Are face masks a partisan issue during the COVID-19 pandemic? Differentiating political ideology and political party affiliation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Howard MC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8652787 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Ecological and cross-sectional studies have indicated that conservative political ideology is associated with better health. Longitudinal analyses of mortality are needed because subjective assessments of ideology may confound subjective assessments of health, particularly in cross-sectional analyses.Data were derived from the 2008 General Social Survey-National Death Index data set. Cox proportional analysis models were used to determine whether political party affiliation or political ideology was associated with time to death. Also, we attempted to identify whether self-reported happiness and self-rated health acted as mediators between political beliefs and time to death.In this analysis of 32,830 participants and a total follow-up time of 498,845 person-years, we find that political party affiliation and political ideology are associated with mortality. However, with the exception of independents (adjusted HR (AHR)=0.93, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.97), political party differences are explained by the participants' underlying sociodemographic characteristics. With respect to ideology, conservatives (AHR=1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.12) and moderates (AHR=1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.11) are at greater risk for mortality during follow-up than liberals.Political party affiliation and political ideology appear to be different predictors of mortality.
| S-EPMC5893220 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study explored social factors that are associated with the US deaths caused by COVID-19 after the declaration of economic reopening on May 1, 2020 by President Donald Trump. We seek to understand how county-level support for Trump interacted with social distancing policies to impact COVID-19 death rates. Overall, controlling for several potential confounders, counties with higher levels of Trump support do not necessarily experience greater mortality rates due to COVID-19. The predicted weekly death counts per county tended to increase over time with the implementation of several key health policies. However, the difference in COVID-19 outcomes between counties with low and high levels of Trump support grew after several weeks of the policy implementation as counties with higher levels of Trump support suffered relatively higher death rates. Counties with higher levels of Trump support exhibited lower percentages of mobile staying at home and higher percentages of people working part time or full time than otherwise comparable counties with lower levels of Trump support. The relative negative performance of Trump-supporting counties is robust after controlling for these measures of policy compliance. Counties with high percentages of older (aged 65 and above) persons tended to have greater death rates, as did more populous counties in general. This study indicates that policymakers should consider the risks inherent in controlling public health crises due to divisions in political ideology and confirms that vulnerable communities are at particularly high risk in public health crises.
| S-EPMC8242603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPolitical polarization has increased in the USA within recent years. Studies have shown Republicans are less likely to accept COVID-19 vaccinations than Democrats; however, little is known regarding the association between COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and political polarization.MethodsWe used data from a nationally-representative survey of 1427 participants conducted between 9 February 2021 and 17 February 2021. We estimated multivariate-adjusted odds ratios for COVID-19 vaccination intent and receipt according to perceived political polarization (measured as the perceived size of the ideological gap between Democrats and Republicans), political party affiliation, and social trust, controlling for demographic and socioeconomic factors.ResultsAmong participants perceiving high levels of polarization, Republicans (versus Democrats) reported a 90% lower odds of vaccination intent (OR = 0.10 [0.05, 0.19], P < 0.001). Participants with high (versus low) social trust and low perceived polarization had a 2-folder higher vaccination intent (OR = 2.39 [1.34, 4.21], P = 0.003); this association was substantially weaker in the high perceived polarization group.ConclusionsHigh perceived levels of political polarization appear to magnify the decrease in the odds of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine and the intent to get vaccinated among Republicans versus Democrats. Political polarization may further attenuate the protective associations of high social capital with vaccination.
| S-EPMC9383304 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdherence to COVID-19 social distancing guidelines varies across individuals.PurposeThis study examined the relations of pseudoscientific and just world beliefs, generalized and institutional trust, and political party affiliation to adherence to COVID-19 social distancing guidelines over three months, as well as the explanatory role of COVID-19 risk perceptions in these relations.MethodsA U.S. nationwide sample of 430 adults (49.8% women; mean age = 40.72) completed a prospective online study, including an initial assessment (between March 27 and April 5, 2020), a 1 month follow-up (between April 27 and May 21, 2020), and a 3 month follow-up (between June 26 and July 15, 2020). We hypothesized that greater pseudoscientific and just world beliefs, lower governmental, institutional, and dispositional trust, and Republican Party affiliation would be associated with lower initial adherence to social distancing and greater reductions in social distancing over time and that COVID-19 risk perceptions would account for significant variance in these relations.ResultsResults revealed unique associations of lower governmental trust, greater COVID-19 pseudoscientific beliefs, and greater trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to lower initial adherence to social distancing. Whereas greater COVID-19 risk perceptions and CDC trust were associated with less steep declines in social distancing over time, both Republican (vs. Democratic) Party affiliation and greater COVID-19 pseudoscientific beliefs were associated with steeper declines in social distancing over time (relations accounted for by lower COVID-19 risk perceptions).ConclusionsResults highlight the utility of public health interventions aimed at improving scientific literacy and emphasizing bipartisan support for social distancing guidelines.
| S-EPMC8083329 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the extent to which political ideology affects COVID-19 preventive behaviors and related beliefs and attitudes in the U.S.MethodsTwo surveys, one using a convenience sample and another using a nationally representative sample, were conducted in September and November 2020, respectively. Multiple regressions compared political ideology with identified COVID-19 risk factors and demographics as well as knowledge measures. Surveys were followed by a review of the emerging COVID-19 behavioral literature (completed in January 2021) to assess the frequency of ideological effects in publicly reported data.ResultsIn the survey data, political ideology was a significant predictor for all dependent variables in both surveys, and the strongest predictor for most of them. Out of 141 estimates from 44 selected studies, political ideology was a significant predictor of responses in 112 (79%) and showed the largest effect on COVID-19-related measures in close to half of these estimates (44%).ConclusionsThis study reinforces previous research that found partisan differences in engaging in behaviors with long-term health consequences by showing that these ideologically-driven differences manifest in situations where the possibility of severe illness or death is immediate and the potential societal impact is significant. The substantial implications for public health research and practice are both methodological and conceptual.
