What do you think?
Rate this book
Together Apart: The Psychology of Covid-19
Written by leading social psychologists with expertise in leadership, health and emergency behaviour - who have also played an important role in advising governments on COVID-19 - this book provides a broad but integrated analysis of the psychology of COVID-19 It explores the response to COVID-19 through the lens of social identity theory, drawing from insights provided by four decades of research. Starting from the premise that an effective response to the pandemic depends upon people coming together and supporting each other as members of a common community, the book helps us to understand emerging processes related to social (dis)connectedness, collective behaviour and the societal effects of COVID-19. In this it shows how psychological theory can help us better understand, and respond to, the events shaping the world in 2020. Considering key topics such as:
Leadership Communication Risk perception Social isolation Mental health Inequality Misinformation Prejudice and racism This book offers the foundation on which future analysis, intervention and policy can be built.
We are proud to support the research into Covid-19. We are delighted that on publication the finalised eBook will be free.
For those who prefer print, it will be possible to purchase a paperback version.
Leadership Communication Risk perception Social isolation Mental health Inequality Misinformation Prejudice and racism This book offers the foundation on which future analysis, intervention and policy can be built.
We are proud to support the research into Covid-19. We are delighted that on publication the finalised eBook will be free.
For those who prefer print, it will be possible to purchase a paperback version.
176 pages, Kindle Edition
Published July 13, 2020
40 people are currently reading
60 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
Read
February 26, 2021This is a collection of social-psychology essay on COVID-19. It is much less rigorous and detailed than a handbook for sure, making it a much quicker and an easier read.
The book is mainly written from the point of view of social identity theory. As maybe contrary to many popular (and academic) conception of behavior in the pandemic, it portrays groups, crowds, and identity in a more positive light. Though the book itself does not cut into particularly novel or interesting insights, especially for someone who is trained in social psychology, a few points of debate that the book raises is worth mentioning.
First is between the group-centric and optimistic perspective of human behavior, in this case represented by social identity theory, and the more pessimistic and individualistic perspective of behavioral-economics’ brand of libertarian/soft paternalism. This was a debate that I was exposed to rather strongly during my master’s program. My academic seniors were mostly proponents of the theory of planned behavior and they taught a lengthier, more prudent approach to applying psych to policy making and intervention. This runs contrary to behavioral-econ’s fast paced experimental approach. One argument that was somewhat repeated in this book is that policymakers too readily adopt the libertarian view, and this causes them to forgo doing the lengthy and expensive research on actual causes of behavior in favor of the quicker, cheaper nudges. I’m quite sure there was a paper on the effects of introducing nudges to policymakers but my forgetful ass can’t find it! (if there wasn’t this would be an interesting topic to pursue!)
The second point (kind of similar to the first, actually..): The more popular view that individuals acting in groups are fragile and irrational, especially in crises, is not exactly true, the book argues. Panic, violence and chaos are exception to the rule, and ineffective policies, especially ones that are insensitive to existing inequality are huge factors that determine the public’s reaction to the pandemic, especially to restrictive prevention policies. I think the book presents its arguments on these points pretty convincingly, and for a social psychology book to delve into inequality as a determining factor in behaviors that we usually shelf as biases or irrationality is refreshing. It is definitely a nuanced take, especially when compared to the general behavioral-econ perspective of “this is because of bias X or bias Y”, which really makes me want to bang my head to the wall sometimes (I still remember this horrendous piece by Sunstein early in the pandemic )!
However, it’s not as if social identity theory is all fine and dandy. Making social identity theory the focus can sometimes obscures the fact that some policies are just bad, no matter how inclusive the lines policymakers sells it with. Just like liberal paternalism is frequently misused by policymakers, leadership informed by social identity theory, or at least one that unknowingly applies it (especially given how commonsensical it is), can be harmful as well. This is what I think the book misses out on. An example of this is here in Indonesia, where inclusive language and solidarity are used to push a privatized vaccine distribution policy (“Vaksin Gotong Royong”). There are probably more examples of this, here and elsewhere.
Though I’d say that this book is relatively more nuanced for a social psychology book that touches on policy, it is not critical enough. It falls into the same hole that so many psychologists have also fallen into, putting pet psychological principles up front and center, while policies with actual material effects are shoved to the background. But, as a counter point to the many of the popular, pessimistic, and individualistic view of behavior during the pandemic, it presents its arguments well enough.
Tangents
• To be honest, it was quite nerve-wracking to start this book. Hindsight is painful if everything is getting worse.
• As it was published around mid-2020, a lot has changed. Some parts of the book do not age well. For example, the book took quotes from Cuomo quite a few times, but his record was far from spotless. Recent reports show that NY undercounted deaths from its aged population and now he’s being accused for sexual misconduct. Can’t really blame the book though, since Cuomo was hot shit in the early days of the pandemic. Practically everyone left-of-center fawned on him. But again, this makes my point: psychologists too often tend to obscure policy makers’ actual, material stances and policies, in favor of assessing their gesticulations and “leadership”.
