialogues, transcribed speech, natural conversations, social media posts, and more [ 21 ]. Analysis of language data can be challenging due to the complexities at play. However, LIWC has been successful at predicting a variety of psychological and social measurements from language usage. For example, course performance has been generally predicted based on the written self-introductions of undergraduate students [ 22 ].

Several of the specific LIWC word categories also map neatly onto well-studied and meaningful dimensions of language. LIWC includes several sentiment related categories, including positive and negative emotion and tone, as well as several discrete emotions, such as sadness, anger, and anxiety. Sentiment of language may provide hints at wellbeing. In one pair of studies, improvements in physical health were linked to a greater use of positive emotion words and a moderate number of negative emotion words (neither very high nor very low), as well as increased use in both causal and insight words throughout a writing task [ 23 ]. Pronoun usage may also hint at different psychological processes. Greater use of first person singular pronouns is associated with interpersonal distress [ 24 ], as well as depressive symptoms and negative emotions [ 25 ]. LIWC additionally includes categories relating to time, such as a past or future focus, and health categories, all concepts highly relevant for the topics of interest in this dataset. Content words (e.g., nouns, regular verbs, and various adjectives and adverbs) and function words (e.g., pronouns, prepositions, articles, conjunctions, and so on) are also detectable using LIWC, and may reveal information about one’s social inclination—the use of function words often requires understanding shared knowledge between interlocutors, for example [ 26 ].

For each future-oriented text produced by participants, LIWC generates a set of semantic category measures that reflect the percentage of these categories represented in that text. This can be understood as a multivariate vector of measurements of how positive, negative, etc., a text is based on a calculation of the percentage of words that fall under these categories. To evaluate the influence of temporal framing (i.e., writing about pre-pandemic or during pandemic life in the first prompt) on writing about life after the pandemic, we evaluated the LIWC features present in the post-pandemic documents (the LIWC data for all documents and the analyses script are available at https://github.com/conbainbridge/covid_thoughts ). Because LIWC has over 100 of these categories, we face the challenge of multivariate analysis without simply deploying an analysis pipeline on each of the 100 separate dimensions. To conduct a more global analysis of LIWC features, we used principal components analysis (PCA) to determine components that best predict the temporal framing condition. PCA permits the analysis of many intercorrelated variables, characterizing the structure of both the observations in the dataset and the variables themselves (for a detailed explanation, see [ 27 ]). PCA has been used successfully in prior work to reduce LIWC dimensions [ 22 , 28 , 29 ].

PCA thus extracts a conceptual space across all LIWC dimensions, but at a lower dimensionality. Another way to think of this process is that PCA reveals this lower dimensionality based on how normalized LIWC scores cluster across students’ writing. For example, instead of the three LIWC features “positive tone,” “negative tone,” and “emotion,” the PCA model may infer that these three features load onto just one principal component (PC). This example is intuitive, but finding clusters across texts and many features yields subtler and more complex patterns of correlation. Our main test is whether these lower-dimensional PCs distinguish temporal prompts at all. This analysis is done based solely on the post-pandemic-oriented texts, to see how the framing of a preceding prompt may echo into thoughts about the future. Put simply: It would show that participants primed by the past or present (pre- and during pandemic) alter the way they think (or write about) the future.

The PCA recovers as many PCs as there are variables, ranked by the strongest component to the weakest. In cases where the number of participants is less than the number of variables, the number of PCs is limited to match this sample size. Because the winter dataset’s sample size ( n = 91) is less than the total LIWC variables (117), the PCA yields 91 total PCs. The LIWC features cluster across texts as we found a nonlinear rise in PC strength, expressed through cumulative proportion of variance accounted for ( Fig 1 ). The first 20 PCs account for almost 70% of the cumulative variance in the dataset.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Of the 91 total PCs, a subset of 20 accounting for approximately 69% of the cumulative variance was taken to determine the most significant PCs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285200.g001

As noted above, we tested whether these LIWC PCA components from the future-oriented prompt relate to the temporal frame of the prior prompt (before vs. during the pandemic). With a logistic regression predicting prior condition from these 20 components, we found seven PCs that were significant or approached significance. We chose a liberal initial threshold of p = 0.1 to ensure we captured a wide range of possible semantic structures in the future-oriented writing. In a secondary generalized linear model, six of these remained significant (PCs 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 13). We also included the seventh (PC18) in our selected components because it trended towards significance in that follow-up model alone. Note that these results reflect coefficients from a single regression model–not independent tests.

The p -values for each PC in the model, and the top ten most influential LIWC features per PC (i.e., highest absolute values in loading scores, ordered from most to least influential) are in Table 1 . LIWC categories in bold, italic font feature positive loading scores, indicating their tendency to characterize the during -pandemic framing, while negative (normal font) loading scores characterize the pre -pandemic framing. Loading scores are available in the S1 Table . For details on what the different LIWC categories entail, see [ 21 ].

The top ten LIWC features for each PC, ordered from most-to-least influential (i.e., highest absolute loading scores), clustered by the condition they characterize. Features in bold, italic font have positive loading scores and characterize the during-pandemic condition, while the features in normal font have negative loading scores and characterize the pre-pandemic condition. Loading scores for these LIWC features are available in the S1 Table .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285200.t001

PC5 is the most significant component of the selected components from the generalized linear model. By itself, it is able to predict which temporal framing preceded the post-pandemic prompt, based solely on the linguistic characteristics in that post-pandemic prompt ( p = .011, Fig 2 ). PC5 shows that positive emotion, tone, want, and discrepancy are found more in post-pandemic contemplations when they are preceded by reflections about during the pandemic. Conversely, when prompted with before the pandemic, PC5 shows focus on the past and use of personal pronouns. Interpreting LIWC loadings may be subjectively influenced, and interpretive assessment must be done with caution. In this particular case, PC5 indicates that thoughts about experience during the pandemic prompt positivity (i.e., the presence of the “positive tone” and “positive emotion” LIWC categories) that is desired (“want”, “tone,” “emotion,” and “discrepancy”–which includes words like would, can, and want). On the other hand, the pre-pandemic priming may focus on what was lacking (“lack”) in the past (“past focus”) and may be expressing themselves more spontaneously (“authenticity”).

The temporal framing of during-pandemic represents the reference condition in green, while the pre-pandemic condition is in red. The difference in explanatory power for PC5 between the two conditions is significant at p = .011.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285200.g002

An interpretation of PC1 could indicate people think more negatively (“negative tone”) and analytically (“analytic”) about health (“health”) as a result of thinking about the experience of the pandemic (e.g., “illness” and “article”, perhaps the result of noting “ the pandemic”). Other PCs may hint at pre-pandemic priming leading to thinking enthusiastically about social life (PC4 –“fulfill,” “prosocial,” “exclamation,” “social behavior”), expressing sadness over remembering one’s lifestyle from the past (PC 10 –“memory,” sad emotion,” “leisure,” “lifestyle,”), or perhaps more episodically inspired thoughts guiding future projections (PC13 –“mental,” “visual,” “perception,” “past focus”). The during pandemic priming may lead to frustration (PC10 –“risk” and “swear”) and one’s needs and their justifications (PC13 –“Cause,” inclusive of words like how, because, and why, and “Need”). Importantly, participants were not prompted to contrast the future and the present/past; the temporal prompt simply alters the semantic patterns in their writing, revealed by the PCs shown in Table 1 .

One way to quantify these overall linguistic trends is to assess them using network analysis [ 30 – 32 ]. This method takes the PCs and visualizes the relationships among the LIWC categories. These more visual, geometric relationships among the dimensions may help to interpret the overall shift taking place in participant writing after the prompts. We built a network model using the “igraph” R package to explore which LIWC features are shared across the selected principal components ( Fig 3 ). The nodes represent the top 50 most influential LIWC features across the selected components (i.e., PCs 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 18). Edges are formed as the result of shared presence of the linked LIWC features across components, suggesting recurring themes in distinguishing the conditions. The color represents the level of influence that feature has in distinguishing conditions, such that the lighter the purple, the greater the influence across these components. This influence is calculated as the sum of the loading score absolute values for a given LIWC feature across components, and rather than being specific to the condition captures that feature’s overall distinguishing influence.

LIWC features are plotted such that an edge is drawn if the features are shared across principal components 1–50. The redder the node is, the more influential the feature is in the loading scores of the main selected components (PCs 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 18).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285200.g003

Therefore, the lighter purple nodes represent features that are more influential across the semantic landscape. The manner in which features cluster may then represent the distinctive set of semantic factors that are combined during our particular task. For example, positive emotion, positive tone, want, tone, emotion, and discrepancy, all features found to characterize the during-pandemic condition in PC5, cluster together even across these components and appear to hint at longing for better times. Other clusters suggest livelihood elements (work, tech, lifestyle, culture), health (health, illness, physical), and sociality (she/he, friend, affiliation). When a feature within a cluster also exhibits a lighter tone, it may be the case that feature is particularly unifying of the cluster’s concepts (e.g., “perception” being linked to “visual” as well as “motion”), although the feature itself may merely have more influence independently. Because semantic graphs of this kind can represent how one “moves” through meaning space (cf. [ 33 ]), a potential future application of this network-based technique is to visualize and characterize the set of potential semantic paths induced by a given prompt or frame of mind [ 34 ]. In our case, thoughts about COVID induce particular sorts of ideas, such as health and social connection. When we prompt participants with a prior temporal frame (i.e., pre-pandemic or during), they appear to take different paths on this network. Such methods may facilitate characterization of the streams-of-consciousness and internal thought processes that open this paper. Importantly though, any such graph structure should be compared to a baseline to ensure that we are not interpreting a chance outcome.

To test whether this network was structured meaningfully relative to a baseline, we extracted some measures and performed a permutation. We analyzed the mean degree (number of adjacent edges), mean betweenness (number of shortest paths going through a vertex or edge), and clustering coefficient (probability that adjacent vertices of a vertex are also connected) of the network. The mean degree is 1.92, mean betweenness 29.02, and transitivity 0.49. We then ran the same network analyses on 10,000 random permutations of the normalized LIWC data to see where the original data falls on this random distribution. This is to confirm whether such semantic structure arises specifically as a result of condition, as opposed to random clustering. The probability of the mean degree in the permutations distribution is .038,.185 for mean betweenness, and.004 for the clustering coefficient. Given both the mean degree and clustering coefficient are outside a 95% confidence interval, this suggests structure meaningfully departs from what would be expected by chance.

We next conducted a PCA on the fall (first phase) dataset. Our initial focus on the winter dataset was because we expect a more intensive response from participants–students who just had another disruption to their class activities during more lock down. To match the winter dataset, we ran a generalized linear model on the first 20 components, which account for 66% of the cumulative variance. Of these 20 components, only PC4 is significant (p = .008). The top ten loading scores for LIWC features characterizing PC4 are word count (-0.205), positive tone (0.182), impersonal pronouns (-0.181), death (-0.179), conversation (-0.17), conflict (-0.169), social references (-0.168), anger (-0.161), social (-0.157), and technology (-0.156), with each associated with the past-primed condition with the exception of positive tone. Because there is only one significant PC, we did not conduct network analysis on this dataset. In general, there are some small effects in the fall dataset but far less pronounced than the structure we find in the winter. We return to this below.

Conclusions and discussion

These exploratory analyses showcase the influence of temporal framing on college students as they envision their post-pandemic lives. Based only on what participants wrote when imagining their post-pandemic lives, LIWC features reduced into principal components can predict which temporal framing participants received. A few significant components hint at different categories of words that aid in making these distinctions. A tentative interpretation suggests that there is an extra focus on health (PC1) and a longing for better times (PC5) when primed by pandemic life, and more socially-oriented thinking (PC4) when primed by pre-pandemic life. In a network analysis, a semantic structure appears to arise, particularly in comparison to a distribution of random permutations of the original LIWC data. Interpretive assessment of the semantic network confirms the results on individual components. This visualization also reinforces the idea that the temporal framing leading into a stream-of-consciousness might shape the conceptual structures that participants work with. These explorations offer an initial foundation for understanding the influence of temporal thinking, and in this particular study on construing imagined futures after a major global crisis. While interpretations of the components are speculative, the LIWC categories may inform deeper studies into the specific ways COVID-19 has shaped the content of students’ imagined futures. Regardless of the meaning behind these semantic spaces, this work highlights that shifts in life triggered by COVID-19 can have an impact on immediate thoughts about the future. With this in mind, interventions may be developed to explore how re-framing thoughts, such as temporally, can encourage shifts where future thoughts may be more hopeful and positive, and less dire or pessimistic.

When conducting PCA on the comparison fall dataset, we find only one component is significant. This could suggest that the winter dataset induced more complex semantics due to the emotional experiences associated with the constricted context, when students returned to remote learning due to the pandemic. Indeed this was our expectation, and motivated our initial focus on that winter data set. However, there are several factors that limit any strong conclusions. First, such environmental contextual influences need to be studied in more depth in future work. These represent just two time points, and a wider sample of data from multiple timepoints may suggest these differences were due to noise. Second, the datasets do have slightly different properties. While the winter dataset had a limited sample size, constraining the total components in the PCA, the fall dataset had a larger sample size, enabling the number of components to match the number of LIWC variables. Because of limited prior work using such methods, we did not have strong priors for an optimal sample size, which may additionally limit power in these analyses. Given our analyses were exploratory in nature, future work will benefit from taking insights gained here to formulate a priori hypotheses and planned analyses.

Priming participants to write in a stream-of-consciousness style seems less common in the literature in favor of journal paradigms, where more editing and refining of language may limit inferences about inner psychological and emotional processes, perhaps especially their dynamics. Nevertheless there are some important limitations to our own design that should be acknowledged. One limitation of the data collection using this paradigm was the online context of the study, which may include extraneous variables that would be valuable to measure and control for in future work. For example, this could include aspects of their state in the moment (e.g., exhaustion, mood), ease of technology use, and the environment when completing the task (such as presence of others in the room). Participants may also have still performed some editing, or struggled to understand or adhere to a free-flowing style of writing. To overcome these issues, it may be useful to integrate content analysis like this with typing dynamics (e.g., [ 35 ]). Indeed, we collected individual keypresses and timings, including the use of the delete key. It may thus be possible to reconstruct some deleted content, and give a full portrait of the stream-of-consciousness exercise. These typing data may also be used to validate and refine this paradigm to study finer-grained psychological events.

Dynamic typing data may also reveal memory search, rumination through recurrent themes or word sequences. These data may also reveal document-wide typing rates that signal cognitive signatures that relate to global features such as overall sentiment and mood. In addition to word categories such as the LIWC dictionaries, other natural language processing techniques and analyses may reveal further insights. LIWC-22 also includes a measure called “narrative arc.” Narrative arc includes proposed stages of composition such as staging, plot progression, and cognitive tension, and appears to follow different patterns depending on text or transcription formats, such as fictional-style writing versus New York Times science articles [ 36 ]. Whether journalistic or stream-of-consciousness writing follows certain narrative arc patterns, or varies depending on the topic, sentiment, or other features, remains an open question. Topic modeling or recurrence analyses can explore how possibilities become constrained (or not) by temporal framing [ 37 , 38 ]. Further explorations into associations across LIWC categories could also contribute to understanding meaningful differences caused by temporal framings.

Individual differences in the experience of COVID-19 life would seem to be a critical ingredient here that we do not yet explore. Future analyses may consider such differences in more detail, such as comparing the framing texts to the post-pandemic texts. If an individual writes particularly optimistically about their life during the pandemic, they may be more likely to then write positively about the future, while greater negativity may similarly bleed into perceptions of the future. A rumination scale [ 18 ], a need-for-cognition scale [ 19 ], and a social connectedness and belonging scale [ 20 ] were included in data collection, though these measures were not factored into the present exploratory analyses. First-person singular pronoun use is increased in the self-focused attention typical of rumination [ 39 ], and thus may have potential for predicting rumination levels based on streams-of-consciousness. The interplay between language and rumination may result in, for example, pervasive use of such pronouns in future-oriented texts regardless of temporal framing. The need-for-cognition scale may also predict how much semantic space one covered in their streams-of-consciousness to begin with, and may inform language-oriented interventions if one temporal framing or the other encouraged greater cognitive exploration. Aside from the social connectedness and belonging measure, we asked questions about actual social experience during COVID-19. Taken together, these measures may explain some of the semantic space that the PCA revealed (e.g., PC4, which included the LIWC categories of “prosocial” and “social behavior” characterizing the pre-pandemic condition).

