Polarization in America: two possible futures

Subjective Stress Appraisals Over Time: the Evolving Structure of the COVID-19 Stressor Scale

The COVID-19 Stressors Scale measures individuals' appraisals of stressors related to the pandemic. Measurement of perceptions of stressors is necessary to understand the socioemotional impacts of not only the COVID-19 pandemic, but other disasters. The study examined the factor structure of the scale among adults in the U.S. over six time points. A shortened version was used, and the fit was examined over time. The results of the study show contextual appraisals change over time and offer important implications for the measurement of stressfulness of disasters, a critical step in designing and assessing impacts of social programs aimed to reduce the deleterious effects of disasters.

Disagreement Gets Mistaken for Bad Listening

It is important for people to feel listened to in professional and personal communications, and yet they can feel unheard even when others have listened well. We propose that this feeling may arise because speakers conflate agreement with listening quality. In 11 studies (N = 3,396 adults), we held constant or manipulated a listener's objective listening behaviors, manipulating only after the conversation whether the listener agreed with the speaker. Across various topics, mediums (e.g., video, chat), and cues of objective listening quality, speakers consistently perceived disagreeing listeners as worse listeners. This effect persisted after controlling for other positive impressions of the listener (e.g., likability). This effect seemed to emerge because speakers believe their views are correct, leading them to infer that a disagreeing listener must not have been listening very well. Indeed, it may be prohibitively difficult for someone to simultaneously convey that they disagree and that they were listening.

A possible thermodynamic definition and equation of state for a model of political election cycles

This work demonstrates how a simulation of political discourse can be formulated using variables of the agents' behaviors in a simulation, as thermodynamic variables. With these relations the methodology provides an approach to create a correspondence between the variables of an agent based social system and those of a thermodynamic system. Extended from this observation, diagrams akin to a P-V diagram for gases can be created for this social system. The basic thermodynamic variables of temperature, pressure and volume are defined from a system of agents with political and non-political actions engaged in simulated political discourse. An equation of state is defined for the simulated political phenomenon. Through this equation of state the full thermodynamic map of the system is presented under a P-V diagram with isothermal and isentropic lines, which is able to represent the political situation of the system at each point of time. The classic election cycle that takes place can be represented on this thermodynamic map (corresponding to an Otto cycle). This provides a possibility for researching macroscopic social cycles as a thermodynamic/informational cycle as the traces on the thermodynamic map show similarities to an Otto cycle. Such a formulation reinforces the endeavours of social physics to view social phenomena with physical principles.

The influence of social identity on attitudes toward wildlife

Wildlife conservation depends on supportive social as well as biophysical conditions. Social identities such as hunter and nonhunter are often associated with different attitudes toward wildlife. However, it is unknown whether dynamics within and among these identity groups explain how attitudes form and why they differ. To investigate how social identities help shape wildlife-related attitudes and the implications for wildlife policy and conservation, we built a structural equation model with survey data from Montana (USA) residents (n = 1758) that tested how social identities affect the relationship between experiences with grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) and attitudes toward the species. Model results (r2  = 0.51) demonstrated that the hunter identity magnified the negative effect of vicarious property damage on attitudes toward grizzly bears (β = -0.381, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.584 to -0.178, p < 0.001), which in turn strongly influenced acceptance (β = -0.571, 95% CI: -0.611 to -0.531, p < 0.001). Our findings suggested that hunters' attitudes toward grizzly bears likely become more negative primarily because of in-group social interactions about negative experiences, and similar group dynamics may lead nonhunters to disregard the negative experiences that out-group members have with grizzly bears. Given the profound influence of social identity on human cognitions and behaviors in myriad contexts, the patterns we observed are likely important in a variety of wildlife conservation situations. To foster positive conservation outcomes and minimize polarization, management strategies should account for these identity-driven perceptions while prioritizing conflict prevention and promoting positive wildlife narratives within and among identity groups. This study illustrates the utility of social identity theory for explaining and influencing human-wildlife interactions.

