Who do we trust? Differences in types of trust and beliefs in conspiracy theories between vaccinated and unvaccinated Europeans across 17 European countries

A plethora of research has highlighted that trust in science, political trust, and conspiracy theories are all important contributors to vaccine uptake behavior. In the current investigation, relying on data from 17 countries (N = 30,096) from the European Social Survey we examined how those who received (and wanted to receive the COVID-19 vaccine) compared to those who did not differ in their trust in: science, politicians and political parties, international organizations and towards people in general. We also examined whether they differed in how much they believed in conspiracy theories. Those who received (or wanted to receive) the COVID vaccine scored significantly higher in all forms of trust, and lower in conspiracy theory beliefs. A logistic regression suggested that trust in science, politicians, international organizations, as well as belief in conspiracy theories were significant predictors, even after accounting for key demographic characteristics.

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.

Blaming the unvaccinated during the COVID-19 pandemic: the roles of political ideology and risk perceptions in the USA.

Individuals unvaccinated against COVID-19 (C19) experienced prejudice and blame for the pandemic. Because people vastly overestimate C19 risks, we examined whether these negative judgements could be partially understood as a form of scapegoating (ie, blaming a group unfairly for an undesirable outcome) and whether political ideology (previously shown to shape risk perceptions in the USA) moderates scapegoating of the unvaccinated. We grounded our analyses in scapegoating literature and risk perception during C19. We obtained support for our speculations through two vignette-based studies conducted in the USA in early 2022. We varied the risk profiles (age, prior infection, comorbidities) and vaccination statuses of vignette characters (eg, vaccinated, vaccinated without recent boosters, unvaccinated, unvaccinated-recovered), while keeping all other information constant. We observed that people hold the unvaccinated (vs vaccinated) more responsible for negative pandemic outcomes and that political ideology moderated these effects: liberals (vs conservatives) were more likely to scapegoat the unvaccinated (vs vaccinated), even when presented with information challenging the culpability of the unvaccinated known at the time of data collection (eg, natural immunity, availability of vaccines, time since last vaccination). These findings support a scapegoating explanation for a specific group-based prejudice that emerged during the C19 pandemic. We encourage medical ethicists to examine the negative consequences of significant C19 risk overestimation among the public. The public needs accurate information about health issues. That may involve combating misinformation that overestimates and underestimates disease risk with similar vigilance to error.

Healthy citizens, healthy democracies? A review of the literature

A growing literature over the past 10 years on health and political behavior has established health status as an important source of political inequality. Poor health reduces psychological engagement with politics and discourages political activity. This lowers incentives for governments to respond to the needs of those experiencing ill health and thereby perpetuates health disparities. In this review article, we provide a critical synthesis of the state of knowledge on the links between different aspects of health and political behavior. We also discuss the challenges confronting this research agenda, particularly with respect to measurement, theory, and establishing causality, along with suggestions for advancing the field. With the COVID-19 pandemic casting health disparities into sharp focus, understanding the sources of health biases in the political process, as well as their implications, is an important task that can bring us closer to the ideals of inclusive democracy.

The influence of gain-loss framing and its interaction with political ideology on social distancing and mask wearing compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused millions of cases and over half a million deaths in the United States. While health experts urge citizens to adopt preventative measures such as social distancing and wearing a mask, these recommended behaviors are not always followed by the public. To find a way to promote preventative measures, the present study examined the role of gain-loss framing of COVID-19 related messages on social distancing and mask wearing compliance. Moreover, the study also tested potential moderating effects on framing with three individual characteristics: political ideology, subjective numeracy, and risk attitude. A sample of 375 U.S. adult residents were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk. Each participant read either a gain or loss-framed message related to practicing protective behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants also completed scales of preventative behaviors, risk attitude, subjective numeracy, political ideology, and other demographic variables. It was found that those who were more liberal, risk-averse and had greater subjective numeracy were more likely to wear a mask and/or follow social distancing. Furthermore, in the presence of demographic and psychological factors, the study found participants in the loss-framed condition than in the gain-framed condition were more likely to adopt both preventative measures, supporting the notion of loss aversion. Additionally, the framing effect was also moderated by political ideology on mask-wearing, with the effect being stronger in liberals than in conservatives. Collectively, the study implies message framing may be a useful means to promote preventative measures in the current pandemic.

Who wears the face mask? Preventive measures against COVID-19 in Latin America before vaccination.

