An official website of the United States government
Political polarization impeded public support for policies to reduce the spread of COVID-19, much as polarization hinders responses to other contemporary challenges. Unlike previous theory and research that focused on the United States, the present research examined the effects of political elite cues and affective polarization on support for policies to manage the COVID-19 pandemic in seven countries ( n = 12,955): Brazil, Israel, Italy, South Korea, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Across countries, cues from political elites polarized public attitudes toward COVID-19 policies. Liberal and conservative respondents supported policies proposed by ingroup politicians and parties more than the same policies from outgroup politicians and parties. Respondents disliked, distrusted, and felt cold toward outgroup political elites, whereas they liked, trusted, and felt warm toward both ingroup political elites and nonpartisan experts. This affective polarization was correlated with policy support. These findings imply that policies from bipartisan coalitions and nonpartisan experts would be less polarizing, enjoying broader public support. Indeed, across countries, policies from bipartisan coalitions and experts were more widely supported. A follow-up experiment replicated these findings among US respondents considering international vaccine distribution policies. The polarizing effects of partisan elites and affective polarization emerged across nations that vary in cultures, ideologies, and political systems. Contrary to some propositions, the United States was not exceptionally polarized. Rather, these results suggest that polarizing processes emerged simply from categorizing people into political ingroups and outgroups. Political elites drive polarization globally, but nonpartisan experts can help resolve the conflicts that arise from it.
more »
« less
Party over pandemic: Polarized trust in political leaders and experts explains public support for COVID-19 policies
Two experiments examined the polarization of public support for COVID-19 policies due to people’s (lack of) trust in political leaders and nonpartisan experts. In diverse samples in the United States (Experiment 1; N = 1,802) and the United Kingdom (Experiment 2; N = 1,825), participants evaluated COVID-19 policies that were framed as proposed by ingroup political leaders, outgroup political leaders, nonpartisan experts, or, in the United States, a bipartisan group of political leaders. At the time of the study in April 2020, COVID-19 was an unfamiliar and shared threat. Therefore, there were theoretical reasons suggesting that attitudes toward COVID-19 policy may not have been politically polarized. Yet, our results demonstrated that even relatively early in the pandemic people supported policies from ingroup political leaders more than the same policies from outgroup leaders, extending prior research on how people align their policy stances to political elites from their own parties. People also trusted experts and ingroup political leaders more than they did outgroup political leaders. Partly because of this polarized trust, policies from experts and bipartisan groups were more widely supported than policies from ingroup political leaders. These results illustrate the potentially detrimental role political leaders may play and the potential for effective leadership by bipartisan groups and nonpartisan experts in shaping public policy attitudes during crises.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2029183
- PAR ID:
- 10372514
- Publisher / Repository:
- SAGE Publications
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
- ISSN:
- 1368-4302
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- Article No. 136843022211185
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Three Essays on Promoting Trust through Public Policies and its Consequences for Political AttitudesPolitical trust is essential for effective policy implementation, yet declining levels of trust create a vicious cycle where diminished public confidence undermines policy responsiveness, leading to further erosion of trust. This dissertation explores how specific public policies can foster political trust and examines how trust itself influences the relationship between governance structures and political attitudes, particularly concerning support for climate policies. In Chapter 2, I examine the impact of self-targeting public policies, where citizens can choose to opt into benefits, on political trust. My empirical analysis reveals that self-targeting enhances confidence in local government compared to pre-targeting approaches, which do not yield significant results. The findings suggest that policy design, particularly the targeting mechanism, plays a critical role in shaping political attitudes. Chapter 3 argues that bottom-up policies that are participatory in nature, like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), can help mitigate the negative effect of inequalities on political trust. Using a quasi-experimental framework, I find strong evidence in support of this argument, reinforcing the importance of inclusive policy design in enhancing democratic processes. The final chapter shifts focus to governance structures, exploring how exposure to non-state climate actions influences climate policy support in less polarized contexts. My results indicate that while exposure does not directly affect policy support, citizens with higher political trust are less likely to hold governments accountable for climate inaction. This underscores the critical need to understand the nuanced role of political trust as a mediator for climate policy support.more » « less
-
Windmann, Sabine (Ed.)Decades of research in social identity have shown that people instinctively hold positive attitudes towards ingroup members and negative attitudes towards outgroup members. However, it remains unclear how people respond to individuals explicitly identified with both one’s ingroup and outgroup. We propose that when people are exposed to dual-identified individuals and groups (e.g., Muslim-Americans explicitly identifying with both their Muslim and American identities), intergroup attitudes will improve, driven more by the ingroup component (American), despite the presence of the outgroup component (Muslim). Moreover, we suggest exposure to dual-identification can also improve attitudes toward the broader outgroup (Muslims more generally), a phenomenon called the gateway-group effect. To test these hypotheses, we created a new measure of dual-identification and conducted three studies involving both Muslim-Americans and Mexican-Americans. Results confirmed that exposure to explicitly dual-identified groups improved attitudes towards the dual-identified group (e.g., Mexican-Americans) as well as toward the respective outgroup (e.g., Mexicans).more » « less
-
We investigated how tightness-looseness, reflecting strictness of social norms, of state of residence in the USA predicts behaviors and attitudes related to COVID-19. Because individual-level tightness may better capture current attitudes during the pandemic, whereas state-level archival measures reflect historical factors, we assessed the extent to which tightness-looseness at both levels predicted adherence to public health guidelines and biases toward outgroups related to COVID-19. In Spring 2020, 544 mTurk participants, primarily from the 13 tightest and 13 loosest states, completed survey questions about health behaviors in response to COVID-19, endorsement of future policy changes, feeling of responsibility for lives, and attitudes toward groups marginalized during the pandemic (i.e., Asians, older adults). State-level results indicated some associations with attitudes toward Asians and older adults, but effects were not robust. Results based on individuals’ ratings of the tightness of their state indicated that higher levels of perceived tightness were associated with higher levels of protective self-reported public health behaviors (e.g., mask wearing, handwashing) during COVID-19, more endorsement of future policy changes to contain the pandemic, higher reported feelings of responsibility for one’s life, and stronger negative attitudes toward Asians. The relations between tightness and health outcomes persisted after controlling for political attitudes and demographics. Thus, individual, more than state, tightness-looseness accounted for some degree of public health behaviors (unique contribution of individual tightness: R 2 = .034) and attitudes toward marginalized groups ( R 2 = .020) early during the COVID-19 pandemic. The implications of these findings for interventions to support behavior change or combat anti-Asian bias are discussed.more » « less
-
Online misinformation is believed to have contributed to vaccine hesitancy during the Covid-19 pandemic, highlighting concerns about social media’s destabilizing role in public life. Previous research identified a link between political conservatism and sharing misinformation; however, it is not clear how partisanship affects how much misinformation people see online. As a result, we do not know whether partisanship drives exposure to misinformation or people selectively share misinformation despite being exposed to factual content. To address this question, we study Twitter discussions about the Covid-19 pandemic, classifying users along the political and factual spectrum based on the information sources they share. In addition, we quantify exposure through retweet interactions. We uncover partisan asymmetries in the exposure to misinformation: conservatives are more likely to see and share misinformation, and while users’ connections expose them to ideologically congruent content, the interactions between political and factual dimensions create conditions for the highly polarized users—hardline conservatives and liberals—to amplify misinformation. Overall, however, misinformation receives less attention than factual content and political moderates, the bulk of users in our sample, help filter out misinformation. Identifying the extent of polarization and how political ideology exacerbates misinformation can help public health experts and policy makers improve their messaging.more » « less