Given that this dataset was a college sample, factors such as age or other demographics remain open for study as they relate to global crises. For example, experiences of age-related change appear to influence perceptions of the future, and in turn mental health [ 40 ]. Age also appears to be a factor in influencing in-the-moment perceptions of COVID-19, although it may not have had as much influence on perceptions of the future [ 41 ]. While the pandemic marked a sudden major lifestyle shift globally, it will be valuable to evaluate similarities and differences to other health concerns experienced personally, such as chronic health issues, injury, or a terminal illness diagnosis. Whether the global, collective experience of COVID-19, or concern about one’s own experiences drive differences in future projections remains an open question. Understanding the relationships between personal health, global health, and how perceptions of their impact on the future change across the lifespan may clarify how different kinds of interventions may perform better or worse for different health profiles.

This study examines the effects of temporal framing on perception of the future, all within individuals; however, undoubtedly many external factors will also shape how individuals have experienced the COVID-19 pandemic. The media landscape and how the pandemic has been framed to different audiences will certainly have some influence. Indeed, psychological distance has been found to influence the evolution of misinformation regarding COVID-19 when the threats appear more distant [ 42 ]. Future work may examine the effects of the media on self-talk relating to global crises. Additionally, COVID-19 panned out to be a highly politically polarizing event. Political affiliation and intensity of an individual’s antagonistic views will shape how this global event influences thoughts of a post-pandemic life. Social media usage and the makeup of one’s social network both on- and off-line likely moderate perceptions of pandemic life. The language of social media posts across different styles of platforms and through different media (e.g., written such as in a tweet versus video, such as on TikTok) may show differences in socially oriented communication, which may then turn inwards when engaging in self-talk. How inter- and intra-personal communication are linked appears to be a ripe area for research [ 7 , 43 ].

Our findings suggest that streams-of-consciousness could have rich dynamic properties. In broader terms, the contexts of a person’s present thoughts offer a kind of momentum, propelling them into the next stream-of-consciousness. In the language of dynamical systems, there is hysteresis , when “the subject remains longer in the initially perceived interpretation” [ 44 ] (p. 373). This hysteresis property characterizes psychological dwell time in many domains, from motor control to categorization [ 45 ]. Even high levels of cognitive complexity, like streams-of-consciousness, may be given to these properties of complex, dynamic systems. The results here suggest this hysteresis occurs in temporal framings. When participants engage in thought about the past vs. the present, it may set their mind on a given trajectory, giving it some momentum and remaining longer in the initial perceived interpretation. Importantly though, the effects of such framings are confounded with the psychological boundary of a major global event. How context and psychological distance in the temporal domain interact or differently influence hysteresis could be the subject of future work. The global nature of COVID-19 may provide a valuable comparison point to other world events or disasters, such as the findings from Cohn, Mehl, and Pennebaker [ 15 ] of language shifts after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. Future stream-of-consciousness prompts may also explore open-ended thoughts rather than anchoring on a specific event, to further clarify the temporal element alone, instead manipulating how far back or forward in time one is projecting their thoughts.

In the particular study presented here, we took an exploratory step into how streams-of-consciousness may color our views as we look towards the future. Our conscious thoughts, once expressed, are not divorced from measurable effects of thoughts that came before. The words we write and the things we think of before considering the future have a non-trivial influence on the way we frame that future to ourselves, and this can be seen even when considering a global crisis that has shaken our worlds as we knew them.

Supporting information

S1 table. loading scores for the top ten most influential liwc features for each selected component..

The table below features the seven selected components, the ten most influential LIWC features (ordered from most to least influential, based on their absolute values), and their raw loading scores. Positive loading scores best characterize the during-pandemic condition, while negative loading scores best characterize the pre-pandemic condition.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285200.s001

Acknowledgments

We thank Greg Bryant and Anne Warlaumont for feedback on the project and writing, as well as the participants for contributing their streams-of-consciousness.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 21. Boyd RL, Ashokkumar A, Seraj S, Pennebaker JW. The development and psychometric properties of LIWC-22. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin. 2022.
• 27. Abdi H, Williams LJ. Principal component analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics. 2010 Jul;2(4):433–59.
• 28. Kramer AD, Rodden K. Word usage and posting behaviors: modeling blogs with unobtrusive data collection methods. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2008 Apr 6 (pp. 1125–1128).
• 30. Hills TT, Maouene M, Maouene J, Sheya A, Smith LB. Categorical structure in early semantic networks of nouns. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 2008 (Vol. 30, No. 30).

From ‘deadly enemy’ to ‘covidiots’: Words matter when talking about  COVID-19

PhD, Philosophy of Language, Faculty of Applied Science, Emeritus, University of British Columbia

Disclosure statement

Ruth Derksen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of British Columbia provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation CA.

University of British Columbia provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA-FR.

View all partners

So much has been said and written about the COVID-19 pandemic. We’ve been flooded with metaphors, idioms, symbols, neologisms, memes and tweets. Some have referred to this deluge of words as an infodemic .

And the words we use matter. To paraphrase the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein: the limits of our language are the limits of our world . Words place parameters around our thoughts.

These parameters are the lenses we look through. According to literary theorist Kenneth Burke, “ terministic screens ” are defined as the language through which we perceive our reality. The screen creates meaning for us, shaping our perspective of the world and our actions within it. The language acting as a screen then determines what our mind selects and what it deflects.

This selective action has the capacity to enrage us or engage us. It can unite us or divide us, like it has during COVID-19.

Metaphors shape our understanding

Think about the effect of seeing COVID-19 through the terministic screen of war. Using this military metaphor , U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has described COVID-19 as an “enemy to be beaten.” He asserts that this “enemy can be deadly,” but the “fight must be won.”

Read more: War metaphors used for COVID-19 are compelling but also dangerous

The effect of this military language conflicts with the perpetuated myth that “we are all in this together.” But rather, it invokes aggressive combat against an enemy. It signals an us-versus-them divide, promoting the creation of a villain through scapegoating and racist attitudes . Naming COVID-19 as the “China virus,” “Wuhan virus” or “Kung Flu” places the blame directly on China and increases racism. Attacks against Asian people have dramatically increased globally.

Read more: The Atlanta attacks were not just racist and misogynist, they painfully reflect the society we live in

Conversely, what would be the effect of a replacing the terministic screen of war with a tsunami? A metaphor that encourages “waiting out the storm?” Or working to help a neighbour? What would be the effect if the metaphor of “soldiers” were replaced with “ fire fighters ?” This could increase our perception of working together. Re-framing COVID-19 in this way has the capacity to convince us that we actually are “all in this together.”

An inspiring initiative, #ReframeCovid , is an open collective intended to promote alternative metaphors to describe COVID-19. The profound effect of altering the language is clear – to reduce division and generate unity.

Taking away our critical thinking

In a blog post, linquist Brigitte Nerlich compiled a list of metaphors used during the pandemic .

Although the metaphors of war and battle are foremost, others include bullet trains, an evil trickster, a petri dish, a hockey game, a football match, Whack-a-mole and even a grey rhino. Then there is the omnipresent light at the end of the tunnel .

And while they offer a way to re-frame our reality, helping the unfamiliar become familiar and rationalize our perceptions, there is danger lurking. Metaphors can substitute for critical thinking by offering easy answers to complex issues. Ideas can remain unchallenged if glossed over, falling prey to the trap of metaphors .

But metaphors also have the capacity to augment insight and understanding. They can foster critical thinking. One such example is the dance metaphor . It has been effectively used to describe the longer term effort and evolving global collaboration needed to keep COVID-19 controlled until vaccines are widely distributed.

COVID-19 buzzwords

Besides metaphors, other linguistic structures act as our terministic screens as well. Buzzwords related to the current pandemic have also increased.

We grimace or laugh at covidiot , covideo party and covexit . Then there is Blursday , zoom-bombing and quaran-teams .

According to a British language consultant, the pandemic has fostered more than 1,000 new words .

Why has this happened? According to a socio-linguistic analysis, new words can bond us like “ a lexical social glue .” Language can unite us in a common struggle of expressing our anxiety and facing the chaos. Common linguistic expressions decrease isolation and increase our engagement with others.

In a similar way, memes can reduce the space between us and foster social engagement. Most often sarcastic or ironic, memes about COVID-19 have been plentiful. Like metaphors, these buzzwords, puns and images embody symbols that invoke responses and motivate social action.

More recently, resisters of COVID language have flooded social media sites. Frustrated with the never-ending ordeal, online contributors refuse to name the pandemic. Instead they use absurd “pan-words”; calling it a panini, a pantheon, a pajama or even a pasta dish. These ludicrous words frolic with the terministic screen of “pandemic,” deconstructing the word to expose the bizarre meaningless nature of the virus and the heightened frustration with it.

Read more: How to cope with pandemic fatigue by imagining metaphors

The language used in relation to COVID-19 matters. As the effects of the pandemic intensify, so does the importance of the choice of language. Words, as terministic screens, can enable our perceptions in remarkable ways – they can unite us or divide us, enrage us or engage us, all while moving us to action.

• Coronavirus

Project Manager

Management Information Systems & Analytics – Limited Term Contract

Publications Manager

Audience Insight Officer

Director, Student Administration

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Increase in Suicidal Thinking During COVID-19

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Psychology, Harvard University.
• 2 Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
• 3 Franciscan Children's, Brighton, Massachusetts.
• 4 Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health.
• 5 Department of Psychology, Rutgers University.
• 6 National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
• PMID: 38602997
• PMCID: PMC7967020
• DOI: 10.1177/2167702621993857

There is concern that the COVID-19 pandemic may cause increased risk of suicide. In the current study, we tested whether suicidal thinking has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and whether such thinking was predicted by increased feelings of social isolation. In a sample of 55 individuals recently hospitalized for suicidal thinking or behaviors and participating in a 6-month intensive longitudinal smartphone monitoring study, we examined suicidal thinking and isolation before and after the COVID-19 pandemic was declared a national emergency in the United States. We found that suicidal thinking increased significantly among adults (odds ratio [ OR ] = 4.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [3.28, 4.90], p < .001) but not adolescents ( OR = 0.84, 95% CI = [0.69, 1.01], p = .07) during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Increased feelings of isolation predicted suicidal thinking during the pandemic phase. Given the importance of social distancing policies, these findings support the need for digital outreach and treatment.

Keywords: interpersonal interaction; longitudinal methods; suicide prevention.

© The Author(s) 2021.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: J. W. Smoller is an unpaid member of the Bipolar/Depression Research Community Advisory Panel of 23andMe, a member of the Leon Levy Foundation Neuroscience Advisory Board, and received an honorarium for an internal seminar at Biogen, Inc. M. K. Nock is an unpaid member of the TalkLife Advisory Board. The author(s) declared that there were no other potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article.

Average self-reported (a) suicidal ideation…

Average self-reported (a) suicidal ideation and (b) isolation scores over time in adolescents…

Suicidal thinking trajectories. This plot…

Suicidal thinking trajectories. This plot shows the changes in suicidal thinking scores over…

Hours spent at home per…

Hours spent at home per day. The blue line represents average across participants…

Similar articles

• Longitudinal Trends in Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors Among US Military Veterans During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Fischer IC, Nichter B, Na PJ, Norman SB, Krystal JH, Pietrzak RH. Fischer IC, et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2023 Jun 1;80(6):577-584. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.0393. JAMA Psychiatry. 2023. PMID: 37017978 Free PMC article.
• Affiliation to a Social Group as a Preventive Factor in Suicidal Behaviors in Children and Adolescents during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Grzejszczak J, Strzelecki D, Gabryelska A, Kotlicka-Antczak M. Grzejszczak J, et al. Children (Basel). 2023 Feb 9;10(2):333. doi: 10.3390/children10020333. Children (Basel). 2023. PMID: 36832461 Free PMC article. Review.
• Suicidal ideation among Canadian adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of psychosocial factors and substance use behaviours. Geda N, Feng C, Peters B. Geda N, et al. BMC Psychiatry. 2022 Nov 16;22(1):711. doi: 10.1186/s12888-022-04353-9. BMC Psychiatry. 2022. PMID: 36384538 Free PMC article.
• The impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Greek population: Suicidal ideation during the first and second lockdown. Gournellis R, Efstathiou V. Gournellis R, et al. Psychiatriki. 2021 Dec 20;32(4):267-270. doi: 10.22365/jpsych.2021.041. Epub 2021 Nov 26. Psychiatriki. 2021. PMID: 34860683 English, Greek, Modern.
• [Suicidal behavior in light of COVID-19 outbreak: Clinical challenges and treatment perspectives]. Conejero I, Berrouiguet S, Ducasse D, Leboyer M, Jardon V, Olié E, Courtet P. Conejero I, et al. Encephale. 2020 Jun;46(3S):S66-S72. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2020.05.001. Epub 2020 May 8. Encephale. 2020. PMID: 32471707 Free PMC article. Review. French.
• Longitudinal Impact of the Pandemic on Social Disruption and Loneliness in Autistic and Non-Autistic Youth. Gerber AH, Keluskar J, Lerner MD. Gerber AH, et al. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2023 Nov 13:1-13. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2023.2272933. Online ahead of print. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2023. PMID: 37956102
• Ammerman B. A., Burke T. A., Jacobucci R., McClure K. (2020). Preliminary investigation of the association between COVID-19 and suicidal thoughts and behaviors in the U.S. PsyArXiv. 10.31234/ osf.io/68djp - DOI - PubMed
• Appleby L., Cooper J., Amos T., Faragher B. (1999). Psychological autopsy study of suicides by people aged under 35. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 175(2), 168–174. 10.1192/bjp.175.2.168 - DOI - PubMed
• Bates D., Machler M., Bolker B. M., Walker S. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01 - DOI
• Cheung Y. T., Chau P. H., Yip P. S. F. (2008). A revisit on older adults suicides and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic in Hong Kong. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 23(12), 1231–1238. 10.1002/gps.2056 - DOI - PubMed
• Christensen R. H. B. (2019). Regression models for ordinal data (Version 2019.12-10) [Computer software]. Comprehensive R Archive Network. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ordinal

Related information

Grants and funding.

• K23 MH120436/MH/NIMH NIH HHS/United States
• U01 MH116928/MH/NIMH NIH HHS/United States

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Decision making in uncertain times

This article is part of a series Leadership in a crisis: Responding to the coronavirus outbreak and future challenges . It draws together McKinsey’s collective thinking and expertise on five behaviors to help leaders navigate the pandemic and recovery. Separate articles describe organizing via a network of teams ; displaying deliberate calm and bounded optimism ; demonstrating empathy ; and communicating effectively .

Leaders know that making good, fast decisions is challenging under the best of circumstances. But the trickiest are those we call “big bets”—unfamiliar, high-stakes decisions. When you have a crisis of uncertainty such as the COVID-19 pandemic, which arrived at overwhelming speed and enormous scale, organizations face a potentially paralyzing volume of these big-bet decisions.

The typical approach of many companies, big and small, will be far too slow to keep up in such turbulence. Postponing decisions to wait for more information might make sense during business as usual. But when the environment is uncertain—and defined by urgency and imperfect information—waiting to decide is a decision in itself. For instance, delaying the decision to cancel noncritical surgeries can mean not freeing up physician and hospital capacity now and potentially exposing or infecting more people.

To make bold decisions quickly in these uncertain times, leaders can follow these five principles.

1. Take a breath

Pause and take a breath—literally. Giving yourself a moment to step back, take stock, anticipate, and prioritize may seem counterintuitive, but it’s essential now.

When asked what makes a great hockey player, Wayne Gretzky is said to have answered, “A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.” That is easier said than done. In a crisis atmosphere, it is tempting to jump from one urgent task to the next, to take charge of what’s right in front of you—to just execute. Yet this can be a tragic mistake. Research shows that the simple act of pausing, even for as little as 50 to 100 milliseconds, allows the brain to focus on the most relevant information. 1 Vincent P. Ferrera, Jack Grinband, and Tobias Teichert, “Humans optimize decision-making by delaying decision onset,” PLOS ONE , March 5, 2014, Volume 9, Number 3, journals.plos.org

A dramatic example of a leader who paused during a landscape-scale crisis is Captain Chesley Sullenberger. After a bird strike caused both of his plane’s engines to fail shortly after takeoff from LaGuardia Airport in January 2009, he had very little time to decide whether to try to land at a nearby airport, as the control tower was urging, or to aim for a water landing. With no training for such a scenario, he stopped and reflected for a matter of seconds—all that he could afford—to determine if he could get to the airport safely and instead pivoted to the Hudson River for landing. 2 For more information on the US Air Force’s observe, orient, decide, and act (OODA) loop, see Mark Bonchek and Chris Fussell, “Decision making, Top Gun style,” Harvard Business Review , September 12, 2013, hbr.org. All 155 people on board survived.

