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.

Social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and political attitudes toward governmental performance during the COVID-19 pandemic

This research examined the association of social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) with the evaluations of the government's anti-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) policies and performance. In Study 1 (N = 261), we found that SDO and RWA were positively associated with resistance to criticism about the government's anti-COVID-19 measures. In addition, SDO was positively associated with favorable evaluations of the government's performance in handling the crisis. Support for lockdown policies mediated these attitudes. In Study 2 (N = 438), the results show that SDO and RWA had indirect associations with beliefs in the superiority of China's political system through three mediation variables. Evaluations of the US government's performance in handling the COVID-19 pandemic were negatively associated with beliefs in the superiority of China's political system, and there was a negative relationship between evaluations of the Chinese and US governments' performances. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Is the myth of left-wing authoritarianism itself a myth?

Is left-wing authoritarianism (LWA) closer to a myth or a reality? Twelve studies test the empirical existence and theoretical relevance of LWA. Study 1 reveals that both conservative and liberal Americans identify a large number of left-wing authoritarians in their lives. In Study 2, participants explicitly rate items from a recently-developed LWA measure as valid measurements of authoritarianism. Studies 3-11 show that persons who score high on this same LWA scale possess the traits associated with models of authoritarianism: LWA is positively related to threat sensitivity across multiple areas, including general ecological threats (Study 3), COVID disease threat (Study 4), Belief in a Dangerous World (Study 5), and Trump threat (Study 6). Further, high-LWA persons show more support for restrictive political correctness norms (Study 7), rate African-Americans and Jews more negatively (Studies 8-9), and show more cognitive rigidity (Studies 10 and 11). These effects hold when controlling for political ideology and when looking only within liberals, and further are similar in magnitude to comparable effects for right-wing authoritarianism. Study 12 uses the World Values Survey to provide cross-cultural evidence of Left-Wing Authoritarianism around the globe. Taken in total, this large array of triangulating evidence from 12 studies comprised of over 8,000 participants from the U.S. and over 66,000 participants world-wide strongly suggests that left-wing authoritarianism is much closer to a reality than a myth.

Violent Assault on a Chinese Man: COVID-19 Psychosocial Resource Loss Diminishes Right Wing Authoritarianism Variability in Societal Reactions.

We examined whether prejudice-related personality characteristics (i.e., right wing authoritarianism [RWA]) and COVID-19-driven psychological resource loss might predict perpetrator-directed punitive responding (i.e., support for criminal charges) to a COVID-19-related attack on a Chinese victim by a White male. Across two studies, participants completed an RWA measure and reported the extent they had experienced COVID-19-related psychosocial resource loss. They then read a passage describing the COVID-19-related physical assault. For both studies, at low resource loss levels, low RWA participants reported greater punitive responding toward the perpetrator than high RWA participants. This RWA-punitive responding association was mediated by greater victim-directed suffering sensitivity (i.e., empathy) for Study 1 and greater anti-perpetrator reactions (i.e., hate crime perceptions) for Study 2. The RWA association with the relevant outcome variables (i.e., suffering sensitivity, anti-perpetrator bias, and punitive responding) was eliminated at high psychological resource loss levels. Specifically, low and high RWA participants reported similar reactions. While previous research has demonstrated that high RWA individuals tend to report greater outgroup-directed prejudicial responses due to COVID-19-driven perceptions of threat, our findings demonstrate that the COVID-19 pandemic can also elicit feelings of resource loss that can diminish the egalitarian reactions typically reported by low RWA individuals. In sum, we demonstrate that experiencing difficult life circumstances such as COVID-19 psychosocial resource loss can diminish supportive reactions toward victimized minority group members even among low RWA participants who are typically expected to be more sensitive to the struggles of those who are disadvantaged.

The role of the COVID-19 impersonal threat strengthening the associations of right-wing attitudes, nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiments.

Literature showed that the link between right-wing attitudes and ethnocentric attitudes gets stronger under existential threats, but the role exerted by an impersonal threat - as COVID-19 - on right-wing attitudes is still unclear. This study aimed to highlight the role of anxiety exerted by the impersonal COVID-19 threat on the relationship between right-wing attitudes and ethnocentric attitudes, as nationalism and anti-immigrants' sentiments. As part of an international project to evaluate the impact of COVID-19, this study administered an online survey to a representative sample (n 1038). The anxiety generated by an impersonal threat as COVID-19 - thus not exerted by any outgroup - can moderate the relationship among personal Right-Wing Authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and ethnocentric attitudes. This is the first study demonstrating that existential threat is effective also when exerted by an impersonal agent (as COVID-19) rather than by an outgroup. Second, these findings disclose useful implications for preventive psychological interventions and for social policy makers. Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-023-04305-w.

Attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine mandate: The role of psychological characteristics and partisan self-identification.

