IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v61y2020i2d10.1007_s11166-020-09336-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Political polarization in US residents’ COVID-19 risk perceptions, policy preferences, and protective behaviors

Author

Listed:
  • Wändi Bruine de Bruin

    (University of Southern California
    University of Southern California)

  • Htay-Wah Saw

    (University of Southern California)

  • Dana P. Goldman

    (University of Southern California)

Abstract

When the novel coronavirus entered the US, most US states implemented lockdown measures. In April–May 2020, state governments started political discussions about whether it would be worth the risk to reduce protective measures. In a highly politicized environment, risk perceptions and preferences for risk mitigation may vary by political inclinations. In April–May 2020, we surveyed a nationally representative sample of 5517 members of the University of Southern California’s Understanding America Study. Of those, 37% identified as Democrats, 32% as Republican, and 31% as Third Party/Independent. Overall, Democrats perceived more risk associated with COVID-19 than Republicans, including for getting infected, being hospitalized and dying if infected, as well as running out of money as a result of the pandemic. Democrats were also more likely than Republicans to express concerns that states would lift economic restrictions too quickly, and to report mask use and social distancing. Generally, participants who identified as Third Party/Independent fell in between. Democrats were more likely to report watching MSNBC or CNN (vs. not), while Republicans were more likely to report watching Fox News (vs. not), and Third Party/Independents tended to watch neither. However, political inclinations predicted reported policy preferences, mask use, and social distancing, in analyses that accounted for differences in use of media sources, risk perceptions, and demographic background. In these analyses, participants’ reported media use added to the partisan divide in preferences for the timing of lifting economic restrictions and reported protective behaviors. Implications for risk communication are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Htay-Wah Saw & Dana P. Goldman, 2020. "Political polarization in US residents’ COVID-19 risk perceptions, policy preferences, and protective behaviors," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 177-194, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:61:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11166-020-09336-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11166-020-09336-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11166-020-09336-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11166-020-09336-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert, S.A. & Booske, B.C., 2011. "US opinions on health determinants and social policy as health policy," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 101(9), pages 1655-1663.
    2. Lennart Sjöberg, 2000. "Factors in Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    3. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Katherine G. Carman, 2018. "Measuring Subjective Probabilities: The Effect of Response Mode on the Use of Focal Responses, Validity, and Respondents’ Evaluations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2128-2143, October.
    4. Gollust, S.E. & Lantz, P.M. & Ubel, P.A., 2009. "The polarizing effect of news media messages about the social determinants of health," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 99(12), pages 2160-2167.
    5. John Lott & Kevin Hassett, 2014. "Is newspaper coverage of economic events politically biased?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(1), pages 65-108, July.
    6. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Katherine G. Carman, 2012. "Measuring Risk Perceptions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(2), pages 232-236, March.
    7. Jason Barabas & Jennifer Jerit, 2009. "Estimating the Causal Effects of Media Coverage on Policy‐Specific Knowledge," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 73-89, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Grimalda, Gianluca & Murtin, Fabrice & Pipke, David & Putterman, Louis & Sutter, Matthias, 2023. "The politicized pandemic: Ideological polarization and the behavioral response to COVID-19," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    2. Nattavudh Powdthavee & Yohanes E Riyanto & Erwin C L Wong & Jonathan X W Yeo & Qi Yu Chan, 2021. "When face masks signal social identity: Explaining the deep face-mask divide during the COVID-19 pandemic," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-15, June.
    3. Shanike J. Smart & Solomon W. Polachek, 2024. "COVID-19 vaccine and risk-taking," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 25-49, February.
    4. Liesel Ritchie & Duane Gill, 2021. "Considering COVID-19 through the Lens of Hazard and Disaster Research," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, June.