There are several ways decision makers can take a breath:

• After telling your team you need a moment to think, try to gain a broader perspective.
• Imagine yourself above the fray, observing the landscape from above. This is what leadership expert Ronald Heifetz calls a “balcony” perspective. Despite the “fog of war” that might obscure much of the current state of play, do your best to take a broader view.

Ask yourself and your team these questions: What is most important right now? What might we be missing? How might things unfold from here, and what could we influence now that could pay off later?

This ability to anticipate how things might unfold—and to begin to act accordingly—can help avoid knee-jerk reactions that lead to poor outcomes.

In the coronavirus context, if you are a leader of a grocery-store chain, you are seeing a drastic increase in purchases. You must think about your supply chains, whether to ration items, and how to put safety protocols in place for customers. In addition, there are the questions of whether to modify store hours, whether to limit service to curbside pickup and delivery only, and how to handle staffing. All of these decisions are related, so you must pause and prioritize the most pressing issues first. That also means having the discipline to ignore distractions.

2. Involve more people

Amid uncertainty generated by a crisis, leaders often feel an urge to limit authority to those at the top, with a small team making the big decisions while huddled behind closed doors. They should reject the hierarchical model that they might be more comfortable with in normal times and instead involve many more stakeholders  and encourage different views and debate. This approach can lead to smarter decisions without sacrificing speed.

Specifically, leaders can use a so-called fishbowl model in which decision makers and key experts sit around a table—or virtual table—to make a decision (exhibit). At the table are one or two decision makers, multiple experts, and one or two “empty seats” for other relevant stakeholders in the gallery to rotate in as they have points to share. A majority of stakeholders observes the meeting, which builds understanding without having to make an extra communication step afterward.

In an in-person meeting, stakeholders watching the fishbowl can contribute information and ideas by temporarily taking one of the empty seats, briefly participating in the meeting, and then returning to the gallery. In a virtual meeting, the stakeholders are on mute but can participate by “raising their hand,” with a moderator inviting them in and unmuting them.

There are several steps leaders can take to involve more people:

• Clarify the decisions to be made.
• Identify a small number of decision makers.
• Identify who should have a voice, including relevant stakeholders and experts, and those who will implement decisions.
• Create a forum for rapid debate to take place. Be clear that everyone has a voice but not a vote.

When following this approach, it is possible to involve a large number of stakeholders and experts without sacrificing speed. Especially when things are unfamiliar and the decisions you are considering are bold, you need many points of view to make sure the decision makers aren’t missing something.

Once decisions are made, you can quickly pivot and speak to those who will be executing the decisions to clarify the actions to be taken, timelines, and accountabilities and answer any questions they have about what comes next. This not only saves time, by removing a communication step, but it can also enhance the potency of the message itself.

In today’s crisis atmosphere, waste-management leaders are likely experiencing a big shift in demand for their services. There is more household waste that needs pickup and less waste from office buildings and restaurants. How can these companies better accommodate the shift in demand? This decision should include a wide range of stakeholders, including representatives of the frontline employees (who may have good ideas about routes and which employees to deploy for which shifts) and the customers.

3. Make the critical small choices

Some small choices that leaders make in the short run could loom very large over the long term as the crisis unfolds. They can be hard to spot, but leaders must look for them.

In the normal course of business, many big-bet decisions are obvious . There’s a large cost or major impact, such as acquiring a company, marketing a product in a new geography, or shutting down a factory, with these decisions. But some decisions that seem small or routine at first can have large long-term strategic implications.

In an example related to coronavirus, Netflix has gone to lower-resolution streaming in some locations to ease the data load on information networks. While most people won’t notice the difference in quality, the decision could mean that the internet doesn’t crash, which would be a big problem when so many are working from home and children are relying on the internet to do their schoolwork.

There are several steps leaders can take to make critical small choices:

• Anticipate multiple possible scenarios for how things might unfold over time. No one has a crystal ball, and detailed, precise predictions are likely to be wrong because things are in flux. Anticipating a range of possible pathways and general scenarios can be extremely helpful in thinking through what might happen.
• Make a list of five to ten choices or actions that making today might, depending on what happens, make a difference later. If we fast-forwarded six months and identified a small decision or action that would have made all the difference if we had taken it, what might that decision or action be?
• Engage others to help identify which small decisions or actions you should address now, in case they become the difference makers down the road. Which of these should you spend time on today? Which should you monitor and reconsider later? These decisions could range from actions to save cash and ensure liquidity to actions to beef up the resilience of your supply chain by quickly exploring alternative suppliers.

The response to the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013 is a good example of a critical small choice that made a big difference. The decision was made to disperse severely injured people to eight different hospitals. While some of those hospitals were farther from the bombing site, vascular surgeons were called to those locations to begin operating right away. If victims had been sent only to the closest hospitals, many would have had to wait for surgery and possibly bled to death.

4. Set up a nerve center

In stressful times, leaders will have to make more big-bet decisions than before and also will be worried about their people. When making a high-stakes decision, it’s important to be able to focus attention on the issue at hand. That means minimizing distractions. If a leader is too frenzied, they are likely to make errors in judgment. Creating a nerve center can help leaders focus on the strategic decisions rather than the tactical ones.

A strategic decision comes with a high degree of uncertainty, a large likelihood that things will change, difficulty in assessing costs and benefits, and a result of several simultaneous outcomes. A tactical decision comes with a clear objective, a low degree of uncertainty, and relatively clear costs and benefits. Tactical decisions are important—sometimes crucial. Yet they are often better left to those on the edges of an organization who can act effectively without raising issues to higher levels.

One way to ensure that the right people will be the ones making tactical decisions is to set up a nerve center. This is a network of cross-functional teams  with clear mandates connected by an integration team that sees that decision making occurs thoughtfully and quickly. Each team focuses on a single area or scope; often, the teams are for workforce protection, supply chain, customer engagement, and financial stress testing. There is a central team that keeps everyone coordinated and ensures collaboration and transparency. In a crisis, leaders should set up the nerve center quickly and with the knowledge that it won’t be perfect.

Hospitals deal with emergencies all the time and are well equipped to do so. However, the COVID-19 pandemic is different. It requires setting up a nerve center so that decisions on staffing and the allocation of scarce resources can be made more quickly and by the right people. Some tactical decisions that might have been made in the nerve center, such as the allocation of ventilators and the scheduling of elective surgery, will now need to be considered strategic decisions. It might be a strategic decision to convert a university dorm or hotel to a hospital space, but making sure the space is functional is a tactical decision for the nerve center.

5. Empower leaders with judgment and character

Leaders with the right temperament and character are necessary during times of uncertainty. In wartime, you want a Winston Churchill, not a Neville Chamberlain.

During business as usual, some people who get ahead are of a certain type. They say the right things, don’t ruffle feathers, know how to navigate the system, and manage messages so that people hear what they want to hear. Many of these usual suspects, who typically are tapped to lead special initiatives, are ill suited to lead in a landscape crisis of uncertainty.

Leaders with the right temperament and character are necessary during times of uncertainty. They stay curious and flexible but can still make the tough calls, even if that makes them unpopular. They gather differing perspectives and then make the decisions, with the best interests of the organization (not their careers) in mind, without needing a full consensus. For decisions within their delegated authority, they escalate only the trickiest problems for input or approval. In wartime, you want a Winston Churchill, not a Neville Chamberlain.

When making the move to empower other leaders, don’t just pick the usual suspects to lead your response—some of them will be cut out for duty in times of uncertainty, but some will not. When choosing leaders, identify people who have done as many of the three following things as possible to increase the likelihood of them being successful in the current times of uncertainty:

• lived through a crisis (personal or professional) and shown their mettle and personal resilience
• made a tough, unpopular decision because it was the right thing to do, despite the fact that they took heat for it and potentially burned bridges or spent social capital
• willingly given bad news up the chain of command to leaders who didn’t want to hear it

You may not be able to find enough leaders in your organization who meet all three criteria but beware if you empower leaders who meet none of them.

Once you have identified these leaders, encourage them to find their inner Churchill: remind empowered leaders that you expect them to make decisions with imperfect information. They should not strive to be perfect, as perfect is the enemy of speed. Make mistakes and learn from them. Do what is right, even when it is not popular.

Go big or go home

Unprecedented crises demand unprecedented actions. Lessons from past crises suggest that leaders are more likely to underreact . What is necessary is to take the bold and rapid actions that would feel too risky in normal times.

Denmark recently made such a decision when it froze the economy to head off a recession—or worse. The Danish government agreed to pay 75 percent of private-company employees’ salaries, provided the companies don’t lay off workers. The government is paying workers to stay home and not work, spending 13 percent of the national economy in three months. We don’t know yet whether this policy will accomplish its objectives, but it does offer an example of the kind of bold decision in a crisis that leaders may wish, down the road, that they had made or at least considered.

Lest businesses think such a bold reaction isn’t relevant to them, we are already seeing corporate examples. The National Basketball Association decided early on that it would shut down its season, leading other sports to take similar actions. Apple was among the first large retailers to close most of its stores globally in response to the coronavirus. Emirates has decided to suspend most of its flights until “travel confidence returns.” And some Hollywood studios are releasing current movies straight to streaming platforms, acknowledging this new reality for us all.

Decision making amid uncertainty is not easy. Business leaders cannot afford to wait when events are moving as fast as they are right now. We believe these five principles of decision making can help leaders make smart decisions quickly to guide their organizations through this crisis. Embrace them, and continue to learn as you go.

Andrea Alexander is an associate partner in McKinsey’s Houston office, where Aaron De Smet is a senior partner; Leigh Weiss is a senior expert in the Boston office.

The authors wish to thank Chris Gagnon, David Mendelsohn, and Vanessa Monasterio for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Leadership in a crisis: Responding to the coronavirus outbreak and future challenges

Responding to coronavirus: The minimum viable nerve center

Untangling your organization’s decision making

Professors say they teach critical thinking. But is that what students are learning?

Suzanne Cooper. " Do we teach critical thinking? A mixed methods study of faculty and student perceptions of teaching and learning critical thinking at three professional schools . February 21, 2024

Faculty Authors

Suzanne Cooper

What’s the issue.

The ability to think critically is an essential skill for professionals, including doctors, government officials, and educators. But are instructors at professional schools teaching it, or do they just think they are? Approaches to teaching and assessing critical thinking skills vary substantially across academic disciplines and are not standardized. And little data exists on how much students are learning—or even whether they know their instructors are trying to teach them critical thinking. 

What does the research say? 

The researchers, including Suzanne Cooper, the Edith M. Stokey Senior Lecturer in Public Policy at HKS, compared instructors’ approaches to teaching critical thinking with students’ perceptions of what they were being taught. They surveyed instructors and conducted focus groups with students at three professional schools (Harvard Medical School, Harvard Kennedy School, and the Harvard Graduate School of Education). 

The researchers found that more than half (54%) of faculty surveyed said they explicitly taught critical thinking in their courses (27% said they did not and 19% were unsure). When the researchers talked to students, however, the consensus was that critical thinking was primarily being taught implicitly. One student said discussions, debates, and case study analyses were viewed as opportunities “for critical thinking to emerge” but that methods and techniques were not a specific focus. The students were also generally unable to recall or define key terms, such as “metacognition” (an understanding of one’s own thought process) and “cognitive biases” (systematic deviations from norms or rationality in which individuals create their own subjective reality). 

Based on their findings, the researchers recommend that faculty should be required to teach critical thinking explicitly and be given specific approaches and definitions that are appropriate to their academic discipline. They also recommend that professional schools consider teaching core critical thinking skills, as well as skills specific to their area of study.   

More from HKS

Developing a rehabilitation program that works for incarcerated people, the link between poor housing conditions and covid-19 infection, parents play a role in leading boys and girls down different paths of study.

Get smart & reliable public policy insights right in your inbox. 

Sign up for the newsletter

Digital editions.

Critical thinking: how the COVID-19 pandemic is driving progress

The covid-19 pandemic is pushing governments and businesses to their limits, but history shows us that times of crisis often spur innovation.

Author: Charlotte Gifford

Related topics: covid-19 pandemic , innovation , research & development , technology, top 5 ways to manage the board during turbulent times top 5 ways to create a family-friendly work culture top 5 tips for a successful joint venture top 5 ways managers can support ethnic minority workers top 5 ways to encourage gender diversity in the workplace  top 5 ways ceos can create an ethical company culture top 5 tips for going into business with your spouse top 5 ways to promote a healthy workforce top 5 ways to survive a recession top 5 tips for avoiding the ‘conference vortex’ top 5 ways to maximise new parents’ work-life balance with technology top 5 ways to build psychological safety in the workplace top 5 ways to prepare your workforce for the ai revolution top 5 ways to tackle innovation stress in the workplace top 5 tips for recruiting millennials.

Frank Gehry, one of the most prolific architects in the world, claims that his nightmare scenario when building a house would be to have no constraints whatsoever. “It’s better to have some problem to work with,” he explains . “I think we turn those constraints into actions.” It was the strict standards set for the acoustics at the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles, for example, that inspired the extravagant interior that makes it one of Gehry’s most well-known works.

We often assume that we are at our most creative when we have an abundance of time and resources at our fingertips, but research suggests that constraints help us unlock our brightest ideas. A 2018 review of 145 academic studies found that resource scarcity produces the most novel solutions to problems, whereas resource abundance encourages people to choose the path of least resistance and propose the easiest available solution rather than testing until they find the best one.

Resource scarcity produces the most novel solutions to problems, whereas resource abundance encourages people to choose the path of least resistance

National and international crises push this theory to the extreme. The COVID-19 pandemic has created an urgent need for more ventilators, hand sanitiser and protective equipment. At the same time, disruption to global supply chains has placed a serious strain on resources, while the confinement of millions of workers to their homes has limited the workforce’s capacity to produce this vital equipment. It’s a challenge that will test the limits of human ingenuity. But from these immense trials, organisations are likely to emerge with novel ways of working and new ideas for the future.

Wartime spirit The Austrian political economist Joseph Schumpeter argued that crises are hotbeds for innovation. This might seem counterintuitive; for example, the financial crisis of 2008 led to reduced investment in research and development. However, times of crisis have also been known to spur huge technological and organisational change.

During the Second World War, businesses were mobilised for the war effort on a scale that had never been seen before. “[The Second World War] is the best example for what we call ‘total war’, that is the total mobilisation of economy and society,” said Tamás Vonyó, an associate professor of economic history at Bocconi University.

“It was mass industrial warfare, a war of attrition on steroids, where military outcomes were determined more in factories than on battlefields… All major powers spent between 30 percent and 70 percent of their GDP on the war. Civilian production in several industries was completely shut down. No manufacturer was building passenger cars or electrical household appliances. They were converted to supply tanks, aircraft engines and radars. For manufacturing firms, military procurement was the only survival strategy.”

Out of this mobilisation emerged technological innovations that were absorbed into commercial sectors once the war had ended. Satellites and commercial aeroplanes owe much to the technological advancements made during the Second World War. In France during the First World War, car manufacturer Renault produced a light tank for the military, which gave it the tools to develop its first tractor. Stainless steel was created while the British Army was looking for corrosion-resistant alloys for guns.

Social distancing measures and disruption to global supply chains have put millions of employees in the manufacturing sector out of work

“Transitions during crises almost always spur innovation, whether it is established makers of goods or suppliers of services changing and adapting, or through creative new start-ups,” said Andrew Simms, Coordinator of the Rapid Transition Alliance. “When transitions are about the public interest, that also means removing the pressures that can lead to competition defeating cooperation.”

Today, manufacturers find themselves in a similar position. “In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we see brewers producing hand sanitiser, makers of fashion-wear producing protective clothing and Formula 1 engineers making breathing aids,” said Simms. “In all cases, existing skills have been applied to making the products needed.”

For example, the demand for ventilators is so critical that governments have enlisted industrial companies to produce them. The French carmaker Groupe PSA is working in collaboration with Valeo and Schneider Electric to assist Air Liquide Medical Systems in ventilator production. Spanish automaker SEAT is producing simplified ventilators using windscreen wiper motors, gearbox shafts and gearbox housings. In Germany, Volkswagen has floated the idea of using its 125 industrial 3D printers to make critical medical parts.