OBJECTIVES: We analyze the profile of adults who used a mask in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America, between October and November 2020, right before the mass vaccination campaigns. STUDY DESIGN: Based on the Latinobarometer 2020 data, we assess the individual, regional, cultural and political factors of people who used a mask in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in 18 countries of Latin America. METHODS: We applied a logistic regression to model the probability of using the mask regularly to avoid being infected with the COVID-19 virus. RESULTS: Women, older people, those with higher education, those being employed and not working in temporarily jobs, retirees, students, people with a centrist political ideology, and Catholics had a higher chance of using a face mask on a regular basis. People living in Venezuela, Chile, Costa Rica and Brazil were the most likely to use face masks. CONCLUSION: These results highlight the need to understand the social forces behind the willingness to adopt non-pharmacological preventive measures to make them more effective in health crisis emergencies.

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.

Dual Evolutionary Foundations of Political Ideology Predict Divergent Responses to COVID-19

Political conservatives' opposition to COVID-19 restrictions is puzzling given the well-documented links between conservatism and conformity, threat sensitivity, and pathogen aversion. We propose a resolution based on the Dual Foundations Theory of ideology, which holds that ideology comprises two dimensions, one reflecting trade-offs between threat-driven conformity and individualism, and another reflecting trade-offs between empathy-driven cooperation and competition. We test predictions derived from this theory in a UK sample using individuals' responses to COVID-19 and widely-used measures of the two dimensions - 'right-wing authoritarianism' (RWA) and 'social dominance orientation' (SDO), respectively. Consistent with our predictions, we show that RWA, but not SDO, increased following the pandemic and that high-RWA conservatives do display more concerned, conformist, pro-lockdown attitudes, while high-SDO conservatives display less empathic, cooperative attitudes and are anti-lockdown. This helps explain paradoxical prior results and highlights how a focus on unidimensional ideology can mask divergent motives across the ideological landscape.

Support for COVID-19 mandatory vaccination in the United States: examining the role of cultural worldviews, risk-benefit perceptions, and trust in scientists

This study sets out to understand the role of cultural worldviews, risk perceptions, and trust in scientists in impacting U.S. participants' support for COVID-19 mandatory vaccination. Results from an online survey (N = 594) suggest that stronger individualistic and hierarchical worldviews are associated with more perceived COVID-19 vaccination risks, less perceived COVID-19 vaccination benefits, and lower support for COVID-19 mandatory vaccination. Perceived benefits mediate the impact of cultural worldviews on support for COVID-19 mandatory vaccination. Trust in scientists moderates the relationship between cultural worldviews and perceived benefits of COVID-19 vaccination. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Fake news mediate the relationship between sociopolitical factors and vaccination intent in Brazil

Vaccination hesitancy has become a central concern and is a barrier to overcoming the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) crisis. Studies have indicated that mis/disinformation plays a role on the attitudes and behaviours towards vaccination. However, further formal statistical models are required to investigate how fake news relates to vaccination intent and how they mediate the relationship between socioeconomic/political factors and vaccination intent. We studied a sample of 500 Brazilians and found that people were mostly not susceptible to vaccine mis/disinformation. In addition, we found that their vaccination intent was high. However, suspicions that fake news could be true raised doubts over the vaccination intention. Although age and political orientation directly influenced vaccination intent, we found that the relationship between socioeconomic/political factors and vaccination intent was strongly mediated by belief in fake news. Our results raise the need to create multiple strategies to combat the dissemination and acceptance of such content. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Parochial Altruism and Political Ideology

Parochial altruism refers to the propensity to direct prosocial behavior toward members of one's own ingroup to a greater extent than toward those outside one's group. Both theory and empirical research suggest that parochialism may be linked to political ideology, with conservatives more likely than liberals to exhibit ingroup bias in altruistic behavior. The present study, conducted in the United States and Italy, tested this relationship in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic, assessing willingness to contribute money to charities at different levels of inclusiveness—local versus national versus international. Results indicated that conservatives contributed less money overall and were more likely to limit their contribution to the local charity while liberals were significantly more likely to contribute to national and international charities, exhibiting less parochialism. Conservatives and liberals also differed in social identification and trust, with conservatives higher in social identity and trust at the local and national levels and liberals higher in global social identity and trust in global others. Differences in global social identity partially accounted for the effects of political ideology on donations.

