Abstract:As the coronavirus pandemic raged throughout 2020, political leaders faced a difficult choice: Should strict social distancing guidelines be maintained until the threat posed by COVID-19 was diminished enough for citizens to return to their regular activities? Or was the economic disruption caused by the pandemic something that was, according to President Trump, "worse than the problem itself"? Methods: We analyze data from a 2020 survey of registered voters. Results: Democrats were more likely than Republican… Show more
“…This null effect of severity generally holds across partisan groups in both survey waves in the multiplicative models, underscoring that all partisans held consistent beliefs regarding COVID-19 as a public health concern independent of local context. 38 Interestingly, results of the COVID-19 health concern models show that, in only the September wave, that Republicans and independents were less likely to view COVID-19 as a public heath concern than Democrats by about 7% and 4%, respectively (in line with previous research by Craig et al 2022 ; de Bruin et al 2020 ). Taken together, our individual-level models show that context is an insignificant predictor of COVID-19 public health concerns.…”
Section: Reconciling the Puzzle: Considering Context Covid-19 Restric...supporting
confidence: 71%
“…Voters are concerned not only about public health policy, but also to economic costs associated with the pandemic and policy responses to it. Studies of the electorate in 2020 also reveal a partisan divide in how voters assess COVID-19 risks, with Republicans expressing greater concern about the economic effects of restrictions and Democrats exhibiting greater preference for social distancing and lockdowns (Craig et al, 2022 ; de Bruin et al, 2020 ).…”
Section: Trump the Economy And Covid-19mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The preference among Republican elites for economic reopening over public health precautions was reflected in state governments, where GOP governors were less likely to impose public health measures (e.g., stay-at-home orders) than Democratic governors (Baccini & Brodeur, 2021 ; Shay, 2020 ). There is ample evidence that these attitudes percolated to Republican voters as well, who were less likely to modify their behavior in response to the pandemic (e.g., by masking or staying at home) (Gadarian et al, 2021 ; Clinton et al, 2021 ; Kassas & Nayga, 2021 ; Allcott et al, 2020 ; Hsiehchen et al, 2020 ), less likely to comply with state shutdown orders (Camobreco & He, 2022 ), and were more likely to be concerned about the economic impacts of restrictions than on public health and worker safety risks associated with reopening (Green et al, 2020 ; Craig et al, 2022 ; de Bruin et al, 2020 ).…”
From the onset of the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in January 2020 to Election Day in November, the United States experienced over 9,400,000 cases and 232,000 deaths. This crisis largely defined the campaign between former Vice President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump, centering on the Trump administration′s efforts in mitigating the number of cases and deaths. While conventional wisdom suggested that Trump and his party would lose support due to the severity of COVID-19 across the country, such an effect is hotly debated empirically and theoretically. In this research, we evaluate the extent to which the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic influenced support for President Trump in the 2020 election. Across differing modeling strategies and a variety of data sources, we find evidence that President Trump gained support in counties with higher COVID-19 deaths. We provide an explanation for this finding by showing that voters concerned about the economic impacts of pandemic-related restrictions on activity were more likely to support Trump and that local COVID-19 severity was predictive of these economic concerns. While COVID-19 likely contributed to Trump’s loss in 2020, our analysis demonstrates that he gained support among voters in localities worst affected by the pandemic.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11109-022-09826-x.