Just as in wartime, the coronavirus crisis has fuelled companies’ resourcefulness. An Italian 3D printing start-up, Isinnova, has converted a snorkelling mask into a non-invasive ventilator for coronavirus patients. Other innovative devices that have made their way to market include a door-opening device named the Hygienehook, created by London-based designer Steve Brooks to help hospital workers avoid direct contact with door handles. A national effort can accelerate technological development, but we are yet to see whether any of these new inventions could have commercial applications once the crisis has ended.

Stretched thin Many world leaders and economists have drawn comparisons between wartime and the coronavirus pandemic: Mario Draghi, former president of the European Central Bank, urged governments to accept that “a change of mindset is as necessary in this crisis as it would be in times of war”. In March, Italy’s special commissioner for the coronavirus, Domenico Arcuri, told the country to equip itself for a “war economy”.

However, the coronavirus pandemic differs from wartime in at least one crucial respect. “The experience of hibernating economies for months is uncharted territory for government and business alike,” said Vonyó.

“The world wars did nothing of this sort. Quite the contrary: the aim of total war was to exploit all production capacities and mobilise all workers beyond what was considered feasible in peacetime. Short-term survival was everything. Future prospects were unpredictable and therefore secondary. Today, we do the opposite: we shut down all production that is not absolutely essential, using as little capacity and as few workers as possible, so that we can all stay at home. Total war maximised mobilisation; now we minimise mobilisation.”

This is what makes the economic challenge of coronavirus so unique and difficult to overcome. Social distancing measures and disruption to global supply chains have put millions of employees in the manufacturing sector out of work. Moreover, some of the devices these manufacturers are being asked to make – namely ventilators – are complex pieces of equipment that need to meet strict specifications. “Medical device companies usually take a long time to get going,” Peter Ogrodnik, a professor of medical devices design at Keele University, wrote in The Engineer .

Despite the colossal challenges that lie ahead for companies, innovation in the private sphere is likely to bloom

“They need to build their manufacturing knowledge and supply chains to ensure their products are safe and packaged in a sterile way. They need to understand things like biocompatibility (how materials interact with the body) and materials made from animal by-products (in order to minimise the risk of transmissible diseases such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease). These companies also need to develop the necessary skills in specific risk management and quality procedures.”

This brings us back to the influence that constraints have on creativity. As mentioned previously, there is evidence that limitations are more conducive to creativity than resource abundance. However, a recent study published in the Journal of Management found that there is an inverted U-shape relationship between constraints and innovation. Too few constraints, and we become complacent. Too many, however, and we become overwhelmed. A perfect balance needs to be struck, it seems, and the constraints imposed by the coronavirus are multifold.

In some respects, the innovation that emerges out of crises is the result of nations and businesses learning where they have blind spots the hard way. The deficiencies exposed in nations’ diagnostics sectors and medical equipment supply chains may push us to rectify these problems once the coronavirus is finally suppressed. Nations are almost certain to invest more in pandemic preparedness, for instance.

Already, we can see that the pandemic has been a catalyst for long-overdue transformation. Greece, which currently sits 25th among the 27 European Union member countries in terms of digital transformation, is rapidly digitalising in the wake of the pandemic. It has launched a web conference system for state officials and brought important documents like residence certificates, family status statements and recognition of university degrees online. Greece’s last-minute digital transformation is a large-scale example of what many companies around the world are currently undergoing.

Organisational change As cities around the world entered lockdown at the start of the year, businesses were forced to rapidly evolve and bring both their services and company infrastructure online. Entire sectors are rethinking their operations, while customer-facing businesses are forced to adapt quickly.

EURACTIV reported that German and Polish farmers are turning to social media and setting up online stores to sell their produce. Meanwhile, Europe’s virtual medicine sector, which has long been held back by strict privacy laws, is relaxing its regulations amid a spike in demand for online appointments. This has created a gap in the market for digital healthcare providers. The Swedish telemedicine company Docly reported a 100 percent increase in demand from one week to the next in the midst of the pandemic.

These changes could have a long-lasting impact on the way companies and industries work. “Crises change firms,” said Klaus Meyer, a professor of international business at Ivey Business School. “They change their processes and people acquire new skills, which in turn enables them to deliver new services – including last-mile logistics. To give an example in my own area, professors get better at online teaching and therefore online learning will play a bigger role in higher education in the future – though I expect mainly in the form of online-offline integration.”

Times of crisis have spurred huge organisational change throughout history

It’s not just businesses that must adapt to the new normal. “The crisis also changes consumers – and hence the products and services they value,” Meyer told European CEO . “For example, consumers may less appreciate cruise-ship holidays or mega entertainment events because of new risk awareness. On the other hand, consumers are learning during the crisis to appreciate services delivered online – such as entertainment or education – and the conveniences of online shopping delivered to their doorstep. Some of this will persist in the long run.”

Times of crisis have spurred huge organisational change throughout history. During the Second World War, Unilever’s multinational corporate structure was broken up, meaning its businesses had to work more independently and hone in on the needs of local markets. In the following decades, Unilever continued to operate as a federation of businesses with high levels of autonomy.

Crises can also lead to deep economic change; Vonyó points out that the war economy had a profound, long-lasting impact on European industry. “The two main areas where European firms and governments faced a steep learning curve,” he told European CEO , “were mass production and planning. American mass-production methods and management practices were widely known and admired by leading European firms. Fordism and Taylorism were not alien, but their practice expanded rapidly in the context of war mobilisation, where suddenly everyone became quite a bit more American: material, capital and scale intensive production methods were adopted to enhance output per worker.”

At the same time, Vonyó argues, the war encouraged western governments to intervene more in their own economies: “With the exception of the Soviet Union, every warring economy remained fundamentally market-based but each developed an increasingly important command-economy element.

There was euphoria all over Europe about economic planning after 1945, not just because of the success of the USSR in defeating Nazi Germany but more so because of each government’s own experience with steering economic activity. US economic historian Barry Eichengreen labelled the prevailing western economic model in the postwar era ‘coordinated capitalism’, which did not restrict the freedom of property and enterprise but intervened in finance, investment, wage settlements and international economic relations.”

The coronavirus pandemic could sow the seeds for a new economic model

The coronavirus pandemic could sow the seeds for a new economic model. In April, US billionaire Leon Cooperman said of the crisis: “Capitalism as we know it will likely be changed forever.” It is impossible to know the extent to which Cooperman is correct, but it’s true that the pandemic has rekindled debates around deglobalisation, bailing out large businesses and the benefits of universal basic income.

The new normal Meyer believes that some firms could change for the better as a result of lockdown. “Some of the new best practices that firms develop during the crisis will eventually be more efficient than established practices,” he told European CEO .

“For example, I would expect many business trips to be replaced by video conferences. Some businesses will discover that staff working from home [and] integrating family and work life will be advantageous for them – though not for all. I would also love to think that society becomes more accepting that people have families – and next time a child joins their dad in a BBC interview, nobody will raise an eyebrow. But perhaps that is too optimistic.”

Despite the colossal challenges that lie ahead for companies, innovation in the private sphere is likely to bloom. Ultimately, this will be the key to defeating the virus. For the first time, Apple and Google have partnered up to develop software that alerts users if they come in contact with someone infected with the virus, while biopharmaceutical leader Takeda is harnessing its industry expertise to develop a plasma-based treatment that could treat coronavirus patients.

Coronavirus will have a profound impact on the way we live and work. Businesses may rethink their value chains, having realised how dependent they are on China. In April 2019, the Business Roundtable redefined the purpose of corporations, stressing the importance of serving all stakeholders, including employees and communities. In the time of coronavirus, this is exactly the model that businesses must adopt to stay afloat. Coronavirus is also forcing us to confront the huge social importance of essential workers, especially compared to their small market value.

Vonyó pointed out that the Second World War inflicted a deeper wound on economies and led to a far greater loss of life than the coronavirus crisis is likely to. “Remember, the war lasted five years and incinerated 60 million souls. In the current pandemic, the worst may be over in a few months, with economies back on track within a few years,” he said. “The economic consequences will not last nearly as long as after 1945.” But, as with war, coronavirus’ impact on business and society will be felt long after the crisis has ended.

Contributors

• Industry Outlook

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Optimizing Decision-Making Processes in Times of COVID-19: Using Reflexivity to Counteract Information-Processing Failures

Michaéla c. schippers.

1 Department of Technology and Operations Management, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands

Diana C. Rus

2 Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, Organizational Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands

The effectiveness of policymakers’ decision-making in times of crisis depends largely on their ability to integrate and make sense of information. The COVID-19 crisis confronts governments with the difficult task of making decisions in the interest of public health and safety. Essentially, policymakers have to react to a threat, of which the extent is unknown, and they are making decisions under time constraints in the midst of immense uncertainty. The stakes are high, the issues involved are complex and require the careful balancing of several interests, including (mental) health, the economy, and human rights. These circumstances render policymakers’ decision-making processes vulnerable to errors and biases in the processing of information, thereby increasing the chances of faulty decision-making processes with poor outcomes. Prior research has identified three main information-processing failures that can distort group decision-making processes and can lead to negative outcomes: (1) failure to search for and share information, (2) failure to elaborate on and analyze information that is not in line with earlier information and (3) failure to revise and update conclusions and policies in the light of new information. To date, it has not yet been explored how errors and biases underlying these information-processing failures impact decision-making processes in times of crisis. In this narrative review, we outline how groupthink, a narrow focus on the problem of containing the virus, and escalation of commitment may pose real risks to decision-making processes in handling the COVID-19 crisis and may result in widespread societal damages. Hence, it is vital that policymakers take steps to maximize the quality of the decision-making process and increase the chances of positive outcomes as the crisis goes forward. We propose group reflexivity—a deliberate process of discussing team goals, processes, or outcomes—as an antidote to these biases and errors in decision-making. Specifically, we recommend several evidence-based reflexivity tools that could easily be implemented to counter these information-processing errors and improve decision-making processes in uncertain times.

“Be open to adjustments. There’s nothing about this current moment in history that allows for stubbornness.” ∼Unknown

Introduction

The COVID-19 crisis has left few, if any, countries untouched and world governments have been faced with the difficult task of making decisions in the interest of public safety and health under conditions of tremendous uncertainty and time pressure. Faced with constantly changing and conflicting information, high stakes, time pressure, and a need to balance multiple concerns and interests (e.g., physical and mental health, the economy, and personal rights), governments have found themselves having to make decisions on complex issues under suboptimal conditions ( Rastegary and Landy, 1993 ; Otte et al., 2017 , 2018 ; cf. Schippers et al., 2007 , 2015 , 2017 , 2018 ). Prior research suggests that decision-making effectiveness in highly complex and uncertain situations, such as the current crisis, largely depends on a groups’ ability to successfully acquire, integrate and make sense of information ( Hammond, 1996 ; Schippers et al., 2014 ). In other words, it depends on the quality of the decision-making process which is an important prerequisite that (does not guarantee but) increases the likelihood of positive outcomes ( Nutt, 1999 ; Bloodgood, 2011 ; Wolak, 2013 ). Importantly, while it may not be possible to determine which decisions are best, it is possible to improve the processes being used to come to those decisions, and thus increase the chances of positive outcomes ( Hart, 1991 ).

Prior research also suggests that distortions and failures in the decision-making process are quite common ( Schippers et al., 2014 ), especially in large decision-making groups operating under suboptimal conditions. In fact, research in large companies has found that nearly 50% of decisions fail, and one of the reasons for this is a flawed decision-making process ( Nutt, 1999 ). Whereas a variety of different factors may influence government level decision-making processes in times of crisis ( Beal, 2020 ; Mercer, 2020 ), previous research has identified a number of different biases and errors that may lead to information-processing failures. Information-processing failures consist of “a distortion in the exchange of, communication about, or elaboration on information due to either an omission error in information sampling or biased elaboration of the information” ( Schippers et al., 2014 , p. 733). For instance, in high stress situations, decision-makers have been found to rely on habit and use decision-making strategies they are most familiar with ( Soares et al., 2012 ), a problem compounded by high time pressure ( Ordóñez and Benson, 1997 ). In addition, framing effects and escalation of commitment may also bias the way in which information is processed (cf. Schippers et al., 2014 ). While these errors may readily occur at the individual level, they are often magnified in larger decision-making groups, due to additional team level biases and errors ( Hinsz et al., 1997 ), such as, for instance, groupthink, where decisions are made based on a biased sampling of information and the focus is on agreement at all costs ( Janis and Mann, 1977 ; Janis, 1982 ). Importantly, these information-processing failures have been shown to negatively impact the quality of the decision-making process ( Hammond, 1996 ; Halpern et al., 2020 ).

Clearly, while the COVID-19 crisis is ongoing, it is difficult to assess the long-term effectiveness of policymakers’ decisions, not only because we currently lack the information but also because governments will have to trade off different short- and long-term concerns and interests. Yet, what is clear is that the circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 crisis are likely to make the decision-making processes more vulnerable to information-processing failures due to the high stakes, time pressure, complexity, and uncertainty involved (e.g., Joffe, 2021 ), thereby increasing the chances of suboptimal outcomes. Indeed, emerging evidence indicates that, physical and mental health, social cohesion, educational outcomes, economic development and human rights have all been negatively affected during this crisis (cf. Codagnone et al., 2020 ; Kissler et al., 2020a ; for a review see Kissler et al., 2020b ). Therefore, it is imperative to gain a better understanding of the potential biases and errors that might lead to information-processing failures and identify ways in which they can be mitigated. Hence, our first aim is to build upon and extend previous work on group decision-making processes (cf. Schippers et al., 2014 ) and identify what biases and errors are most likely to lead to information-processing failures in the current COVID-19 crisis. We use a theoretical framework derived from previous research on groups making complex decisions (cf. Schippers et al., 2014 ) and extend it to decision-making under uncertainty. Given that information about ongoing government decision-making processes is not readily available, our analysis will rely on some of the published evidence on policies implemented by governments to mitigate the COVID-19 crisis and the effects thereof. Note that we do not claim to be exhaustive in this narrative review. Our second aim , is to show how team reflexivity —a deliberate process of discussing team goals, processes, or outcomes—can function as an antidote to biases and errors in group decision-making. From prior research, we know that information-processing failures can be avoided and overcome, and researchers have previously suggested that an effective method for doing so is by fostering a reflexive decision-making process in groups ( Schippers et al., 2014 ). Specifically, we will propose several simple tools that decision-making groups, such as policymakers, could use to help counteract information-processing errors and increase the chances of effective decision-making as the crisis unfolds.

We deem the contributions of this narrative review to be twofold. First, we contribute to our understanding of the biases and errors that may hamper decision-making quality and outcomes due to information-processing failures in handling the COVID-19 crisis. While not all instances of information-processing failures result in major consequences, during the current crisis, these remain a serious and potentially deadly pitfall ( Schippers, 2020 ). Second, given that good decision-making processes enhance the chances of high-quality decisions and decision outcomes ( Nutt, 1999 ; Bloodgood, 2011 ; Wolak, 2013 ) we show how the decision-making process can be improved via reflexivity. A reflexive decision-making process may prove particularly beneficial in the current crisis, given that it has been shown to optimize decision-making processes in groups vulnerable to information-processing failures, such as those facing complex tasks under time constraints (cf. Schippers et al., 2014 , 2018 ). Clearly, a reflexive decision-making process, will not guarantee a positive outcome, yet, it increases the chances that the quality of the decisions made are better.

In the following sections, we will first briefly introduce our theoretical framework. Second, we will identify biases that might lead to specific information-processing errors in policymakers’ handling of the COVID-19 crisis and present practical reflexivity tools that can be used to overcome these biases. Finally, we will discuss potential policy implications, some of the limitations of our approach and make some suggestions for future research.

Information-Processing Failures During Crisis and Reflexivity as a Potential Antidote

While individuals do differ in terms of decision-making competence ( Bruine De Bruin et al., 2007 ), our focus is on the group level decision-making process. In line with prior research, we conceptualize groups as information-processing systems whose effectiveness relies on successfully sharing, analyzing, storing, and using information (cf. Hinsz et al., 1997 ; De Dreu et al., 2008 ; Schippers et al., 2014 ). As information-processing systems, teams are vulnerable to information-processing failures, stemming from both individual cognitive shortcomings, such as bounded rationality (e.g., Kahneman, 2003 ), and from breakdowns in interpersonal communication such as misunderstandings or withholding of information (cf. Hinsz et al., 1997 ; Schippers et al., 2014 ). Notably, individual-level cognitive shortcomings are often magnified in larger decision-making groups, due to further information distortion created by poor communication ( Hinsz et al., 1997 ). In this respect, prior research suggests that groups making complex decisions are vulnerable to three specific information-processing failures: (1) a failure to search for and share relevant information; (2) if information is shared, a failure to elaborate on and analyze information; and (3) a failure to revise and update conclusions in the light of new information (cf. Schippers et al., 2014 , 2018 ; see Figure 1 for an overview of the biases and errors which fall into these categories). Importantly, these information-processing failures have been shown to hamper groups’ ability to successfully acquire, integrate and make sense of information and are likely to increase the chances of a flawed decision-making process ( Hammond, 1996 ; Schippers et al., 2014 ).

