Summary: A recent study examines how people respond when individuals who publicly opposed COVID-19 vaccines become ill or die from the disease. The research reveals nuanced public reactions: while outright celebrations of such deaths are rare, many observers—particularly those who are vaccinated or identify as Democrats—express moral judgments that the unvaccinated person “deserved” worse outcomes. At the same time, most participants across political and vaccination lines preferred recovery over death.
The study highlights the complex emotional and moral responses to anti-vaccine behavior during the pandemic. Observers often see public anti-vaccination posts as morally significant, which shapes their reactions when the poster later falls ill. Still, actual expressions of joy at another person’s suffering or death were limited.
Key Facts:
- Political affiliation and vaccination status influenced how participants evaluated stories of anti-vaxxers who contracted COVID-19: Democrats and vaccinated people were more likely than Republicans and the unvaccinated to judge such individuals as deserving of worse outcomes.
- Despite these differences, a majority across the political spectrum hoped the unvaccinated person would recover fully rather than die from the disease.
- Although participants frequently made moral judgments about those who spread vaccine misinformation, few expressed strong happiness about their suffering or death.
Source: Ohio State University
Overview
The research, conducted by scholars at Ohio State University, explored how people respond to social media stories in which public opponents of COVID-19 vaccination later become sick or die from the virus. Using a diverse, census-matched sample of adults in the United States, the study measured moral judgments, satisfaction with outcomes, and emotional reactions such as schadenfreude (pleasure at another’s misfortune).
Participants read a series of mock social media posts modeled after real examples found on forums that document COVID-related deaths of misinformation spreaders. The fictional poster—named Terry Adams—was presented in scenarios that varied whether Terry was uncertain about vaccination or dogmatically opposed, and whether Terry later expressed regret before becoming critically ill or continued to refuse the vaccine.
Across scenarios, participants responded more positively to expressions of uncertainty and regret than to dogmatic anti-vaccine messaging. When Terry remained defiant about vaccination even as illness progressed, readers were more likely to view Terry as immoral and deserving of worse outcomes. However, when Terry showed doubt or regret, those negative perceptions were reduced.
Political identity and personal vaccination status moderated these responses. Democrats and vaccinated participants tended to evaluate the anti-vaccine poster more negatively than Republicans and the unvaccinated. Still, large majorities in both political groups preferred the poster to recover—80% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats in the study hoped for full recovery in at least one key comparison—showing that moral condemnation did not translate into widespread delight at death.
When asked directly about satisfaction with the poster’s death, participants reported low to moderate satisfaction scores overall. On a 1-to-7 satisfaction scale, mean responses were below the midpoint; Democrats averaged about 2.93 while Republicans averaged about 2.51. Ratings of explicit happiness at the death (a measure of schadenfreude on a 0-to-6 scale) were very low even among those who believed the poster “deserved” death, indicating limited rejoicing at misfortune.
The authors interpret these findings using affective disposition theory and schadenfreude frameworks, suggesting that social media behaviors serve as moral cues that shape audience reactions. Dogmatic anti-vaccine posts made the poster appear morally blameworthy and thus more deserving of harsh outcomes in voters’ moral calculus; expressions of regret softened that judgment.
Overall, the study indicates that public reactions to anti-vaxxer illness and death are mixed: many people judge such behavior as immoral and deserving of consequences, especially if the person remains defiant, but most do not celebrate the person’s suffering or death. Instead, responses combine moral condemnation with limited positive emotion toward the negative outcome.
About this empathy and psychology research news
Author: Jeff Grabmeier
Source: Ohio State University
Contact: Jeff Grabmeier – Ohio State University
Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
Original Research: Closed access. Title: “Demystifying Schadenfreude: How disposition theorizing explains responses to social media stories of unvaccinated COVID-19 deaths” by Matthew Grizzard et al., published in New Media & Society (July 22, 2023).
Abstract
Demystifying Schadenfreude: How disposition theorizing explains responses to social media stories of unvaccinated COVID-19 deaths
Herman Cain Awards are presented on reddit forums to individuals who shared COVID-19 misinformation on social media and subsequently died from the disease. The study applies affective disposition theory to predict moral judgments based on message features and audience characteristics, and it brings schadenfreude theorizing to bear on reactions to these posts. In an experiment with a large, census-matched sample, participants viewed sequences of social media posts similar to those found on forums documenting such cases. The study manipulated whether the poster was dogmatic or uncertain about vaccines and whether they expressed regret before death. Dogmatic posts led to stronger perceptions of immorality and greater perceived deservingness of negative health outcomes, while expressions of regret reduced those effects. Political party and vaccination status moderated the responses, demonstrating that social media posting behavior is morally salient and that narrative moral judgment frameworks can explain readers’ reactions.