Combating a Crisis: The Psychology of Singapore's Response to Covid-19

by David Chan

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused, and will continue to cause, great disruptions to lives, livelihoods, ways of life, and quality of life. We will need to learn to live with the coronavirus for a long time, even as we combat the coronavirus crisis collectively and fight our own daily battles individually. This book examines Singapore's reaction and response to the coronavirus and draws lessons for crisis management, psychological preparedness, and adaptability.

Consisting of 12 chapters, the book is organized into three parts. Part 1 elaborates on the context of the coronavirus crisis and discusses human reactions to the outbreak and the key adaptation challenges that people faced. Part 2 discusses Singapore's leadership and public responses, focusing on negative emotions, social responsibility, adoption of new technology for contact tracing, and the handling of the outbreak among migrant workers at the dormitories. Part 3 addresses issues of psychological preparedness amid the evolving COVID-19 situation, in terms of adapting to post-pandemic realities, enabling positive attitudes and experiences, building psychological capital, and learning to work together to emerge stronger and better from the coronavirus crisis.

200 pages, Hardcover

Published July 1, 2020

Reviews

[Sharad Pandian · Rating 2 out of 5]

With every passing day, I grow more convinced that psychology is a scam.

Most of this book is a summary of events in Singapore until June, with the information mostly taken from establishment sources. It is somewhat thorough, so this might be a useful resource for someone who wanted a quick summary of Singapore's reaction. However, since this was written by a psychologist and the subtitle promises to talk about the psychology of Singapore's response, I summarize (section I) and evalutate (section II) only this.


Section I - The psychology

Sprinkled between the details of the response are psychological talk. I admit I didn't find any of it particularly insightful, but here are some points that weren't terrible:

-This sudden and unexpected change from self-sufficiency and self-reliance to one of great dependency and uncertainty can… lead to a relatively permanent sense of angst, anxiety, guilt, despondency, loss of personal sense of dignity, self-esteem and self-efficacy problems, and other psychological distress… it is important for the government to pay attention to particular groups who are usually not classified as vulnerable groups but are in fact “emergent vulnerables” due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (49-50)

-Behavioural sciences research in an area called embodiment has shown that the physical sensation from these bodily contact not only expresses one’s social affinity but also directly enhances the actual positive psychological experience from the social encounter, both cognitively (how we think) and emotionally (how we feel). So, when countries implement strict measures to prevent people from physically interacting with others in order to contain the spread of the coronavirus, causing us to rely on electronic communication to connect with our loved ones, friends, and colleagues, one unintended negative consequence is that it disrupts the fulfilment of our basic social needs. (62-3)

-Social deprivation fatigue due to the prolonged lack of (or constraints on) social interactions in physical settings can have severe negative consequences on physical and mental health for some individuals. These may include increased risk of physical illness, hypersensitivity to social stimuli, feelings of loneliness, alienation and helplessness, lowered self-esteem, depression, and even suicidal thoughts. The chances of these consequences occurring and their severity may increase if the individual was experiencing prolonged social deprivation while having to deal with other psychological, social, or economic problems. (64)

-Based on research evidence, I have put together a five-factor model to help us understand the key drivers of behaviours and how they can be used to promote positive attitudes and change behaviours. I call it the VINCE model, referring to the five factors, namely values, image, norms, convenience, and enforcement. (84)

-The section on values is particularly interesting:

Values are our convictions of what is important and they remind us of what ought to be. Values are personal but there are some values that we all agree on in Singapore. Examples of our shared values include integrity, fairness, and social harmony. Research has shown that values are fundamental because they shape our attitudes, affect our thoughts, influence our emotions, and guide our actions.

It is possible to bring about lasting change in mindsets and behaviours using value-driven approaches. We can increase positive behaviours by reinforcing how they are consistent with our values. We can also decrease negative behaviours by highlighting how they are value-inconsistent. So, with a combination of value-driven congruence and dissonance, we can promote socially responsible behaviours and prevent socially irresponsible ones.