Information processing failures and remedies fostering reflexivity. Adapted from Schippers et al. (2014) .

Prior research also suggests that information-processing failures can be avoided and overcome via reflexivity (cf., Schippers et al., 2014 , 2018 ). Reflexivity is most often defined as: “the extent to which group members overtly reflect upon, and communicate about the group’s objectives, strategies (e.g., decision-making) and processes (e.g., communication), and adapt them to current or anticipated circumstances” ( West, 2000 , p. 296). Specifically, it has been proposed that team reflexivity: (1) may mitigate the failure to search for and share information by increasing the likelihood that groups will identify and use relevant and correct information ( Brodbeck et al., 2007 ); (2) may mitigate the failure to elaborate on and draw implications from available information through explicit information-processing (cf. Lubatkin et al., 2006 ); and (3) may mitigate the failure to revise and update conclusions by encouraging or facilitating explicit attention to the team’s decision-making process (cf. Schippers et al., 2014 ; see Figure 1 for a list of potential reflexivity tools that can be used to help counteract these three information-processing failures). Crucially, reflexivity has been shown to help improve team performance ( Schippers et al., 2013 ; Gabelica et al., 2014 ; Konradt et al., 2016 ; Lyubovnikova et al., 2017 ; Otte et al., 2017 ; Yang et al., 2020 ) and several review articles have examined when and why reflexivity is effective (e.g., Widmer et al., 2009 ; Schippers et al., 2014 , 2018 ; Konradt et al., 2016 ; Otte et al., 2018 ).

In the following sections, we will use Figure 1 as a framework to (1) describe some examples of different biases and errors that may lead to information-processing failures in policymakers’ handling of the COVID-19 crisis, and (2) highlight specific reflexive decision-making strategies that could be used to optimize the decision-making process and minimize the occurrence of information-processing errors.

Failure to Search for and Share Information and How Reflexivity Could Help

The first kind of information-processing error which could affect decision-making during this crisis involves a failure to search for and share all relevant information. Searching for and sharing all relevant information is especially important in situations where complex decisions need to be made based on input from multiple sources ( Schippers et al., 2014 ), such as the handling of the COVID-19 crisis. Indeed, in the current situation, policy decisions are being made with input from multiple sources and fields (e.g., epidemiology, economics, and behavioral sciences) in order to try and maximize the information considered ( Holmes et al., 2020 ; Romei et al., 2020 ), and thereby, reach the best possible conclusions. A failure to search for and share information can stem from a variety of reasons, such as a common knowledge effect, motivated information sharing or groupthink (cf. Schippers et al., 2014 ). In the following, we will focus specifically on groupthink, a phenomenon that has been identified as being most likely to occur during group decision-making under stress ( Sterman, 2006 ), such as the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba ( Janis and Mann, 1977 ; Janis, 1982 ), or the space shuttle Challenger accident ( Esser and Lindoerfer, 1989 ). We will also propose some ways in which a reflexive decision-making process may help in mitigating some of the information-processing failures potentially stemming from groupthink.

Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of well-intentioned people makes sub-optimal decisions, usually spurred by the urge to conform or the belief that dissent is impossible (cf. Janis, 1982 ). Oftentimes, these groups develop an overly narrow framing of the problem at hand, leading to tunnel vision in the search for possible solutions. Moreover, information that is not in line with or contradicting the majority view is ignored or even suppressed and there is strong pressure among group members to reach an agreement ( Janis, 1991 ). For instance, prior research has shown that decision-making teams tend to primarily focus on discussing commonly shared information, while simultaneously minimizing discussion of unique opinions or information ( Larson et al., 1996 ). Furthermore, group members often avoid or hesitate to share information that could cause disagreement and disturb the harmony within the group ( Janis, 1991 ). According to researchers, groupthink often occurs when wishful thinking and reality denial start at higher levels of the organization and trickle down to become an integrated part of the decision-making process at all levels ( Bénabou, 2013 ). Furthermore, organizational structural and procedural faults have been regularly related to groupthink ( Tetlock et al., 1992 ).

At the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, governments were faced with an unprecedented threat that required quick action. Early estimates stated that seven billion infections and forty million deaths could arise ( Joffe, 2021 ) with estimates of case fatality rates ranging from 0.17% to as high a 20% (the latter was claimed in an article of Baud et al., 2020 ; for a review see Caduff, 2020 ). Moreover, early models predicted that the spread would be exponential ( Banerjee et al., 2021 ; Ferguson et al., 2020 ). Based on these early estimates, many governments decided to take decisive action and enforce a combination of strict lockdowns, curfews, and the closing of “non-essential businesses” (cf. Hsiang et al., 2020 ; Choutagunta et al., 2021 ) aimed at slowing down the spread of the virus and preventing a collapse of critical care capacity. Some evidence seems to suggest that these radical policy packages deployed to reduce the rate of transmission have significantly slowed the exponential spread in certain countries such as China, Italy, France, and the United States ( Hsiang et al., 2020 ; but also see Bjørnskov, 2021 ). Yet, measures exclusively focused on slowing the spread of the virus have also been linked with current and future economic decline (e.g., McKee and Stuckler, 2020 ) and decreased mental well-being of the general population, frontline health-care and essential workers (e.g., O’Connor et al., 2020 ; Robinson and Daly, 2021 ; Buckner et al., 2021 ; Toh et al., 2021 ; Vanhaecht et al., 2021 ). At the same time, the COVID-19 crisis negatively affected non-Covid related public health such as the postponement or cancelation of medical treatments ( Heath, 2020 ; Schippers, 2020 ). Also, the policies have exacerbated existing human rights violations in many countries, and enabled others ( Fisman et al., 2020 ; Saunders, 2020 ). Thus, it appears that an initial focus on slowing the spread of the virus may have led to a narrow problem framing, which may have resulted in either discounting information about, or minimizing the possible extent of negative consequences in other domains, such as the economy, well-being, non-Covid related public health, or human rights. Some researchers have, for instance, suggested that little attention has been paid to the potential side effects of the preventative measures taken, and questioned the extent to which some countries’ policies are evidence-based and proportional ( Ioannidis, 2020 ; Ioannidis et al., 2020 ; Schippers, 2020 ; Joffe, 2021 ). A narrative review of Joffe (2021 ; p. 1) concluded that the cost-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 response was very negative and that “lockdowns are far more harmful to public health than COVID-19 can be.”

Relatedly, given that most governmental policies have been grounded in the precautionary principle ( Sunstein, 2019 ) of avoiding deaths and minimizing the spread of the virus, the communication of these policies has tended to rely on war analogies and fear-based references to the magnitude of the threat to justify a “one size fits all” approach ( Caduff, 2020 ). In the process, it appears that dissenting voices may have been drowned out in various countries ranging from Western liberal democracies to more autocratic states (cf. Abazi, 2020 ; Niemiec, 2020 ; Sherman, 2020 ; Timotijevic, 2020 ). For instance, the mainstream public discourse has largely ignored early voices suggesting that lockdowns might significantly disrupt supply chains, lead to massive unemployment, and to exacerbating poverty in developing countries leading to food insecurity for more than 100 million people ( Inman, 2020 ; Zetzsche and Consiglio, 2020 ). Also, in some countries, those questioning the measures were silenced, marginalized or labeled as traitors in the mainstream media ( Abazi, 2020 ; Joffe, 2021 ). Although very worrisome, this is in line with previous work suggesting that silencing dissenting opinions is a historically common government response to pandemic situations, aimed at steering the public narrative and bolstering support for government actions ( Timotijevic, 2020 ). In addition, given the proliferation of fake news and misinformation, many technology platforms have been forced to rush in and remove potentially dangerous false information ( Abrusci et al., 2020 ). Yet the censorship of social media as a remedy to the spread of medical disinformation has been called into question (cf. Niemiec, 2020 ) and some evidence suggests that simple nudging interventions might also work in fighting misinformation, without the need for pervasive social media censorship (cf. Pennycook et al., 2020 ). Whereas presenting a strong, united front in the face of possible panic is important, it is equally important to allow for dissenting and conflicting opinions to be brought forward. This is all the more important in situations such as the current crisis, where potentially relevant information is spread across multiple disciplines and the state of knowledge is constantly evolving and changing. In this respect, some authors have highlighted a lack of access and transparency regarding the data used by policymakers, poor data input and a reluctance to admit uncertainties in the data ( Heneghan and Jefferson, 2020 ; Ioannidis et al., 2020 ; Jefferson and Heneghan, 2020 ), selective reporting of forecasts, and a lack of transparency in the modeling and assumptions used to inform public policy ( Ioannidis et al., 2020 ). These may all have impeded building an accurate understanding of the situation based on shared facts and open public discourse among different groups of scientists and policymakers.

Importantly, ignoring or silencing dissenting and conflicting opinions is likely to induce groupthink and lead to a narrow focus in the decision-making process during crisis. This, in turn, has been shown to lead to decisions based on incomplete or one-sided information, which negatively affect the chances of achieving positive outcomes ( Hart, 1991 ). In this case, the failure to search for and share as much relevant information as possible may also have been compounded by a general human tendency to underprepare for disasters ( Meyer and Kunreuther, 2017 ; Murata, 2017 ), and the fact that warnings from the scientific community to plan for a potential deadly viral outbreak before the COVID-19 crisis were repeatedly ignored ( Horton, 2020 ). Thus, without a clear response plan, as the crisis emerged, many governments were under pressure to rapidly make sense of incoming information, reach quick decisions, and take decisive action. This pressure may have been amplified by a fear of being blamed for doing “too little” ( Bylund and Packard, 2021 ) and by the intense media focus on the issue. Consequently, initially exaggerated pandemic estimates, case fatality rates, projected rates of community spread, and a focus on only a few dimensions or outcomes at the expense of the larger picture (cf., Ioannidis, 2020 ; Ioannidis et al., 2020 ), may have led to some wrong assumptions underlying initial pandemic-response policies. Furthermore, these assumptions may not have subsequently been questioned or updated based on newly emerging information.

In sum, while the COVID-19 situation is still unfolding, it is difficult to ascertain whether groupthink is indeed featuring in individual government’s decision-making processes, yet, based on our analysis, it is possible that at least some of its characteristics might occur (see also Timotijevic, 2020 ; see Joffe, 2021 for examples of groupthink). Clearly, at this point in time, neither the evolution of the disease itself nor the long-term economic, societal, mental health or human rights impact of the crisis can be known. Although some researchers have attempted to predict how events will unfold ( McKibbin and Fernando, 2020 ), it is still too early to understand what the long-term effects will be. That being said, there seems to be some evidence suggesting that a long-term public policy exclusively focused on slowing the spread of the virus does have negative side-effects in society at large, some of which may have been avoidable via a more holistic approach integrating multiple perspectives and points of view. A holistic approach integrating information from multiple sources, perspectives and points of view has been shown to be critical in ensuring a better quality of the decision-making process (cf., Schippers et al., 2014 ).

In this respect, we propose reflexivity as a method of counteracting reliance on incomplete information, as it explicitly encourages the pooling and consideration of information scattered across multiple group members ( Schulz-Hardt et al., 2006 ). Reflexivity encourages making the decision-making process an explicit balance of advocacy and inquiry, with a focus on widening the array of opinions considered, rather than on decision-making harmony within the group (for an overview of some practical tips for fostering reflexivity, see Figure 1 ). For instance, one practical tool that may offer a simple solution to counter groupthink is the use of a simple checklist (see Table 1 ). This checklist is based on the early work on groupthink by Janis (1991) and forms a useful basis as a quick screen for symptoms of groupthink to be aware of, check for, and avoid. Furthermore, previous research suggests that actively encouraging the discussion of unique, or dissenting opinions is also important, as it allows for a broader framing of the problem at hand and protects against the pitfall of groupthink (cf. Emmerling and Rooders, 2020 ). In order to facilitate the open sharing of information, previous research suggests that creating psychological safety within the group (cf. Edmondson, 1999 ) and appointing a strategic dissenter are critical ( Emmerling and Rooders, 2020 ). Moreover, transformational leadership ( Schippers et al., 2008 ) and avoiding an overreliance on experts ( Gino and Staats, 2015 ) have also been shown to facilitate reflexive decision-making processes likely to incorporate a broader array of information, interests and perspectives.

Overview of checklist items to ensure minimization of groupthink.

Failure to Elaborate on and Analyze Information and How Reflexivity Could Help

Even if (reliable and high-quality) information has been gathered, information-processing failures can occur during the process of analyzing and elaborating on that information. Prior research suggests that information elaboration is especially critical in highly turbulent times ( Resick et al., 2014 ) and when groups are faced with a complex task (cf. Vashdi et al., 2013 ; Schippers et al., 2014 ), such as the current COVID-19 crisis. Failures to elaborate on and analyze the implications of available information can stem from a variety of reasons, the most important ones being framing effects (i.e., the tendency to make different decisions based on how the problem is presented; Tversky and Kahneman, 1981 ), reliance on heuristics (i.e., simple rules of thumb guiding decisions; Kahneman, 2003 ), and positive illusions, such as for instance, illusions of control (cf. Schippers et al., 2014 ; Figure 1 ). In the following, we will focus specifically on how framing effects may lead to errors in analyzing and elaborating on the available information in handling the COVID-19 crisis, and we will propose some ways in which a reflexive decision-making process may help in mitigating these errors.

Framing effects occur when presenting information in different ways changes, and even reverses, how people make decisions about equivalent choice problems (e.g., Kahneman, 2003 ). Prior research suggests that framing influences both problem definition and causal analysis (cf. Entman, 2007 ). As such, framing effects have been shown to be critical to our understanding of how people make decisions, especially decisions involving risk (for recent meta-analyses see Kühberger, 1998 ; Steiger and Kühberger, 2018 ). In addition, recent research suggests that time pressure amplifies framing effects ( Diederich et al., 2018 ), especially in group-decision-making settings, due to group polarization (i.e., groups show a pronounced tendency to shift to more extreme positions than those originally held by any of the individual members; Cheng and Chiou, 2008 ). The first demonstration of the framing effect stems from an experiment by Tversky and Kahneman (1981) , who used an experimental paradigm, the ‘Asian Disease Problem,’ to test how the framing of a problem in terms of potential gains and losses affected decisions about possible solutions. In this experiment, participants are given a scenario in which they are warned about the outbreak of a dangerous disease, expected to kill 600 people. Then they are presented with a choice between two equivalent solutions (one involving a certain outcome and the other involving a risky outcome), which are framed either as a gain (lives saved) or as a loss (lives lost). When participants were presented with solutions framed as a gain (number of lives saved), they tended to choose the solution with a certain outcome. However, when they were presented with solutions framed as a loss (number of lives lost), they tended to choose the solution with a risky outcome. This study which has been replicated in various contexts (cf. Steiger and Kühberger, 2018 for a recent meta-analysis), including during the COVID-19 pandemic ( Hameleers, 2020 ), suggests that framing a decision in terms of numbers of lives lost (vs. saved) tends to lead to decisions involving higher risks.

These findings might be highly relevant during the COVID-19 crisis, which has been characterized by extensive social and popular media coverage, overwhelmingly focusing on the daily infection rates, hospital occupancy rates, and virus-related death toll (cf. Ogbodo et al., 2020 ; Schippers, 2020 ). This incessant media focus on tracking daily infections and lives lost and framing the discourse as a choice between public health and the economy (cf. Codagnone et al., 2020 ; Huseynov et al., 2020 ), has also contributed to shaping public opinion and the spreading of fear ( Ogbodo et al., 2020 ). In addition, it may even have influenced various policy choices, which would be in line with past research showing that media coverage of health emergencies (e.g., epidemics and pandemics) has been crucial in the framing of public policy debates and policy responses ( Karnes, 2008 ; Dry and Leach, 2010 ; Pieri, 2019 ). Thus, given the overwhelming public focus on the daily reports of new infections and deaths, policymakers might have felt pressured to make quick decisions based on these rapid number fluctuations. Relatedly, the problem has tended to be framed narrowly as one of avoiding deaths caused by the new coronavirus, as opposed to being framed more broadly as one of public health, or even more broadly as one of societal well-being — with all that it entails, including a healthy economy, public physical and mental health, social justice, etc. This narrow problem framing, in turn, may have influenced information elaboration and analysis of the situation and, paradoxically, may have led to riskier policy decisions (cf. Ioannidis, 2020 ) than a broader problem framing would have.

