Stronger than partisanship and motivated reasoning: news exposure and news frames predicting US state-level preventive behaviours against COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has become a partisan issue rather than an independent public health issue in the US. This study examined the behavioural consequences of motivated reasoning and framing by investigating the impacts of COVID-19 news exposure and news frames, as apparent through a Latent Dirichlet topic modelling analysis of local news coverage, on state-level preventive behaviours as understood through a nationally representative survey. Findings suggested that the media effects on various preventive behaviours differed. The overall exposure rate to all COVID-19 news articles increased mask-wearing but did not significantly impact other preventive behaviours. Four news frames significantly increased avoiding contact or avoiding public or crowded places. However, news articles discussing anxiety and stay at home order triggered resistance and countereffects and led to risky behaviours. ‘Solid Republican' state residents were less likely to avoid contact, avoid public or crowded places, and wear masks. However, partisan leanings did not interfere with the impact of differing local COVID-19 news frames on reported preventive behaviours. Plus, statements regarding pre-existing trust in Trump did not correlate with reported preventive behaviour. Attention to effect sizes revealed that news exposure and news frames could have a bigger impact on health behaviours than motivated reasoning.

In different worlds: The contributions of polarization and platforms to partisan (mis)perceptions

Partisanship, polarization, and platforms are foundational to how people perceive contentious issues. Using a probability sample (n = 825), we examine these factors in tandem across four political claims concerning US presidential elections and the COVID-19 pandemic. We find Democrats and Republicans differ in their belief in true and false claims, with each party believing more in pro-attitudinal claims than in counter-attitudinal claims. These results are especially pronounced for affectively polarized partisans. We also find interactions between partisanship and platform use where Republicans who use Google or Twitter are more likely to believe in false claims about COVID-19 than Republicans who do not use these platforms. Our findings highlight that Americans' beliefs in political claims are associated with their political identity through both partisanship and polarization, and the use of search and social platforms appears critical to these relationships. These findings have implications for understanding why realities are malleable to voter preferences in liberal democracies. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of New Media & Society is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. 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 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 . (Copyright applies to all s.)

A Qualitative Study of the Politicization of COVID-19 through Political Memes in Canada

Memes are a curious object of study, easy to identify but harder to contextualize. Working with the growing literature on the study of memes and their communities, our paper offers a method to study the shared values or stories worked out and maintained by memes that Whitney Phillip and Ryan Milner describe as a "deep memetic frames." Our interest is less on the individual memes then how memes accumulate and help communities express their own ways of interpreting events. One of these events has been the COVID-19 pandemic. We developed our method while studying how Canadian partisan groups - or what we call scenes - reacted to the pandemic. Was the pandemic a chance for partisans to make peace or recontextualize politics over a health crisis? Through researcher journals, team meetings, and observational notes, we evaluated the use of memes across 14 Canadian partisan communities on Facebook and Instagram during the 2020 summer of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Our approach extracts three distinct partisan scenes: established partisan, negative partisan, and emergent right-wing populism. We focus on their memetic contexts to evaluate the central themes of understanding, extract the worldviews that maintain these digital spaces, and construct a deeper comprehension of memetic frames. As a term widely used but challenging to study, we recognize this research as a novel approach and conclude by discussing its utility for researchers more broadly and acknowledging its limitations while providing the various research directions this work offers.

Does partisan media make a pawn of mistrust? Institutional trust and preventive covid-19 health behaviors in a polarized pandemic

In a rapidly developing crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic, people are often faced with contradictory or changing information and must determine what sources to trust. Across five time points (N = 5902) we examine how trust in various sources predicts COVID-19 health behaviors. Trust in experts and national news predicted more engagement with most health behaviors from April 2020 to March 2022 and trust in Fox news, which often positioned itself as counter to the mainstream on COVID-19, predicted less engagement. However, we also examined a particular public health behavior (masking) before and after the CDC announcement recommending masks on 3 April 2020 (which reversed earlier expert advice discouraging masks for the general public). Prior to the announcement, trust in experts predicted less mask-wearing while trust in Fox News predicted more. These relationships disappeared in the next 4 days following the announcement and reversed in the 2 years that follow, and emerged for vaccination in the later time points. We also examine how the media trusted by Democrats and Republicans predicts trust in experts and in turn health behaviors. Broadly we consider how the increasingly fragmented epistemic environment has implications for polarization on matters of public health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Partisanship, Religion, and Social Class: Attitudes and Behaviors in the Early Stages of the Covid-19 Pandemic

This article investigates differences in health precautions taken during the pandemic and the degree to which individuals had faith in the governments' response to Covid-19 in the early stages of the pandemic. Using a sample designed to be nationally representative as well as representative of three lockdown zones, we Pnd that local social-distancing policies, social class, religion, and political partisanship all iniuenced how Indonesians experienced the pandemic and their perceptions of the governments' response. We found that fear levels and pandemic behavior are associated with religion as well as economic status. Fear levels are much higher among lowest-paid Indonesians and among Muslims outside of the capital city Jakarta, while non-Muslims reported greater levels of precaution-taking measures. Though among Islamic parties'voters, the difference is less pronounced, there are notable partisan differences as stronger predictors of attitude and behavior during the pandemic where there have been coniicts between local and national health authorities.

