IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v8y2021i1d10.1057_s41599-021-00870-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The interplay between partisanship, forecasted COVID-19 deaths, and support for preventive policies

Author

Listed:
  • Lucia Freira

    (Universidad Torcuato Di Tella)

  • Marco Sartorio

    (Universidad Torcuato Di Tella)

  • Cynthia Boruchowicz

    (Inter-American Development Bank
    University of Maryland)

  • Florencia Lopez Boo

    (Inter-American Development Bank)

  • Joaquin Navajas

    (Universidad Torcuato Di Tella
    National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET))

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global crisis that has forced governments around the world to implement large-scale interventions such as school closures and national lockdowns. Previous research has shown that partisanship plays a major role in explaining public attitudes towards these policies and beliefs about the intensity of the crisis. However, it remains unclear whether and how partisan differences in policy support relate to partisan gaps in beliefs about the number of deaths that the pandemic will cause. Do individuals who forecast fewer COVID-19 deaths show less agreement with preventive measures? How does partisanship correlate with people’s beliefs about the intensity of the crisis and their support for COVID-19 policies? Here, we sought to answer these questions by performing a behavioral experiment in Argentina (Experiment 1, N = 640) and three quasi-replication studies in Uruguay (Experiment 2, N = 372), Brazil (Experiment 3, N = 353) and the United States (Experiment 4, N = 630). In all settings, participants forecasted the number of COVID-19 deaths in their country after considering either a high or low number, and then rated their agreement with a series of interventions. This anchoring procedure, which experimentally induced a large variability in the forecasted number of deaths, did not modify policy preferences. Instead, each experiment provided evidence that partisanship was a key indicator of the optimism of forecasts and the degree of support for COVID-19 policies. Remarkably, we found that the number of forecasted deaths was robustly uncorrelated with participants’ agreement with preventive measures designed to prevent those deaths. We discuss these empirical observations in the light of recently proposed theories of tribal partisan behavior. Moreover, we argue that these results may inform policy making as they suggest that even the most effective communication strategy focused on alerting the public about the severity of the pandemic would probably not translate into greater support for COVID-19 preventive measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucia Freira & Marco Sartorio & Cynthia Boruchowicz & Florencia Lopez Boo & Joaquin Navajas, 2021. "The interplay between partisanship, forecasted COVID-19 deaths, and support for preventive policies," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00870-2
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-021-00870-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-021-00870-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-021-00870-2?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. Richard A. Bettis & Sendil Ethiraj & Alfonso Gambardella & Constance Helfat & Will Mitchell, 2016. "Creating repeatable cumulative knowledge in strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(2), pages 257-261, February.
    2. Thomas Hale & Noam Angrist & Rafael Goldszmidt & Beatriz Kira & Anna Petherick & Toby Phillips & Samuel Webster & Emily Cameron-Blake & Laura Hallas & Saptarshi Majumdar & Helen Tatlow, 2021. "A global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker)," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(4), pages 529-538, April.
    3. Allcott, Hunt & Boxell, Levi & Conway, Jacob & Gentzkow, Matthew & Thaler, Michael & Yang, David, 2020. "Polarization and public health: Partisan differences in social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    4. Nicolás Ajzenman & Tiago Cavalcanti & Daniel Da Mata, 2023. "More than Words: Leaders' Speech and Risky Behavior during a Pandemic," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 15(3), pages 351-371, August.
    5. Thiemo Fetzer & Lukas Hensel & Johannes Hermle & Christopher Roth, 2021. "Coronavirus Perceptions and Economic Anxiety," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 103(5), pages 968–978-9, December.
    6. Giovanni Bonaccorsi & Francesco Pierri & Matteo Cinelli & Andrea Flori & Alessandro Galeazzi & Francesco Porcelli & Ana Lucia Schmidt & Carlo Michele Valensise & Antonio Scala & Walter Quattrociocchi , 2020. "Economic and social consequences of human mobility restrictions under COVID-19," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117(27), pages 15530-15535, July.
    7. Barrios, John M. & Hochberg, Yael V., 2021. "Risk perceptions and politics: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(2), pages 862-879.
    8. Shana Kushner Gadarian & Sara Wallace Goodman & Thomas B Pepinsky, 2021. "Partisanship, health behavior, and policy attitudes in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-13, April.
    9. Altig, Dave & Baker, Scott & Barrero, Jose Maria & Bloom, Nicholas & Bunn, Philip & Chen, Scarlet & Davis, Steven J. & Leather, Julia & Meyer, Brent & Mihaylov, Emil & Mizen, Paul & Parker, Nicholas &, 2020. "Economic uncertainty before and during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    10. Nicole M. Krause & Isabelle Freiling & Becca Beets & Dominique Brossard, 2020. "Fact-checking as risk communication: the multi-layered risk of misinformation in times of COVID-19," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(7-8), pages 1052-1059, August.
    11. Cobus van Staden, 2020. "COVID-19 and the crisis of national development," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(5), pages 443-444, May.
    12. Nicolás Ajzenman & Tiago Cavalcanti & Daniel Da Mata, 2020. "More than Words: Leaders' Speech and Risky Behavior During a Pandemic," Department of Economics Working Papers wp_gob_2020_03, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella.
    13. James N. Druckman & Samara Klar & Yanna Krupnikov & Matthew Levendusky & John Barry Ryan, 2021. "Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(1), pages 28-38, January.
    14. Cavalcanti, Tiago & Ajzenman, Nicolas & da Mata, Daniel, 2020. "More than Words: Leaders’ Speech and Risky Behavior During a Pandemic," CEPR Discussion Papers 14707, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. David Holtz & Michael Zhao & Seth G. Benzell & Cathy Y. Cao & Mohammad Amin Rahimian & Jeremy Yang & Jennifer Allen & Avinash Collis & Alex Moehring & Tara Sowrirajan & Dipayan Ghosh & Yunhao Zhang & , 2020. "Interdependence and the cost of uncoordinated responses to COVID-19," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117(33), pages 19837-19843, August.
    16. Syon P. Bhanot & Daniel J. Hopkins, 2020. "Partisan polarization and resistance to elite messages: Results from survey experiments on social distancing," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(2).
    17. Anton Gollwitzer & Cameron Martel & William J. Brady & Philip Pärnamets & Isaac G. Freedman & Eric D. Knowles & Jay J. Van Bavel, 2020. "Partisan differences in physical distancing are linked to health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(11), pages 1186-1197, November.
    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. Chiara Natalie Focacci & Pak Hung Lam & Yu Bai, 2022. "Choosing the right COVID-19 indicator: crude mortality, case fatality, and infection fatality rates influence policy preferences, behaviour, and understanding," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, December.
    2. Elena Fumagalli & Candelaria Belén Krick & Marina Belén Dolmatzian & Julieta Edith Del Negro & Joaquin Navajas, 2023. "Partisanship predicts COVID-19 vaccine brand preference: the case of Argentina," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.

