Give me liberty or give me COVID-19: How social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and libertarianism explain Americans' reactions to COVID-19

Exploring and contextualizing the associations among political identification, vaccine risk and benefit perceptions, and vaccine acceptance

There is considerable research on the influence of political partisanship on vaccine acceptance. However, the current study is one of the first to investigate how political identification is related to risk and benefit perceptions vis-à-vis vaccines. Based on survey data collected in the United States regarding four different vaccines at three points in time (n = 383 for April-June 2012; n = 364 for March 2020; n = 334 for April-May 2020), Democrats were found to have more positive attitudes toward vaccinations in general and hold more favorable risk and benefit perceptions of pandemic and routine vaccines overall compared to Republicans. However, the onset of a pandemic can serve as an equalizing force and motivate similar risk and benefit perceptions across party lines, but this force can wane quickly when the information environment is politicized. For political partisans who are ideologically oriented to be more hesitant toward vaccines, two conditions can help sustain their favorable vaccine perceptions during a pandemic: (a) when they identify with the governing political party, and (b) when there are consistent reassurances of vaccine safety and effectiveness from their partisan leadership. Given that risk and benefit perceptions were found to be consistently associated with vaccine acceptance across contexts in this study, communication aimed at encouraging vaccinations should always address the risks and benefits of a vaccine in ways that are tailored for individuals with different political affiliations.

Taking Stock and Looking Forward to the Future of Pathogen Politics in Light of New Insights and Recommendations: COVID-19 Threat Was Meaningfully Associated With Support for Liberal Policies in the United States

Infectious disease outbreaks are expected to predict support for conservative policies. However, earlier studies (January-June, 2020) reached conflicting findings regarding the association between COVID-19 threat and policy preferences in the United States. We revisit this issue by analyzing five nationally representative surveys conducted during the relatively severe periods of the pandemic (August 2020-December, 2020; total N = 82,753). Using Bayesian inference, we find strong evidence that subjective (e.g., fear of infection and pandemic outrage) but not objective (e.g., local cases and deaths) threat predicted support for liberal policies (e.g., immigration and universal health care). Meta-analyses revealed that the estimates depend on the type of subjective (.05 ≥ r ≤ .60) or objective (.00 ≥ r ≤ .14) COVID-19 threat. We propose an emotion-mediated dual-process model of pathogen management suggesting that infectious disease outbreaks activate both avoidance and caregiving motives that translate, respectively, into support for right-wing and left-wing policies.

The role of collectivism, liberty, COVID fatigue, and fatalism in public support for the zero-COVID policy and relaxing restrictions in China

BACKGROUND

China was the last country in the world to relax COVID-19 restrictions. A successful public health policy requires public support. This analysis examined the factors associated with Chinese support for zero-COVID and relaxing COVID-19 restrictions in China.

METHOD

Two online surveys were conducted among Chinese participants in mainland China on June 10-13 (N = 460) and December 2, 2022 (N = 450). These two samples were similar based on the participants' demographics.

RESULTS

The results revealed that the perceived health consequences of a COVID-19 policy, perceived norms of approving a COVID-19 policy, and hope positively predicted the participants' support for the COVID-19 policy. The results further showed that collectivism and fatalism positively predicted support for zero-COVID and negatively predicted support for relaxing restrictions. COVID fatigue was negatively associated with support for zero-COVID and positively associated with support for relaxing restrictions. Liberty positively predicted support for relaxing restrictions in June and negatively predicted zero-COVID in December 2023. It did not positively or negatively predict support for the policy adopted by the government.

CONCLUSION

Collectivism, liberty, COVID fatigue, and fatalistic beliefs are important considerations connected to public support for a COVID-19 policy. The role of liberty was more nuanced and depended on the survey's time and whether the government adopted the policy.

