Politicians Polarize and Experts Depolarize Public Support for COVID-19 Management Policies Across Countries

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorFlores, Alexandra
dc.contributor.authorCole, Jennifer C.
dc.contributor.authorDickert, Stephan
dc.contributor.authorEom, Kimin
dc.contributor.authorJiga-Boy, Gabriela M.
dc.contributor.authorKogut, Tehila
dc.contributor.authorLoria, Riley
dc.contributor.authorMayorga, Marcus
dc.contributor.authorPedersen, Eric J.
dc.contributor.authorPereira, Beatriz
dc.contributor.authorSherman, David K.
dc.contributor.authorSlovic, Paul
dc.contributor.authorVastfjall, Daniel
dc.contributor.authorVan Boven, Leaf
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-18T18:39:35Z
dc.date.available2024-07-18T18:39:35Z
dc.date.issued2022-01-18
dc.description7 pagesen_US
dc.description.abstractPolitical 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.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117543119
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1794/29658
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherPNASen_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0-USen_US
dc.subjectCOVID-19en_US
dc.subjectCross-country comparisonsen_US
dc.subjectpolitical polarizationen_US
dc.subjectaffective polarizationen_US
dc.subjectexpertiseen_US
dc.titlePoliticians Polarize and Experts Depolarize Public Support for COVID-19 Management Policies Across Countriesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Flores_et_al_2022.pdf
Size:
935.93 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Name:
license.txt
Size:
2.22 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

Slovic, Paul