The 8 billion milestone: Risk perceptions of global population growth among UK and US residents

In November 2022, the global human population reached 8 billion and is projected to reach 10 billion by 2060. Theories, models, and evidence indicate that global population growth (GPG) increases the likelihood of many adverse outcomes, such as biodiversity loss, climate change, mass migrations, wars, and resource shortages. A small body of research indicates that many individuals are concerned about the effects of GPG, and these concerns are strongly related to the willingness to engage in mitigative and preventative actions. However, scientific understanding of the factors that influence GPG risk perceptions remains limited. To help address this research gap, we conducted a study of the perceived risk of GPG among UK and US residents (N = 1029) shortly after the "8 billion milestone." Our results confirmed that GPG is perceived as a moderate-to-high risk and these perceptions have a strong positive relationship with the willingness to engage in and support risk management actions. Our participants believed that the worst effects of GPG were yet to come but would largely be geographically and socially remote. Despite their willingness to engage in risk management actions, our participants reported low self-efficacy and that governments (cf. individuals and communities) have the greatest capacity to influence GPG. Risk perceptions were strongly predicted by worldviews and were higher among our UK (cf. US) participants. We also found that the perceived benefits of GPG were low and found no evidence to suggest that risk perceptions were affected by exposure to media coverage of the 8 billion milestone.

Social media feedback and extreme opinion expression

On popular social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or Tiktok, the quantitative feedback received by content producers is asymmetric: counts of positive reactions such as 'likes,' or 'retweets,' are easily observed but similar counts of negative reactions are not directly available. We study how this design feature of social media platforms affects the expression of extreme opinions. Using simulations of a learning model, we compare two feedback environments that differ in terms of the availability of negative reaction counts. We find that expressed opinions are generally more extreme when negative reaction counts are not available than when they are. We rely on analyses of Twitter data and several online experiments to provide empirical support for key model assumptions and test model predictions. Our findings suggest that a simple design change might limit, under certain conditions, the expression of extreme opinions on social media.

"Flattening the curve": Communication, risk and COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey

This study examines Turkish online news media coverage of the COVID-19 outbreak in the country. It explores media framing narratives, particularly how they reflected and promoted elite polarization or consensus in the COVID-19 debate. The findings shed light on Turkish political power dynamics during the first stage in the national response to the pandemic. The study highlights the calculations of political partisans who are keen on building a fragile consensus in an increasingly polarized society.

Politically-polarized perceptions of governmental autonomy-support impact internal motivations to comply with COVID-19 safety guidelines

Compliance with health safety guidelines is essential during pandemics. However, political polarization in the U.S. is reducing compliance. We investigated how polarized perceptions of government leaders' autonomy-support and enforcement policies impacted security and internally-motivated compliance with national (Study 1a) and state (Study 1b) safety guidelines. We surveyed 773 Republicans and Democrats from four states (California, Florida, New York, Texas) during the first wave of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, participants perceived that the decision processes of opposing political administrations did not support their autonomy. Lack of autonomy-support was associated with reduced security and internal motivations to comply (R ² = 50.83%). When political administrations enforced health safety mandates (Democrat state leaders in this study) and were perceived as autonomy-supportive, participants reported the highest security and internally-motivated compliance (R ² = 49.57%). This effect was especially pronounced for Republicans, who reacted negatively to enforcement without autonomy-support. Political leaders who use fair and supportive decision-making processes may legitimize enforcement of health safety guidelines, improving compliance.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11031-022-09974-x.

Moralized language predicts hate speech on social media

Hate speech on social media threatens the mental health of its victims and poses severe safety risks to modern societies. Yet, the mechanisms underlying its proliferation, though critical, have remained largely unresolved. In this work, we hypothesize that moralized language predicts the proliferation of hate speech on social media. To test this hypothesis, we collected three datasets consisting of N = 691,234 social media posts and ∼35.5 million corresponding replies from Twitter that have been authored by societal leaders across three domains (politics, news media, and activism). Subsequently, we used textual analysis and machine learning to analyze whether moralized language carried in source tweets is linked to differences in the prevalence of hate speech in the corresponding replies. Across all three datasets, we consistently observed that higher frequencies of moral and moral-emotional words predict a higher likelihood of receiving hate speech. On average, each additional moral word was associated with between 10.76% and 16.48% higher odds of receiving hate speech. Likewise, each additional moral-emotional word increased the odds of receiving hate speech by between 9.35 and 20.63%. Furthermore, moralized language was a robust out-of-sample predictor of hate speech. These results shed new light on the antecedents of hate speech and may help to inform measures to curb its spread on social media.

