How Cultural Defaults Shaped COVID-19 Chaos and Triumphs

Let us begin with two indisputable facts. 

First, the COVID pandemic, a defining global event, exposed striking disparities in mortality rates and policy effectiveness across nations, with the US experiencing disproportionately high deaths compared to East Asian countries. By March 2023, the US COVID-19 mortality rate was nearly sixfold higher than Japan’s and fivefold higher than South Korea’s.

Second, public health measures fundamentally rely on population behavior, especially when trying to control infectious diseases. While logistical and health system differences mattered, deeply embedded societal "defaults"—the psychological norms guiding behavior—emerged as a critical factor in national outcomes. [1]

The Concept of Cultural “Defaults”

Cultural defaults are the taken-for-granted ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that pervade our culture. They are habits of acting automatically, feeling right, guiding our individual and collective behavior, and are often outside our conscious awareness. They stem from culturally specific ideas about how to "be a person" and relate to others – described by the psychological term agency. 

The article contrasts two models of agency

Independent Agency, common in the US, prioritizes individual preferences and autonomy. People are considered separate, independent entities responsible for their behavior and outcomes. Agency is expressed as personal preferences, goals, and values and exercises rights to control one's behavior and outcomes. 

Interdependent Agency, common in East Asia, emphasizes relationships and societal roles. Individuals are understood as interconnected beings whose actions maintain social harmony and fulfill collective obligations. Agency in this context means adjusting to social relationships and situations, fulfilling one's roles, responsibilities, and obligations in ways that support harmony and avoid disapproval.

These models informed contrasting national responses to six existential questions posed by the pandemic.

"Will it happen to me/us?"

The US exhibited optimism and a sense of uniqueness, an expectation of positive outcomes and a belief in American exceptionalism shaped the national response, leading to an underestimation of the virus’s threat as evidenced by Dr. Anthony Fauci’s reassurance that COVID-19 was “not a major threat” and President Trump’s confident assertion, “We’re going to win faster than people think.” However, this led to delays in acknowledging the virus's severity and implementing preventive measures. 

In contrast, East Asia’s responses were grounded in realism and a sense of similarity, adopting a pragmatic approach rooted in realism and shared vulnerability. Leaders like Japan’s Shinzo Abe emphasized collective responsibility, urging societal cooperation. Preventive actions such as mask-wearing and social distancing were swiftly adopted, reflecting cultural interconnectedness and focusing on risk mitigation. East Asia prioritized preparedness and collective well-being. 

"Why is this happening?"

The US narrative leaned on a single cause, which aligns with independent agency, where individuals are seen as primarily responsible for their actions and outcomes, and less emphasis is placed on the influence of situational factors. 

China must be held accountable for having ‘unleashed’ this plague unto the world.” 

– President Trump, before the UN General Assembly September 2020

Single causes simplify complex problems into narratives with clear villains. Simplifying the pandemic’s origins into a villain-victim dynamic fueled prejudice against Asian Americans and distracted from systemic issues, such as inadequate public health infrastructure.

East Asia adopted a multi-cause approach, emphasizing interconnectedness and recognizing the interplay of individual behaviors, systemic vulnerabilities, and situational factors. Media narratives in countries like Japan highlighted global interconnectedness and systemic flaws, encouraging citizens to approach the crisis with a sense of collective trial and error. Physician Masahiro Kami, president of a non-profit studying governance in medicine, encapsulated this ethos:

"No one knows the 'right' answer to counter the corona. The world is repeating trial and error."

"How should I/we feel?"

US discourse was marked by high-arousal emotions like anger and fear, often viewed as signifying authenticity and engagement, instrumental for individual action, and aligning with an independent agency that values strong emotional expression. Former President Trump’s war metaphors (“invisible enemy,” “complete victory”) aimed to galvanize action but also exacerbated resistance to public health measures like mask mandates [2] and lockdowns driven by perceived threats to personal freedom, fueling public outbursts and aggression. High emotional intensity drove misinformation, divisiveness, and hostility, undermining collective pandemic efforts.

East Asia cultures promoted low-arousal emotions, valuing calmness and emotional restraint to maintain social harmony. Leaders like Prime Minister Abe urged level-headedness, fostering a collective sense of resilience and compliance with public health measures. 

“I wholeheartedly ask everyone to take level-headed actions based on accurate information.” 

This approach enabled societies to navigate uncertainty with a focus on shared responsibility.

"What should I/we do?"