    5. Dan Goldhaber & Scott A. Imberman & Katharine O. Strunk & Bryant G. Hopkins & Nate Brown & Erica Harbatkin & Tara Kilbride, 2022. "To What Extent Does In‐Person Schooling Contribute To The Spread Of Covid‐19? Evidence From Michigan And Washington," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(1), pages 318-349, January.
    6. Jack P Hughes & Alexandros Efstratiou & Sara R Komer & Lilli A Baxter & Milica Vasiljevic & Ana C Leite, 2022. "The impact of risk perceptions and belief in conspiracy theories on COVID-19 pandemic-related behaviours," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-20, February.
    7. Sabrina Cipolletta & Gabriela Rios Andreghetti & Giovanna Mioni, 2022. "Risk Perception towards COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-25, April.
    8. Blayac, Thierry & Dubois, Dimitri & Duchêne, Sébastien & Nguyen-Van, Phu & Ventelou, Bruno & Willinger, Marc, 2022. "What drives the acceptability of restrictive health policies: An experimental assessment of individual preferences for anti-COVID 19 strategies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    9. Sacco, Pier Luigi & Gallotti, Riccardo & Pilati, Federico & Castaldo, Nicola & De Domenico, Manlio, 2021. "Emergence of knowledge communities and information centralization during the COVID-19 pandemic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    10. David Rozado & Eric Kaufmann, 2022. "The Increasing Frequency of Terms Denoting Political Extremism in U.S. and U.K. News Media," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-16, April.
    11. Wirpsa, M.J. & Galchutt, P. & Price, C.S. & Schaefer, B. & Szilagyi, C. & Palmer, P.K., 2023. "Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers: The experience of chaplains evaluating religious accommodation requests from coworkers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 332(C).
    12. Ori Heffetz & Guy Ishai, 2021. "Which Beliefs? Behavior-Predictive Beliefs are Inconsistent with Information-Based Beliefs: Evidence from COVID-19," NBER Working Papers 29452, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Jesper Akesson & Sam Ashworth-Hayes & Robert Hahn & Robert Metcalfe & Itzhak Rasooly, 2022. "Fatalism, beliefs, and behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 147-190, April.
    14. W. Kip Viscusi, 2020. "Pricing the global health risks of the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 101-128, October.
    15. Hyun Kyung Park & Ji Hye Ham & Deok Hyun Jang & Jin Yong Lee & Won Mo Jang, 2021. "Political Ideologies, Government Trust, and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in South Korea: A Cross-Sectional Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-9, October.
    16. Dhaval Dave & Joseph J. Sabia & Samuel Safford, 2022. "The limits of reopening policy to alter economic behavior: New evidence from Texas," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 109-145, April.
    17. Habicher, Daria & Windegger, Felix & von der Gracht, Heiko A. & Pechlaner, Harald, 2022. "Beyond the COVID-19 crisis: A research note on post-pandemic scenarios for South Tyrol 2030+," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    18. Li, Ying & Luan, Shenghua & Li, Yugang & Hertwig, Ralph, 2021. "Changing emotions in the COVID-19 pandemic: A four-wave longitudinal study in the United States and China," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    19. Lueck, Jennifer A. & Callaghan, Timothy, 2022. "Inside the ‘black box’ of COVID-19 vaccination beliefs: Revealing the relative importance of public confidence and news consumption habits," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    20. Laura K. Globig & Bastien Blain & Tali Sharot, 2022. "Perceptions of personal and public risk: Dissociable effects on behavior and well-being," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 213-234, April.
    21. Yi Yang & Ru-De Liu & Yi Ding & Jia Wang & Wei Hong & Ying Wu, 2021. "The Influence of Communication on College Students’ Self–Other Risk Perceptions of COVID-19: A Comparative Study of China and the United States," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-16, November.
    22. Cinthya G. Caamal-Olvera & Julio César Arteaga García, 2021. "Initial Management of COVID-19 Outbreak in Mexico," Remef - Revista Mexicana de Economía y Finanzas Nueva Época REMEF (The Mexican Journal of Economics and Finance), Instituto Mexicano de Ejecutivos de Finanzas, IMEF, vol. 16(3), pages 1-22, Julio - S.
    23. Jessecae K. Marsh & Nick D. Ungson & Dominic J. Packer, 2021. "Of Pandemics and Zombies: The Influence of Prior Concepts on COVID-19 Pandemic-Related Behaviors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-17, May.
    24. Zhong, Wei & Broniatowski, David A., 2023. "Economic risk framing increases intention to vaccinate among Republican COVID-19 vaccine refusers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
