The Emotional Foundations of Political Support: How Fear and Anger Affect Trust in the Government in Times of the Covid‐19 Pandemic
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Erhardt J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8242631 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Most Americans think that the country is politically divided and polarization will only get worse, not better. Such perceptions of polarization are widespread, but we do not know enough about their effects, especially those unrelated to political variables. This study examines the consequences of perceived polarization for levels of social trust in the United States. Trust in fellow citizens is the backbone of a well-functioning democracy, given its role in promoting social cohesion and facilitating collective action. Using nationally representative panel data, as well as an original survey experiment, I find that perceived polarization directly undermines Americans' trust in each other. A belief that members of society share common values fosters social trust, but perceptions of partisan divisions and polarization make people less trusting of their fellow citizens. Due to perceived polarization, people are less likely to believe that others can be trusted to do the right thing, which in turn decreases their willingness to cooperate for good causes. I discuss the implications of these findings for society's ability to work together toward common goals.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11109-022-09787-1.
| S-EPMC8932466 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Low levels of trust in government have potentially wide-ranging implications for governing stability, popular legitimacy, and political participation. Although there is a rich normative and empiricial literature on the important consequences of eroding trust in democratic societies, the causes of political trust are less clear. In this article we estimate the effect that changing Americans' views about the perceived honesty and integrity of political authorities (or "political probity") has on their trust in government using randomized survey experiments. In one experiment on a convenience sample and a direct replication on a more representative sample, we find that a single Op-Ed article about political probity increased trust in government by an amount larger than the partisan gap between Democrats and Republicans. These results complement prior observational studies on trust in government by demonstrating that political probity plays an important causal role in shaping Americans' judgments about the trustworthiness of their government and politicians.
| S-EPMC7039441 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC9364069 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveChild pedestrian injuries represent a global public health burden. To date, most research on psychosocial factors affecting children's risk of pedestrian injury focused on cognitive aspects of children's functioning in traffic. Recent evidence suggests, however, that emotional aspects such as temperament-based fear and anger/frustration, as well as executive function-based emotional decision making, may also affect children's safety in traffic. This study examined the role of emotions on children's pedestrian behavior. Three hypotheses were considered: (a) emotion-based temperament factors of fear and anger/frustration will predict children's risky decisions and behaviors; (b) emotional decision making will predict risky pedestrian decisions and behaviors; and (c) children's pedestrian decision making will mediate relations between emotion and risky pedestrian behavior. The role of gender was also considered.MethodsIn total, 140 6- to 7-year-old children (M = 6.7 years, SD = 0.39; 51% girls) participated. Parent-report subscales of Child Behavior Questionnaire measured temperamental fear and anger/frustration. The Hungry Donkey Task, a modified version of Iowa Gambling Task for children, measured children's emotional decision making, and a mobile virtual reality pedestrian environment measured child pedestrian behavior.ResultsGreater anger/frustration, lesser fear, and more emotional decision making all predicted poorer pedestrian decision making. The mediational model demonstrated that pedestrian decision making, as assessed by delays entering safe traffic gaps, mediated the relation between emotion and risky pedestrian behavior. Analyses stratified by gender showed stronger mediation results for girls than for boys.ConclusionsThese results support the influence of emotions on child pedestrian behavior and reinforce the need to incorporate emotion regulation training into child pedestrian education programs.
| S-EPMC7850000 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Moral reframing involves crafting persuasive arguments that appeal to the targets' moral values but argue in favor of something they would typically oppose. Applying this technique to one of the most politically polarizing events-political campaigns-we hypothesized that messages criticizing one's preferred political candidate that also appeal to that person's moral values can decrease support for the candidate. We tested this claim in the context of the 2016 American presidential election. In Study 1, conservatives reading a message opposing Donald Trump grounded in a more conservative value (loyalty) supported him less than conservatives reading a message grounded in more liberal concerns (fairness). In Study 2, liberals reading a message opposing Hillary Clinton appealing to fairness values were less supportive of Clinton than liberals in a loyalty-argument condition. These results highlight how moral reframing can be used to overcome the rigid stances partisans often hold and help develop political acceptance.
