4.5 Article

The Psychology of Pandemics

Journal

ANNUAL REVIEW OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 18, Issue -, Pages 581-609

Publisher

ANNUAL REVIEWS
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-072720-020131

Keywords

pandemics; COVID-19; psychopathology; social distancing; vaccination hesitancy; face masks

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article reviews the current state and promising future of the psychology of pandemics, highlighting the importance of psychological factors in adherence to mitigation methods, social disruption, and distress during pandemics. The field of pandemic psychology, although fragmented and diverse, is crucial for clinical practice and public health guidelines during COVID-19 and future pandemics.
This article reviews the current state of knowledge and promising new directions concerning the psychology of pandemics. Pandemics are disease outbreaks that spread globally. Historically, psychological factors have been neglected by researchers and health authorities despite evidence that pandemics are, to a large extent, psychological phenomena whereby beliefs and behaviors influence the spreading versus containment of infection. Psychological factors are important in determining (a) adherence to pandemic mitigation methods (e.g., adherence to social distancing), (b) pandemic-related social disruption (e.g., panic buying, racism, antilockdown protests), and (c) pandemic-related distress and related problems (e.g., anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, prolonged grief disorder). The psychology of pandemics has emerged as an important field of research and practice during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As a scholarly discipline, the psychology of pandemics is fragmented and diverse, encompassing various psychological subspecialties and allied disciplines, but is vital for shaping clinical practice and public health guidelines for COVID-19 and future pandemics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available