Understanding the "Sometimes Masker": Political Orientation and Trust in the Media During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Trust, individualism, and the logics of care in middle America during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic

Polarization and turf-wars have characterized the COVID-19 response in the United States. While COVID-19 narratives can be binary and divisive, how people cared for each other throughout the first year of the pandemic is more nuanced. This article describes how and why constructs of fear, individualism, wellbeing, and personal risk-taking became imbued in behaviors that thwarted the risk of the collective. This work is based on informal conversations, public forums, and 86 in-depth interviews during the 2020 summer in a small tourist town in northwest Iowa. Some believed engaging in public health prevention was not their responsibility and instead privileged their personal enjoyment, finances, or mental health over others, de-emphasizing personal risk and stating God will protect them. Others were deeply committed to public health prevention, by staying home, masking, and social distancing. In both cases, people used shame to promote their views (e.g., shame on you for masking/unmasking!) as well as fear (e.g., I do/don't fear coronavirus because I am virtuous). However, most engaged in logics of care, navigating what public health precautions to follow to protect themselves and those they loved most. Yet, such decisions were navigated through a culture of individualism and ideals of personal responsibility that cultivated a mistrust in public health. Understanding how and why such individualism took hold in American publics is a crucial inflection point for policy-making as well as cultural interpretation of why and how people construct risk and responsibility.

In the COVID-19 pandemic, who did we trust? An eight-country cross-sectional study

Background

Trust is a key determinant of health, but has been undermined by the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated infodemic. Using data from eight countries, we aimed to epidemiologically describe levels of trust in health, governments, news media organisations, and experts, and measure the impact of political orientation and COVID-19 information sources on participant's levels of trust.

Methods

We simultaneously conducted a stratified randomised online cross-sectional study across eight countries on adults aged ≥18 years between 6 and 18 November 2020. We employed crude and adjusted weighted regression analyses.

Results

We included 9027 adults with a mean age of 47 years (range = 18-99), of whom 4667 (51.7%) were female. Trust in health experts ranked highest across all countries (mean (x̄) = 7.83; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 7.79-7.88), while trust in politicians ranked lowest (x̄ = 5.34; 95% CI = 5.28, 5.40). In adjusted analyses, political orientation and utilised information sources were significantly associated with trust. Individuals using higher levels of health information sources trusted health authorities more than those using lower levels (mean difference = 1.12; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.14). Similarly, individuals using higher levels of government information sources (mean difference = 1.55; 95% CI = 1.43, 1.64) and those using higher levels of new media information sources (mean difference = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.06, 1.28) had highest trust in governments/politicians and news media, respectively. However, there was little difference in trust in health, government, or news media between individuals using higher or lower levels of social media information sources.

Conclusions

Trust is a key determinant of health, but has been politically fragile during this infodemic. High compliance with public health measures is key to combatting infectious diseases. In terms of people's trust, our findings suggest that politicians and governments worldwide should coordinate their response with health experts and authorities to maximise the success of public health measures.