Search

As groups began to gather to protest COVID-19 restrictions, it became readily apparent that these groups were filled with overwhelmingly white protesters, and were led by organisations that often espoused a white nationalist message. We examine the effects of white identity on opposition to COVID-19 restrictions using original survey data. We find that white identity predicts opposition to COVID-19 mitigation measures, and that this effect persists only when individuals hold anti-elite attitudes. These effects operate above and beyond traditional predictors, such as partisanship and ideology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic was a key policy issue during the 2020 election in the United States. As such, it is important to analyze how voters evaluated government responses to the pandemic. To this end, in this article, we examine factors that influenced Americans' evaluations of state-level COVID-19 policy responses. We find that during the pandemic onset period, Americans typically rated their state governments' responses more favorably if their governor was a co-partisan. In contrast, during the re-opening period, we find that Democrats relied on both partisanship and policy to evaluate their state-level responses, while Republicans continued to rely solely on partisanship. We contend that given the complex policy environment surrounding COVID-19, Americans may have not been fully aware of the policies their state governments adopted, so they relied on partisan cues to help them evaluate their state-level policy responses. But by the re-opening period, Americans likely had enough time to better understand state-level policy responses; this allowed Democrats to also evaluate their state-level responses based on policy. These findings shed light on how Americans evaluated COVID-19 responses just prior to the 2020 election. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic has presented unique challenges across the world in getting citizens to change their behaviors in response to a public health crisis. In the United States, it appears that partisan differences in willingness to comply with these measures have emerged: Democrats are typically more supportive than Republicans in their stated support of and willingness to comply with these measures. However, actual behaviors are notoriously hard to accurately capture with survey items. Objective: To determine the extent to which county‐level partisanship influences average willingness to stay at home, and how these effects are moderated by county level characteristics. Methods: We use personal device (cell phone) data provided by SafeGraph, aggregated at the county‐level, to determine how county‐level partisanship is correlated with willigness to stay at home. We additionally test whether these effects are conditional upon the prevalence of COVID‐19 in the county, and the percentage of the county under 30 years old. Results: We find that county‐level partisanship predicts aggregate level compliance with social distancing behavior—citizens of counties that are more Republican spend more time away from home than Democratic counties. We find that the number of COVID‐19 cases in the county and the percentage of the county under the age of 30 moderate these effects. Conclusion: Partisanship appears to be a powerful predictor, at the county‐level, of willigness to follow stay at home orders in the early stages of the COVID‐19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Wearing facial coverings has become a key element in the fight against COVID-19. However, deep partisan divisions have arisen over the adoption of face masks, with Democrats more supportive than Republicans in the United States. Among opponents, a common argument is that facial coverings serve to dehumanize the wearer. Using an experimental study, I find no evidence, using a nationally diverse US sample, that face masks are dehumanizing, whether worn by a White or Black person. In addition, I test for moderation by partisanship, which shows a lack of dehumanizing effects and provides some suggestive evidence that face masks can humanize the wearer, for Democrats, though these effects are small. Under no circumstances do I find evidence that face masks dehumanize the wearer, even among Republican respondents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the U.S. Government works to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus, messaging is important in getting individuals to comply with public health recommendations, especially as the response from the public seems to be polarized along partisan and ideological lines. Using a recent Centers for Disease Control recommendation of wearing facemasks, I use Regulatory Focus Theory to predict that conservatives will be more responsive to messages related to promotion, while liberals are more responsive to messages related to prevention. Using a pre-registered experimental design, I find no evidence that prevention messages influence attitudes toward mask wearing. Promotion messages, however, cause conservatives to become less supportive of mask wearing, in contrast to theoretical predictions. These findings suggest that, related to messaging about mask wearing, strong ideological differences do not emerge related to the focus of the message. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]