Enhancing the Utility of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) to Identify Drivers of Rising Mortality Rates in the United States

A recent report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) highlights rising rates of working-age mortality in the United States, portending troubling population health trends for this group as they age. The Health and Retirement Study (HRS) is an invaluable resource for researchers studying health and aging dynamics among Americans ages 50 and above and has strong potential to be used by researchers to provide insights about the drivers of rising U.S. mortality rates. This paper assesses the strengths and limitations of HRS data for identifying drivers of rising mortality rates in the U.S. and provides recommendations to enhance the utility of the HRS in this regard. Among our many recommendations, we encourage the HRS to prioritize the following: link cause of death information to respondents; reduce the age of eligibility for inclusion in the sample; increase the rural sample size; enhance the existing HRS Contextual Data Resource by incorporating longitudinal measures of structural determinants of health; develop additional data linkages to capture residential settings and characteristics across the life course; and add measures that capture drug use, gun ownership, and social media use.

Americans' Trust in COVID-19 Information from Governmental Sources in the Trump Era: Individuals' Adoption of Preventive Measures, and Health Implications

This study analyzes differences among Americans in their trust in COVID-19 information from governmental sources and how trust is associated with personal adoption of preventative measures under the Trump administration. Based on our analysis of data from a nationally representative survey conducted in October 2020 (effective sample size after weighting = 2615), we find that Americans in general have more trust in COVID-19 information from state/local governments than from the federal government. Variables such as age, party affiliation, religiosity, and race are significantly associated with Americans' trust or lack of trust in COVID-19 information from governmental sources. During the study period, Republicans had more trust in the federal government as a COVID-19 information source than Democrats did, while Democrats had more trust in state/local governments. African Americans had the least trust in the federal and state/local governments as COVID-19 information sources, while Asian Americans had the most trust in both institutions. Trust in the state/local governments as COVID-19 information sources was positively associated with physical distancing and mask-wearing while trust in the federal government as a COVID-19 information source was negatively associated with physical distancing and mask-wearing, suggesting the distinctive roles that state/local governments and the federal government played in mobilizing Americans to adopt preventive measures.

Can the Academic and Experiential Study of Flourishing Improve Flourishing in College Students? A Multi-University Study

Objectives

Significant concerns have been raised about the "mental health crisis" on college campuses, with attention turning to what colleges can do beyond counseling services to address students' mental health and well-being. We examined whether primarily first-year (89.1%) undergraduate students (n=651) who enrolled in the Art and Science of Human Flourishing (ASHF), a novel academic and experiential for-credit elective course on human flourishing, would demonstrate improved mental health and strengthen skills, perspectives, and behaviors associated with flourishing relative to students who did not enroll in this course.

Methods

In a two-wave, multi-site, propensity-score matched controlled trial (ASHF n=217, Control n=434; N=651), we used hierarchal linear models and false discovery rate corrected doubly robust estimates to evaluate the impact of the ASHF on attention and social-emotional skill development, flourishing perspectives, mental health, health, and risk behavior outcomes.

Results

ASHF participants reported significantly improved mental health (i.e., reduced depression) and flourishing, improvements on multiple attention and social-emotional skills (e.g., attention function, self-compassion), and increases in prosocial attitudes (empathic concern, shared humanity; Cohen's ds= 0.18-0.46) compared to controls. There was no evidence for ASHF course impacts on health or risk behaviors, raising the possibility that these outcomes take more time to change.

Conclusions

This research provides initial evidence that the ASHF course may be a promising curricular approach to reduce and potentially prevent poor mental health while promoting flourishing in college students. Continued research is needed to confirm these conclusions.

Interventions to reduce partisan animosity

Rising partisan animosity is associated with a reduction in support for democracy and an increase in support for political violence. Here we provide a multi-level review of interventions designed to reduce partisan animosity, which we define as negative thoughts, feelings and behaviours towards a political outgroup. We introduce the TRI framework to capture three levels of intervention-thoughts (correcting misconceptions and highlighting commonalities), relationships (building dialogue skills and fostering positive contact) and institutions (changing public discourse and transforming political structures)-and connect these levels by highlighting the importance of motivation and mobilization. Our review encompasses both interventions conducted as part of academic research projects and real-world interventions led by practitioners in non-profit organizations. We also explore the challenges of durability and scalability, examine self-fulfilling polarization and interventions that backfire, and discuss future directions for reducing partisan animosity.