For instance, a focus on preventing COVID-19 related deaths has led to a number of policies centered around containment, which have included the controversial closing of borders and shutting down of entire societies for weeks or even months (for some criticisms regarding the evidence-base of such decisions see Ioannidis, 2020 ; Ioannidis et al., 2020 ). Whereas these policies may have indeed reduced individuals’ risk of infection, they also exposed them to other risks, such as losing their sources of livelihood (e.g., Codagnone et al., 2020 ), depression, burnout, and anxiety (e.g., Amerio et al., 2020 ; Fiorillo et al., 2020 ; O’Connor et al., 2020 ; Robinson and Daly, 2021 ; Buckner et al., 2021 ). It also appears that vulnerable populations such as those already suffering from mental health issues or addictions, and women and children living in abusive households may have been particularly negatively affected (e.g., Serafini et al., 2016 ; Buttell and Ferreira, 2020 ; Clarke et al., 2020 ; Graham-Harrison et al., 2020 ; Pfefferbaum and North, 2020 ; Reger et al., 2020 ; Schippers, 2020 ; Zetzsche and Consiglio, 2020 ; Acenowr and Coles, 2021 ; Rumas et al., 2021 ; Sakamoto et al., 2021 ). It is undeniably crucial that policymakers should focus on protecting public health by preventing coronavirus-induced deaths. Yet public health can also be threatened by reduced mental well-being, the discontinuation of regular care and food insecurity. Moreover, societal well-being depends on functioning economies, the rule of law and social justice (cf. Drucker, 2003 ). Therefore, the main criticisms that have been brought forward have centered around the use of interventions without full consideration of the evidence pointing to their impact on society at large ( Haushofer and Metcalf, 2020 ). A broader problem framing in terms of societal well-being might have avoided some of these negative effects, since it would have led to the consideration and balancing of a larger array of factors and interests in the decision-making process. For instance, by simultaneously taking into account effects on public, economic, and mental health, as well as on those most vulnerable in society, more evidence-based policies could have been implemented that would also have minimized risks in these domains.

The framing of the speed of spread of the virus in terms of daily exponential growth rates in the popular media is also likely to have shaped public opinion and policymakers’ decision-making processes. For instance, a pervasive bias that is highly vulnerable to framing effects is exponential growth prediction bias, the phenomenon whereby people underestimate exponential growth when presented with numerical information ( Wagenaar and Sagaria, 1975 ; Wagenaar and Timmers, 1979 ). In the context of COVID-19, this bias has been shown to lead to a systematic tendency to underestimate the number of COVID-19 cases or fatality rates in the future based on current numbers ( Wagenaar and Sagaria, 1975 ; Banerjee et al., 2021 ). This bias, may also have contributed to more risky decision-making, by potentially leading to unwarranted lax policy-measures (e.g., when current infection rates were low but likely to grow exponentially) or to the late introduction of stricter policy-measures (e.g., when current infection rates were already too high). In this respect, previous research has shown that a different framing and communication of exponential growth functions in terms of doubling times rather than in terms of case growth and daily exponential growth rates tends to decrease exponential growth prediction bias (cf. Schonger and Sele, 2020 ) and can improve the quality of the decision-making process by leading to a more accurate analysis of the data at hand.

In sum, it appears that various framing effects in the public discourse may have negatively impacted policymakers’ information elaboration and analysis of the potential implications of policies. Clearly other information-processing failures in the elaboration of information may stem from a variety of other individual-level cognitive biases, such as the availability bias or the salience bias ( Kahneman, 2003 ; for a discussion of other specific decision-making biases that may have played a role in the handling of the COVID-19 crisis see Halpern et al., 2020 ) and we do not claim to be exhaustive here. Our analysis does, however, indicate that, given the complexity and uncertainty of the situation, there is a need to focus on a decision-making process grounded in data and, whenever possible, prior evidence. Of course, as the situation continues to unfold information and data at any point in time is limited and constantly being updated. Yet, a decision-making process that frames the problem to be solved more broadly and explicitly considers and weights possible consequences for a variety of societal stakeholders is critical in avoiding unnecessary risks to the health, well-being, and livelihoods of individuals.

In this respect, reflexive decision-making might help in mitigating the failure to elaborate on and analyze the implications of one’s decision-making (cf. Schippers et al., 2014 ). A reflexive decision-making process can help in terms of facilitating data-driven decisions and highlighting the need to create disconfirmable statements (i.e., phrased in such a way that they are falsifiable). This would facilitate deliberate reflection by allowing for discussions that balance advocacy and inquiry, a careful weighting of the information available, and the consideration of different stakeholders’ perspectives (see Figure 1 ), thereby aiding a group in creating a realistic picture of the situation. For instance, one possible way to facilitate deliberation and a decision-making process grounded in data would be to apply strategies aimed at minimizing framing effects. Some evidence-based strategies that could easily be applied by policymakers are, for example, multitracking and considering multiple frames simultaneously (e.g., saving lives and saving the economy vs. saving lives or saving the economy); broadening the frame (e.g., focusing on societal well-being rather than on solely avoiding COVID-19 related deaths); increasing the number of options or solutions considered simultaneously; shifting one’s reference point (e.g., shifting from a prevention focus which aims at avoiding negative outcomes to a promotion focus which aims at approaching positive outcomes); and considering the opportunity costs of any particular decision (cf. Ariely, 2008 ; Heath and Heath, 2013 ). Another potentially useful technique that has been shown to facilitate deliberation, information sharing, and a weighting of relevant information in the decision-making process is brainwriting (e.g., Paulus and Yang, 2000 ; Heslin, 2009 ). In contrast to engaging in a group-brainstorming session (which typically happens in decision-making groups and has repeatedly been shown to lead to lower quality ideas; cf. Paulus and Brown, 2007 ), brainwriting implies that the different group members individually write down and share their ideas by passing notes to each other, prior to engaging in a group discussion. This process has been shown to be more effective than a traditional group-brainstorming technique in terms of yielding higher quality ideas, given that it allows for explicit attention to the exchanged ideas as well as providing the opportunity for group members to reflect on the exchanged ideas after they have been generated (cf. Paulus and Yang, 2000 ).

Failure to Revise and Update Conclusions and How Reflexivity Could Help

Even if decision-making groups succeed in successfully elaborating on and analyzing the information available to them, effective information-processing may be compromised by a failure to revise and update conclusions. Prior research suggests that this is a particular challenge for groups making decisions in high-stakes, continuously evolving complex situations (cf. Schippers et al., 2014 ) such as the current COVID-19 crisis. Failures to revise and update conclusions can stem from a number of reasons (see Figure 1 ) such as social entrainment (i.e., the failure to update conclusions that are taken for granted due to entrenched patterns; Schippers et al., 2014 ), escalation of commitment (i.e., persisting on a course of action, even though changing to a new course of action would be advantageous; Sleesman et al., 2018 ), and confirmation bias (i.e., actively seeking out evidence that confirms one’s beliefs and expectations, while ignoring or failing to seek out evidence that might disconfirm one’s beliefs; Nickerson, 1998 ). Below we will discuss how escalation of commitment and confirmation bias may lead to information-processing failures in revising and updating conclusions in handling the COVID-19 crisis and propose some ways in which reflexivity could help in mitigating some of these failures.

As the COVID-19 crisis is still evolving, it is key that decision-making groups remain flexible, and are able to evaluate and change their course of action if it turns out to be necessary ( Whitworth, 2020 ). Indeed, prior studies have shown that in order to function effectively, it is crucial that decision-making groups are able to adapt to new information and circumstances ( LePine, 2005 ). However, this is more problematic than it seems, partly because the difficulty of their goal is often inversely related with their likelihood of successfully adapting to changing circumstances ( LePine, 2005 ). A common bias impeding flexibility is escalation of commitment, where people keep investing more resources in a set course of action, even in the face of clear evidence that it is not working, or that better options are available ( Arkes and Blumer, 1985 ; Dijkstra and Hong, 2019 ; for a review see Sleesman et al., 2018 ). A recent review suggests that an explanation for this phenomenon in groups lies in the need to publicly stand by and justify prior decisions, and that this tendency is magnified in diverse groups ( Sleesman et al., 2018 ). For instance, in the context of COVID-19, it seems that early predictions on infection fatality rates (e.g., Ferguson et al., 2020 ), that are now known to be far too high, have hardly led to an update in policies for most countries (but see Bylund and Packard, 2021 for an account of how Swedish policymakers revised and updated their policies). The actual inferred infection fatality rates seem to be much lower than early estimates, even for countries that had light or no lockdowns ( Ioannidis et al., 2020 ; Jefferson and Heneghan, 2020 ; Bylund and Packard, 2021 ). As a case in point, while the early prediction for California was that at least 1.2 million people over the age of 18 would need a hospital bed, and that 50,000 additional hospital beds were needed, at the height of the infection well under five percent of hospital beds were occupied by COVID-19 patients ( Ioannidis et al., 2020 ). In the end, very few hospitals were overwhelmed, and if they were, this was only for a short period of time. In addition, it seems that early modeling for the resurgence of the virus (second and third waves) was also inaccurate ( Ioannidis et al., 2020 ; but see Andrew, 2020 for a critique), and it has even been argued that the repeated lockdowns were too late or too loose to be effective ( Chaudhry et al., 2020 ). The most recent study noted that the “available evidence suggests average global IFR of ∼0.15% and ∼1.5–2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations” ( Ioannidis, 2021 , p. 1, IFR = Infection Fatality Rate). Despite these evolving insights suggesting for instance that early intervention might be important ( Dergiades et al., 2020 ; Chernozhukov et al., 2021 ), it appears that few countries critically assessed the effectiveness and timing of specific policies and changed course of action accordingly.

This potential escalation of commitment might be due to the fact that the crisis is unfolding ‘live’ under tremendous amounts of public and media scrutiny. Thus, policymakers might feel pressured to be seen as competently and decisively handling the crisis, which might lead them to stick to and justify prior decisions (cf. Sleesman et al., 2018 ). For instance, prior research suggests that, in crisis situations, followers expect leaders to provide clarity of direction and make things happen (cf. Sutton, 2009 ; Boin et al., 2013 ). The media reporting of the COVID-19 crisis focusing on daily fluctuations in infection rates, hospital bed occupancy and fatality rates, magnifies fear and anxiety among the general public, and thus puts pressure on policymakers to provide clarity of direction by sticking to a chosen course of action. In addition, public framing of the situation as a “war against an invisible enemy” ( Wicke and Bolognesi, 2020 ) and the highly moralized public discourse dividing people into “patriots” and people to blame ( Caduff, 2020 ), may also contribute to an action-oriented focus on “defeating this enemy” and an overestimation of the extent to which the situation can be controlled. This combination of public scrutiny, perceived need to provide clarity of direction and an action-orientation, leave little room for revising and updating conclusions and changing strategy.

Relatedly, confirmation bias may also have contributed to escalation of commitment and a failure to update and revise information and conclusions during the COVID-19 crisis. A tendency to focus on information in line with one’s initial ideas at the expense of disconfirming information, could lead to overreliance on interventions that are not evidence-based (cf. Ioannidis, 2020 ), and to the suppression of dissenting voices (cf. Abazi, 2020 ). This, in turn, could lower the chances of learning new information and updating conclusions. Given the uncertain nature of the situation, it is to be expected that decisions made at any given point in time may no longer be the best decisions as the situation continues to change and evolve ( Tolcott et al., 1989 ). For instance, the most commonly implemented policy-measures are predicated on social distancing, based on the initial assumption that the primary virus transmission vector is via large droplets. However, more recent evidence seems to suggest that airborne transmission (i.e., via smaller droplets) plays a significant, yet previously underestimated, role in the spread of the virus (cf. Buonanno et al., 2020 ; Bazant and Bush, 2021 ). These new insights render policies based primarily on social distancing measures insufficient to curb the spread of the virus and would require policy revisions. Other researchers have asked for more nuanced recommendations on the use of masks by the general public given that they have potential physical and psychological side-effects (for a meta-analysis see Kisielinski et al., 2021 ), while others have argued for “multi-prolonged population-level strategies” ( Alwan et al., 2020 ). Yet other researchers have called for alternative approaches which conceptualize public health in broader terms than simple infection control ( Lenzer, 2020 ). For example, three eminent epidemiologists and public health experts from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford published the Great Barrington Declaration, which has been signed by hundreds of thousands of concerned citizens, and tens of thousands of medical practitioners and scientists arguing for a focused protection approach to handling the crisis. This proposed approach aims to balance the need to protect high-risk individuals from COVID-19 while reducing the “collateral harms” and serious consequences ensuing from prolonged lockdowns ( Lenzer, 2020 ).

A failure to incorporate new evidence and insights into policymakers’ decision-making process can have damaging consequences not only in terms of effectively handling the public health crisis, but also in terms of potential long-term side-effects such as weakened economies, compromised democracies, and even a legitimization of the use of force ( Caduff, 2020 ; Schippers, 2020 ; Wicke and Bolognesi, 2020 ; Zetzsche and Consiglio, 2020 ). We propose that reflexivity can help mitigate the failure to revise and update conclusions by facilitating explicit attention to the decision-making process (see Figure 1 ). We also deem it to be crucial in promoting evidence-based solutions that incorporate newly emerging scientific insights regarding the spread of the virus, potential mitigation or treatment options, and the effects of current policies. As such, reflexive decision-making is an ongoing process: groups constantly reassess the situation, collect and weigh newly arising evidence, are willing and able to reflect on the actions they have taken, and, when necessary, are prepared to change the current direction or make adjustments to it (cf. Schippers et al., 2014 ). For instance, an effective intervention that can promote reflexivity and help avoid escalation of commitment, is a simple reminder to “stop and think” (cf. Okhuysen, 2001 ; Schippers et al., 2014 ). This simple instruction serves as an interruption and provides some much-needed distance from action. In addition, holding groups accountable for the decision-making process (i.e., having to account for the manner in which decisions are reached) as opposed to holding them accountable for the outcomes of decisions, has been shown to facilitate more careful information-processing (cf. Lerner and Tetlock, 1999 ), reduce the chances of escalation of commitment ( Schippers et al., 2014 ), and induce more complex decision-making strategies ( Tetlock and Kim, 1987 ). A focus on process accountability as opposed to outcome accountability might be especially relevant during the COVID-19 crisis, given that the situation is highly uncertain and requires the careful consideration of multiple perspectives as well as a continuous reassessment of potential courses of action. Finally, some effective strategies that could help beat the confirmation bias trap are: seeking out information from a broad range of sources; actively seeking out disconfirming information; entertaining or testing multiple hypotheses simultaneously; sparking constructive disagreement; assigning one team member the role of devil’s advocate; or testing assumptions in small pilots prior to full solution rollout (e.g., Ariely, 2008 ; Bazerman and Moore, 2008 ; Heath and Heath, 2013 ). In sum, as new information becomes available, and more widespread knowledge of the effects of the crisis become visible, it is crucial that policymakers try to avoid information-processing failures by engaging in an ongoing process of reassessing the situation, incorporating newly arising evidence, and being willing to change course of action based on the evidence.

The Covid-19 crisis currently sweeping the globe has brought about numerous unforeseen difficulties and problems. Policymakers are making high stakes decisions about how to respond on the basis of constantly evolving and incomplete information, under time constraints, and in the face of immense uncertainty and public pressure. These suboptimal circumstances render decision-making processes vulnerable to errors and biases in the processing of information, thereby increasing the chances of faulty decision-making processes with poor outcomes. In the current situation, errors and biases in decision-making have the potential to result in widespread societal damages ( Caduff, 2020 ; Schippers, 2020 ; Joffe, 2021 ), and it is vital that policymakers take steps to maximize the quality of the decision-making process ( Halpern et al., 2020 ) and increase the chances of positive outcomes as the crisis goes forward.

Prior research on the effects of information-processing failures has suggested that these can be mitigated through reflexivity, however, it has not yet been explored how reflexivity can contribute to optimizing decision-making processes during times of crisis. Thus, we applied and extended the theoretical framework of Schippers et al. (2014) on information-processing failures in groups, (1) to further our understanding of the biases and errors that may hamper decision-making quality in handling the COVID-19 crisis and (2) to outline how reflexivity can help in mitigating these potential errors. In our analysis, we classified potential errors and biases as falling into one of three categories of information-processing failures: (1) a failure to search for and share relevant information; (2) if information is shared, a failure to elaborate on and analyze information; and (3) a failure to revise and update conclusions in the light of new information (cf. Schippers et al., 2014 , 2018 ). Specifically, we identified groupthink, framing effects, and escalation of commitment as posing the largest risks to decision-making processes in handling the COVID-19 crisis and have provided practical reflexivity tools that can be used to overcome these biases.

