Sacrificing heroes or suffering victims? Investigating third parties' reactions to divergent social accounts of essential employees in the COVID-19 pandemic.

As the COVID-19 pandemic rages on globally, essential employees are widely recognized as heroes working on the frontlines confronting the virus and serving others. At the same time, stories abound whereby these essential employees are not provided adequate support and protection on their jobs. Nevertheless, they have been portrayed predominantly as heroes rather than as victims, which may inadvertently lead third parties (e.g., the general public) to overlook their suffering. The current research sought to understand the implications of these divergent social accounts of essential employees for third parties. We investigated the effects of third parties being provided with (Study 1) and endorsing (Study 2 and Study 3) heroism and victimization accounts on their cognitions, emotions, and behaviors toward essential employees. Unlike victimization which was associated with higher levels of third parties' injustice perceptions, anger and sympathy toward essential employees' situation, and their intent to take political action to support essential workers, we found that heroism was only significantly related to higher levels of sympathy and had limited effects on other outcomes. Further, victimization was a more important predictor of injustice and anger than heroism. Overall, the sharp contrast between the two accounts points to the caveats of overemphasizing heroism accounts in the COVID-19 pandemic as they may divert third parties' attention away from essential employees' suffering. Theoretical and practical implications of our findings are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).