The Mediating Role of Depression in the Relationship Between News Consumption and Interparty Hostility During Covid-19

This article examines the association between different kinds of news consumption and interparty hostility and how this relationship is mediated by individuals' levels of depression during the Covid-19 pandemic. In a study conducted in the United States, we found a significant correlation between consumption of news and feelings of depression that was mediated by political ideology: Conservatives who consume news from CNN, MSNBC, national network TV news, and social media reported higher levels of depressive symptoms than did Liberals. Depressive symptoms, in turn, were associated with increased hatred and intolerance toward ordinary members of a political out-group. We show that depression, catalyzed by news consumption, is a fundamental factor that could explain the implications of the Covid-19 pandemic for levels of animosity among ideological groups.

Physician Trust in the News Media and Attitudes toward COVID-19.

CONTEXT: Previous research has established the importance of primary care physicians in communicating public health directives. The implicit assumption is that, because of their expertise, doctors provide accurate and up-to-date information to their patients, independent of partisan affiliation or media trust. METHODS: Using an online survey of 625 primary care physicians, this paper tests (1) whether physicians trust media outlets consistent with their partisanship and (2) whether trust in media outlets influences (a) personal concern someone in their family will get sick; (b) perceptions about the seriousness of the pandemic as portrayed in the media; and (c) trust in federal government agencies and scientists. FINDINGS: While physicians are better positioned to critically evaluate health-related news, they are subject to the same biases that influence public opinion. Physicians' partisan commitments influence media trust and media trust influences concern a family member will get sick, perceptions regarding the seriousness of the pandemic, and trust in federal government agencies and scientists. CONCLUSIONS: Physician trust in specific media outlets shapes their understanding of the pandemic and- to the extent that they trust conservative media outlets-may limit their effectiveness as health policy messengers.

The Death of Law

This is a talk about the decline and fall of constitutional law, an overarching characteristic of the new millennium. I focus on the period from the end of the Cold War—once described as the end of history—to what I call the "Second Cold War” beginning in the second decade of this century and having escalated in the proxy war in Ukraine. The Second Cold War is also characterized by an aborted cooptation of China through the World Trade Organization (to tame China's seemingly unstoppable ascension to global supremacy) as well as a state of permanent emergency.

Politics, not Vulnerability: Republicans Discriminated against Chinese-born Americans throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic

Asian Americans became targets of increasingly hostile behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. What motivated this? Fears of contagion arising from a behavioral immune system may have motivated hostility toward Asian Americans, especially among those Americans vulnerable to COVID-19. Additionally, stigmatizing rhetoric from right-wing figures may have legitimated anti-Asian behavior among those Americans who held stronger anti-Asian sentiments to begin with or who were more receptive to right-wing rhetoric. We explore these possibilities using a behavioral game with a representative sample of Americans at two points: in May and October 2020. Participants were partnered with a U.S.- or Chinese-born American in a give-or-take dictator game. The average American discriminated against Chinese-born Americans in May but not October 2020, when China was no longer a COVID-19 hotspot. But among Republicans, who may have held stronger anti-Asian sentiments to begin with and who were likely more receptive to right-wing rhetoric, discrimination - that is, differential treatment - was both stronger in May compared to non-Republicans and persisted into October 2020. Notably, Americans who were more vulnerable to COVID-19 were not especially likely to discriminate. © New York University in Abu Dhabi Corporation - Abu Dhabi, 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Race, Ethnicity, and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association.

Using General Messages to Persuade on a Politicized Scientific Issue

Politics and science have become increasingly intertwined. Salient scientific issues, such as climate change, evolution, and stem-cell research, become politicized, pitting partisans against one another. This creates a challenge of how to effectively communicate on such issues. Recent work emphasizes the need for tailored messages to specific groups. Here, we focus on whether generalized messages also can matter. We do so in the context of a highly polarized issue: extreme COVID-19 vaccine resistance. The results show that science-based, moral frame, and social norm messages move behavioral intentions, and do so by the same amount across the population (that is, homogeneous effects). Counter to common portrayals, the politicization of science does not preclude using broad messages that resonate with the entire population.