Implications for Policymaking

Groupthink, a narrow focus on the problem of containing the virus, and escalation of commitment pose real risks to decision-making processes in handling the COVID-19 crisis and may result in devastating consequences for lives and livelihoods for decades to come ( Caduff, 2020 ; Schippers, 2020 ; Joffe, 2021 ). With the crisis already in full swing, information-processing failures may have already had an impact on decisions made ( Halpern et al., 2020 ). Therefore, it is critical that future decisions are based on sound decision-making processes. To this end, we have proposed that reflexivity, may offer the key to helping policymaking groups improve their decision-making process. Implementing a reflexive decision-making process could help policymakers going forward by minimizing the occurrence of information-processing errors and by enabling them to maximize the chances of good outcomes in the future. We have recommended several evidence-based reflexivity tools that could easily be used to counter these specific information-processing errors (see Figure 1 ). For instance, using a checklist to assess symptoms of groupthink; appointing a strategic dissenter; creating psychological safety for speaking up; and avoiding overreliance on experts (cf. Gino and Staats, 2015 ; Emmerling and Rooders, 2020 ), could all help avoid the pitfall of groupthink. In addition, we have proposed reflexivity tools that would facilitate a broader framing of the current problem and help groups take data-driven decisions, based on a careful weighting of information and the consideration of potential consequences across different domains for various stakeholders. For example, brainwriting; multitracking and considering multiple frames simultaneously; increasing the number of options or solutions considered simultaneously; and considering the opportunity costs of any particular decision, could all help in minimizing framing effects (cf. Heath and Heath, 2013 ; Schippers et al., 2014 ) and result in more holistic policy approaches. Finally, The simple yet effective reflexivity tools we have put forward may help focus policymakers’ explicit attention to the decision-making process and help them avoid escalation of commitment, such as a simple reminder to “stop and think” (cf. Okhuysen, 2001 ) and process accountability.

The current pandemic has certainly been unprecedented and disruptive on all fronts. Yet, the future is likely to harbor many more unpredictable, unprecedented, highly disruptive, global events which will require quick action based on a sound decision-making process. To increase the chances of handling such future crises successfully, it is critical that policymaking groups lay the foundations for sound decision-making processes in the future by building internal capabilities in sensing, shaping, and flexibly adapting to circumstances as they happen. In other words, it is crucial that they build overall group reflexivity and reflexive decision-making capabilities. Prior research has developed several tools and interventions to help increase overall team reflexivity, which might be relevant in this respect (cf. Schippers et al., 2007 ; Otte et al., 2017 ). For instance, institutionalizing guided reflexivity processes (i.e., debriefing or post-mortem analyses), analyzing one’s own and other groups’ failures has been shown to help groups improve decision-making processes and outcomes (cf. Ellis et al., 2014 ; Schippers et al., 2014 ). Therefore, it is imperative that policymakers critically evaluate the outcomes of their and their peers’ decisions in handling the current crisis and draw learnings for the future. Evidently, in the case of unprecedented events it is impossible to reflect on and analyze past successes and failures, yet it is possible to prepare for plausible even if seemingly unlikely future events. Hence, to build capability in managing uncertainty it is also important to institutionalize reflexive group processes aimed at foresight, by using tools such as ‘premortems’ (i.e., identifying the causes of hypothetical future failures), contingency planning (i.e., creating a playbook for emergency cases), or scenario planning (i.e., using stories about possible alternative futures to challenge and reframe assumptions about the present; cf. Scoblic, 2020 ). Although such preparedness seems to have been available in the form of “event 201,” an exercise organized by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It was a high-level pandemic exercise, modeling a fictional Corona pandemic, and was aimed at diminishing societal and economic consequences 1 . When the crisis occurred, these aims seem not to have been reached, despite the uncanny resemblance of the event and the subsequent crisis. Using a scientific approach to handling these crises, this would allow for better upfront preparedness in handling future crises and facilitate an ongoing reflexive decision-making process.

Implications for Research

Our analysis provides an important starting point in identifying potential biases and errors that may hamper the decision-making process during the COVID-19 crisis, yet it also suffers from some important limitations that warrant further investigation. First, given that the situation is currently unfolding, there is little available evidence regarding the decision-making processes that policymakers have implemented, as the process is often not transparent. Therefore, we relied on the limited published evidence on decisions made and their outcomes. Yet, it is very difficult to infer how decisions were made on the basis of their outcomes. Therefore, as more information becomes available, future research would benefit from examining what decision-making processes were used by various policymaking groups during this crisis, which processes resulted in the best outcomes, and how these processes can be implemented for use in future crisis decision-making. Second, to date, we do not have a clear understanding of the extent to which policymakers across different countries have involved the general public in the decision-making process. Based on the currently available data it appears that open public debate was shunned in numerous countries (cf. Abazi, 2020 ; Sherman, 2020 ; Timotijevic, 2020 ), yet it is possible that this was not the case in others. Prior research suggests that, when it comes to complex policy decisions, people care about having voice (i.e., have the opportunity to express their opinions in the decision-making process, even if not personally involved in the process). Importantly, voice has been shown to lead to increased trust in government and policy acceptance (cf. Terwel et al., 2010 ). Thus, investigating the extent to which the general public was given voice in the decision-making process surrounding COVID1-19 and how this may have affected policy acceptance and compliance, could provide valuable insights for engendering public support in the handling of future crises.

Third, given the limited published record on the effects of the crisis, it is possible that information on policies and their effects in certain countries may be overrepresented and too little data may be available for other countries. However, countries varied in the types and combination of measures implemented, the timing thereof, and in public compliance rates (cf. Bylund and Packard, 2021 ). It is therefore possible that specific combinations of measures in policy packages, their timing, and cultural differences in terms of trust in government, interact in predicting public compliance and policy outcomes. Therefore, as more information becomes available, future research would benefit from engaging in more fine-grained analyses that take into account not only the decision-making process but also such possible interactive effects. This is critical in distilling learnings from the current crisis that could provide a solid evidence-base for handling future crises. Finally, our review is not exhaustive as our main intent was to provide a framework for identifying potential errors and biases in the decision-making processes surrounding the COVID-19 crisis. As more evidence becomes available, future research would benefit from engaging in a systematic review of policymakers’ decision-making processes and their outcomes.

In the current crisis, the risk of biases and errors in policymakers’ decision-making processes has the potential to cause widespread societal damages. We identified, groupthink, a narrow focus on the problem of containing the virus, and escalation of commitment as posing real risks to decision-making processes in handling the COVID-19 crisis. Hence, it is vital that policymakers take steps to maximize the quality of the decision-making process and increase the chances of positive outcomes as the crisis goes forward. Implementing a reflexive decision-making process could help policymakers going forward by minimizing the occurrence of information-processing errors and by facilitating the emergence of more holistic approaches that balance a variety of concerns, such as public (mental) health, the economy, and human rights.

Author Contributions

All authors provided substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, were responsible for drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content, approved the final version of this manuscript, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Ari Joffe for his helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

