COVID-19 and False Hope: An Empirical Study

In Part One of my series on false hope and COVID-19, I distinguished real hope from the counterfeit variety. I also alluded to an empirical study that involved data collections in May and October of 2020.

The primary tool for this research was the FH-16, a measure of false hope that I developed last year. This scale (questionnaire) was developed using classic test development practices. I will devote a few lines to this effort to assure readers that the research reported here is not fake news.

The content validity of the False Hope Scale (FH-16) was derived from a comprehensive model of hope, detailed in my 2009 book, Hope in the Age of Anxiety, published by Oxford U. Press, which includes approximately 600 references. Thirty-two questions were created to reflect exaggerated claims about personal attachment, survival, mastery, or spiritual resources (beliefs and behaviors). Below are 4 examples, one each: for attachment, survival, mastery, and spirituality.

1. I never doubt what someone says to me.
2. Every time I find myself in a bind or a tight spot, I soon find a way to escape.
3. I have always received recognition for my talents.
4. I can easily lose myself in very powerful spiritual experiences.

Respondents select one of six options ("Very Untrue of Me" to "Very True of Me"). These response options are presented in reverse order for some of the questions. Moreover, while the majority of the questions reflect exaggerated hopes, some are worded to represent less hope. These design qualities are added to ensure a valid report.

Factor analysis was employed to select the 16 best items. Alpha levels were checked to assure adequate internal consistency. Five additional studies were then conducted to assess validity. Paired with existing reliable and valid measures, higher scores on the False Hope Scale were found to be related to the following (note: “significant” below refers to statistically significant, with a greater than a 95 percent chance of a true finding).

1. A significant correlation with impression management
2. A significant correlation with self-deception (and greater than impression management)
3. Higher false hope for individuals who rate themselves significantly higher on a measure of hopefulness as compared to ratings provided by a good friend
4. A significant correlation with a standard measure of perceived invincibility
5. Significantly higher scores in a three-way experimental design for the group asked to subtly fake hope as compared to a group given standard/neutral instructions, or a group (misleadingly) told the lab computer possessed a lie-detector program.

All of this research was done before the emergence of COVID.

In May, an online questionnaire was made available to 200 individuals between the ages of 45 and 64. This age bracket was selected on the basis of a bar graph provided by the CDC which showed a dramatic increase in COVID-related health issues for this age group. The data was collected in four batches to assure equal subsamples by gender and party affiliation (Republicans and Democrats). Participants were asked to report age, gender, political party, preferred news media, and presented with the following question: How likely is it that you will eventually test positive for COVID-19? Respondents could select between 0% and 100%. They also completed the False Hope Scale (FH-16).

In October, three days after the announcement that President Trump tested positive, a second wave of data was collected. We repeated the questions from May but added four additional items. Each question was followed by a five- or six-point Likert scale ("Disagree to Agree" or "Not at All" to "Extremely")

1. Masks will not protect anyone from COVID.
2. Requiring masks intrudes on my personal liberties.
3. The reported statistics on COVID deaths are an exaggeration.
4. How much discomfort do you experience when hearing news about COVID?

In addition to false hope, a popular measure of grit was added to the protocol.

Republicans and Democrats

In the first analysis, my research team pooled the data from May and October (N = 400). Republicans scored significantly higher than Democrats in false hope. In the world of statistics, the magnitude of the difference is considered a “large effect." The chance that this is a false finding is less than one in a thousand.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Essential Reads

Update on COVID-19 and How It Changes the Brain

How Political Partisanship Can Be Deadly

Preferred News Sources

We found it possible to clearly group 115 of the 400 individuals into one of three categories: left-leaning, center-neutral, or right-leaning news sources. The left-leaning news sources were primarily represented by MSNBC (22 of 27), the center-neutral by NPR and BBC (19/25), and the right-leaning by Fox (64/64).

Individuals who preferred Fox news sources reported significantly (statistically) higher false hope as compared to either the center-neutral or left-leaning news sources. In both analyses, the odds of an erroneous finding (no difference) are approximately one in a thousand. The difference between the Fox-led, right-leaning viewers and the MSNBC-led, left-leaning viewers, showed the greatest difference, again a “large effect” in formal, statistical terms.

The COVID Gender Gap

We also examined the perceived likelihood of testing positive for COVID. Among males only, a significant, inverse correlation was found between (greater) false hope and a (lower) perceived likelihood of testing positive for COVID.

The remaining data was collected in October, several days after the public learned that the President tested positive. With one exception, the findings of significant links between false hope and maladaptive COVID beliefs were limited to males. Specifically for males, higher levels of false hope was associated with each of the following: "masks will not protect anyone," "masks are intrusion on my personal liberties," and "the reported numbers of COVID deaths is an exaggeration."

The one exception involved levels of discomfort when hearing stories about COVID. Only the Republican sample showed a significant positive correlation between false hope and greater levels of discomfort when hearing COVID stories.

Higher grit scores were significantly correlated with greater false hope regardless of how the data was divided (all participants, both genders, or both parties). Grit scores were not associated with any of the COVID beliefs (near zero correlations). Grit appears irrelevant.