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

Abstract

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.

Examining change in social dominance and authoritarianism during New Zealand's nationwide COVID‐19 lockdown

“…This would align with prior research showing that SDO is responsive to economic threat (Matthews et al, 2009), while RWA is sensitive to existential threats including pathogens (Wu & Chang, 2012). Nevertheless, recent evidence suggests that RWA is more malleable than SDO (Zubielevitch et al, 2023)-results corroborated by research showing that, while RWA increased during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic (Golec de Zavala et al, 2021), SDO was intractable (Fischer et al, 2023).…”

“…Accordingly, they should have countervailing associations with attitudes toward institutions that help to implement pandemic controls, such as lockdowns. Consistent with this thesis, an emerging body of literature demonstrates that, whereas people higher in SDO express less support for policies or programmes aimed at controlling the spread of COVID-19, people high in RWA have more supportive attitudes (Bilewicz & Soral, 2022;Clarke et al, 2021;Fischer et al, 2023). However, there are currently few-if any-studies that have tested whether the objective experience of pandemic controlsspecifically, a nationwide lockdown-changes the associations SDO and RWA have with attitudes toward the institutions responsible for implementing such restrictions in ways that are congruent with the distinct motivations underlying them.…”

“…Consistent with this premise, several studies conducted in the pandemic's wake show that SDO correlates negatively, whereas RWA correlates positively, with support for a range of COVID-19 interventions (e.g., Bilewicz & Soral, 2022;Clarke et al, 2021;Fischer et al, 2023;Peng, 2020).…”

“…Consistent with this reasoning, SDO correlates negatively with risk perceptions (Choma & Hodson, 2017) and intergroup empathy (Hudson et al, 2019), suggesting that people high in SDO will not only underestimate their own risks from COVID-19, but resent any restrictions that keep disadvantaged groups shielded from the virus. Indeed, research conducted during the pandemic showed that SDO correlated negatively with perceived threat (Fuochi et al, 2021) and empathic attitudes (Fischer et al, 2023). Unsurprisingly, SDO also negatively predicted support for COVID-19 restrictions in samples from Australia (Clarke et al, 2021) and the United Kingdom (Fischer et al, 2023).…”

“…Indeed, research conducted during the pandemic showed that SDO correlated negatively with perceived threat (Fuochi et al, 2021) and empathic attitudes (Fischer et al, 2023). Unsurprisingly, SDO also negatively predicted support for COVID-19 restrictions in samples from Australia (Clarke et al, 2021) and the United Kingdom (Fischer et al, 2023).…”