“…This null effect of severity generally holds across partisan groups in both survey waves in the multiplicative models, underscoring that all partisans held consistent beliefs regarding COVID-19 as a public health concern independent of local context. 38 Interestingly, results of the COVID-19 health concern models show that, in only the September wave, that Republicans and independents were less likely to view COVID-19 as a public heath concern than Democrats by about 7% and 4%, respectively (in line with previous research by Craig et al 2022 ; de Bruin et al 2020 ). Taken together, our individual-level models show that context is an insignificant predictor of COVID-19 public health concerns.…”
Section: Reconciling the Puzzle: Considering Context Covid-19 Restric...supporting
confidence: 71%
“…Voters are concerned not only about public health policy, but also to economic costs associated with the pandemic and policy responses to it. Studies of the electorate in 2020 also reveal a partisan divide in how voters assess COVID-19 risks, with Republicans expressing greater concern about the economic effects of restrictions and Democrats exhibiting greater preference for social distancing and lockdowns (Craig et al, 2022 ; de Bruin et al, 2020 ).…”
Section: Trump the Economy And Covid-19mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The preference among Republican elites for economic reopening over public health precautions was reflected in state governments, where GOP governors were less likely to impose public health measures (e.g., stay-at-home orders) than Democratic governors (Baccini & Brodeur, 2021 ; Shay, 2020 ). There is ample evidence that these attitudes percolated to Republican voters as well, who were less likely to modify their behavior in response to the pandemic (e.g., by masking or staying at home) (Gadarian et al, 2021 ; Clinton et al, 2021 ; Kassas & Nayga, 2021 ; Allcott et al, 2020 ; Hsiehchen et al, 2020 ), less likely to comply with state shutdown orders (Camobreco & He, 2022 ), and were more likely to be concerned about the economic impacts of restrictions than on public health and worker safety risks associated with reopening (Green et al, 2020 ; Craig et al, 2022 ; de Bruin et al, 2020 ).…”
From the onset of the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in January 2020 to Election Day in November, the United States experienced over 9,400,000 cases and 232,000 deaths. This crisis largely defined the campaign between former Vice President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump, centering on the Trump administration′s efforts in mitigating the number of cases and deaths. While conventional wisdom suggested that Trump and his party would lose support due to the severity of COVID-19 across the country, such an effect is hotly debated empirically and theoretically. In this research, we evaluate the extent to which the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic influenced support for President Trump in the 2020 election. Across differing modeling strategies and a variety of data sources, we find evidence that President Trump gained support in counties with higher COVID-19 deaths. We provide an explanation for this finding by showing that voters concerned about the economic impacts of pandemic-related restrictions on activity were more likely to support Trump and that local COVID-19 severity was predictive of these economic concerns. While COVID-19 likely contributed to Trump’s loss in 2020, our analysis demonstrates that he gained support among voters in localities worst affected by the pandemic.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11109-022-09826-x.
“…Additionally, Democrats perceived greater personal risks associated with the coronavirus pandemic than Republicans, including risks related to getting sick and risks due to economic losses (de Bruin, Saw, and Goldman 2020). Democrats are more likely to report social distancing (Wu and Huber 2021) and also more likely than Republicans to prefer maintaining social distancing over rebuilding the economy (Craig, McCarthy, and Gainous 2022). Since grievances induced by public health policies might differ among populations with different ideologies, we derive the below conditional hypothesis: Grievance hypothesis : The areas under stricter or longer containment policies are likely to see higher levels of anti‐Asian sentiment than areas with more lax policies.…”
Section: Othering Grievance and Anti‐asian Racismmentioning
ObjectiveThis paper seeks to explain and empirically test how a public health crisis, such as the COVID‐19 pandemic, might lead to discriminatory attitudes and behaviors against marginalized groups.MethodWe identify four causal mechanisms that may account for the increase in anti‐Asian racism during COVID‐19. Using a large data set of geolocated COVID‐19‐related tweets in the U.S., we examine the spatiotemporal pattern of anti‐Asian sentiment on Twitter and test all four mechanisms that link the crisis to the behaviors of “othering” and “scapegoating.”ResultsWe find evidence consistent with the elite cueing, perceived threat, and grievance mechanisms. The president's scapegoating rhetoric significantly increased anti‐Asian hate tweets across all counties. In addition, high COVID‐19 infection rates and grievances from containment policies are also associated with greater numbers of anti‐Asian hate tweets. On the other hand, counties with larger vulnerable populations do not seem to have more anti‐Asian hate tweets.ConclusionsWe demonstrate that a crisis alone does not necessarily lead to othering behavior, while elite rhetoric can significantly influence the public's opinion and behavior during a crisis.
“…Moral dilemmas play a crucial role in human life as they require individuals to engage in complex moral judgements and decision‐making. The recent COVID‐19 pandemic and the underprepared health services serve as a poignant example of the importance of moral dilemmas (e.g., see Baheti & Nayak, 2022; Craig et al, 2022; Mitchell & Attipoe, 2020; Shao, 2020). Throughout history, philosophers and, more recently, scientists have sought to explain the mechanisms that underlie moral judgements and moral decision‐making.…”
The role of empathy in morality is a subject of ongoing scientific debate due to the lack of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses on this topic. To address this gap, we conducted a PRISMA‐based systematic quantitative review to investigate the role of empathy in moral judgements, decision‐making, and inclinations using trolley problems and variants, which are popular types of moral dilemmas that explore utilitarianism and deontology. We searched for articles in four databases (PsycINFO, Pubmed, WorldWideScience, and Scopus) and performed citation searches. Out of 661 records, we selected 34 that studied the associations between empathy and moral judgements, moral decision‐making, and/or moral inclinations. Six meta‐analyses and systematic reviews of these records consistently showed small to moderate associations between affective empathy and these moral parameters, particularly in personal moral dilemmas involving intentional harm (although some approaches highlighted more complex associations between these parameters). Regarding other empathy domains, most studies found limited or insignificant links between cognitive empathy domains and moral judgements, decision‐making, and inclinations. We discuss the nuances and implications of these results.
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.
