Politicization of a Pathogen: A Prospective Longitudinal Study of COVID ‐19 Responses in a Nationally Representative U.S. Sample

IF 4 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Psychology Pub Date : 2023-05-03 DOI:10.1111/pops.12894
Daniel P. Relihan, E. A. Holman, Dana Rose Garfin, P. Ditto, R. C. Silver
{"title":"Politicization of a Pathogen: A Prospective Longitudinal Study of\n COVID\n ‐19 Responses in a Nationally Representative U.S. Sample","authors":"Daniel P. Relihan, E. A. Holman, Dana Rose Garfin, P. Ditto, R. C. Silver","doi":"10.1111/pops.12894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Understanding population-level variability in responses to pathogens over time is important for developing effective health-based messages targeted at ideologically diverse populations. Research from psychological and political sciences suggests that party and elite cues shape how people respond to major threats like climate change. Research on responses to the COVID-19 pandemic suggests similar variability across party identities;however, prior work has methodological limitations. This prospective, longitudinal study of a large probability-based nationally representative U.S. sample assessed in March–April 2020 (N = 6,514) and then 6 months later in September–October 2020 (N = 5,661) demonstrates that COVID-19 fear, perceived COVID-19 death risk, and reported health-protective behaviors became increasingly polarized over the first 6 months of the pandemic. Initial differences between Democrats and Republicans failed to converge over time and became more pronounced. Responses among Republicans were further polarized by support for former President Donald Trump: Trump Republicans initially reported weaker responses to COVID-19 than non-Trump Republicans, and these differences became more pronounced over time. Importantly, political identity and Trump support were not linked to perceived infection risk of a nonpoliticized pathogen, the flu. Finally, political identity and Republican Trump support prospectively predicted COVID-19 vaccine intentions 6 months into the pandemic. © 2023 International Society of Political Psychology.","PeriodicalId":48332,"journal":{"name":"Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12894","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Understanding population-level variability in responses to pathogens over time is important for developing effective health-based messages targeted at ideologically diverse populations. Research from psychological and political sciences suggests that party and elite cues shape how people respond to major threats like climate change. Research on responses to the COVID-19 pandemic suggests similar variability across party identities;however, prior work has methodological limitations. This prospective, longitudinal study of a large probability-based nationally representative U.S. sample assessed in March–April 2020 (N = 6,514) and then 6 months later in September–October 2020 (N = 5,661) demonstrates that COVID-19 fear, perceived COVID-19 death risk, and reported health-protective behaviors became increasingly polarized over the first 6 months of the pandemic. Initial differences between Democrats and Republicans failed to converge over time and became more pronounced. Responses among Republicans were further polarized by support for former President Donald Trump: Trump Republicans initially reported weaker responses to COVID-19 than non-Trump Republicans, and these differences became more pronounced over time. Importantly, political identity and Trump support were not linked to perceived infection risk of a nonpoliticized pathogen, the flu. Finally, political identity and Republican Trump support prospectively predicted COVID-19 vaccine intentions 6 months into the pandemic. © 2023 International Society of Political Psychology.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
病原体的政治化:对具有全国代表性的美国样本中COVID-19反应的前瞻性纵向研究
了解人群对病原体的反应随时间的变化,对于针对意识形态多样化的人群制定有效的基于健康的信息非常重要。心理学和政治学的研究表明,政党和精英阶层的暗示会影响人们对气候变化等重大威胁的反应。对COVID-19大流行应对的研究表明,各方身份之间存在类似的差异;然而,先前的工作在方法上存在局限性。这项前瞻性、纵向研究对2020年3月至4月(N = 6514)和6个月后的2020年9月至10月(N = 5661)的基于概率的美国全国代表性大样本进行了评估,结果表明,在大流行的前6个月,对COVID-19的恐惧、感知到的COVID-19死亡风险和报告的健康保护行为变得越来越两极化。民主党和共和党最初的分歧并没有随着时间的推移而趋同,而是变得更加明显。共和党人的反应因支持前总统唐纳德·特朗普而进一步两极分化:特朗普共和党人最初报告对COVID-19的反应弱于非特朗普共和党人,随着时间的推移,这些差异变得更加明显。重要的是,政治认同和对特朗普的支持与流感这种非政治化病原体的感知感染风险无关。最后,政治认同和共和党特朗普在大流行6个月后支持预期预测的COVID-19疫苗意向。©2023国际政治心理学学会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
6.50%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Understanding the psychological aspects of national and international political developments is increasingly important in this age of international tension and sweeping political change. Political Psychology, the journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, is dedicated to the analysis of the interrelationships between psychological and political processes. International contributors draw on a diverse range of sources, including clinical and cognitive psychology, economics, history, international relations, philosophy, political science, political theory, sociology, personality and social psychology.
期刊最新文献
When saying sorry is not enough: The paradox of a political apology offered to Irish mother and baby home survivors Political censorship feels acceptable when ideas seem harmful and false Dealing with uncertainty and cognitive biases in international politics Overcoming (vegan) burnout: Mass gatherings can provide respite and rekindle shared identity and social action efforts in moralized minority groups Perceived threat, compassion, and public evaluations toward refugees
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1