    25. Qin, Hua & Sanders, Christine & Prasetyo, Yanu & Syukron, Muh. & Prentice, Elizabeth, 2021. "Exploring the dynamic relationships between risk perception and behavior in response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Olaf von dem Knesebeck & Nico Vonneilich & Tae Jun Kim, 2018. "Public awareness of poverty as a determinant of health: survey results from 23 countries," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 63(2), pages 165-172, March.
    2. Nowak, Sarah A. & Parker, Andrew M. & Gidengil, Courtney A. & Richardson, Andrea S. & Walsh, Matthew M. & Kennedy, David P. & Vardavas, Raffaele, 2022. "Reciprocal relationships among influenza experiences, perceptions, and behavior: Results from a national, longitudinal survey of United States adults," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    3. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    4. Michalis Diakakis & Dimitris G. Damigos & Andreas Kallioras, 2020. "Identification of Patterns and Influential Factors on Civil Protection Personnel Opinions and Views on Different Aspects of Flood Risk Management: The Case of Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-20, July.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:3:p:513-546 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. B. J. M. Ale, 2005. "Tolerable or Acceptable: A Comparison of Risk Regulation in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 231-241, April.
    7. Cruces, Guillermo & Perez-Truglia, Ricardo & Tetaz, Martin, 2013. "Biased perceptions of income distribution and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from a survey experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 100-112.
    8. Tianlong Yu & Hao Yang & Xiaowei Luo & Yifeng Jiang & Xiang Wu & Jingqi Gao, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Disaster Risk Perception: 2000–2020," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-19, December.
    9. S. A. Mashi & A. I. Inkani & Oghenejeabor Obaro & A. S. Asanarimam, 2020. "Community perception, response and adaptation strategies towards flood risk in a traditional African city," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(2), pages 1727-1759, September.
    10. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    11. Bernhardt, Lea & Dewenter, Ralf & Thomas, Tobias, 2023. "Measuring partisan media bias in US newscasts from 2001 to 2012," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    12. Jantsje M. Mol & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Julia E. Blasch & Hans de Moel, 2020. "Insights into Flood Risk Misperceptions of Homeowners in the Dutch River Delta," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1450-1468, July.
    13. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    14. Hannah Eboh & Courtney Gallaher & Thomas Pingel & Walker Ashley, 2021. "Risk perception in small island developing states: a case study in the Commonwealth of Dominica," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(1), pages 889-914, January.
    15. Drerup, Tilman H., 2019. "Eliciting subjective expectations for bivariate outcomes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 29-45.
    16. Matt Guardino & Suzanne Mettler, 2020. "Revealing the “Hidden welfare state†: How policy information influences public attitudes about tax expenditures," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(1).
    17. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser & Peter R. Harris & Sabine Pahl, 2007. "Who Reaps the Benefits, Who Bears the Risks? Comparative Optimism, Comparative Utility, and Regulatory Preferences for Mobile Phone Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 741-753, June.
    18. Hope, Aimie L.B. & Jones, Christopher R., 2014. "The impact of religious faith on attitudes to environmental issues and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies: A mixed methods study," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 48-59.
    19. Matt Baucum & Heather Rosoff & Richard John & William Burns & Paul Slovic, 2018. "Modeling public responses to soft-target transportation terror," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 239-249, June.
    20. de Bresser, Jochem, 2019. "Measuring Subjective Survival Expectations : Do Response Scales Matter?," Other publications TiSEM 53bc2ec3-4126-4dfb-81f3-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    21. Teresa Bago d'Uva & Esen Erdogan Ciftci & Owen O'Donnell & Eddy van Doorslaer, 2015. "Who can predict their Own Demise? Accuracy of Longevity Expectations by Education and Cognition," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 15-052/V, Tinbergen Institute.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    COVID-19 risk perceptions; Political beliefs and polarization; Probability-based internet panel; Pandemic preparedness; Health policy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations
    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:61:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11166-020-09336-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.