•Finally, a psychology book that cites Arundhati Roy lol.
• Regarding 'gotong royong', the term has historically been co-opted by elites to mobilize the public: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journa...
The book is mainly written from the point of view of social identity theory. As maybe contrary to many popular (and academic) conception of behavior in the pandemic, it portrays groups, crowds, and identity in a more positive light. Though the book itself does not cut into particularly novel or interesting insights, especially for someone who is trained in social psychology, a few points of debate that the book raises is worth mentioning.
First is between the group-centric and optimistic perspective of human behavior, in this case represented by social identity theory, and the more pessimistic and individualistic perspective of behavioral-economics’ brand of libertarian/soft paternalism. This was a debate that I was exposed to rather strongly during my master’s program. My academic seniors were mostly proponents of the theory of planned behavior and they taught a lengthier, more prudent approach to applying psych to policy making and intervention. This runs contrary to behavioral-econ’s fast paced experimental approach. One argument that was somewhat repeated in this book is that policymakers too readily adopt the libertarian view, and this causes them to forgo doing the lengthy and expensive research on actual causes of behavior in favor of the quicker, cheaper nudges. I’m quite sure there was a paper on the effects of introducing nudges to policymakers but my forgetful ass can’t find it! (if there wasn’t this would be an interesting topic to pursue!)
The second point (kind of similar to the first, actually..): The more popular view that individuals acting in groups are fragile and irrational, especially in crises, is not exactly true, the book argues. Panic, violence and chaos are exception to the rule, and ineffective policies, especially ones that are insensitive to existing inequality are huge factors that determine the public’s reaction to the pandemic, especially to restrictive prevention policies. I think the book presents its arguments on these points pretty convincingly, and for a social psychology book to delve into inequality as a determining factor in behaviors that we usually shelf as biases or irrationality is refreshing. It is definitely a nuanced take, especially when compared to the general behavioral-econ perspective of “this is because of bias X or bias Y”, which really makes me want to bang my head to the wall sometimes (I still remember this horrendous piece by Sunstein early in the pandemic )!
However, it’s not as if social identity theory is all fine and dandy. Making social identity theory the focus can sometimes obscures the fact that some policies are just bad, no matter how inclusive the lines policymakers sells it with. Just like liberal paternalism is frequently misused by policymakers, leadership informed by social identity theory, or at least one that unknowingly applies it (especially given how commonsensical it is), can be harmful as well. This is what I think the book misses out on. An example of this is here in Indonesia, where inclusive language and solidarity are used to push a privatized vaccine distribution policy (“Vaksin Gotong Royong”). There are probably more examples of this, here and elsewhere.
Though I’d say that this book is relatively more nuanced for a social psychology book that touches on policy, it is not critical enough. It falls into the same hole that so many psychologists have also fallen into, putting pet psychological principles up front and center, while policies with actual material effects are shoved to the background. But, as a counter point to the many of the popular, pessimistic, and individualistic view of behavior during the pandemic, it presents its arguments well enough.
Tangents
• To be honest, it was quite nerve-wracking to start this book. Hindsight is painful if everything is getting worse.
• As it was published around mid-2020, a lot has changed. Some parts of the book do not age well. For example, the book took quotes from Cuomo quite a few times, but his record was far from spotless. Recent reports show that NY undercounted deaths from its aged population and now he’s being accused for sexual misconduct. Can’t really blame the book though, since Cuomo was hot shit in the early days of the pandemic. Practically everyone left-of-center fawned on him. But again, this makes my point: psychologists too often tend to obscure policy makers’ actual, material stances and policies, in favor of assessing their gesticulations and “leadership”.
•Finally, a psychology book that cites Arundhati Roy lol.
• Regarding 'gotong royong', the term has historically been co-opted by elites to mobilize the public: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journa...
August 12, 2020
I appreciate this collection of essays is provided free to the public as an e-publication at the time of this reading.
Twenty brief essays by various social psychologists from Australia and Europe (and a couple from US authors). I liked having an outside (the US) perspective as we could benefit from more social cohesion and solidarity. Straightforward and reasonable. The essays seem like common knowledge and I personally did not extract anything new except for a few terms, but this would be useful for anyone that happens to be living together apart (all of us) and wanting a structured approach to the social and psychological aspects of the pandemic. They attempt to remain neutral but some political preferences are present.
Twenty brief essays by various social psychologists from Australia and Europe (and a couple from US authors). I liked having an outside (the US) perspective as we could benefit from more social cohesion and solidarity. Straightforward and reasonable. The essays seem like common knowledge and I personally did not extract anything new except for a few terms, but this would be useful for anyone that happens to be living together apart (all of us) and wanting a structured approach to the social and psychological aspects of the pandemic. They attempt to remain neutral but some political preferences are present.
September 20, 2020
Definitely written with a leftist slant. Things that fit the leftist agenda were not cited, but presented as fact, even though they did not represent the truth at the time the book was written and further evidence has been uncovered to expose the lies presented.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews