The Emotional Foundations of Political Support: How Fear and Anger Affect Trust in the Government in Times of the Covid-19 Pandemic

The link between anger and admiration toward governmental actions and self-reported preventive behaviour in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, across six correlational studies in four different countries (total N = 4937), we examined the link between citizens' anger with and admiration for the government's actions and decisions (i.e., system-based anger and admiration) and engagement in preventive behaviour. The internal meta-analyses showed that individuals who admired the government's actions were more likely to adopt personal hygiene and social distancing behaviour. Yet, the link between emotions and preventive behaviour differed concerning the target of emotions, especially for anger. Specifically, anger about restrictions imposed by the government was negatively related to preventive behaviours, but this relationship was not significant when the target of anger was the government's overall handling of the pandemic. Our findings emphasise the importance of citizens' emotions and the targets of those emotions during the crisis.

Social and political trust diverge during a crisis

This study shows that social and political trust may diverge in the face of shared threats, and that this pattern is driven by negative information about crisis management. Leveraging a three-wave panel survey and an information-provision experiment in the USA during the COVID-19 crisis, our research reveals that negative perceptions of pandemic management lead to a decline in political trust and a parallel increase in social trust. This dynamic is pronounced among government supporters, who, confronted with COVID-19 challenges, experience a substantial erosion of political trust. Simultaneously, there is a notable rise in social trust within this group. Our analysis suggests that, as government supporters attributed more responsibility for the crisis to their political leader, political trust was supplanted by social trust. Disenchanted voters, feeling let down by institutions, sought support in society. Both the survey and the experiment underscore that societal shocks can prompt individuals to shift from relying on formal institutions to informal ones as a coping strategy. This research contributes a generalizable framework explaining how negative perceptions of crisis management can lead societies to substitute political trust with social trust, advancing our understanding of societal responses to shared threats and adaptive strategies during crises.

Attentive immobility: Investigating the emotional-cognitive mechanism underlying conspiracy mentality and Covid-19 preventive behaviors

While conspiracy theories have received extensive attention in the realm of misinformation, there has been limited research exploring the impact of conspiracy mentality on individuals' preventive behaviors during acute public health crises. This study investigates how conspiracy mentality may affect compliance with preventive health measures necessary to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, and the underlying emotional and cognitive mediators. Data was collected through a survey among 1878 Chinese respondents at the conclusion of the pandemic. The results indicate that individuals with higher levels of conspiracy mentality are significantly less engaged in preventive behaviors. Furthermore, this correlation is mediated by a sequence of mediating factors, starting from anger leading to institutional distrust and fear leading to perceived risk. Conspiracists' response mode can be described as a state of "attentive immobility," in which the impact of heightened institutional distrust outweighs their perceptions of risk, ultimately reducing engagement in preventive behaviors during crises. These findings underscore the importance of debunking initiatives that aim to address and mitigate the negative consequences of conspiracy mentality by targeting the mediating psychological processes during future pandemic threats.

Mobilising Extremism in Times of Change: Analysing the UK's Far-Right Online Content During the Pandemic

The growing dissension towards the political handling of COVID-19, widespread job losses, backlash to extended lockdowns, and hesitancy surrounding the vaccine are propagating toxic far-right discourses in the UK. Moreover, the public is increasingly reliant on different social media platforms, including a growing number of participants on the far-right's fringe online networks, for all pandemic-related news and interactions. Therefore, with the proliferation of harmful far-right narratives and the public's reliance on these platforms for socialising, the pandemic environment is a breeding ground for radical ideologically-based mobilisation and social fragmentation. However, there remains a gap in understanding how these far-right online communities, during the pandemic, utilise societal insecurities to attract candidates, maintain viewership, and form a collective on social media platforms. The article aims to better understand online far-right mobilisation by examining, via a mixed-methodology qualitative content analysis and netnography, UK-centric content, narratives, and key political figures on the fringe platform, Gab. Through the dual-qualitative coding and analyses of 925 trending posts, the research outlines the platform's hate-filled media and the toxic nature of its communications. Moreover, the findings illustrate the far-right's online discursive dynamics, showcasing the dependence on Michael Hogg's uncertainty-identity mechanisms in the community's exploitation of societal insecurity. From these results, I propose a far-right mobilisation model termed Collective Anxiety, which illustrates that toxic communication is the foundation for the community's maintenance and recruitment. These observations set a precedent for hate-filled discourse on the platform and consequently have widespread policy implications that need addressing.

Citizenship in times of crisis: biosocial state-citizen relations during COVID-19 in Austria

Drawing upon 152 in-depth qualitative interviews with residents in Austria carried out in the first year of the pandemic, this article discusses how people's experiences with COVID-19 policies reflect and reshape state-citizen relations. Coinciding with a significant government crisis, the first year of COVID-19 in Austria saw pandemic measures justified with reference to a biological, often medical understanding of health that framed disease prevention in terms of transmission reduction, often with reference to metrics such as hospitalisation rates, etc. Instead of using this biomedical frame, our interviewees, however, drew attention to biopsychosocial dimensions of the crisis and problematised the entanglements between economy and health. We call this the emergence of a biosocial notion of citizenship that is attentive to psychological, social and economic dimensions of health. Insights into the biosocial nature of pandemic citizenship open a window of opportunity for addressing long-standing social injustices.

Pandemic threat and authoritarian attitudes in Europe: An empirical analysis of the exposure to COVID-19

While analysis of the impact of threatening events has moved from bit player to center stage in political science in recent decades, the phenomenon of pandemic threat is widely neglected in terms of a systematic research agenda. Tying together insights from the behavioral immune system hypothesis and standard political science models of emotional processing, we evaluate whether exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic threat is related to authoritarian attitudes and which emotions do the work. Using 12 samples with over 12,000 respondents from six European countries at two time points (2020 and 2021), we argue that pandemic threats can generate disgust, anger, and fear. Our analyses indicate that exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic threat particularly activates fear, which in turn is linked to authoritarian attitudes.

Perceived risk, political polarization, and the willingness to follow COVID-19 mitigation guidelines

OBJECTIVE

Risk assessment and response is important for understanding human behavior. The divisive context surrounding the coronavirus pandemic inspires our exploration of risk perceptions and the polarization of mitigation practices (i.e., the degree to which the behaviors of people on the political "Left" diverge from those on the "Right"). Specifically, we investigate the extent to which the political polarization of willingness to comply with mitigation behaviors changes with risk perceptions.

METHOD

Analyses use data from two sources: an original dataset of Twitter posts and a nationally-representative survey. In the Twitter data, negative binomial regression models are used to predict mitigation intent measured using tweet counts. In the survey data, logit models predict self-reported mitigation behavior (vaccination, masking, and social distancing).

RESULTS

Findings converged across both datasets, supporting the idea that the links between political orientation and willingness to follow mitigation guidelines depend on perceived risk. People on the Left are more inclined than their Right-oriented colleagues to follow guidelines, but this polarization tends to decrease as the perceived risk of COVID-19 intensifies. Additionally, we find evidence that exposure to COVID-19 infections sends ambiguous signals about the risk of the virus while COVID-19 related deaths have a more consistent impact on mitigation behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS

Pandemic-related risks can create opportunities for perceived "common ground," between the political "Right" and "Left." Risk perceptions and politics interact in their links to intended COVID-19 mitigation behavior (as measured both on Twitter and in a national survey). Our results invite a more complex interpretation of political polarization than those stemming from simplistic analyses of partisanship and ideology.

Socioeconomic Status and COVID-19-Related Psychological Panic in China: The Role of Trust in Government and Authoritarian Personality

Although the health and economic risks of COVID-19 may differ for higher- and lower-socioeconomic-status (SES) populations, some studies found that people with lower SES do not necessarily experience more psychological panic. In this research, we examine how SES is related with psychological panic during the COVID-19 pandemic using a large nationwide Chinese sample. Participants were 933 adults (mean age = 30.04, SD = 8.19) who completed an online questionnaire between 11 and 12 February 2020. Lower SES individuals have higher trust in government and thus experience less psychological panic, and the indirect effect of this trust suppresses the direct negative association between SES and psychological panic. In addition to this difference in trust in government between lower- and higher-status individuals, the indirect effect of the trust only exists among people with low (not high) authoritarian personalities. This study provides evidence that political trust may serve as a buffer, suppressing the negative association between SES and psychological panic; thus, policies and actions enhancing political trust are vital to support the mental health of individuals with lower SES during the pandemic, especially for citizens with low authoritarian personalities.