Longitudinal attenuation in political polarization: Evidence from COVID-19 vaccination adherence in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: While political polarization in policy opinions, preferences, and observance is well established, little is known about whether and how such divisions evolve, and possibly attenuate, over time. Using the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil as the backdrop, we examine the longitudinal evolution of a highly relevant and polarizing policy: adherence to the COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: Studies 1 (N = 3346) and 2 (N = 10,214) use nationwide surveys to document initial differences and subsequent changes in vaccination adherence between conservatives ("Bolsonaristas") and non-conservatives ("non-Bolsonaristas"). Study 3 (N = 742) uses an original dataset to investigate belief changes among conservatives and their association with asymmetric changes in vaccination adherence. RESULTS: Despite substantial differences at the early stages of rollout, the gap in vaccination adherence between conservatives and non-conservatives significantly decreased with the passage of time, driven essentially by a much faster uptake among the initially most skeptic-the conservatives. Study 3 demonstrates that the asymmetric changes in vaccination adherence were associated with meaningful belief changes among the conservatives, especially about the perceived effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines and the expected adherence of peers to the vaccination campaign. CONCLUSIONS: Together, these studies show that, in a context where the superiority of the promoted policy becomes clear over time and individuals have the opportunity to revisit prior beliefs, even intense political polarization can be attenuated.

Taking Stock and Looking Forward to the Future of Pathogen Politics in Light of New Insights and Recommendations: COVID-19 Threat Was Meaningfully Associated With Support for Liberal Policies in the United States.

Infectious disease outbreaks are expected to predict support for conservative policies. However, earlier studies (January-June, 2020) reached conflicting findings regarding the association between COVID-19 threat and policy preferences in the United States. We revisit this issue by analyzing five nationally representative surveys conducted during the relatively severe periods of the pandemic (August 2020-December, 2020; total N = 82,753). Using Bayesian inference, we find strong evidence that subjective (e.g., fear of infection and pandemic outrage) but not objective (e.g., local cases and deaths) threat predicted support for liberal policies (e.g., immigration and universal health care). Meta-analyses revealed that the estimates depend on the type of subjective (.05 ≥ r ≤ .60) or objective (.00 ≥ r ≤ .14) COVID-19 threat. We propose an emotion-mediated dual-process model of pathogen management suggesting that infectious disease outbreaks activate both avoidance and caregiving motives that translate, respectively, into support for right-wing and left-wing policies.

Going beyond political ideology: A computational analysis of civic trust in science.

Numerous studies have been conducted to identify the factors that predict trust/distrust in science. However, most of these studies are based on closed-ended survey research, which does not allow researchers to gain a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon. This study integrated survey analysis conducted within the United States with computational text analysis to reveal factors previously obscured by traditional survey methodologies. Even after controlling for political ideology-which has been the most significant explanatory factor in determining trust in science within a survey framework-we found those with concerns over boundary-crossing (i.e. concerns or perceptions that science overlaps with politics, the government, and funding) were less likely to trust science than their counterparts.

Using narratives to correct politically charged health misinformation and address affective belief echoes.

BACKGROUND: In May 2020, news outlets reported misinformation about the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) related to COVID-19. Correcting misinformation about outbreaks and politics is particularly challenging. Affective belief echoes continue to influence audiences even after successful correction. Narrative and emotional flow scholarship suggest that a narrative corrective with a positive ending could reduce belief echoes. Therefore, this study investigated the efficacy of a narrative corrective with a relief ending for correcting misinformation about the CDC. METHODS: Between 29 May and 4 June 2020, we tested the effectiveness of a narrative to correct this misinformation. Participants in the United States (N = 469) were enrolled via Qualtrics panels in an online message experiment and randomized to receive a narrative corrective, a didactic corrective or no corrective. RESULTS: The narrative corrective resulted in lower endorsement of the misinformation compared with the control and the didactic corrective. The narrative corrective had a positive indirect effect on perceived CDC competence and mask wearing intentions for politically moderate and conservative participants via relief. CONCLUSIONS: Public health institutions, such as the CDC, should consider utilizing narrative messaging with positive emotion endings to correct misinformation. Narratives better address affective belief echoes, particularly for counter-attitudinal audiences.

Ideological differences in COVID-19 vaccine intention: the effects of trust in the healthcare system, in complementary and alternative medicine, and perceived threat from the disease.