1 https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/

• Abazi V. (2020). Truth distancing? Whistleblowing as remedy to censorship during COVID-19. Eur. J. Risk Regul. 11 375–381. 10.1017/err.2020.49 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Abrusci E., Dubberley S., McGregor L. (2020). “An infomedic in the pandemic: Human rights and COVID-19 misinformation,” In Covid-19, Law and Human Rights: Essex Dialogues. A Project of the School of Law and Human Rights Centre , eds Ferstman C., Fagan A. (Essex, UK: University of Essex; ), 287–296. [ Google Scholar ]
• Acenowr C. P., Coles M. E. (2021). OCD during COVID-19: understanding clinical and non-clinical anxiety in the community. Psychiatry Res. 300 : 113910 . 10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113910 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alwan N. A., Burgess R. A., Ashworth S., Beale R., Bhadelia N., Bogaert D., et al. (2020). Scientific consensus on the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to act now. Lancet 396 e71–e72. 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)32153-x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amerio A., Bianchi D., Santi F., Costantini L., Odone A., Signorelli C., et al. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic impact on mental health: a web-based cross-sectional survey on a sample of Italian general practitioners. Acta Biomed. 91 83–88. 10.23750/abm.v91i2.9619 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Andrew (2020). (Some) Forecasting for COVID-19 has Failed: A Discussion of Taleb and Ioannidis et al. Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science. Avaliable online at: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/06/17/some-forecasting-for-COVID-19-has-failed-a-discussion-of-taleb-and-ioannidis-et-al/ (accessed April 29, 2021). [ Google Scholar ]
• Ariely D. (2008). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape our Decisions. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arkes H. R., Blumer C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 35 124–140. 10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Banerjee R., Bhattacharya J., Majumdar P. (2021). Exponential-growth prediction bias and compliance with safety measures in the times of COVID-19. Soc. Sci. Med. 268 : 113473 . 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113473 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baud D., Qi X., Nielsen-Saines K., Musso D., Pomar L., Favre G. (2020). Real estimates of mortality following COVID-19 infection. Lancet Infect. Dis. 20 : 773 . 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30195-X [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bazant M. Z., Bush W. M. (2021). A guideline to limit indoor airborne transmission of COVID-19. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118 : e2018995118 . 10.1073/pnas.2018995118 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bazerman M. H., Moore D. A. (2008). Judgment in Managerial Decision-Making , 7th Edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bénabou R. (2013). Groupthink: collective delusions in organizations. Rev. Econom. Stud. 80 429–462. 10.1093/restud/rds030 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beal D. (2020). Big Data in Government: Making Numbers Count. London: Centre for Public Impact. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bjørnskov C. (2021). Did lockdown work? An economist’s cross-country comparison. Cesifo Economic Studies ifab003 . 10.1093/cesifo/ifab003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bloodgood J. M. (2011). Why decisions fail: avoiding the blunders and traps that lead to debacles. Acad. Manag. Execut. 17 132–133. 10.5465/ame.2003.17539860 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boin A., Kuipers S., Overdijk W. (2013). Leadership in times of crisis: a framework for assessment. Int. Rev. Public Adm. 18 79–91. 10.1080/12294659.2013.10805241 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brodbeck F. C., Kerschreiter R., Mojzisch A., Schulz-Hardt S. (2007). Group decision-making under conditions of distributed knowledge: the information asymmetries model. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32 459–479. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bruine De Bruin W., Parker A. M., Fischhoff B. (2007). Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92 938–956. 10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.938 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buckner J. D., Abarno C. N., Lewis E. M., Zvolensky M. J., Garey L. (2021). Increases in distress during stay-at-home mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal study. Psychiatry Res. 298 : 113821 . 10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113821 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buonanno G., Morawska L., Stabile L. (2020). Quantitative assessment of the risk of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Environ. Int. 145 : 106112 . 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106112 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buttell F., Ferreira R. J. (2020). The hidden disaster of COVID-19: intimate partner violence. Psychol. Trauma 12 197–198. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bylund P. L., Packard M. D. (2021). Separation of power and expertise: evidence of the tyranny of experts in Sweden’s COVID-19 responses. South. Econ. J. 10 : 1002/soej.12493 . 10.1002/soej.12493 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caduff C. (2020). What went wrong: corona and the world after the full stop. Med. Anthropol. Q. 34 467–487. 10.1111/maq.12599 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaudhry R., Dranitsaris G., Mubashir T., Bartoszko J., Riazi S. (2020). A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes. EClinicalMedicine 25 : 100464 . 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100464 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng P. Y., Chiou W. B. (2008). Framing effects in group investment decision-making: role of group polarization. Psychol. Rep. 102 283–292. 10.2466/pr0.102.1.283-292 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chernozhukov V., Kasahara H., Schrimpf P. (2021). Causal impact of masks, policies, behavior on early covid-19 pandemic in the U.S. J. Econ. 220 23–62. 10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.09.003 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Choutagunta A., Manish G. P., Rajagopalan S. (2021). Battling COVID-19 with dysfunctional federalism: lessons from India. South. Econ. J. 87 1267–1299. 10.1002/soej.12501 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clarke A., Olive P., Akooji N., Whittaker K. (2020). Violence exposure and young people’s vulnerability, mental and physical health. Int. J. Public Health 65 357–366. 10.1007/s00038-020-01340-3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Codagnone C., Bogliacino F., Gómez C., Charris R., Montealegre F., Liva G., et al. (2020). Assessing concerns for the economic consequence of the COVID-19 response and mental health problems associated with economic vulnerability and negative economic shock in Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. PLoS One 15 : e0240876 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0240876 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Dreu C. K. W., Nijstad B. A., van Knippenberg D. (2008). Motivated information-processing in group judgment and decision-making. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 12 22–49. 10.1177/1088868307304092 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dergiades T., Milas C., Panagiotidis T. (2020). Effectiveness of government policies in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. SSRN Electron. J. 10.2139/ssrn.3602004 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diederich A., Wyszynski M., Ritov I. (2018). Moderators of framing effects in variations of the Asian Disease problem: time constraint, need, and disease type. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 13 529–546. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dijkstra K. A., Hong Y. (2019). The feeling of throwing good money after bad: the role of affective reaction in the sunk-cost fallacy. PLoS One 14 : e0209900 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0209900 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Drucker P. F. (2003). A Functioning Society: Community, Society, and Polity in the Twentieth Century. London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dry S., Leach M. (2010). Epidemics: Science, Governance and Social Justice. London: Earthscan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Edmondson A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 44 350–383. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellis S., Carette B., Anseel F., Lievens F. (2014). Systematic reflection: implications for learning from failures and successes. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23 67–72. 10.1177/0963721413504106 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Emmerling T., Rooders D. (2020). 7 Strategies for Better Group Decision-Making. London: Harvard Business Review. [ Google Scholar ]
• Entman R. (2007). Framing bias: media in the distribution of power. J. Commun. 57 163–173. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00336.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Esser J. K., Lindoerfer J. S. (1989). Groupthink and the space shuttle challenger accident: toward a quantitative case analysis. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2 166–177. 10.1002/bdm.3960020304 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferguson N. M., Laydon D., Nedjati-Gilani G., Imai N., Ainslie K., Baguelin M., et al. (2020). Report 9: Impact of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) to Reduce COVID-19 Mortality and Healthcare Demand. London: Imperial College London. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiorillo A., Sampogna G., Giallonardo V., Del Vecchio V., Luciano M., Albert U., et al. (2020). Effects of the lockdown on the mental health of the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: results from the COMET collaborative network. Eur. Psychiatry 63 : e87 . 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2020.89 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisman R., Lin H., Sun C., Wang Y., Zhao D. (2020). What motivates non-democratic leadership: evidence from COVID-19 reopenings in China. SSRN Electron. J. 10.2139/ssrn.3666942 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gabelica C., van den Bossche P., de Maeyer S., Segers M., Gijselaers W. (2014). The effect of team feedback and guided reflexivity on team performance change. Learn. Instr. 34 86–96. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.09.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gino F., Staats B. (2015). Why organizations don’t learn. Harvard Bus. Rev. 93 110–118. [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham-Harrison E., Giuffrida A., Smith H., Ford L. (2020). Lockdowns Around the World Bring Rise in Domestic Violence. Avaliable online at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/28/lockdowns-world-rise-domestic-violence . (accessed April 29, 2021). [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern S. D., Truog R. D., Miller F. G. (2020). Cognitive bias and public health policy during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA 324 337–338. 10.1001/jama.2020.11623 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hameleers M. (2020). Prospect theory in times of a pandemic: the effects of gain versus loss framing on policy preferences and emotional responses During the 2020 coronavirus outbreak. ScoArXiv. [Preprint]. Avaliable online at: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/7pykj/ (accessed April 29, 2021). [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammond K. R. (1996). Human Judgment and Social Policy: Irreducible Uncertainty, Inevitable Error, Unavoidable Injustice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart P. (1991). Groupthink, risk-taking and recklessness: quality of process and outcome in policy decision-making. Polit. Individ. 1 67–90. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haushofer J., Metcalf C. J. E. (2020). Which interventions work best in a pandemic? Science 368 1063–1065. 10.1126/science.abb6144 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heath C., Heath D. (2013). Decisive: How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work. Redfern, NSW: Currency. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heath S. (2020). How Will Coronavirus Impede Patient Access to Care?. Danvers, MA: Patient Engagement Hit. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heneghan C., Jefferson T. (2020). How is the Vallance Covid Projection Working Out?. London: The Spectator. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heslin P. A. (2009). Better than brainstorming? Potential contextual boundary conditions to brainwriting for idea generation in organizations. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 82 129–145. 10.1348/096317908X285642 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hinsz V. B., Tindale R. S., Vollrath D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychol. Bull. 121 43–64. 10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holmes E. A., O’Connor R. C., Perry V. H., Tracey I., Wessely S., Arseneault L., et al. (2020). Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science. Lancet Psychiatry 7 547–560. 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30168-1 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Horton R. (2020). Coronavirus is the Greatest Global Science Policy Failure in a Generation. London: The Guardian. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsiang S., Allen D., Annan-Phan S., Bell K., Bolliger I., Chong T., et al. (2020). The effect of large-scale anti-contagion policies on the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature 584 262–267. 10.1038/s41586-020-2404-8 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huseynov S., Rodolfo M., Nayga, Palma M. A. (2020). Social preferences during the COVID-19 pandemic: health vs Wealth trade-off. AEA RCT Registry 10.1257/rct.5648-1.0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Inman P. (2020). Half of World’s Workers ‘at Immediate Risk of Losing Livelihood due to Coronavirus’ . London: The Guardian. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ioannidis J. P. (2021). Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID−19: an overview of systematic evaluations. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 51 : e13554 . 10.1111/eci.13554 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ioannidis J. P. A. (2020). Coronavirus disease 2019: the harms of exaggerated information and non−evidence−based measures. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 50 : e13222 . 10.1111/eci.13222 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ioannidis J., Cripps S., Tanner M. A. (2020). Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed. Int. J. Forecast. 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2020.08.004 [Epub ahead of print]. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Janis I. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes , 2nd Edn. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. [ Google Scholar ]
• Janis I. (1991). “Groupthink,” in A First Look at Communication Theory , ed. Griffin E. (New York, NY: McGrawHill; ), 235–246. [ Google Scholar ]
• Janis I., Mann L. (1977). Decision-Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment (Issue 1). New York, NY: The Free Press, 10.1177/000271628044900155 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jefferson T., Heneghan C. (2020). The Ten Worst Covid Data Failures. London: The Spectator. [ Google Scholar ]
• Joffe A. R. (2021). COVID-19: rethinking the lockdown groupthink. Front. Public Health 9 : 98 . 10.3389/fpubh.2021.625778 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am. Psychol. 58 697–720. 10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karnes K. O. (2008). What’s The Story? Framing of Health Issues by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Major Newspapers: A Qualitative Analysis. Thesis. Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kisielinski K., Giboni P., Prescher A., Klosterhalfen B., Graessel D., Funken S., et al. (2021). Is a mask that covers the mouth and nose free from undesirable side effects in everyday use and free of potential hazards? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 : 4344 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kissler S., Tedijanto C., Goldstein E., Grad Y. H., Lipsitch M. (2020a). Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through the postpandemic period. Science 368 860–868. 10.1126/science.abb5793 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kissler S., Tedijanto C., Lipsitch M., Grad Y. (2020b). Social distancing strategies for curbing the COVID-19 epidemic. medRxiv [Preprint]. 10.1101/2020.03.22.20041079. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Konradt U., Otte K. P., Schippers M. C., Steenfatt C. (2016). Reflexivity in teams: a review and new perspectives. J. Psychol. 150 151–172. 10.1080/00223980.2015.1050977 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kühberger A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: a meta-analysis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 75 23–55. 10.1006/obhd.1998.2781 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Larson J. R., Christensen C., Abbott A. S., Franz T. M. (1996). Diagnosing groups: charting the flow of information in medical decision-making teams. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 71 315–330. 10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.315 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lenzer J. (2020). COVID-19: group of UK and US experts argues for “focused protection” instead of lockdowns. BMJ 371 : m3908 . 10.1136/bmj.m3908 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• LePine J. A. (2005). Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. J. Appl. Psychol. 90 1153–1167. 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1153 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lerner J. S., Tetlock P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychol. Bull. 125 225–275. 10.1037//0033-2909.125.2.255 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubatkin M. H., Simsek Z., Ling Y., Veiga J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. J. Manag. 32 646–672. 10.1177/0149206306290712 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyubovnikova J., Legood A., Turner N., Mamakouka A. (2017). How authentic leadership influences team performance: the mediating role of team reflexivity. J. Bus. Ethics 141 59–70. 10.1007/s10551-015-2692-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKee M., Stuckler D. (2020). If the world fails to protect the economy, COVID-19 will damage health not just now but also in the future. Nat. Med. 26 640–642. 10.1038/s41591-020-0863-y [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKibbin W. J., Fernando R. (2020). The global macroeconomic impacts of COVID-19: seven scenarios. SSRN Electron. J. 10.2139/ssrn.3547729 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mercer M. (2020). A Guide to Better Decision-Making in Government. London: Centre for Public Impact. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer R., Kunreuther H. (2017). The Ostrich Paradox: Why We Underprepare for Disasters. Philadelphia, PA: Wharton School Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Murata A. (2017). Cultural difference and cognitive biases as a trigger of critical crashes or disasters — evidence from case studies of human factors analysis. J. Behav. Brain Sci. 07 399–415. 10.4236/jbbs.2017.79029 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nickerson R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2 175–220. 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Niemiec E. (2020). COVID-19 and misinformation: is censorship of social media a remedy to the spread of medical misinformation?. Sci. Soc. EMBO Rep. 21 : e51420 . 10.15252/embr.202051420 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nutt P. C. (1999). Surprising but true: half the decisions in organizations fail. Acad. Manag. Execut. 13 75–89. 10.5465/ame.1999.2570556 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Connor R., Wetherall K., Cleare S., McClelland H., Melson A., Niedzwiedz C., et al. (2020). Mental health and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: longitudinal analyses of adults in the UK COVID-19 Mental Health & Wellbeing study. B. J. Psychiatry 1–8. 10.1192/bjp.2020.212 [Epub ahead of print]. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ogbodo J. N., Onwe E. C., Chukwu J., Nwasum C. J., Nwakpu E. S., Nwankwo S. U., et al. (2020). Communicating health crisis: a content analysis of global media framing of COVID-19. Health Promot. Perspect. 10 257–269. 10.34172/hpp.2020.40 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Okhuysen G. A. (2001). Structuring change: familiarity and formal interventions in problem-solving groups. Acad. Manag. J. 44 794–808. 10.2307/3069416 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ordóñez L., Benson L. (1997). Decisions under time pressure: how time constraint affects risky decision-making. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 71 121–140. 10.1006/obhd.1997.2717 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Otte K. P., Knipfer K., Schippers M. C. (2018). “Team reflection: a catalyst of team development and the attainment of expertise,” in The Oxford Handbook of Expertise , eds Ward P., Schraagen J. M., Gore J., Roth E. M. (Oxford: Oxford University Press; ), 10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198795872.013.44 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Otte K. P., Konradt U., Garbers Y., Schippers M. C. (2017). Development and validation of the REMINT: a reflection measure for individuals and teams. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 26 299–313. 10.1080/1359432X.2016.1261826 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paulus P. B., Brown V. R. (2007). Toward more creative and innovative group idea generation: a cognitive-social-motivational perspective of brainstorming. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 1 248–265. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00006.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paulus P. B., Yang H. C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: a basis for creativity inorganizations. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 82 : 7687 . 10.106/obhd.2000.2888 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pennycook G., McPhetres J., Zhang Y., Lu J. G., Rand D. G. (2020). Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social Media: experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychol. Sci. 31 770–780. 10.1177/0956797620939054 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pfefferbaum B., North C. S. (2020). Mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic. N. Engl. J. Med. 383 510–512. 10.1056/nejmp2008017 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pieri E. (2019). Media framing and the threat of global pandemics: the ebola crisis in UK media and policy response. Sociol. Res. Online 24 73–92. 10.1177/1360780418811966 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rastegary H., Landy F. J. (1993). “The Interactions among time urgency, uncertainty, and time pressure,” in Time Pressure and Stress in Human Judgment and Decision-Making , eds Svenson O., Maule A. J. (New York, NY: Springer US; ), 217–239. 10.1007/978-1-4757-6846-6_15 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reger M. A., Stanley I. H., Joiner T. E. (2020). Suicide mortality and coronavirus disease 2019—A Perfect Storm? JAMA Psychiatry 77 1093–1094. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.1060 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Resick C. J., Murase T., Randall K. R., DeChurch L. A. (2014). Information elaboration and team performance: examining the psychological origins and environmental contingencies. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes 124 165–176. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.03.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Robinson E., Daly M. (2021). Explaining the rise and fall of psychological distress during the COVID-19 crisis in the United States: longitudinal evidence from the Understanding America Study. Br. J. Health Psychol. 26 570–587. 10.1111/bjhp.12493 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Romei C., de Liperi A., Bartholmai B. J. (2020). COVID-19: the importance of multidisciplinary approach. Acad. Radiol. 27 1327–1328. 10.1016/j.acra.2020.05.023 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rumas R., Shamblaw A. L., Jagtap S., West M. W. (2021). Predictors and consequences of loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatry Res. 300 : 113934 . 10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113934 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sakamoto H., Ishikane M., Ghaznavi C., Ueda P. (2021). Assessment of suicide in Japan during the COVID-19 pandemic vs previous years. JAMA Netw. Open 4 : e2037378 . 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37378 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saunders J. (2020). COVID-19 and Key Human Rights Principles in Practice: State Obligations and Business’ Responsibilities in Responding to the Pandemic. Avaliable online at: www.oxfam.org (accessed April 29, 2021). [ Google Scholar ]
• Schippers M. C. (2020). For the greater good? The devastating ripple effects of the COVID-19 crisis. Front. Psychol. 11 : 2626 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.577740 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schippers M. C., den Hartog D. N., Koopman P. L. (2007). Reflexivity in teams: a measure and correlates. Appl. Psychol. 56 189–211. 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00250.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schippers M. C., den Hartog D. N., Koopman P. L., van Knippenberg D. (2008). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing team reflexivity. Hum. Relat. 61 1593–1616. 10.1177/0018726708096639 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schippers M. C., Edmondson A. C., West M. A. (2014). Team reflexivity as an antidote to team information-processing failures. Small Group Res. 45 731–769. 10.1177/1046496414553473 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schippers M. C., Edmondson A. C., West M. A. (2018). “Team reflexivity,” in The Oxford Handbook of Group and Organizational Learning , eds Argote L., Levine J. M. (Oxford: Oxford University Press; ), 1–35. 10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190263362.013.39 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schippers M. C., Homan A. C., van Knippenberg D. (2013). To reflect or not to reflect: prior team performance as a boundary condition of the effects of reflexivity on learning and final team performance. J. Organ. Behav. 34 6–23. 10.1002/job.1784 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schippers M. C., West M. A., Dawson J. F. (2015). Team reflexivity and innovation: the moderating role of team context. J. Manag. 41 769–788. 10.1177/0149206312441210 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schippers M. C., West M. A., Edmondson A. C. (2017). “Team reflexivity and innovation,” in The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Team Working and Collaborative Processes , eds Salas E., Rico R., Passmore J. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; ), 459–478. 10.1002/9781118909997.ch20 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schonger M., Sele D. (2020). How to better communicate the exponential growth of infectious diseases. PLoS One 15 : e0242839 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0242839 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schulz-Hardt S., Brodbeck F. C., Mojzisch A., Kerschreiter R., Frey D. (2006). Group decision-making in hidden profile situations: dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 91 1080–1093. 10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1080 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scoblic J. P. (2020). Learning from the future: how to make robust strategy in times of deep uncertainty. Harvard Bus. Rev. 98 37–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Serafini G., Gonda X., Canepa G., Pompili M., Rihmer Z., Amore M., et al. (2016). Extreme sensory processing patterns show a complex association with depression, and impulsivity, alexithymia, and hopelessness. J. Affect. Disord. 210 249–257. 10.1016/j.jad.2016.12.019 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherman J. (2020). Avaliable online at: https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-covid-is-accelerating-a-global-censorship-crisis/ (accessed May 15, 2021). [ Google Scholar ]
• Sleesman D. J., Lennard A. C., McNamara G., Conlon D. E. (2018). Putting escalation of commitment in context: a multilevel review and analysis. Acad. Manag. Ann. 12 178–207. 10.5465/annals.2016.0046 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Soares J. M., Sampaio A., Ferreira L. M., Santos N. C., Marques F., Palha J. A., et al. (2012). Stress-induced changes in human decision-making are reversible. Transl. Psychiatry 2 : e131 . 10.1038/tp.2012.59 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steiger A., Kühberger A. (2018). A meta-analytic re-appraisal of the framing effect. Z. Psychol. 226 45–55. 10.1027/2151-2604/a000321 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sterman J. D. (2006). Learning from evidence in a complex world. Am. J. Public Health 96 505–514. 10.2105/AJPH.2005.066043 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sunstein C. R. (2019). The Cost-Benefit Revolution. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sutton R. I. (2009). How to be a good boss in a bad economy. Harvard Bus. Rev. 87 42–50. [ Google Scholar ]
• Terwel B. W., Harinck F., Ellemers N., Daamen D. D. L. (2010). Voice in political decision-making: the effect of group voice on perceived trustworthiness of decision makers and subsequent acceptance of decisions. J. Exp. Psychol. 16 173–186. 10.1037/a0019977 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tetlock P. E., Kim J. I. (1987). Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 52 700–709. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tetlock P. E., Peterson R. S., McGuire C., Chang S., Feld P. (1992). Assessing political group dynamics: a test of the groupthink model. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 63 403–425. 10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.403 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Timotijevic J. (2020). Society’s ‘new normal’? The role of discourse in surveillance and silencing of dissent during and post COVID-19. SSRN Electron. J. 10.2139/ssrn.3608576 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Toh W. L., Meyer D., Phillipou A., Tan E. J., Van Rheenen T. E., Neill E., et al. (2021). Mental health status of healthcare versus other essential workers in Australia amidst the COVID-19 pandemic: initial results from the collate project. Psychiatry Res. 298 : 113822 . 10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113822 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tolcott M. A., Marvin F. F., Lehner P. E. (1989). Expert decision-making in evolving situations. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet. 19 606–615. 10.1109/21.31066 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Avaliable online at: www.sciencemag.org (accessed April 29, 2021). [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vanhaecht K., Seys D., Bruyneel L., Cox B., Kaesemans G., Cloet M., et al. (2021). COVID-19 is having a destructive impact on health-care workers’ mental well-being. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 33 : mzaa158 . 10.1093/intqhc/mzaa158 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vashdi D. R., Bamberger P. A., Erez M. (2013). Can surgical teams ever learn? The role of coordination, complexity, and transitivity in action team learning. Acad. Manag. J. 56 945–971. 10.5465/amj.2010.0501 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagenaar W. A., Sagaria S. D. (1975). Misperception of exponential growth. Percept. Psychophys. 18 416–422. 10.3758/BF03204114 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagenaar W. A., Timmers H. (1979). The pond-and-duckweed problem: three experiments on the misperception of exponential growth. Acta Psychol. 43 239–251. [ Google Scholar ]
• West M. (2000). “Reflexivity, revolution, and innovation in work teams,” in Product Development Teams , eds Beyerlein M. M., Johnson D. A. (Bingley: JAI Press; ), 1–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitworth J. (2020). COVID-19: a fast evolving pandemic. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 114 227–228. 10.1093/trstmh/traa025 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wicke P., Bolognesi M. M. (2020). Framing COVID-19: how we conceptualize and discuss the pandemic on Twitter. PLoS One 15 : e0240010 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0240010 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Widmer P. S., Schippers M. C., West M. (2009). Recent developments in reflexivity research: a review. Psychol. Everyday Act. 2 2–11. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolak J. (2013). Catastrophic politics: how extraordinary events redefine perceptions of government, by Lonna Rae Atkeson and Cherie D. Maestas. Polit. Commun. 30 515–517. 10.1080/10584609.2013.805683 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang M., Schloemer H., Zhu Z., Lin Y., Chen W., Dong N. (2020). Why and when team reflexivity contributes to team performance: a moderated mediation model. Front. Psychol. 10 : 3044 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03044 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zetzsche D. A., Consiglio R. (2020). One million or one hundred million casualties? – the Impact of the COVID-19 crisis on developing countries. SSRN Electron. J. 3597657 . 10.2139/ssrn.3597657 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]