| S-EPMC8566901 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe impact of cognitive function and decline on political ideology is unknown. We studied the relationship between cognition and both political orientation and political policy choices in a population of older persons.DesignLongitudinal investigation.SettingA retirement community and its surroundings in Southern California.Participants151 members of a longitudinal investigation of aging and dementia in the oldest-old (the 90+ Study), mean age 95 years.MeasurementsParticipants self-reported their political ideology (7-point scale from extremely liberal to extremely conservative) and policy preferences for federal spending on public schooling, aid to the poor, and protecting the environment, as well as on preferences on immigration rates, death penalty, and university admission. The same political survey was mailed to participants twice: at time one and 6-months later. Cognitive function based on neurological examination and cognitive testing was classified as normal (55%), cognitive impairment/not dementia (CIND) (33%), or dementia (12%). We calculated rank correlations between ideology and policy choices, stratified by cognitive status, and agreement between Surveys 1 and 2.ResultsPolitical ideology/orientation was highly consistent over a six-month period (84% agreement) among the 122 who returned the second survey, with no significant relationship to cognitive status. Among cognitively impaired (CIND and dementia), however, there was significant loss of consistency between an individual's political orientation and their policy choices. Level of political engagement was high for participants, with more than 90% voting in the 2016 presidential election.ConclusionIn this population of older persons, political identification on the liberal-conservative spectrum was resilient despite cognitive decline, but its meaning and function were changed. For the cognitively impaired it remained a self-defining label, but no longer operated as a higher order framework for orienting specific policy preferences. There appeared to be loss of coherence between the political orientation and political policy choices of cognitively impaired individuals. Given the high level of political engagement of these individuals, these results have substantial public policy implications.
| S-EPMC8057885 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Emerging research has begun investigating the neural underpinnings of the biological and psychological differences that drive political ideology, attitudes, and actions. Here, we explore the neurological roots of politics through conducting a large sample, whole-brain analysis of functional connectivity (FC) across common fMRI tasks. Using convolutional neural networks, we develop predictive models of ideology using FC from fMRI scans for nine standard task-based settings in a novel cohort of healthy adults (n = 174, age range: 18 to 40, mean = 21.43) from the Ohio State University Wellbeing Project. Our analyses suggest that liberals and conservatives have noticeable and discriminative differences in FC that can be identified with high accuracy using contemporary artificial intelligence methods and that such analyses complement contemporary models relying on socio-economic and survey-based responses. FC signatures from retrieval, empathy, and monetary reward tasks are identified as important and powerful predictors of conservatism, and activations of the amygdala, inferior frontal gyrus, and hippocampus are most strongly associated with political affiliation. Although the direction of causality is unclear, this study suggests that the biological and neurological roots of political behavior run much deeper than previously thought.
| S-EPMC9291242 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This research demonstrates how promoting the environment can negatively affect adoption of energy efficiency in the United States because of the political polarization surrounding environmental issues. Study 1 demonstrated that more politically conservative individuals were less in favor of investment in energy-efficient technology than were those who were more politically liberal. This finding was driven primarily by the lessened psychological value that more conservative individuals placed on reducing carbon emissions. Study 2 showed that this difference has consequences: In a real-choice context, more conservative individuals were less likely to purchase a more expensive energy-efficient light bulb when it was labeled with an environmental message than when it was unlabeled. These results highlight the importance of taking into account psychological value-based considerations in the individual adoption of energy-efficient technology in the United States and beyond.
| S-EPMC3677426 | biostudies-other
Project description:While many news outlets aim for impartiality, 67% of Americans perceive their news sources as partisan, often presenting only one side of the story. This paper tests whether exposing individuals to news stories their political adversaries focus on can mitigate political polarization. In an experiment involving a real-world political newsletter-sent to participants who had opted to receive news that uncovers media biases-exposure to a specific story about refugee policy led respondents to reassess their positions. This reevaluation changed their stances on the issue and reduced the ideological distinctions they made between Democrats and Republicans. These findings underscore the need for future studies to untangle the specific circumstances where cross-partisan exposure can alter political attitudes.
| S-EPMC10871475 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mistrust of scientific evidence and government-issued guidelines is increasingly correlated with political affiliation. Survey evidence has documented skepticism in a diverse set of issues including climate change, vaccine hesitancy, and, most recently, COVID-19 risks. Less well understood is whether these beliefs alter high-stakes behavior. Combining GPS data for 2.7 million smartphone users in Florida and Texas with 2016 U.S. presidential election precinct-level results, we examine how conservative-media dismissals of hurricane advisories in 2017 influenced evacuation decisions. Likely Trump-voting Florida residents were 10 to 11 percentage points less likely to evacuate Hurricane Irma than Clinton voters (34% versus 45%), a gap not present in prior hurricanes. Results are robust to fine-grain geographic controls, which compare likely Clinton and Trump voters living within 150 m of each other. The rapid surge in media-led suspicion of hurricane forecasts-and the resulting divide in self-protective measures-illustrates a large behavioral consequence of science denialism.
| S-EPMC7486090 | biostudies-literature