For example, social responsibility is based on care and concern for others, rooted in constructive collectivistic values that prioritize the concerns, interests and well-being of the larger group that we are a member of (such as our work or social group) over one’s own individual needs and desires. So, if we truly believe in these collectivistic values, then we should put the group interests before our self-interests. This means we do not participate in a group event when we are unwell even though we have an individual interest to attend. If we continue to attend, then our action is inconsistent with our espoused collectivistic values. (84-5)

-Positivity is a big theme:

There are at least three ways why positivity matters. First, positivity is a desirable end in it itself, just like happiness… Second, positivity matters because it is also a means to other positive ends. When people are positive, it leads to adaptive behaviours and outcomes such as volunteering as a social distancing ambassador to help curb the spread of the coronavirus in the community. Third, positivity matters because it is a very useful way to counter negativity, which is an important point that I will elaborate later. (139)

-Job characteristics that matter to people: skill variety, task identity, and task significance, having some reasonable level of autonomy or freedom to decide how to accomplish your task and the opportunity to receive feedback to know how effective you are at work. (140-1)

-Interesting point about how positivity and negativity aren’t perfectly inversely correlated.

…correlations between positivity measures and negative measures are negative in direction but only moderate in magnitude and far from a perfect correlation… What research has shown empirically is that it is possible for us to become lower on negativity without at the same time becoming higher on positivity. Conversely, it is possible to be low on positivity without being high on negativity. (145)

-On psychological capital

One type of positivity constructs that is important for Singapore to develop is psychological capital… Research has shown that four interrelated mindsets — self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience — contribute to psychological capital that helps people function in adaptive ways, such as adjusting our lifestyle to take precautions and deal with the various control measures. (149-50)

-Principles to Guide Behaviours - Be calm, Be Cautious, Be Considerate, Be Caring, Be Collectivistic (153-158)


Section II - Discipline and Explain

One question I am interested in as someone from Science Studies is to how the author sets himself and his tools as authoritiative. Certainly some advice he gives is just about how to avoid negativity or how to continue functioning well (as a worker or student or parent) from home.

But what's clear is that Chan simply assumes that there is a normative structure which should be abided by.

Sometimes, this seems to be based on the assumption that there is some objective method to gain objective knowledge, if only psychological biases can be staved off:

The problem with confirmatory bias when working together is that it is associated with a dismissive cynicism rather than a healthy scepticism. Healthy scepticism will lead to objective information gathering and verification. Dismissive cynicism will lead to confirmatory attitudes and actions that produce false negatives — concluding something negative when it is not. (162)

Shapin's 1995 remark that "the last great bastion of faith in simplistic images of science and its 'method' is not to be found in the natural but in the social sciences" is clearly on point.

At other times, he simply invokes an image of balance:

It does not matter who we are — it is human nature to tend to either over-react or under-react in crisis situations. So, in this COVID-9 crisis, every one of us can learn to be more sensible and sensitive. (90)

What's the "just right" amount of reaction, and who decides?

But most common is the assumption that the Singaporean government's actions and prescriptions are the obvious standard:

-During the 8-week long circuit breaker, the public had to adhere to the strict set of control measures. Not surprisingly, while the large majority of the public complied, there were some who did not due to ignorance, indifference, or defiance. The authorities therefore had to explicate, elaborate, educate [emphasis mine], engage, and enforce. (41)

-Since the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak, Singapore leaders have rightly [emphasis mine] emphasized that what is at stake is people’s lives and livelihood, that people’s wellbeing must be at the centre of what we do in combating and managing the crisis. (78)

-We should be well-informed and inform others — it is a verifiable fact that Singapore has sufficient supplies of essential food items, and an adequate food security system with diversification of food sources so that there is enough food for everyone. (155)

How would anyone verify this except by simply having to trust the government’s own messaging?

This assumption of the obvious correctness of the government's actions is somewhat tested when he discusses the migrant dormitory crisis, but here he quickly professes non-judgement:

Without a systematic review of the internal deliberations, how the various decisions were made, and what information were available or absent at each step, it is difficult to provide a well-informed and fair analysis of what happened and make any substantive conclusions including the question on hindsight versus oversight. (123)

Of course if we’re reflecting of what we truly know, then he might have to admit that as a psychologist it’s not just the dormitory case he can’t speak on authoritatively, really he can’t speak on anything at all in the book. If we need an independent investigation before the government can be criticized for its dormitory-response, why don't we also need an independent investigation before the rest of its covid response is affirmed? Instead, by assuming the government is correct, he can pretend that summarizing the government’s press releases is scholarship.