Introduction: Politically left-leaning individuals are more likely to get vaccinated against COVID-19, although little is known about the mechanisms underlying the ideological differences in vaccination intentions. Understanding the extent to which trust in the healthcare system, in complementary and alternative medicine, and the perceived threat from the disease contribute to these disparities is crucial, as it could inform targeted interventions to address vaccine hesitancy across the political spectrum. Methods: The present cross-sectional study conducted among adults living in Slovenia (n = 858) examined the mediating role of trust in the healthcare system, trust in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and the perceived threat from the virus on COVID-19 vaccination intention. Results: We found that leftist ideology and trust in the healthcare system positively predicted vaccination intention, whereas CAM negatively predicted this intention. In addition, left-leaning individuals expressed greater trust in the healthcare system and lower trust in CAM, resulting in higher levels of COVID-19 vaccination intention. The serial mediation model confirmed that trust in CAM was a negative predictor, while trust in the healthcare system positively predicted perceived threat. Discussion: When dealing with vaccine hesitancy among right-oriented individuals, strategies should focus on enhancing trust in the healthcare system and critically evaluating the reliance on CAM.

Political ideology shapes risk and benefit judgments of COVID-19 vaccines.

In April 2021, the use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine was paused to investigate whether it had caused serious blood clots to a small number of women (six out of 6.8 million Americans who had been administered that vaccine). As these events were unfolding, we surveyed a sample of Americans (N = 625) to assess their reactions to this news, whether they supported the pausing of the vaccine, and potential psychological factors underlying their decision. In addition, we employed automated text analyses as a supporting method to more classical quantitative measures. Results showed that political ideology influenced the support for the pausing of the vaccine; liberals were more likely to oppose it than conservatives. In addition, the effect of political ideology was mediated by the difference between perceived benefit and risk and the language style used to produce reasons in support (or against) the decision to pause the vaccine. Liberals perceived the benefit of vaccines higher than the risk, used a more analytic language style when stating their reasons, and had a more positive attitude toward the vaccine. We discuss the implications of our findings considering vaccine hesitancy and risk perception during the COVID-19 pandemic.

How our ideological out-group shapes our emotional response to our shared socio-political reality.

What shapes our emotional responses to socio-political events? Following the social identity approach, we suggest that individuals adjust their emotional responses to socio-political stimuli based on their ideological out-group's responses, in a manner that preserves the comparative and normative fit of ideological in-group-out-group categories. In Study 1 and Study 2 (pre-registered), Jewish-Israeli leftists and rightists were exposed to their ideological out-group's alleged emotional response to a stimulus associated with Israeli-Palestinian relations, which was either stereotypical (leftists expressing low anger and rightists expressing high anger) or non-stereotypical (leftists expressing high anger and rightists expressing low anger). Across studies, participants reported more positive affect towards their ideological out-group when its response to the stimulus was non-stereotypical versus stereotypical, yet their own response to the stimulus became more "extreme" (towards the low end of the anger scale for leftists, and towards the high end of the anger scale for rightists), shifting farther away from their ideological out-group norm. Our findings suggest that in highly polarized contexts, where "leftist" and "rightist" identities are largely defined in comparison to one another, the "positioning" of ideological groups relative to one another plays a role in shaping their responses to their shared socio-political reality.

Examining American attitudes toward vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of negative and positive rights.

We examine the likely acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in the period prior to political polarization around vaccine mandates. Two representative cross-sectional surveys of 1,000 respondents were fielded in August and December 2020. The surveys included items about the COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine mandates. Respondents self-identifying as liberal were the least likely to believe the vaccine had undisclosed harmful effects (p< .001), conservatives were the most likely (p < .001), and moderates fell in between. Individuals with a bachelor's degree were less likely to think the vaccine had undisclosed harmful effects than individuals without a bachelor's degree (p < .001), and 60.5% of those individuals did not support a government vaccine mandate. Political ideology was more often strongly associated with avoiding government involvement compared to education level. In summary, both liberal political ideology and higher education were significantly associated with endorsing intended vaccine uptake. We discuss these results in terms of positive versus negative rights.

Preference for leaders with high and low facial width-to-height ratios: moderating roles of political ideology and voting context.