Governments around the world are increasingly considering vaccine mandates to curb the spread of COVID-19. In May 2022, we surveyed 394 residents of South Dakota to examine predictors of popular attitudes toward a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. We investigated the role of Big Five personality traits, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation, as well as partisan self-identification, evangelical identity, and COVID-19 vaccination status. Results showed that Big Five personality traits (openness and emotional stability), right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, evangelical identity, and partisan self-identification are linked to attitudes toward a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Our findings underscore the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the impact of dispositional factors on attitudes toward mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.

Politics of COVID-19 vaccine mandates: Left/right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and libertarianism.

Mandatory and punitive vaccination policies, such as requiring vaccination certificates for public activities and firing employees who refuse vaccination, have raised considerable objections. With a sample of U.S. crowdsourced workers (N = 983), this study investigates how four ideologies-left-wing authoritarianism (LWA), right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), and libertarianism-explain vaccine acceptance and attitudes toward vaccine policies. Results show that LWA predicts higher vaccine acceptance and support for COVID-19 vaccine mandates and the punishment of unvaccinated individuals, whereas libertarianism and RWA show negative relationships. SDO is linked to opposition to vaccine mandates. This study underscores the role of specific ideological components in shaping attitudes toward vaccine policies while also contributing to the arguments that LWA and libertarianism have important implications for studying sociopolitical attitudes.

Different Conspiracy Theories Have Different Psychological and Social Determinants: Comparison of Three Theories About the Origins of the COVID-19 Virus in a Representative Sample of the UK Population

COVID-19 conspiracy theories have proliferated during the global pandemic, and their rapid spread among certain groups may jeopardize the public health response (e.g., undermining motivation to engage in social distancing and willingness to vaccinate against the virus). Using survey data from two waves of a nationally representative, longitudinal study of life in lockdown in the United Kingdom (N = 1,406), we analyze the factors associated with belief in three origin theories related to COVID-19, namely that it 1) originated in a meat market in Wuhan, China;2) was developed in a lab in Wuhan, China;and 3) is caused by 5G mobile networks. Our findings suggest that political-psychological predispositions are strongly associated with belief in conspiracy theories about the virus, though the direction and effect sizes of these predictors vary depending on the specific content of each origin theory. For instance, belief in the Chinese lab conspiracy theory is strongly associated with right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), and general conspiracy ideation, as well as less reliable news sources, distrust in scientists, and anxiety about the pandemic. Belief in the 5G network conspiracy theory is strongly associated with SDO, distrust in scientists, while less strongly with conspiracy ideation and information from social networks/media;RWA is strongly negatively associated with belief in the 5G conspiracy theory, with older and more wealthy individuals somewhat less likely to endorse it. The meat market origin theory is predicted by intolerance of uncertainty, ethnocentrism, COVID-19 anxiety, and less so by higher income, while distrust in scientists is negatively associated with this origin story. Finally, belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories is associated with negative public health behaviors such as unwillingness to social distance and vaccinate against the virus. Crucially, our findings suggest that the specific content of COVID-19 conspiracy theories likely determines which individuals may be most likely to endorse them. Copyright © 2021 Hartman, Marshall, Stocks, McKay, Bennett, Butter, Gibson Miller, Hyland, Levita, Martinez, Mason, McBride, Murphy, Shevlin, Vallières and Bentall.

Bringing Us Closer Together: The Influence of National Identity and Political Orientation on COVID-19-Related Behavioral Intentions.

A growing body of work has highlighted the importance of political beliefs and attitudes in predicting endorsement and engagement in prosocial behavior. Individuals with right-wing political orientation are less likely to behave prosocially than their left-wing counterparts due to high levels of Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). Here, we aimed to extend prior work by testing how political values relate to COVID-19 discretionary behavioral intentions (i.e., prosocial and non-mandatory behaviors aimed at controlling the spread of the pandemic). Furthermore, we tested whether identification with the national group would influence the relationship between RWA and prosocial behavior. A cross-sectional study conducted on 350 Italian participants showed that right-wing political orientation had a negative effect on COVID-19 discretionary behavioral intentions via RWA. Furthermore, a moderated mediation model revealed that this effect was only significant for participants who are lowly identified with the national group. The results suggest that highlighting group belongingness might effectively motivate more conservative individuals to engage in prosocial behavior.

Give me liberty or give me COVID-19: How social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and libertarianism explain Americans' reactions to COVID-19.