Unsurprisingly, there’s no serious criticism of the government anywhere else either. The closest he comes is mildly suggesting that some messaging about the causes of the migrant crisis should have been forthcoming earlier:

The lesson here is that a plausible explanation, especially one that is consistent with the state of the knowledge that both the government and the public already had, or at least some form of preliminary account and assurance to the public of what is being done, should be given as early as possible in a rapidly evolving crisis. Even if many pertinent facts are still not available to make definitive statements, some early public communication from leaders to help calm the public and make sense of the daily surge is critical. (122)

The problem I have isn’t that shilling for the government is wrong, but that assuming that the government is right and that only deviation from government orders requires explanation will necessarily mean you end up with deeply superficial explanations. If all you’re willing to countenance is this dollar store sociology, that’s what you'll end up with.

So he tells us:

one key psychological issue underlying the public concerns is public trust in government as it relates to the handling and use of one’s personal data. Specifically, it concerns trust in three dimensions of government — competence, integrity, and benevolence. (98)

Instead of investigating how authority/credibility are constructed through the various channels of communication, he has a neat typology of… psychological dimensions of trust?

Or talking about how to cultivate self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience, he simply says:

To foster these four mindsets, we need to give people a real voice to express what matters to them, be it their needs, concerns, aspirations, values or viewpoints. Psychological capital can also be cultivated through training, education, and engagement. For example, Singapore leaders can help develop psychological capital by clearly explaining what we know and do not know about the coronavirus, what Dorscon risk assessment levels mean and entail, the rationale for various precautionary measures and public health advisories, the lapses or mistakes that have occurred in the handling of the crisis and the lessons learned and actions taken to prevent them from recurring, and how we are in a position of preparedness and strength to tackle the challenges in the COVID-19 crisis including post-pandemic realities. (152)

All of these suggested steps are vague, but arguably have been carried out. Have the four “mindsets” set in? How would we know? If you're vague, you can get away with anything.

Or when talking about the dormitories, after telling us that we have to wait for an investigation, he offers an explanation that the reason people made “negative judgements” were because of “psychological tendencies” like these common three:

First, we have a need to quickly make sense of a novel situation that has high stakes and personal relevance for us such as having the potential to affect us or others we care for, or contradicting our moral principles (e.g., fairness, respect for human dignity, and compassion).

…Second, we all have the tendency to make causal attributions in a particular direction depending on whether an outcome is a success or failure and whether the outcome is associated with ourselves or others… Note that whether it is the public or the leaders, their causal attribution may turn out to be correct or incorrect.

…The third human tendency, and a ubiquitous one, is confirmatory bias. This is our tendency to selectively seek out and interpret information in a way that will likely confirm our preconceived belief or position. (116-119)

Ultimately, this encapsulates why this is a highly dubious enterprise in my opinion - not only have all the political questions been explicitly set aside (as in need of a formal investigation), but the negative political judgements people make are then explained away as individual idiosyncrasy that each person should work to control rather than as something the government is obligated to respond to.

Chooing to obsess over how bias is supposedly hampering some imagined objectivity is bad enough as scholarship, but to use it to press for more quietist ends is deplorable, embarrassing, and dangerous.

[Thk · Rating 2 out of 5]

Even as the psychological and social aspect of the response to COVID-19 becomes increasingly important, this book touches on these important points but ultimately and unfortunately glances off the surface with very general guidelines without going into much analysis (and for that does not even have a reference section for the load of "research has shown" paras in the book).

One could lament how much more powerful this book could have been had it been more fleshed out, and supported by not just the Singapore experience but how it compared to the global one. The structure of the books follows suspiciously like that of a conference session, where points are kept very generic without going much into the "meat" and important learning points substantiated by data.

Moreover, it only touches on the on the first few months of the crisis, and adds on to the disappointment of how it "could have been". Publisher should look deeper into this.

[Aaron Aik · Rating 3 out of 5]

Essentially a summary of the key events of COVID-19 and the various responses taken by the government and the public up till June 2020. A noteworthy chapter would probably be the last chapter.