IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intell/v88y2021ics0160289621000647.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ability-related political polarization in the COVID-19 pandemic

Author

Listed:
  • Shoots-Reinhard, Brittany
  • Goodwin, Raleigh
  • Bjälkebring, Pär
  • Markowitz, David M.
  • Silverstein, Michael C.
  • Peters, Ellen

Abstract

In two large-scale longitudinal datasets (combined N = 5761), we investigated ability-related political polarization in responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We observed more polarization with greater ability in emotional responses, risk perceptions, and product-purchase intentions across five waves of data collection with a diverse, convenience sample from February 2020 through July 2020 (Study 1, N = 1267). Specifically, more liberal participants had more negative emotional responses and greater risk perceptions of COVID-19 than conservative participants. Compared to conservatives, liberal participants also interpreted quantitative information as indicating higher COVID-19 risk and sought COVID-related news more from liberal than conservative news media. Of key importance, we also compared verbal and numeric cognitive abilities for their independent capacity to predict greater polarization. Although measures of numeric ability, such as objective numeracy, are often used to index ability-related polarization, ideological differences were more pronounced among those higher in verbal ability specifically. Similar results emerged in secondary analysis of risk perceptions in a nationally representative longitudinal dataset (Study 2, N = 4494; emotions and purchase intentions were not included in this dataset). We further confirmed verbal-ability-related polarization findings on non-COVID policy attitudes (i.e., weapons bans and Medicare-for-all) measured cross-sectionally. The present Study 2 documented ability-related polarization emerging over time for the first time (rather than simply measuring polarization in existing beliefs). Both studies demonstrated verbal ability measures as the most robust predictors of ability-related polarization. Together, these results suggest that polarization may be a function of the amount and/or application of verbal knowledge rather than selective application of quantitative reasoning skills.