Altered place engagement since COVID-19: A multi-method study of community participation and health among older americans

Little is known about longer-term changes to community participation since the COVID-19 pandemic onset and potential implications for health and wellbeing in later life. This multi-method investigation analyzes national data from the COVID-19 Coping Study. Statistical analyses of survey data (n = 1,630; mean age 67.9 years; data collected April/May 2022) identified that adults residing in the US still tended to stay inside their homes more often since the pandemic onset. Overall, participants decreased their engagement with amenities such as eateries, gyms, and arts and cultural sites. Reflexive thematic analysis of semi-structured in-depth interviews (n = 57; mean age 70.7 years; data collected May-July 2021) identified altered community participation with perceived long-term impacts on physical, mental, and social health and wellbeing. The results provide novel insights about the critical nature of 'third places' to support later life, and policy implications to strengthen community environments. Investment in outdoor, well-ventilated, and distanced third places may support wellbeing.

Global analysis of the COVID-19 policy activity levels and evolution patterns: A cross-sectional study

Background and Aims

Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a large number of government policies have been implemented worldwide in response to the global spread of COVID-19. This paper aims at developing a data-driven analysis to answer the three research questions: (a) Compared to the pandemic development, are the global government COVID-19 policies sufficiently active? (b) What are the differences and characteristics in the policy activity levels at the country level? (c) What types of COVID-19 policy patterns are forming?

Methods

Using the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker data set, we present a global analysis of the COVID-19 policy activity levels and evolution patterns from January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2022, based on the differential expression-sliding window analysis (DE-SWAN) algorithm and the clustering ensemble algorithm.

Results

Within the period under study, the results indicate that (a) the global government policy responses to COVID-19 are very active, and the policy activity levels are significantly higher than those of global pandemic developments; (b) a high activity of policy is positively correlated to pandemic prevention at the country level; and (c) a high human development index (HDI) score is negatively correlated to the country policy activity level. Furthermore, we propose to categorize the global policy evolution patterns into three categories: (i) Mainstream (152 countries); (ii) China; and (iii) Others (34 countries).

Conclusion

This work is one of the few studies that quantitatively explores the evolutionary characteristics of global government policies on COVID-19, and our results provide some new perspectives on global policy activity levels and evolution patterns.

Attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine mandate: The role of psychological characteristics and partisan self-identification

Governments around the world are increasingly considering vaccine mandates to curb the spread of COVID-19. In May 2022, we surveyed 394 residents of South Dakota to examine predictors of popular attitudes toward a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. We investigated the role of Big Five personality traits, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation, as well as partisan self-identification, evangelical identity, and COVID-19 vaccination status. Results showed that Big Five personality traits (openness and emotional stability), right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, evangelical identity, and partisan self-identification are linked to attitudes toward a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Our findings underscore the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the impact of dispositional factors on attitudes toward mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.

The role of ideological dimensions in shaping acceptance of facial recognition technology and reactions to algorithm bias

Facial recognition technology has been introduced into various aspects of social life, yet it has raised concerns over its infringement of civil liberties and biases against minorities. This study investigates how three ideological dimensions-social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and libertarianism-shape facial recognition acceptance. First, two surveys of crowdsourced workers (N = 891 and 587) demonstrated that the acceptance of facial recognition applications is positively associated with right-wing authoritarianism and negatively with libertarianism, whereas social dominance orientation shows little influence. Second, an experiment (N = 496) exposed participants to information about demographic biases in facial recognition applications. This message produced more opposition to facial recognition and this effect largely was not moderated by the three ideological dimensions. In summary, individuals' endorsement of various ideologies predicts their acceptance of facial recognition technology, but messages about algorithm biases in facial recognition can still shape their attitudes regardless of the preexisting ideologies.

Politics of COVID-19 vaccine mandates: Left/right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and libertarianism

Mandatory and punitive vaccination policies, such as requiring vaccination certificates for public activities and firing employees who refuse vaccination, have raised considerable objections. With a sample of U.S. crowdsourced workers (N = 983), this study investigates how four ideologies–left-wing authoritarianism (LWA), right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), and libertarianism–explain vaccine acceptance and attitudes toward vaccine policies. Results show that LWA predicts higher vaccine acceptance and support for COVID-19 vaccine mandates and the punishment of unvaccinated individuals, whereas libertarianism and RWA show negative relationships. SDO is linked to opposition to vaccine mandates. This study underscores the role of specific ideological components in shaping attitudes toward vaccine policies while also contributing to the arguments that LWA and libertarianism have important implications for studying sociopolitical attitudes.