| Creators: |
Flores, Alexandra and Cole, Jennifer C. and Dickert, Stephan and Eom, Kimin and Jiga-Boy, Gabriela M. and Kogut, Tehila and Loria, Riley and Mayorga, Marcus and Pedersen, Eric J. and Pereira, Beatriz and Rubaltelli, Enrico and Sherman, David K. and Slovic, Paul and Vjästfjäll, Daniel and Van Boven, Leaf |
| Title: |
Politicians polarize and experts depolarize public
support for COVID-19 management policies
across countries |
| Item Type: |
Article or issue of a publication series |
| Journal or Series Title: |
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences : PNAS |
| Paper No. / Type of Paper: |
e2117543119 |
| Additional Information: |
Open Access |
| Date: |
2022 |
| Divisions: |
Wirtschaftswissenschaften |
| Abstract (ENG): |
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 sup
port for policies to manage the COVID-19 pandemic in seven coun
tries (n = 12,955): Brazil, Israel, Italy, South Korea, Sweden, the
United Kingdom,andtheUnited States. Across countries, cues from
political elites polarized public attitudes toward COVID-19 policies.
Liberal and conservative respondents supported policies proposed
byingroup 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, enjoy
ing 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 respond
ents considering international vaccine distribution policies. The
polarizing effects of partisan elites and affective polarization
emerged across nations that vary in cultures, ideologies, and politi
cal 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. |
| Forthcoming: |
No |
| Language: |
English |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: |
polarization ; expertise |
| Link eMedia: |
Download |
| Citation: |
Flores, Alexandra and Cole, Jennifer C. and Dickert, Stephan and Eom, Kimin and Jiga-Boy, Gabriela M. and Kogut, Tehila and Loria, Riley and Mayorga, Marcus and Pedersen, Eric J. and Pereira, Beatriz and Rubaltelli, Enrico and Sherman, David K. and Slovic, Paul and Vjästfjäll, Daniel and Van Boven, Leaf
(2022)
Politicians polarize and experts depolarize public
support for COVID-19 management policies
across countries.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences : PNAS, 119 (3), Paper e2117543119.
ISSN 1091-6490
|
 |
View Item in edit mode (academic staff only) |
