IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0287018.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A tale of two pandemics: The enduring partisan differences in actions, attitudes, and beliefs during the coronavirus pandemic

Author

Listed:
  • Ying Fan
  • A Yeşim Orhun
  • Dana Turjeman

Abstract

Early in the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, scholars and journalists noted partisan differences in behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs. Based on location data from a large sample of smartphones, as well as 13,334 responses to a proprietary survey spanning 10 months from April 1, 2020 to February 15, 2021, we document that the partisan gap has persisted over time and that the lack of convergence occurs even among individuals who were at heightened risk of death. Our results point to the existence and persistence of the interaction of partisanship and information acquisition and highlight the need for mandates and targeted informational campaigns towards those with high health risks.

Suggested Citation

  • Ying Fan & A Yeşim Orhun & Dana Turjeman, 2023. "A tale of two pandemics: The enduring partisan differences in actions, attitudes, and beliefs during the coronavirus pandemic," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(10), pages 1-17, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0287018
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287018
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287018&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0287018?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Huffman & Collin Raymond & Julia Shvets, 2022. "Persistent Overconfidence and Biased Memory: Evidence from Managers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(10), pages 3141-3175, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Bradley, Daniel & Pantzalis, Christos & Yuan, Xiaojing, 2016. "The influence of political bias in state pension funds," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(1), pages 69-91.
    4. 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.
    5. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2011. "Ideological Segregation Online and Offline," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(4), pages 1799-1839.
    6. Ro'ee Levy, 2021. "Social Media, News Consumption, and Polarization: Evidence from a Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(3), pages 831-870, March.
    7. Young Park & Luís Santos-Pinto, 2010. "Overconfidence in tournaments: evidence from the field," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 143-166, July.
    8. Helmut Herwartz & Bernd Theilen, 2014. "Health Care And Ideology: A Reconsideration Of Political Determinants Of Public Healthcare Funding In The Oecd," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(2), pages 225-240, February.
    9. Mitchell Hoffman & Stephen V. Burks, 2020. "Worker overconfidence: Field evidence and implications for employee turnover and firm profits," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(1), pages 315-348, January.
    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. repec:osf:socarx:n2q9h_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Mochon, Daniel & Schwartz, Janet, 2024. "The confrontation effect: When users engage more with ideology-inconsistent content online," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    3. Ester Faia & Andreas Fuster & Vincenzo Pezone & Basit Zafar, 2024. "Biases in Information Selection and Processing: Survey Evidence from the Pandemic," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 106(3), pages 829-847, May.
    4. Dejean, Sylvain & Lumeau, Marianne & Peltier, Stéphanie, 2022. "Partisan selective exposure in news consumption," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    5. Michael Thaler, 2021. "The Supply of Motivated Beliefs," Papers 2111.06062, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    6. Andrea Tesei & Filipe Campante & Ruben Durante, 2022. "Media and Social Capital," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 69-91, August.
    7. Juan Imbet & J. Anthony Cookson & Corbin Fox & Christoph Schiller & Javier Gil-Bazo, 2024. "Social Media as a Bank Run Catalyst," Post-Print hal-04660083, HAL.
    8. Barron, Kai & Becker, Anna & Huck, Steffen, 2025. "Motivated political reasoning: On the emergence of belief-value constellations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    9. Thomas Fujiwara & Karsten Müller & Carlo Schwarz, 2021. "The Effect of Social Media on Elections: Evidence from the United States," NBER Working Papers 28849, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Pierluigi Conzo & Andrea Gallice & Juan S. Morales & Margaret Samahita & Laura K. Taylor, 2021. "Can Hearts Change Minds? Social media Endorsements and Policy Preferences," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 641, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    11. Stone, Daniel F., 2013. "Media and gridlock," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 94-104.
    12. Michele Coscia & Luca Rossi, 2022. "How minimizing conflicts could lead to polarization on social media: An agent-based model investigation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, January.
    13. Ambrocio, Gene & Hasan, Iftekhar, 2022. "Belief polarization and Covid-19," Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers 10/2022, Bank of Finland.
    14. Andrea Kiss & Robert Garlick & Kate Orkin & Luke Hensel, 2023. "Jobseekers’ Beliefs about Comparative Advantage and (Mis)Directed Search," Upjohn Working Papers 23-388, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    15. Golman, Russell, 2023. "Acceptable discourse: Social norms of beliefs and opinions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    16. Thomas Fujiwara & Karsten Müller & Carlo Schwarz, 2024. "The Effect of Social Media on Elections: Evidence from The United States," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 22(3), pages 1495-1539.
    17. Alabrese, Eleonora & Capozza, Francesco & Garg, Prashant, 2024. "Politicized Scientists: Credibility Cost of Political Expression on Twitter," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 735, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    18. Guy Aridor & Rafael Jiménez-Durán & Ro'ee Levy & Lena Song, 2024. "The Economics of Social Media," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 62(4), pages 1422-1474, December.
    19. Marcel Caesmann & Janis Goldzycher & Matteo Grigoletto & Lorenz Gschwent, 2024. "Censorship in democracy," ECON - Working Papers 446, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    20. Santos-Pinto, Luís & Sekeris, Petros G., 2025. "How confidence heterogeneity shapes effort and performance in tournaments and contests," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    21. Matthijs R. Wildenbeest, 2022. "Online News Consumption and Limited Consideration," Working Papers 22-10, NET Institute.

    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:plo:pone00:0287018. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.