Cognitive-motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts

Healthy democratic polities feature competing visions of a good society but also require some level of cooperation and institutional trust. Democracy is at risk when citizens become so polarized that an 'us versus them' mentality dominates. Despite a vast multidisciplinary literature, no coherent conceptual framework of the microlevel dynamics that increase or decrease polarization has been presented. In this Review, we provide a conceptual framework to integrate scientific knowledge about cognitive-motivational mechanisms that influence political polarization and the social-communicative contexts in which they are enacted. Ego-justifying and group-justifying motives lead individuals to defend their own pre-existing beliefs and those of their in-group, respectively. However, a distinct class of system-justifying motives contributes to asymmetric forms of polarization. Whereas conservative-rightist ideology is associated with valuing tradition, social order and maintenance of the status quo, liberal-leftist ideology is associated with a push for egalitarian social change. These cognitive-motivational mechanisms interact with social influence processes linked to communication source, message and channel factors, all of which might contribute to increased or decreased polarization. We conclude with a discussion of unanswered questions and ways in which our framework can be extended to the study of culture and institutions.

Pandemics and Politics: Analyzing the Politicization and Polarization of Pandemic-Related Reporting

The COVID-19 pandemic generated tremendous journalistic attention, and occurred during a period of increasing politicization and polarization in America’s news media. This study considers the intersection of both phenomena, and the extent of politicization in recent and historical pandemic-related reporting. Results suggest that political topics, actions and actors have frequently been the focus of COVID-19-related reporting, and that such political content has grown more substantial over time.

A Framework on Polarization, Cognitive Inflexibility, and Rigid Cognitive Specialization

Polarization is pervasive in the current sociopolitical discourse. Polarization tends to increase cognitive inflexibility where people become less capable of updating their beliefs upon new information or switching between different ways of thinking. Cognitive inflexibility can in turn increase polarization. We propose that this positive feedback loop between polarization and cognitive inflexibility is a form of threat response that has benefited humans throughout their evolutionary history. This feedback loop, which can be driven by conflict mindset, group conformity, and simplification of information, facilitates the formation of strong bonds within a group that are able to eliminate threats and increase individual fitness. Although cognitive inflexibility is conventionally seen as maladaptive, here we argue that cognitive inflexibility may be an adaptation under polarization. That is, in a highly polarized society most people only interact with members of their own social group, without having to confront perspectives from another group or interacting with out-group members. In this context, cognitive inflexibility creates rigid cognitive specialization, a set of cognitive traits that allow people to operate efficiently within their social circles but not outside of it. Although rigid cognitive specialization benefits individuals in the short term, it may lead to more polarization over the long run, and thus produce more conflict between groups. We call on future research to examine the link between cognitive inflexibility and rigid cognitive specialization.

Political polarization of conservation issues in the era of COVID-19: An examination of partisan perspectives and priorities in the United States

As a zoonotic disease with unprecedented global impacts, COVID-19 may influence how people prioritize issues related to wildlife conservation. Using a nationally representative sample of US residents, we investigated: (1) how COVID-19 affected the relative importance of conservation issues among adults with different political ideologies, and (2) how the pandemic affected political polarization of conservation issues during the 2020 general election in the United States. Conservation issues such as endangered species and controlling zoonotic disease ranked low in importance among the 14 policy issues considered, even lower than environmental issues such as climate change and environmental protection; however, the importance of all conservation issues increased as a result of COVID-19. Political polarization surrounding the perceived importance of conservation issues also increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, with Democrats reporting larger increases in importance than Republicans. Polarization was driven by the most conservative Republicans and the most liberal Democrats. But this polarization was less extreme than it was for other issues such as climate change and healthcare. Findings highlight the need for communicating links between zoonotic disease and human interactions with wildlife and the environment. Acting quickly may be critical in areas where conservation issues are primed to succumb to political polarization.

Psychosocial Predictors of Intention to Vaccinate Against the Coronavirus (COVID-19)

The COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc across the world. Public health efforts to combat the disease and return life to normalcy largely rests upon COVID-19 vaccination distribution and uptake. Thus, it is critical to examine factors that predict people's intentions to vaccinate. This study explored predictors of intention to vaccinate against COVID-19 among demographic and personal factors, health behaviors and beliefs, COVID-19-specific beliefs, and trust in physicians, using a sample of U.S. adults. We employed bivariate correlations and hierarchical regression to analyze the data. We found that the strongest predictors are political orientation, trust in physicians, subjective norms, and prior flu shot uptake. These associations suggest that individuals who held more liberal political views, expressed higher levels of trust in their primary care provider, perceived stronger social pressure to vaccinate against COVID-19, and received a flu shot during the previous flu season, had a stronger intention to vaccinate against COVID-19. Based on our results, we suggest that public health efforts to increase vaccination uptake for COVID-19 vaccines focus on addressing political orientation (conservatism), involve primary care providers, emphasize vaccination as the norm (and not the exception), and use information about previous flu vaccinations to target vaccination campaigns.