Race and Ideology in a Pandemic: White Privilege and Patterns of Risk Perception during COVID-19

Drawing on a unique survey dataset of Californians collected during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, this article examines how race and ideology shape perceptions of risk. Specifically, we position the pandemic as an "unsettled time" (Swidler 1986) and examine how different racialized groups made sense of the economic and health risks posed during this unprecedented period. We find that even when accounting for economic precarity and potential exposure to COVID-19, as well as for various other measures of social status, racialized minorities felt significantly more threatened by COVID-19 than did whites. Religion and political ideology mediated this relationship to some degree, but the racialized differences were substantial. Indeed, we find that even the most liberal whites reported being significantly less concerned about some COVID-19 risks than the most politically conservative of our Latinx and Black respondents. By linking the literature on race and racial stratification with research on risk and culture, we argue that whiteness facilitates a cognitive insulating effect vis-à-vis COVID-19 risks. We discuss the theoretical implications of our findings and conclude by highlighting the enduring importance of racialization, including various manifestations of white privilege, when assessing the social and cultural realities of crises on the ground. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Social Problems is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Political ideology and differences in seeking COVID-19 information on the internet: examining the comprehensive model of information seeking

Purpose: Guided by the Comprehensive Model of Information Seeking (CMIS), this article identifies significant predictors that impact individuals seeking COVID-19 information. People with different political ideologies read contradictory information about the COVID-19 pandemic. However, how political ideology may affect COVID-19 information seeking remains unclear. This study explores the major information channels for individuals with different political ideologies to seek COVID-19 information. It further examines how political ideologies influence CMIS's effectiveness in predicting online health information-seeking. Design/methodology/approach: This study collected 394 completed survey responses from adults living in the United States after the 2020 lockdown. ANOVA analyses revealed the differences in salience, beliefs, information carrier characteristics, utilities and information-seeking actions between Liberals and Conservatives. Regression analyses discovered variables that predict Liberals' and Conservatives' online health information seeking. Findings: Results suggest that the internet is the top channel for COVID-19 information seeking. Compared to Conservatives, Liberals report more COVID-19 information-seeking actions. Liberals also express stronger salience, perceive higher trustworthiness of online COVID-19 information, are more likely to think of seeking online COVID-19 information as useful and helpful and report more substantial efficacy to mitigate the risk. Most CMIS variables predict Liberals' information seeking;however, only salience significantly predicts Conservatives' information seeking. Originality/value: This article indicates that CMIS should include political ideology to refine its prediction of information seeking. These findings offer practical implications for designing health messages, enhancing information distribution and reducing the public's uncertainty. Peer review: The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-08-2022-0436. © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited.

"I feel it in my gut:" Epistemic Motivations, Political Beliefs, and Misperceptions of COVID-19 and the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election.

This project examines the intersection of political constructs and epistemic motivations as they relate to belief in misinformation. How we value the origins of knowledge - through feelings and intuition or evidence and data - has important implications for our susceptibility to misinformation. This project explores how these epistemic motivations correlate with political ideology, party identification, and favorability towards President Trump, and how epistemic and political constructs predict belief in misinformation about COVID and the 2020 election. Results from a US national survey from Nov-Dec 2020 illustrate that Republicans, conservatives, and those favorable towards President Trump held greater misperceptions about COVID and the 2020 election. Additionally, epistemic motivations were associated with political preferences; Republicans and conservatives were more likely to reject evidence, and Trump supporters more likely to value feelings and intuition. Mediation analyses support the proposition that Trump favorability, Republicanism, and conservatism may help account for the relationships between epistemic motivations and misperceptions. Results are discussed in terms of the messaging strategies of right-wing populist movements, and the implications for democracy and public health.

Support for bigger government: The principle-implementation gap and COVID-19.

We study the COVID-19 pandemic's effect on government and market attitudes using within-subject comparisons of survey responses elicited before and after the onset of the pandemic. We find that participants develop significantly less favorable opinions toward government and markets; and that participants increase support for bigger government significantly and for redistribution, in general, marginally significantly. There is no evidence this leads to an increase in support for specific redistributive policies, nor for government to play a larger role in specific functions. Our results echo the stubbornness of American preferences for redistribution and suggest the presence of a principle-implementation gap.

Political Ideology and Trust in Government to Ensure Vaccine Safety: Using a U.S. Survey to Explore the Role of Political Trust.

Since early 2020, the rapid expansion of COVID-19 has raised concerns about vaccine safety and the government's handling of it. Particularly notable and concerning has been a growing number of people who oppose vaccines, as this opposition poses a threat to public health. Those for and against vaccination have become polarized along a political divide. Within this context, this study focuses on the role of political trust, exploring whether political ideology is associated with the perception that the government can ensure the safety of vaccines and whether there is a moderator that can alleviate the concerns of those who oppose the government's handling of vaccine safety on ideological grounds. This study relies on the 2021 U.S. General Social Survey (GSS) and employs an ordered probit method because the dependent variable is an ordered category. The ordered probit model includes a weight provided by the U.S. GSS to account for the population. The sample size was 473 because of the inclusion of all the variables relevant to this study. The results obtained are as follows: First, conservatives associate negatively with support for the government's handling of vaccine safety. Second, more importantly, conservatives exhibit a higher trust level toward the government to ensure vaccine safety if their level of political trust increases. The results point to important implications. Political ideology matters in how individuals view the government's handling of vaccine safety. Political trust plays a key role in helping individuals alter their views toward the government's handling of vaccine safety. This points to a need for the government to take political trust seriously and work hard to improve the public's trust in the government.