| S-EPMC6295651 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While we know that emotional reactions are important influences on political behavior, we know far less about the sources of these emotions. This paper studies the causes of fear and anger in reaction to a negative stimulus: the financial crisis. Anger should have been experienced among individuals who believed a specific actor was to blame for the crisis. Moreover, individuals should have been particularly angry if they blamed an actor who should be accountable to them, for example the national government. I test these expectations using a panel survey run in Britain between 2005 and 2010. This data shows that British citizens experienced anger if they held an actor responsible for the crisis. Moreover, they felt particularly angry if they held the Labour government (and to a lesser extent the European Union) responsible. These findings underline the importance of studying the causes of emotional reactions and show how these may be linked to common institutional distinctions between political systems.
| S-EPMC4734452 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Coronavirus pandemic undeniably represents a global health threat unprecedented in living memory leading to very distinct behavioral, cognitive, and psychological responses to the crisis. We argue that the different ways of responding to the pandemic are rooted in personal dispositions and provide evidence regarding the function and value of the Big Five framework in understanding the pandemic personality. Using 18 samples from the six European countries most affected at the onset of the pandemic (overall N = 18,307), we find that most of the Big Five effects vary across countries and pandemic phases. However, while neuroticism is clearly linked to pandemic threat perception and emotional responses to the Covid-19 pandemic, conscientiousness is mainly related to exposure to pandemic hazard, preferences regarding political measures, and tolerance of epidemiologically undesirable behavior. Our findings are rich in implications for public health politics, policy-makers and social cohesion.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-021-02493-x.
| S-EPMC8610108 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We study the causal relationship between social and political trust in a low trust society, a setting where this topic has received very little attention. We focus on contemporary Chile, a relatively consolidated new democracy lacking many of the conditions that fosters trust such as high socioeconomic equality, weak social divisions, or universal welfare policies. Our empirical analysis is based on a 4-wave panel survey applied to a representative sample of 2000 Chilean adults interviewed face to face each year between 2016 and 2019. Based on statistical models with varying specifications and assumptions, we find support for the institutionalist view that claims that political trust exercises a positive influence over social trust. However, contrary to recent findings for some European democracies (Sønderskov & Dinesen 2016, Seifert 2018), we also find that social trust positively affects political trust. Our results suggest that the positive relationship between both types of trust travels to different political settings, and that there is no minimum threshold required in levels of trust for this relationship to emerge.
| S-EPMC8763449 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments have advocated numerous social distancing measures, and compliance with these has likely saved millions of lives globally. In an online sample drawn from the U.S. and Canada (N = 209), participants completed measures of political orientation, moral foundations, and COVID-19 social distancing attitudes and behaviours. A more left-wing political orientation, and greater endorsement of the individualizing moral foundations were significantly related to more positive social distancing attitudes, and greater self-reported compliance with relevant restrictions. A more right-wing political orientation, and greater endorsement of the binding and economic liberty foundations were associated with less positive attitudes and reduced compliance. In a series of mediation analyses, the relationships between political orientation and various social distancing measures were significantly mediated by variations in participants' moral foundations, particularly their endorsement of economic liberty and the individualizing foundations. Further data indicated that the perceived persuasiveness of messages based on each moral foundation advocating for continued social distancing was significantly related to both participants' moral values and their political orientation. Findings are discussed in terms of understanding politicized differences around social distancing as partly reflecting differential valuation of the moral foundations, and in creating effective public health messaging regarding compliance.
| S-EPMC9232135 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Having a vaccine available does not necessarily imply that it will be used. Indeed, uptake rates for existing vaccines against infectious diseases have been fluctuating in recent years. Literature suggests that vaccine hesitancy may be grounded in deeply rooted intuitions or values, which can be modelled using Moral Foundations Theory (MFT). We examine the respective prominence of the MFT dimensions in government communication regarding childhood vaccinations and explore its effect on parents' vaccine hesitancy. We measure the MFT dimension loading of the vaccination information brochures from the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) between 2011-2019 and connect this information with the electronic national immunisation register to investigate if the use of moral foundations in government communication has a measurable effect on vaccination uptake. We find the largest positive effect for the dimensions Authority/Subversion and Liberty/Oppression and suggestive evidence in favour of a small positive effect for Purity/Degradation. Conversely, Loyalty/Betrayal actually has a negative effect on vaccination rates. For the dimension Harm/Care, we find no significant effect. While Purity/Degradation and Harm/Care appear to be the two most frequently used moral foundations by RIVM, these dimensions have in fact no or only a minor effect on parents' vaccine hesitancy. Reducing the use of these moral foundations may be the first step towards optimising government communication in this context. Instead, formulations activating the moral foundations Authority/Subversion and Liberty/Oppression appear to have positive effects on vaccination uptake.
| S-EPMC8577733 | biostudies-literature