BACKGROUND: It has been argued that human ancestors evolved greater sensitivity to certain traits that signal dominance in potential leaders. From this perspective, modern voters still favor certain physical characteristics during political elections. Indeed, previous studies have shown that voters prefer dominant candidates, especially when primed with wartime scenarios, and with conservative voters being more likely to choose a dominant leader. Because facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) was found to be positively associated with perceived dominance, we sought to investigate the effect of fWHR on leader preference by taking into an account voting context and voters' political ideology. PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE: A total of 148 participants took part in two online experiments in which we manipulated standardized facial images to represent faces with low and high fWHR. Furthermore, we assessed participants' political ideology and asked them to rate the extent to which faces with low and high fWHR looked like leaders during wartime and peacetime scenarios. RESULTS: Preference for leaders with high fWHR was positively related to participants' political ideology, but only in a wartime scenario, suggesting that the more conservative participants were, the higher was their preference for leaders with high fWHR. This is consistent with the notion that preferences for dominant-looking leaders vary as a function of the contextual (voting context) and individual differences (political ideology). CONCLUSIONS: The present findings provide new evidence for the contribution of fWHR in leader preference and significantly adds to the results of previous research demonstrating the roles of voters' political ideology and politicians' physical characteristics in perceiving leadership abilities.

Preference for imperfect produce: The influence of political ideology and openness to experience.

Food waste is a critical global issue, posing substantial environmental, social, and financial challenges, even as millions continue to face uncertainty regarding their next meal source. The seriousness of this problem necessitates a closer look into ways to reduce food waste. In this investigation, we identify a key factor which contributes to food waste-imperfect fruits and vegetables (FaVs), defined as foods that are non-uniform in shape, color, or texture. Because of their unusual and sometimes ugly appearance, people are often averse to buying them, making it important to understand factors that influence people's acceptance or rejection of imperfect FaVs. Across four online studies (including an exploratory study) with nearly 1400 U.S. respondents and using varied designs, we test political ideology as a moderator of this aversion to imperfect FaVs. Our findings indicate that politically conservative people are less likely to purchase imperfect FaVs (vs. perfect FaVs) compared to politically liberal people. The last study also uncovers the psychological mechanism underlying this greater aversion to FaVs by conservatives: lower openness to experience explains why this segment of population may be less willing to purchase imperfect FaVs. Implications and future research directions are discussed.

Far-right political ideology and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: Multilevel analysis of 21 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Far-right political parties across the EU have downplayed the risk of COVID-19 and have expressed skepticism toward the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine. This may affect the risk perception of people who support far-right parties and may be associated with an elevated risk of vaccine hesitancy. We aimed to explore if voting far-right is associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and if the association varies by individual and country-level factors. METHODS: We used cross-sectional data from 28,057 individuals nested in 21 countries who participated in the tenth round of the European Social Survey (ESS). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was assessed by asking respondents whether they will get vaccinated against COVID-19. Voting behavior was measured by asking respondents which party they voted for in the last election. To test the association between far-right voting and COVID-19 hesitancy, we applied a series of multilevel regression models. We additionally ran models including interaction terms to test if the association differs by sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., institutional trust) or contextual factors (e.g., income inequality). RESULTS: We found that far-right voters were 2.7 times more likely to be COVID-19 vaccine hesitant compared to center voters (PR: 2.69, 95% CI: 1.46-4.94). The association persisted even after controlling for institutional trust and social participation (adjusted PR: 2.15, 95% CI: 1.35-3.42). None of the tested interaction terms were significant suggesting that the association between political ideology and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy does not differ by sociodemographic characteristics or contextual factors. CONCLUSION: Voting for far-right parties is associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. The association is similar among European countries, regardless of how stringent the public health measures were and magnitude of income inequality in each country. Our findings call for a more in-depth investigation of why, how and under which conditions political ideology affects vaccination behavior.

Cosmopolitanism and social dominance orientation mediate relationship between political orientation and sexism.

Over the past decade, 'anti-gender discourse' has been institutionalised by the governing right-wing party in Hungary to a wide effect, from the removal of accreditation from a gender studies MA program to the Parliament's refusal to ratify the Istanbul Convention. The anti-egalitarian backlash echoes those emergent in other countries where right-wing populism has gained ground - such as Poland, Turkey, India, the United States, and Brazil. The present study examined the role of two opposite orientations, cosmopolitanism as an egalitarian worldview and social dominance orientation as the preference for hierarchies and inequality among groups and people in general, in mediating the relationship between political orientation and sexism among a representative Hungarian sample (N = 1000). The path analysis revealed that left-wing political orientation was associated with higher levels of cosmopolitan orientation, while right-wing political orientation was associated with higher levels of SDO. Higher levels of cosmopolitan orientation were associated with a more positive attitude toward feminists and lower levels of modern sexism and gender-based zero-sum thinking, while higher levels of SDO were associated with the opposite. Furthermore, cosmopolitan orientation mediated the relationship between political orientation and modern sexism and attitudes toward feminists, while SDO mediated the relationship between political orientation and modern sexism and gender-based zero-sum thinking. Our study emphasizes the important role of cosmopolitan orientation in opposing SDO and promoting a more egalitarian worldview.