Accounting for partisanship and politicization: Employing Benford's Law to examine misreporting of COVID-19 infection cases and deaths in the United States

The unprecedented contagion of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, causative of COVID-19, has spawned watershed economic, social, ethical, and political upheaval—catalyzing severe polarization among the global populace. Ostensibly, to demonstrate the most appropriate path towards responding to the virus outbreak, public officials in the United States ("U.S.”), representing both Democratic and Republican parties, stand accused of unduly influencing COVID-19 records in their respective jurisdictions. This study investigates the role political partisanship may have played in decreasing the accuracy of publicly reported COVID-19 data in the U.S. Leveraging social identity theory, we contend that public officials may have manipulated the reporting records in accounting for COVID-19 infection cases and deaths to validate the effectiveness of political party objectives. We employ Benford's Law to assess misreporting and evaluate the integrity of county-level COVID-19 reporting data through the construction of four distinct political party classifications. Specifically, we cross the county voting majority for the 2016 presidential candidate for each U.S. state (Democratic and Republican) with the 2020 gubernatorial political party (Democratic and Republican) in which each county resides. For the sample period of January 21, 2020 through November 3, 2020 (Election Day), the study's results suggest that the reported COVID-19 infection cases and deaths in the U.S. violate Benford's Law in a manner consistent with underreporting. Our analysis reveals that Democratic counties demonstrate the smallest departures from Benford's Law while Republican counties demonstrate the greatest departures. © 2023 Elsevier Ltd

When wearing a mask is (not) the norm: Political partisanship and persuasion in the context of COVID-19

This study examined the effects of source partisanship and credentials on persuasion. Democrats and Republicans (N = 206) read a policy statement advocating for a national mask mandate, ostensibly written by either a doctor or layperson, associated either with the Democratic or Republican party. Participants' perceptions of the source and receptivity to the message aligned with their political party's normative position on the issue: Democrats rated the source as more competent and trustworthy, engaged in less counterarguing, and supported the policy more than Republicans. Although the doctor was trusted more than the layperson and Republicans (but not Democrats) attributed more trust and competence to an ingroup than an outgroup source, source characteristics had no effect on message receptivity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

The association of conspiracy beliefs and the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination: a cross-sectional study.

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed that health denialism might be an important determinant of adherence to preventive measures during epidemic challenges. Conspiracy beliefs seem to be one of the most visible manifestations of denialism in society. Despite intensive efforts to promote COVID-19 vaccinations, the number of citizens reluctant to get vaccinated was very large in many countries. The main aim of this study was the analysis of the association between the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccination and conspiracy beliefs among adult Internet users in Poland. The analysis was based on data from a survey performed on a sample of 2008 respondents in October 2021. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression models were applied to evaluate the association between attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination and generic conspiracist, vaccine-conspiracy, and COVID-19-related conspiracy beliefs. In the multivariable model, the effect of conspiracy beliefs was adjusted for the level of vaccine hesitancy, future anxiety, political sympathies, and socio-demographic variables. Univariate regression models showed that COVID-19 vaccination acceptance is significantly lower among respondents with higher levels of all three types of conspiracy beliefs. In the multivariable model, the effect of COVID-19-related and vaccine conspiracy beliefs, but not generic conspiracist beliefs, was maintained after adjusting for vaccine hesitancy. We conclude that conspiracy beliefs should be treated as a potential indicator of lower adherence to preventive measures during epidemic challenges. The respondents revealing a high level of conspirational thinking are a potential group for intensified actions which employ health educational and motivational interventions.

COVID-19 and the Culture of American Federalism

COVID-19 highlighted America's federalist structure as the dissemination of pandemic information was frequently left to states and localities. For some citizens, this was a welcome relief from national-level policymaking and political narratives, though others argued that the federal government was failing to live up to its obligations. We identify three reasons for variation in Americans' trust in information from different levels of government: partisanship, ideology, and state identity. Using data from a representative online survey of more than one thousand people, we demonstrate that each individual characteristic shaped respondents' trust in leaders to provide pandemic information. Partisanship and ideology played major roles in information trust at both the national and state level, but individuals' psychological attachment to their state and to the nation also shaped their trust in the federated information environment.