Seek and Ye Shall Be Fine: Attitudes Toward Political-Perspective Seekers

Six preregistered studies (N = 2,421) examined how people respond to copartisan political-perspective seekers: political allies who attempt to hear from shared opponents and better understand their views. We found that North American adults and students generally like copartisan seekers (meta-analytic Cohen's d = 0.83 across 4,231 participants, representing all available data points). People like copartisan perspective seekers because they seem tolerant, cooperative, and rational, but this liking is diminished because seekers seem to validate-and may even adopt-opponents' illegitimate views. Participants liked copartisan seekers across a range of different motivations guiding these seekers' actions but, consistent with our theorizing, their liking decreased (though rarely disappeared entirely) when seekers lacked partisan commitments or when they sought especially illegitimate beliefs. Despite evidence of rising political intolerance in recent decades, these findings suggest that people nonetheless celebrate political allies who tolerate and seriously consider their opponents' views.

Seeking Evidence of The MAGA Cult and Trump Derangement Syndrome: An Examination of (A)symmetric Political Bias

Three studies sought to explore the existence of (a)symmetric bias regarding Donald Trump. In Study 1, participants read one of three statements expressing different degrees of favorability toward electing the President of the United States via a National Popular Vote attributed to Trump or an anonymous source. In Study 2, participants read one of two statements either favoring or disfavoring the name change of the Washington NFL franchise, and the statement was attributed to either Trump or an anonymous source. In Study 3, Trump and Biden voters were asked to rate their support or opposition to counting all the votes in battleground states when continued counting was expected to either help Trump or Biden. Results for all three studies supported the asymmetric bias hypothesis. Trump supporters consistently showed bias in favor of the interests and ostensible positions of Trump, whereas Trump’s detractors did not show an opposing bias.

Factors associated with the intention to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine among a racially/ethnically diverse sample of women in the USA

Widespread uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine is critical to halt the pandemic. At present, little is known about factors that will affect vaccine uptake, especially among diverse racial/ethnic communities that have experienced the highest burden of COVID. We administered an online survey to a Qualtrics respondent panel of women ages 27-45 years (N = 396) to assess vaccine intentions and attitudes, and trusted vaccine information sources. 56.8% intended to be vaccinated and 25.5% were unsure. In bivariate analyses, a greater percentage of non-Latina White (NLW) and Chinese women reported that they would be vaccinated, compared with Latina and non-Latina Black (NLB) women (p < 0.001). Those who were uninsured, unemployed and those with lower incomes were less likely to say that they would be vaccinated. In analyses stratified by race/ethnicity, NLB women remained significantly less likely to report that they would be vaccinated compared with NLW women (adjusted odds ratio: 0.47; 95% confidence interval: 0.23, 0.94), controlling for age, marital status, income, education, employment, and insurance status. When analyses were additionally controlled for beliefs in vaccine safety and efficacy, racial/ethnic differences were no longer significant (adjusted odds ratio: 0.64; 95% confidence interval: 0.31, 1.34). Given that NLB women were less likely to report the intention to be vaccinated, targeted efforts will be needed to promote vaccine uptake. It will be critical to emphasize that the vaccine is safe and effective; this message may be best delivered by trusted community members.

How (many) descriptive claims about political polarization exacerbate polarization

Recently, researchers and reporters have made a wide range of claims about the distribution, nature, and societal impact of political polarization. Here I offer reasons to believe that even when they are correct and prima facie merely descriptive, many of these claims have the highly negative side effect of increasing political polarization. This is because of the interplay of two factors that have so far been neglected in the work on political polarization, namely that (1) people tend to conform to descriptive norms (i.e., norms capturing [perceptions of] what others commonly do, think, or feel), and that (2) claims about political polarization often convey such norms. Many of these claims thus incline people to behave, cognize, and be affectively disposed in ways that contribute to social division. But there is a silver lining. People’s tendency to conform to descriptive norms also provides the basis for developing new, experimentally testable strategies for counteracting political polarization. I outline three.