Vaccine attitudes and acceptance among older adults in North Dakota: Understanding demographic characteristic variability.

OBJECTIVES: Older adults face increased risks from infectious diseases which are often preventable with vaccines. The current study examines demographic variation in vaccine hesitancy among older adults in North Dakota. METHODS: A mailed survey assessing age, gender, years of education, self-rated health, rurality, and political leaning as well as vaccine attitudes and vaccine acceptance was conducted with 739 older adults (65+), oversampled from rural counties. RESULTS: Vaccine hesitant attitudes were significantly higher among rural and politically-conservative older adults; whereas, vaccine acceptance was significantly higher among older, healthier, and politically-liberal older adults. Vaccine attitudes were significantly associated with vaccine acceptance and mediated the association between political leaning and vaccine acceptance. DISCUSSION: These findings highlight the demographic characteristics predictive of older adults' vaccine attitudes and acceptance. By better understanding the nuanced factors leading to hesitation to be vaccinated, practitioners can develop strategies to increase vaccination rates among this at-risk population.

Inconsistent and very weak evidence for a direct association between childhood personality and adult ideology.

OBJECTIVE: We add depth and breadth to the study of the childhood personality-adult ideology link with additional data, measures, and measurement approaches. BACKGROUND: Past research in (political) psychology has put forward that individual differences in psychological needs shape ideology. Most evidence supporting this claim is cross-sectional. Two previous longitudinal studies showed preliminary evidence that childhood personality traits linked to negativity bias correlate with political ideology in adulthood, yet these studies have limitations. METHODS: We report the results from two longitudinal studies (combined N = 13,822) conducted in the United Kingdom that measure childhood personality (5-11 years old) and political ideology from puberty (age 16) to early (age 26) and middle adulthood (age 42). RESULTS: We find very weak and inconsistent evidence that childhood personality traits related to negativity bias are directly associated with general conservatism, social conservatism, or economic conservatism across different stages of adulthood. Across the board, Bayes Factors most often indicate strong evidence for the null hypothesis. CONCLUSION: We offer evidence that the results of previous research are not as robust or as consistent as scholars in the extant literature presume. Our findings call for more, not less, research on the link between childhood personality and political ideology.

The moral foundations of cryptocurrency: evidence from Twitter and survey research.

Despite its relatively brief history, cryptocurrency has already had a profound impact on the economy, with some predicting that it will eventually replace traditional fiat currencies. Historically, it had dark associations with illegal activities in the early days, although perceptions and associations likely have, in recent years, changed for the better. Thus, understanding how people perceive the morality of cryptocurrency currently forms the motivation of the current research. We, in particular, examine associations dependent on political ideology. Across both a large-scale analysis of Twitter posts (N = 959,393) and controlled survey research (N = 487), we find that cryptocurrency is currently best understood as being more strongly linked to conservative vs. liberal moral foundations. Cryptocurrency-related posts were more likely to express conservative moral foundations (Authority, Purity, and Loyalty) rather than liberal moral foundations (Fairness and Care), and individual endorsement of these conservative moral foundations was associated with increased interest in crypto investment.

Psychosocial Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and the Mediating Role of Various Attitudes towards Science.

This study examined the way attitudes towards science in the U.S. mediate the relationship between COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and psychosocial predictors, such as political ideology, religiosity, reactance proneness, dogmatism, perceived communal ostracism, education, and socioeconomic status. We analyzed the structure of people's attitudes towards science, revealing four distinct factors: epistemic confidence, belief that science and technology are beneficial, trust in science in general, and trust in medical science. With all four factors included as mediators in a saturated path analysis, low levels of trust in medical science and low epistemic confidence fully mediated the relationships between nearly all of the psychosocial predictors and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Political conservativism's negative association with vaccine hesitancy was partially mediated by the same two facets of people's attitudes towards science. Adding nuance to existing research, we found that trust in science in general was not a significant mediator once all four facets were included in the model. These findings are discussed with a focus on their implications for understanding attitudes towards science and their substantial and complex role in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

The influence of political ideology on awareness of HPV and HPV vaccine among adults in the United States.