COVID-19 News bias and selective exposure in Brazilian TV news during the COVID-19 pandemic

The article investigates the occurrence of selective exposure in Brazil, in view of the frequency with which Brazilians said they sought information about the COVID-19 pandemic in the Jornal Nacional and Jornal da Record. It uses data from a content analysis of the coverage of these vehicles in 2020 and data from a national public opinion survey. The analyses showed that partisanship and religion were important predictors of the consumption of news of these vehicles. Evangelicals and supporters of the "Bolsonaro party” were the most assiduous viewers of Jornal da Record. Catholics, supporters of other subtitles and non-partisans consumed more the Jornal National. These results show that Brazilians consume news in line with their political convictions and that some groups may be receiving less information about COVID-19. © 2022,Opiniao Publica. All Rights Reserved.

Party preferences, individual views and mobility during the pandemic

What is the association between partisanship, individual views and behaviours towards the pandemic? This research note explores this question empirically using two datasets collected before and during the Covid-19 pandemic: a daily survey covering nearly 100,000 individuals and county level mobility matched to UK 2019 general election results. At the individual level, our findings show that partisanship is strongly correlated with differences in both views and behaviours. Conservative voters were less likely to perceive Covid-19 as dangerous and less likely to stay home during the national lockdown. At the county level, the effect of the national lockdown on mobility was negative and statistically significant only in less Conservative counties. Thus, partisanship is associated with different individual views and behaviours towards the pandemic even when there is broad consensus among the main political parties and the government about the nature of a public health problem and the appropriate policy response. © 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Political Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Consortium for Political Research.

A partisan pandemic: How COVID-19 was primed for polarization

Americans who affiliate with both major political parties rapidly formed diverging attitudes about the COVID-19 pandemic. Matters of scientific concern have elicited partisan reactions in the past, but partisan divergence of opinion on those issues occurred over decades rather than months. We review evidence on factors that led to polarization of previous scientific issues in an effort to explain why reactions diverged so quickly this time around. We then use publicly available survey data to reveal that partisan reactions to the pandemic were closely associated with trust in public health institutions, that the association between partisanship and trust increased over time, and that the conflation of trust and partisanship appears to largely explain polarized reactions to COVID-19. We also investigate the hypothesis that conservative media use might explain polarization but find that the hypothesis is not supported by our data. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Representative Voices: Native American Representation, Political Power, and COVID-19 in U.S. States

We examine predictors of COVID-19 cases in Native nations during the early months of the pandemic. We find that where Native American representation and Native American political power in state politics were greater, COVID-19 cases on tribal lands were fewer. We expand the literatures on descriptive representation and on tribal-state relations by demonstrating consequences of powerful Native American voices in the statehouse. We find that Native American voices on tribal lands are also vital. Tribal lands that had extensive networks of community-based health facilities and tribally controlled health facilities recorded fewer COVID-19 cases. The broader lesson here is that if Native nations are to protect their citizens, they need outside governments that support, not thwart. Our findings draw on unique, original quantitative analysis.

Open for Economic Activities during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Factors Related to State Reopening Policies in a Federal Policy Vacuum

What factors influence state governors to issue an executive order to reopen economic activities more or less quickly when removing the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions? Without comprehensive federal guidelines, state governors were faced with an administrative dilemma in devising mitigation policies that promoted safe public health measures while encouraging more business activity. Following the federal directive to reopen in April 2020, governors in all 50 states signed executive orders, but some waited longer than others. We argue that variation in the timing of the enactment of initial executive orders is influenced by political factors, financial resources factors, interstate factors, and problem severity of the public health incidence. Using an event history analysis, our Cox proportional hazard regression model suggests that states with unified Republican governments, more state funding obtained from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, and participation in regional collaboration resumed activities earlier compared to states with more neighbors that issued reopening executive orders and states with more per capita income. Results indicate that, in crisis situations, unified political partisanship, the receipt of federal funding, and coordination with other states facilitate rapid policy adoption.

Political Partisanship and Trust in Government Predict Popular Support for COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates for Various Professions and Demographic Groups: A Research Note

Due to the slow rate of COVID-19 vaccine uptake and the spread of the highly contagious Omicron variant, governments are considering mandating COVID-19 vaccination for specific professions and demographic groups. This study evaluates popular attitudes toward such policies. We fielded a survey of 535 registered voters in South Dakota to examine popular attitudes towards vaccine mandates for five groups—children 12 and older, K-12 teachers, medical staff, nursing homes staff, and police personnel. We estimated a series of logistic regression models and presented predicted probabilities to find the primary determinants of these attitudes. Results revealed that political partisanship and trust in government are strong predictors of support for vaccine mandates across all models. Should government and public health officials wish to increase the proportion of people vaccinated for COVID-19, they must recognize the limitations of current public health campaigns, and reshape their efforts in congruence with scientific findings.