The Politics of the Gender Gap in COVID-19: Partisanship, Health Behavior, and Policy Preferences in the US.

Several studies demonstrate gender and partisan differences among Americans in COVID-19 socioeconomic consequences, attitudes, and behaviors. Using six waves of panel survey data, this article explores the intersection of gender and party across COVID-19 mitigation behaviors, concerns, and policy preferences. We observe small gender gaps on several measures; however, partisan differences are larger than gender differences when considering the interaction between gender and partisanship. Democratic women are more similar to Democratic men on these measures than to Republican women. On virtually all measures, Republican women report lower levels of mitigation behaviors, worries, and support for expansive government policies compared to Democratic women and men. Analyzing the interaction of gender and partisanship illuminates how individuals navigated the pandemic with respect to identity factors that often pull in different directions. These findings suggest that one's partisan identity is more consequential than gender when it comes to COVID behaviors, concerns, and policy preferences.

Information From Same-Race/Ethnicity Experts Online Does Not Increase Vaccine Interest or Intention to Vaccinate.

Policy Points Mass vaccination is essential for bringing the COVID-19 pandemic to a close, yet substantial disparities remain between whites and racial and ethnic minorities within the United States. Online messaging campaigns featuring expert endorsements are a low-cost way to increase vaccine awareness among minoritized populations, yet the efficacy of same-race/ethnicity expert messaging in increasing uptake remains unknown. Our preregistered analysis of an online vaccine endorsement campaign, which randomly varied the racial/ethnic identity of the expert, revealed no evidence that information from same race/ethnicity experts affected vaccine interest or the intention to vaccinate. Our results do not rule out the possibility that other low-cost endorsement campaigns may be more effective in increasing vaccine uptake, but do suggest that public health campaigns might profitably focus on issues of access and convenience when targeting minoritized populations in the United States. CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic in the United States has been unequally experienced across racial and ethnic groups. Mass vaccination is the most effective way to bring the pandemic to an end and to manage its public health consequences. But the racialization of public health delivery in the United States has produced a sizable racial/ethnic gap in vaccination rates. Closing this gap in vaccine uptake is therefore essential to ending the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a preregistered, well-powered (N = 2,117) between-subjects survey experiment, fielded March 24 to April 5, 2021, in which participants from YouGov's online panel-including oversamples of Black (n = 471), Hispanic/Latino/a (n = 430), and Asian American (n = 319) participants-were randomly assigned to see COVID-19 vaccine information endorsed by same- or different-race/ethnicity experts or to a control condition. We then measured respondents' vaccination intentions, intention to encourage others to get vaccinated, and interest in learning more information and sharing information with others. FINDINGS: Same-race/ethnicity expert endorsements had no measurable effect on nonwhite or white respondents' willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccine, to encourage others to get the vaccine, or to learn more or share information with others. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides empirical evidence suggesting online endorsements from same-race/ethnicity experts do not increase vaccine interest, advocacy, or uptake, though same-race/ethnicity endorsements may be effective in other venues or mediums.

Public opinion on policy issues in genetics and genomics.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine public opinion on major policy issues in genetics and genomics, including federal spending on genetic research, the perceived significance of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, and whether clinicians should be involved in direct-to-consumer genetic testing. METHODS: This was a survey with a nationally representative sample of 2,100 American adults administered by the nonpartisan research firm YouGov in January 2011. RESULTS: The majority of the respondents (57%) believe that the federal government should spend more on genetic research, 82% rank the 2008 antidiscrimination law as "important," and 65% say that clinicians should be involved in explaining genetic test results (contra the practice of some direct-to-consumer companies). On all three policy issues, gender and political party affiliation were statistically significantly associated with respondents' views, whereas race/ethnicity and education were less consistently associated with policy opinions. CONCLUSION: Americans demonstrate widespread support for scientific research on genetics, laws protecting citizens against genetic discrimination, and the need to involve medical professionals in the process of genetic testing. These results are useful for scientists designing research projects, clinicians interacting with patients, professional organizations lobbying for resources, federal agencies setting budget priorities, and legislators designing regulation.

Institutional hybridity and policy-motivated reasoning structure public evaluations of the Supreme Court.

How does the public assess the Supreme Court and its work? Using data from three surveys conducted over a span of ten years, we show that individuals' policy preferences drive evaluations of the Court and its willingness to reform the Court. We find strong evidence that the Court's hybrid legal-political nature enables a unique form of policy-motivated reasoning: respondents who agree with Court outputs view the Court and its work as more "legal" in nature, while those who disagree view both as more "political." Our findings stand in contrast to longstanding views in the literature that the public views the Court as a fundamentally different sort of institution that stands largely separate from politics. The fact that policy attitudes powerfully inform the public's assessment of the Court has crucial implications for the ongoing debates over Supreme Court power.