Not All Conservatives Are Vaccine Hesitant: Examining the Influence of Misinformation Exposure, Political Ideology, and Flu Vaccine Acceptance on COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy.

Despite the mass availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, many Americans are still reluctant to take a vaccine as an outcome from exposure to misinformation. Additionally, while scholars have paid attention to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, the influence of general vaccine hesitancy for important viruses such as the flu has largely been ignored. Using nationally representative data from Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel survey (Wave 79), this study examined the relationship between perceived misinformation exposure, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, flu vaccine acceptance, political ideology, and demographic trends. The findings suggest that those who accepted the flu vaccine were less likely to be COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant. In addition, moderation analyses showed that perceived misinformation exposure increases COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy for conservatives and moderates but not for liberals. However, perceived misinformation exposure influences COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among conservatives only if they are also flu vaccine-hesitant. Perceived misinformation exposure has no role in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy if individuals (irrespective of political ideology) are regular with their flu vaccine. The results suggest that the effect of misinformation exposure on negative attitudes toward COVID-19 may be associated with generalized vaccine hesitancy (e.g., flu). The practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

Political ideology and generosity around the globe.

In a world severely put under stress by COVID-19, generosity becomes increasingly essential both when able to transcend local boundaries, building upon universalistic values, and when directed toward more local contexts, such as the native country. This study aims to investigate an underresearched determinant of generosity at these two levels, a factor that captures one's beliefs, values, and opinions about society: political ideology. We study the donation decisions of more than 46,000 participants from 68 countries in a task with the possibility of donating to a national charity and an international one. We test whether more left-leaning individuals display higher generosity in general (H1) and toward international charities (H2). We also examine the association between political ideology and national generosity without hypothesizing any direction. We find that more left-leaning individuals are more likely to donate in general and more likely to be generous internationally. We also observe that more right-leaning individuals are more likely to donate nationally. These results are robust to the inclusion of several controls. In addition, we address a relevant source of cross-country variation, the quality of governance, which is found to have significant informative power in explaining the relationship between political ideology and the different types of generosity. Potential mechanisms underlying the resulting behaviors are discussed.

Understanding underlying moral values and language use of COVID-19 vaccine attitudes on twitter.

Public sentiment toward the COVID-19 vaccine as expressed on social media can interfere with communication by public health agencies on the importance of getting vaccinated. We investigated Twitter data to understand differences in sentiment, moral values, and language use between political ideologies on the COVID-19 vaccine. We estimated political ideology, conducted a sentiment analysis, and guided by the tenets of moral foundations theory (MFT), we analyzed 262,267 English language tweets from the United States containing COVID-19 vaccine-related keywords between May 2020 and October 2021. We applied the Moral Foundations Dictionary and used topic modeling and Word2Vec to understand moral values and the context of words central to the discussion of the vaccine debate. A quadratic trend showed that extreme ideologies of both Liberals and Conservatives expressed a higher negative sentiment than Moderates, with Conservatives expressing more negative sentiment than Liberals. Compared to Conservative tweets, we found the expression of Liberal tweets to be rooted in a wider set of moral values, associated with moral foundations of care (getting the vaccine for protection), fairness (having access to the vaccine), liberty (related to the vaccine mandate), and authority (trusting the vaccine mandate imposed by the government). Conservative tweets were found to be associated with harm (around safety of the vaccine) and oppression (around the government mandate). Furthermore, political ideology was associated with the expression of different meanings for the same words, e.g. "science" and "death." Our results inform public health outreach communication strategies to best tailor vaccine information to different groups.

Democrats and independents stigmatize people with COVID-19 greater compared to Republicans.

Messaging about COVID-19 was different across the political spectrum, which influenced differences in attitudes surrounding COVID-19. This study examined the political affiliation/ideology on COVID-19 stigma (blame, deservingness of help, negative emotionality) and two mediators of this relationship: conspiracy beliefs and anxiety about COVID-19. Participants answered questions about their political affiliation and ideology, attitudes toward people who have contracted COVID-19; and COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and anxiety. Democrats and Independents indirectly stigmatized people with COVID-19 via increased COVID-19 anxiety and fewer COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs relative to Republicans. Politicization can strongly impact stigma, and messaging could be harnessed as a stigma reduction tool.