The US embraced influence and control, a proactive orientation towards shaping the environment and achieving desired outcomes where individuals act as autonomous decision-makers. Operation Warp Speed prioritized the rapid development of life-saving vaccines, mastering circumstances through immediate intervention. While this achieved remarkable technological advances, it often sidelined preventive measures such as early testing and masking, resulting in fragmented and inconsistent responses.

East Asia focused on waiting and adjusting, emphasizing flexibility and social responsibility, with patience in observing the situation and adapting to the needs and demands of others – building consensus before acting. Policies like Japan’s “three Cs” (avoiding closed spaces, crowded places, and close-contact settings) reflected cultural values of adaptability and caution. Japan delayed its vaccination rollout to build public confidence, prioritizing measured responses over immediate action.

"How should I/we respond to guidelines?"

American speech prioritized personal choice and self-regulation, emphasizing individual freedom and the ability to regulate one’s behavior. Adherence to public health measures often hinged on personal choice. Resistance to mandates like masking was common, seen as government overreach. Slogans like “My body, my choice” were repurposed to oppose interventions, highlighting tensions between public health objectives and individual freedoms, complicating compliance.

East Asia stressed social choice and regulation, making choices based on social expectations, regulating behavior to fit within the group, and fostering widespread adherence to health guidelines. Citizens prioritized collective welfare, maintaining compliance out of social responsibility and fear of social repercussions, such as public shaming or mutual monitoring. Japan’s “self-restraint police” exemplified this communal approach, aligning with values of harmony and trust in authority.

"How should I/we live now?"

The US embraced a promotion-oriented return to normalcy, emphasizing reinvention and economic advancement despite lingering risks. President Biden’s declaration that “the pandemic is over” reflected a cultural tendency to view crises as opportunities for reinvention. Movements like the “Great Resignation,” “quiet quitting,” and the rise of work-from-home arrangements exemplified this shift, underscoring improving work-life balance and adapting to a new normal centered on individual well-being and opportunity.

East Asia maintained a prevention-oriented caution, prioritizing caution and risk mitigation and maintaining continuity between the past and the future. Countries like Japan and South Korea continued practices such as mask-wearing and limited gatherings, reflecting a collective preference for stability over rapid change. Leaders like Japan’s Fumio Kishida emphasized careful progress analysis before easing restrictions, reinforcing vigilance and collective responsibility. 

Lessons for Future Policy and Crisis Management

Cultural defaults offer valuable insights for crafting effective policies and enhancing societal resilience. However, cultural defaults are not universally applicable, even within the US, which has many regional differences. Key takeaways include: 

• Recognize the role of cultural defaults in commonsense responses: Our behavioral reactions to crises are shaped by deeply ingrained cultural defaults, influencing how information is processed, emotions are experienced, and actions are taken. 
• Frame behavioral recommendations in terms of existing cultural defaults, increasing the salience of recommendations. In the US, policy should allow flexibility and voluntary compliance while incentivizing desired behaviors. 
• Anticipate resistance to recommended behaviors that counter-cultural defaults. Transparent communication, trusted messengers, and clear rationales can help mitigate resistance.

“Cultural defaults are not inherent traits or fixed human tendencies… [they] are historically derived, psychological and behavioral tendencies that stem from the ideas and practices of particular cultural contexts.” 

The pandemic highlighted the powerful influence of cultural norms on crisis responses. Cultural norms are neither bad nor good but can help populations “fit” in rapidly changing circumstances. While US individualism fostered innovation, it also led to resistance against public health measures and inconsistent compliance. By contrast, East Asia’s emphasis on social regulation and prevention fostered unity and sustained efforts, contributing to lower mortality rates and more effective containment. Understanding and adapting to cultural defaults may be the missing piece in crafting policies that save lives and resonate deeply with the societies they aim to protect.

[1] The article does not establish causation between culture and pandemic outcomes and ignores regional variation, generalizing at the national level. For a more in-depth look at the regional cultural defaults that make up America, I cannot recommend The Nations of America strongly enough.

[2] Cultural differences in emotional expression may explain why Japanese individuals complied more with mask-wearing than Americans. Japanese culture emphasizes reading the emotions of others through their eyes, while US culture values individuality by expressing our emotions through our mouths, such as smiles or frowns. For Americans, masks obscured the mouth—the source of trust and identity signals—fueling resistance. In contrast, Japanese culture, epitomized by the large-eyed, mouthless Hello Kitty, adapted easily as communication through the eyes remained unaffected.

Source: Cultural Defaults in the Time of COVID: Lessons for the Future Psychological Science in the Public Interest DOI: 10.1177/15291006241277810