Eduardo J. Rivera Pichardo, Sushmeena A. Parihar, John T. Jost
{"title":"Polarizing effects of the coronavirus pandemic on system justification: A natural experiment involving New York City college students","authors":"Eduardo J. Rivera Pichardo, Sushmeena A. Parihar, John T. Jost","doi":"10.1111/asap.12412","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Previous research suggests that societal threats often increase ideological support for the social system, but the attitudinal effects of COVID‐19 seem to have varied greatly. Here we present the results of a natural experiment involving New York City college students (Total <jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 1300 observations). One group (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 835) completed questionnaires before the onset of COVID‐19, while another completed them afterward (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 465). Shortly after COVID (within 3 months of the outbreak), students scored higher on general system justification than before; this effect was driven by political conservatives. At the same time, students scored lower on economic system justification and right‐wing authoritarianism after COVID (vs. before); these effects emerged later (4–5 months after the outbreak) and were driven by liberals. A subsample completed the same questionnaires both before and after COVID‐19 (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 107), enabling us to investigate intraindividual change. The within‐participants analysis revealed that students exhibited an increase in general system justification and a decrease in economic system justification, which was driven by those who exhibited a liberal shift. Together, these results indicate that the ideological effects of the pandemic and the governmental response to it were complex and polarizing, with liberals and conservatives moving in opposite directions at different times and on different attitudinal dimensions.","PeriodicalId":46799,"journal":{"name":"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12412","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Previous research suggests that societal threats often increase ideological support for the social system, but the attitudinal effects of COVID‐19 seem to have varied greatly. Here we present the results of a natural experiment involving New York City college students (Total N = 1300 observations). One group (n = 835) completed questionnaires before the onset of COVID‐19, while another completed them afterward (n = 465). Shortly after COVID (within 3 months of the outbreak), students scored higher on general system justification than before; this effect was driven by political conservatives. At the same time, students scored lower on economic system justification and right‐wing authoritarianism after COVID (vs. before); these effects emerged later (4–5 months after the outbreak) and were driven by liberals. A subsample completed the same questionnaires both before and after COVID‐19 (n = 107), enabling us to investigate intraindividual change. The within‐participants analysis revealed that students exhibited an increase in general system justification and a decrease in economic system justification, which was driven by those who exhibited a liberal shift. Together, these results indicate that the ideological effects of the pandemic and the governmental response to it were complex and polarizing, with liberals and conservatives moving in opposite directions at different times and on different attitudinal dimensions.
期刊介绍:
Recent articles in ASAP have examined social psychological methods in the study of economic and social justice including ageism, heterosexism, racism, sexism, status quo bias and other forms of discrimination, social problems such as climate change, extremism, homelessness, inter-group conflict, natural disasters, poverty, and terrorism, and social ideals such as democracy, empowerment, equality, health, and trust.