    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. Block, Ray & Burnham, Michael & Kahn, Kayla & Peng, Rachel & Seeman, Jeremy & Seto, Christopher, 2022. "Perceived risk, political polarization, and the willingness to follow COVID-19 mitigation guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    2. Rafkin, Charlie & Shreekumar, Advik & Vautrey, Pierre-Luc, 2021. "When guidance changes: Government stances and public beliefs," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    3. Tian, Yuan & Caballero, Maria Esther & Kovak, Brian K., 2022. "Social learning along international migrant networks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 103-121.
    4. Andersson, Ola & Campos-Mercade, Pol & Meier, Armando N. & Wengström, Erik, 2021. "Anticipation of COVID-19 vaccines reduces willingness to socially distance," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    5. Fazio, Andrea & Reggiani, Tommaso & Sabatini, Fabio, 2022. "The political cost of sanctions: Evidence from COVID-19," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(9), pages 872-878.
    6. Joebson Maurilio Alves dos Santos & Tatiane Almeida de Menezes & Rodrigo Gomes de Arruda & Flávia Emília Cavalcante Valença Fernandes, 2023. "Climate influences on COVID‐19 prevalence rates: An application of a panel data spatial model," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 456-473, April.
    7. Bursztyn, Leonardo & Rao, Akaash & Roth, Christopher & Yanagizawa-Drott, David, 2020. "Misinformation during a Pandemic," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1274, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    8. Ambrocio, Gene & Hasan, Iftekhar, 2022. "Belief polarization and Covid-19," Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers 10/2022, Bank of Finland.
    9. Guglielmo Briscese & Maddalena Grignani & Stephen Stapleton, 2022. "Crises and Political Polarization: Towards a Better Understanding of the Timing and Impact of Shocks and Media," Papers 2202.12339, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2023.
    10. Seres, Gyula & Balleyer, Anna Helen & Cerutti, Nicola & Danilov, Anastasia & Friedrichsen, Jana & Liu, Yiming & Süer, Müge, 2021. "Face masks increase compliance with physical distancing recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 7(2), pages 139-158.
    11. Maxim Ananyev & Michael Poyker & Yuan Tian, 2021. "The safest time to fly: pandemic response in the era of Fox News," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 34(3), pages 775-802, July.
    12. James N. Druckman, 2022. "Threats to Science: Politicization, Misinformation, and Inequalities," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 8-24, March.
    13. Hensel, Lukas & Witte, Marc & Caria, A. Stefano & Fetzer, Thiemo & Fiorin, Stefano & Götz, Friedrich M. & Gomez, Margarita & Haushofer, Johannes & Ivchenko, Andriy & Kraft-Todd, Gordon & Reutskaja, El, 2022. "Global Behaviors, Perceptions, and the Emergence of Social Norms at the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 473-496.
    14. Khan, Adnan & Nasim, Sanval & Shaukat, Mahvish & Stegmann, Andreas, 2021. "Building trust in the state with information: Evidence from urban Punjab," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    15. Deiana, Claudio & Geraci, Andrea & Mazzarella, Gianluca & Sabatini, Fabio, 2022. "Can relief measures nudge compliance in a public health crisis? Evidence from a kinked fiscal policy rule," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 407-428.
    16. Seres, Gyula & Balleyer, Anna & Cerutti, Nicola & Friedrichsen, Jana & Süer, Müge, 2021. "Face mask use and physical distancing before and after mandatory masking: No evidence on risk compensation in public waiting lines," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 765-781.
    17. Chiara Natalie Focacci & Pak Hung Lam & Yu Bai, 2022. "Choosing the right COVID-19 indicator: crude mortality, case fatality, and infection fatality rates influence policy preferences, behaviour, and understanding," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, December.
    18. Antoci, Angelo & Sabatini, Fabio & Sacco, Pier Luigi & Sodini, Mauro, 2022. "Experts vs. policymakers in the COVID-19 policy response," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 201(C), pages 22-39.
    19. 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).
    20. Deiana, Claudio & Geraci, Andrea & Mazzarella, Gianluca & Sabatini, Fabio, 2021. "COVID-19 Relief Programs and Compliance with Confinement Measures," IZA Discussion Papers 14064, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    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:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00870-2. 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: https://www.nature.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.