This study aimed to investigate the association between political ideology and awareness of HPV and HPV vaccine among US adults. Study data were derived from Health Information National Trends Survey 5 Cycle 4, a 2020 cross-sectional survey of US adults. Multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to examine the association between political ideology with HPV and HPV vaccine awareness. A total of 3418 adults participated in the study, with the majority being non-Hispanic White individuals and women. The results showed that 66.1% and 62.3% of the participants were aware of HPV and HPV vaccine, respectively. A total of 36.9%, 29.7% and 33.4% of the population reported moderate, liberal and conservative political ideologies respectively. Awareness levels were highest among liberals, with 77.1% and 72.7% reporting awareness of HPV and HPV vaccine respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that liberal participants were more likely to be aware of HPV (aOR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.25-3.00), and HPV vaccines (aOR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.37-2.74) compared to moderates. Also, liberals had higher odds of HPV (aOR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.65-3.51), and HPV vaccine awareness (aOR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.29-2.83) compared to conservatives. However, there was no significant difference in awareness between moderates and conservatives. Study findings point to an association between individuals' political ideology and HPV awareness. Further research is needed to understand the intricacies on how political ideology impacts HPV awareness. Overall, results highlight the need to incorporate individuals' political ideologies in interventions geared toward increasing the awareness and uptake of HPV vaccination.

Toward a Comprehensive, Data-Driven Model of American Political Goals: Recognizing the "Values" and "Vices" Within Both Liberalism and Conservativism.

When a person indicates they are "liberal" or "conservative," an important part of what they are communicating is their goals for how they would like society to be structured. However, past theories have described these goals in dramatically different fashions, suggesting that either conservativism or liberalism reflects a divisive or unifying goal. To help overcome this impasse, we systematically compared a broad, representative sample of all possible higher-order goals (drawn a previous lexical investigation of more than 1,000 goals) to the political ideology of American adults (total n = 1,588). The results of five studies suggested that proposals from competing theories are all partially correct. Conservativism simultaneously reflects the unifying "value" of Tradition, as well as the divisive "vice" of Elitism; while Liberalism simultaneously reflects the unifying "value" of Inclusiveness, and the divisive "vice" of Rebellion. These results help to integrate proposals from previous competing theories into a single framework.

Disruptions to in-person medical visits across the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic: evolving disparities by medical specialty and socio-economic status.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate how people's health-seeking behaviors evolve in the COVID-19 pandemic by community and medical service category. STUDY DESIGN: This is a longitudinal study using mobility data from 19 million mobile devices of visits to all types of health facility locations for all US states. METHODS: We examine the variations in weekly in-person medical visits across county, neighborhood, and specialty levels. Different regression models are used for each level to investigate factors that influence the disparities in medical visits. County-level analysis explores associations between county medical visit patterns, political orientation, and COVID-19 infection rate. Neighborhood-level analysis focuses on neighborhood socio-economic compositions as potential determinants of medical visit levels. Specialty-level analysis compares the evolution of visit disruptions in different specialties. RESULTS: A more left-leaning political orientation and a higher local infection rate were associated with larger decreases in in-person medical visits, and these associations became stronger, moving from the initial period of stay-at-home orders into the post-lockdown period. Initial reactions were strongest for seniors and those of high socio-economic status, but this reversed in post-lockdown period where socio-economically disadvantaged communities stabilized at a lower level of medical visits. Neighborhoods with more female and young people exhibited larger decreases in in-person medical visits throughout the initial and post-lockdown periods. The evolution of disruptions diverges across medical specialties, from only short-term disruption in specialties such as dentistry to increasing disruption, as in cardiology. CONCLUSIONS: Given distinct patterns in visit between communities, medical service categories, and between different periods in the pandemic, policy makers, and providers should concentrate on monitoring patients in disrupted specialties who overlap with the at-risk contexts and socio-economic factors in future health emergencies.

Correlates of and barriers to COVID-19 vaccine initiation and intention among US college students.

OBJECTIVE: To examine correlates of and barriers to COVID-19 vaccine initiation and intention among college students. PARTICIPANTS: 1,171 students attending a public university in the South. METHODS: Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the correlates of vaccine intention and initiation. Reasons for pursuing or foregoing vaccination were analyzed qualitatively using an inductive approach. RESULTS: Among respondents, 44% had initiated vaccination, 38% intended to be vaccinated, and 18% were unsure about/unwilling to be vaccinated. Vaccine initiation and intention were both associated with 2019-2020 seasonal flu vaccination and political ideology, with conservative-leaning students having lower odds of vaccine initiation and of intention relative to liberal-leaning students. The most common reasons for vaccine initiation/intention and for vaccine hesitancy differed in frequency by political ideology. CONCLUSION: The most effective vaccine promotion strategies may be those tailored to different social groups, virus-related beliefs/perceptions, and the specific concerns of vaccine hesitant students.