Morbid Polarization: Exposure to COVID-19 and Partisan Disagreement about Pandemic Response.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the lives of all Americans, but the severity of the pandemic has been experienced unevenly across space and time. Some states saw sharp rises in COVID-19 cases in early March, whereas case counts rose much later in the rest of the country. In this article, we examine the relationship between exposure to COVID-19 and citizens' views on what type of measures are required to deal with the crises and how experience with and exposure to COVID-19 is associated with greater partisan polarization. We find consistent evidence of partisan divergence in pandemic-response policy preferences across the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic: Republicans support national control measures whereas Democrats support welfare policies, and interparty differences grow over time. We find only limited evidence that exposure or experience moderates these partisan differences. Our findings are consistent with the view that Americans interpret the COVID-19 pandemic in fundamentally partisan manner, and that objective pandemic conditions play at most a minor role in shaping mass preferences.

Partisanship, health behavior, and policy attitudes in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To study the U.S. public's health behaviors, attitudes, and policy opinions about COVID-19 in the earliest weeks of the national health crisis (March 20-23, 2020). METHOD: We designed and fielded an original representative survey of 3,000 American adults between March 20-23, 2020 to collect data on a battery of 38 health-related behaviors, government policy preferences on COVID-19 response and worries about the pandemic. We test for partisan differences COVID-19 related policy attitudes and behaviors, measured in three different ways: party affiliation, intended 2020 Presidential vote, and self-placed ideological positioning. Our multivariate approach adjusts for a wide range of individual demographic and geographic characteristics that might confound the relationship between partisanship and health behaviors, attitudes, and preferences. RESULTS: We find that partisanship-measured as party identification, support for President Trump, or left-right ideological positioning-explains differences in Americans across a wide range of health behaviors and policy preferences. We find no consistent evidence that controlling for individual news consumption, the local policy environment, and local pandemic-related deaths erases the observed partisan differences in health behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes. In further analyses, we use a LASSO regression approach to select predictors, and find that a partisanship indicator is the most commonly selected predictor across the 38 dependent variables that we study. CONCLUSION: Our analysis of individual self-reported behavior, attitudes, and policy preferences in response to COVID-19 reveals that partisanship played a central role in shaping individual responses in the earliest months of the COVID-19 pandemic. These results indicate that partisan differences in responding to a national public health emergency were entrenched from the earliest days of the pandemic.

Does genetic risk for common adult diseases influence reproductive plans? Evidence from a national survey experiment in the United States.

Prospective parents have long been able to learn details about their offspring's DNA, and social scientists have demonstrated that this form of genetic information influences reproductive decision-making. Now, new tests offer adults information about their own genetic risk for common diseases that begin later in life, raising new questions about whether this kind of personal risk will also affect fertility plans. Drawing on a survey experiment (N = 223) that assigned individuals a genetic risk (20%, 30% … 80%) for an adult-onset disease (heart disease, colon cancer, Alzheimer's Disease), this study examines whether such risks lead people to reconsider their plans to have children. Bringing together qualitative research on genetic risk and reproductive decision-making with demographic analyses of uncertainty and fertility, we find that when assigned a hypothetical genetic risk for a common adult-onset disease, childless individuals who plan to have children in the future are unlikely to reconsider those plans.

Does educational attainment shape reactions to genetic risk for Alzheimer's disease? Results from a national survey experiment.

While higher education is associated with healthy lifestyles and health literacy, it remains unclear whether education shapes reactions to varying levels of genetic risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD). In this study, participants (N = 701) in the National Genetic Risk Survey Experiment (NGRISE) received a hypothetical genetic risk assessment for AD (ranging from 20 to 80% lifetime risk) and then completed items on their cognitive (perceived threat to health), emotional (general negative affect), and anticipated behavioral (seek information, improve health behaviors, engage in public or private civic action) reactions to this risk. Individuals with a college education showed reactions to increasing genetic risk approximately twice or several times as strong relative to those of individuals with lower (high school, HS) education. In fact, behavioral reactions do not significantly increase with AD risk among those with HS education. Some educational differences in risk response widen at older ages.

Reacting to genetic risk: an experimental survey of life between health and disease.

Medical sociologists contend that we are living in an era of surveillance medicine, in which the emphasis on risk blurs the lines between health and disease. Yet, data to examine these claims are generally drawn from patients, raising questions about whether this modern experience of medical risk extends beyond the clinic to healthy people in the larger population. We use the specific case of genetic risk to construct a survey experiment designed to induce the conditions theorized by surveillance medicine. Each respondent in a nationally representative sample (N = 2,100) was assigned a genetic risk (20%, 30% . . . 80%) for a disease (colon cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease) and asked about many potential reactions. We find that people in the general population-regardless of health status or family history-respond to hypothetical genetic risk information by wanting to take action, and their reactions are stronger in domains related to self and family than to community and polity.