While previous research has revealed an ideological divide in Americans' perceptions of COVID-19, specific ideological components can additionally explain public reactions to the pandemic. With two surveys-one sample of crowdsourced workers (N = 482) and a nationally representative sample of American adults (N = 7449)-this research investigates how multiple ideological facets simultaneously predict individuals' reactions to COVID-19. Results demonstrate that social dominance orientation and libertarianism are two important ideological sources that predict more dismissal of COVID-19 and less support for government measures. Right-wing authoritarianism was negatively correlated with COVID-19 concern and support for government actions, but suppression effects could exist. The effects of ideological variables were largely consistent when trust in science was considered. This study highlights the role of specific ideological components in contributing to the political divide regarding attitudes toward the COVID-19 pandemic beyond the liberal-conservative identification.

Barriers and facilitators of willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19: Role of prosociality, authoritarianism and conspiracy mentality. A four-wave longitudinal study.

AIM: We investigated longitudinal relations between individual willingness to undergo vaccination against COVID-19 and three social factors: conspiracy mentality, prosociality, and authoritarianism. METHOD: This longitudinal study comprised four measurement points. The first wave sample included 1130 responses and was representative of the Polish population in terms of gender, age, and place of residence. Analyses were performed using random intercept cross-lagged panel models. RESULTS: We observed bidirectional positive cross-lagged relationships between prosociality and willingness to undergo vaccination in the first three waves of measurement. Authoritarianism and conspiracy mentality translated into a lower willingness to vaccinate between the third and fourth points of measurement when the vaccination became a near-term possibility. CONCLUSIONS: Eliciting prosocial motivation to vaccinate can be paramount in overcoming vaccine hesitancy. Because conspiracy thinking may be a crucial barrier to willingness to be vaccinated, it is critical to focus on planning interventions and campaigns undermining conspiracy theories about COVID-19.

Negative Affectivity, Authoritarianism, and Anxiety of Infection Explain Early Maladjusted Behavior During the COVID-19 Outbreak.

During the first phase of the COVID-19 outbreak, Italy experienced problems of public order and maladjusted behavior. This study assessed the role of negative affectivity, right-wing authoritarianism, and anxiety of COVID-19 infection in explaining a variety of the maladjusted behaviors (i.e., "China-phobic" discrimination, panic buying) observed with an Italian sample. Specifically, we examined the effect of Negative Affectivity and Right-Wing Authoritarianism on maladjusted behaviors, and the moderating role of anxiety of infection. Seven hundred and fifty-seven Italian participants completed an online survey between March 3rd to the 7th 2020, which was immediately before the lockdown. A moderated-mediation model was tested using a structural equation modeling approach. Results indicated that both Negative Affectivity and Right-Wing Authoritarianism were positively associated with COVID-19-related maladjusted behavior, and that Right-Wing Authoritarianism mediated the relationship between Negative Affectivity and maladjusted behavior. Furthermore, the effect of Right-Wing Authoritarianism on maladjusted behavior was greater for those with high anxiety of infection, and the indirect effect of Negative Affectivity on maladjusted behavior through Right-Wing Authoritarianism was moderated by infection anxiety. Findings highlight potential psychological paths that may inform communication strategies and public health initiatives aimed at promoting healthy behavior during an outbreak.

The role of ideological attitudes in responses to COVID-19 threat and government restrictions in Australia.

Many government strategies to reduce the spread of Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) involved unprecedented restrictions on personal movement, disrupting social and economic norms. Although generally well-received in Australia, community frustration regarding these restrictions appeared to diverge across political lines. Therefore, we examined the unique effects of the ideological subfactors of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA; Aggression, Submission and Conventionalism) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO; Dominance and Anti-egalitarianism) in predicting perceived personal threat of COVID-19, and support for and reactance to government restrictions, in Australian residents across two separate samples (S1 N = 451, S2 N = 838). COVID-19 threat was positively predicted by Submission, and negatively by Conventionalism, and Anti-egalitarianism. Support for restrictions was also positively predicted by Submission, and negatively by Conventionalism, Dominance, and Anti-egalitarianism. Reactance to government restrictions was negatively predicted by Submission, and positively by Conventionalism, Dominance, and Anti-egalitarianism. These findings suggest that right-wing ideological subfactors contribute to the one's perception of COVID-19 threat and government restrictions differentially.

Right-wing Authoritarianism, Left-wing Authoritarianism, and pandemic-mitigation authoritarianism.

Recent research suggests the validity of the construct of Left-wing Authoritarianism (LWA). Like its well-studied parallel construct Right-wing Authoritarianism, LWA is characterized by dogmatism, punitive attitudes toward dissenters, and desire for strong authority figures. In contrast to RWA, LWA mobilizes these traits on behalf of left-wing values (e.g. anti-racism, anti-sexism, and wealth redistribution). I inductively examined the extent to which RWA and LWA predicted, in April 2020, Americans' endorsement of 19 authoritarian policies and practices intended to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. For 11 of these policies (e.g. abrogating the right to trial by jury for pandemic-related crimes), both RWA and LWA independently positively predicted endorsement. These findings are consistent with recent work showing psychological similarities between the two constructs.