Suggested Citation

  • Shoots-Reinhard, Brittany & Goodwin, Raleigh & Bjälkebring, Pär & Markowitz, David M. & Silverstein, Michael C. & Peters, Ellen, 2021. "Ability-related political polarization in the COVID-19 pandemic," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:88:y:2021:i:c:s0160289621000647
    DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2021.101580
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289621000647
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.intell.2021.101580?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. Ariel Malka & Jon A. Krosnick & Gary Langer, 2009. "The Association of Knowledge with Concern About Global Warming: Trusted Information Sources Shape Public Thinking," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 633-647, May.
    2. Sarah Dryhurst & Claudia R. Schneider & John Kerr & Alexandra L. J. Freeman & Gabriel Recchia & Anne Marthe van der Bles & David Spiegelhalter & Sander van der Linden, 2020. "Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(7-8), pages 994-1006, August.
    3. De keersmaecker, Jonas & Roets, Arne, 2017. "‘Fake news’: Incorrect, but hard to correct. The role of cognitive ability on the impact of false information on social impressions," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 107-110.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:2:p:128-139 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Alberto Alesina & Armando Miano & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2020. "The Polarization of Reality," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 110, pages 324-328, May.
    6. Kahan, Dan M. & Peters, Ellen & Dawson, Erica Cantrell & Slovic, Paul, 2017. "Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 54-86, May.
    7. Dan M. Kahan & Ellen Peters & Maggie Wittlin & Paul Slovic & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette & Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel, 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 732-735, October.
    8. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    9. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Robin Gregory & Ellen Peters & Robert Hartman, 2017. "Seeing What You Want to See: How Imprecise Uncertainty Ranges Enhance Motivated Reasoning," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 471-486, March.
    10. William J. Burns & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Risk Perception and the Economic Crisis: A Longitudinal Study of the Trajectory of Perceived Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 659-677, April.
    11. Jason T. Carmichael & Robert J. Brulle & Joanna K. Huxster, 2017. "The great divide: understanding the role of media and other drivers of the partisan divide in public concern over climate change in the USA, 2001–2014," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 141(4), pages 599-612, April.
    12. Ganzach, Yoav, 2018. "Intelligence and the rationality of political preferences," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 59-70.
    13. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Paul Slovic & Ellen M. Peters, 2009. "The Use of Narrative Evidence and Explicit Likelihood by Decisionmakers Varying in Numeracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(10), pages 1473-1488, October.
    14. Sander van der Linden & Anthony Leiserowitz & Edward Maibach, 2018. "Scientific agreement can neutralize politicization of facts," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(1), pages 2-3, January.
    15. Ellen Peters & Brittany Shoots-Reinhard & Mary Kate Tompkins & Dan Schley & Louise Meilleur & Aleksander Sinayev & Martin Tusler & Laura Wagner & Jennifer Crocker, 2017. "Improving numeracy through values affirmation enhances decision and STEM outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, July.
    16. Lawrence Hamilton, 2011. "Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 104(2), pages 231-242, January.
    17. Aleksandr Sinayev & Ellen Peters & Martin Tusler & Liana Fraenkel, 2015. "Presenting Numeric Information with Percentages and Descriptive Risk Labels," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(8), pages 937-947, November.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:1:p:25-47 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 1994. "Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1101-1108, December.
    20. Bryan, Victoria M. & Mayer, John D., 2020. "A meta-analysis of the correlations among broad intelligences: Understanding their relations," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2018. "Self-assessed understanding of climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 349-362, November.
    2. Michael Hannon, 2022. "Are knowledgeable voters better voters?," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 21(1), pages 29-54, February.
    3. Faia, Ester & Fuster, Andreas & Pezone, Vincenzo & Zafar, Basit, 2021. "Biases in information selection and processing: Survey evidence from the pandemic," SAFE Working Paper Series 307, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    4. Debra Javeline & Tracy Kijewski-Correa & Angela Chesler, 2019. "Does it matter if you “believe” in climate change? Not for coastal home vulnerability," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 511-532, August.
    5. Mohamed Mostagir & James Siderius, 2022. "Learning in a Post-Truth World," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2860-2868, April.
    6. Andrew G. Meyer, 2022. "Do economic conditions affect climate change beliefs and support for climate action? Evidence from the US in the wake of the Great Recession," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(1), pages 64-86, January.
    7. Toby Bolsen & James N. Druckman & Fay Lomax Cook, 2015. "Citizens’, Scientists’, and Policy Advisors’ Beliefs about Global Warming," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 271-295, March.
    8. Ting Liu & Nick Shryane & Mark Elliot, 2022. "Attitudes to climate change risk: classification of and transitions in the UK population between 2012 and 2020," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    9. J. L. Arroyo-Barrigüete & C. Bellón Núñez-Mera & J. Labrador & V. L. Nicolas, 2023. "Ideology, scientific literacy, and climate change: the case of Spain," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 13(2), pages 350-356, June.
    10. Bernstein, Asaf & Billings, Stephen B. & Gustafson, Matthew T. & Lewis, Ryan, 2022. "Partisan residential sorting on climate change risk," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(3), pages 989-1015.
    11. Aaron Ancell, 2020. "Political irrationality, utopianism, and democratic theory," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 19(1), pages 3-21, February.
    12. Whitney Fleming & Adam L. Hayes & Katherine M. Crosman & Ann Bostrom, 2021. "Indiscriminate, Irrelevant, and Sometimes Wrong: Causal Misconceptions about Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 157-178, January.
    13. E. Keith Smith & Adam Mayer, 2019. "Anomalous Anglophones? Contours of free market ideology, political polarization, and climate change attitudes in English-speaking countries, Western European and post-Communist states," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 17-34, January.
    14. Erik C. Nisbet & Kathryn E. Cooper & R. Kelly Garrett, 2015. "The Partisan Brain," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 36-66, March.
    15. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth, 2023. "Beliefs about Racial Discrimination and Support for Pro-Black Policies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(1), pages 40-53, January.
    16. Byungdoo Kim & David L. Kay & Jonathon P. Schuldt, 2021. "Will I have to move because of climate change? Perceived likelihood of weather- or climate-related relocation among the US public," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-8, March.
    17. Welsch, Heinz, 2021. "How climate-friendly behavior relates to moral identity and identity-protective cognition: Evidence from the European social surveys," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    18. Alexandre Morin-Chassé & Erick Lachapelle, 2020. "Partisan strength and the politicization of global climate change: a re-examination of Schuldt, Roh, and Schwarz 2015," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(1), pages 31-40, March.
    19. Tao, Ran & Li, Jianing & Shen, Liwei & Yang, Sijia, 2023. "Hope over fear: The interplay between threat information and hope appeal corrections in debunking early COVID-19 misinformation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 333(C).
    20. Donatella Baiardi, 2021. "What do you think about climate change?," Working Papers 477, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2021.

    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:eee:intell:v:88:y:2021:i:c:s0160289621000647. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence .

    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.