Given research revealing conservatives are more sensitive to disease threat, it is curious that U.S. conservatives were less concerned than liberals with the COVID-19 pandemic. Across four studies that spanned almost ten months throughout the pandemic, we evaluated three potential reasons why conservatives were less concerned: (1) Motivated Political reasons (conservatives held COVID-specific political beliefs that motivated them to reduce concern), (2) Experiential reasons (conservatives were less directly affected by the outbreak than liberals), and (3) Conservative Messaging reasons (differential exposure to/trust in partisan conservative messaging). All four studies consistently showed evidence that political (and not experiential or partisan messaging) reasons more strongly mediated conservatives' lack of concern for COVID-19. Additional analyses further suggested that while they did not serve as strong mediators, experiential factors provided a boundary condition for the conservatism➔perceived threat relationship. These data on over 3000 participants are consistent with a new model of the ideology-disease outbreak interface that can be applied to both the ongoing pandemic and future disease outbreaks.
Given that much research suggests conservatives are more sensitive to disease threat, it is curious that conservatives in the U.S. seem less concerned than liberals with the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Across three studies totaling nearly 1,000 participants, we evaluated two different potential reasons why conservatives are less concerned: Experiential (conservatives are less directly affected by the outbreak than liberals) versus Political (conservatives hold COVID-specific political beliefs that make them motivated to reduce their concern). All three studies consistently showed evidence that motivated political (and not experiential) reasons more strongly underlie conservatives’ lack of concern for COVID-19. Whereas experience with (e.g., knowing people with symptoms) and impacts of (e.g., financial hardships resulting from COVID-19) the disease did not consistently mediate the conservatism-COVID concern relationship, COVID-specific Political Beliefs (e.g., opposition to government restrictions) did consistently mediate the key relationship. Pooled analyses further suggested that, while it did not strongly mediate the relationship, experience nonetheless provided a boundary condition for the conservatismperceived threat relationship: As experience/impacts with COVID-19 increased, ideology played less of a role in predicting perceived threat. Taken together, this evidence suggests that (1) conservatives’ lack of concern with the pandemic is not based in direct experience but rather motivated by desired political outcomes. However, it further suggests that (2) as experiences and impact of COVID-19 grow, the ideological effect on COVID-19 threat diminishes. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of this set of findings.
Researchers have long assumed that complex thinking is determined by both situational factors and stable, trait-based differences. However, although situational influences on complexity have been discussed at length in the literature, there is still no comprehensive integration of evidence regarding the theorized trait component of cognitive complexity. To fill this gap, we evaluate the degree that cognitive complexity is attributable to trait variance. Specifically, we review two domains of evidence pertaining to (a) the generalizability of individuals’ complex thinking across domains and the temporal stability of individuals’ complex thinking and (b) the relationship of complex thinking with conceptually related traits. Cumulatively, the literature suggests that persons’ cognitive complexity at any point in time results partially from a stable and generalizable trait component that accounts for a small-to-moderate amount of variance. It further suggests that cognitively complex persons are characterized by chronic trait-based differences in motivation and ability to think complexly.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.