Justice beliefs and cultural values predict support for COVID-19 vaccination and quarantine behavioral mandates: a multilevel cross-national study

Understanding how individual beliefs and societal values influence support for measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission is vital to developing and implementing effective prevention policies. Using both Just World Theory and Cultural Dimensions Theory, the present study considered how individual-level justice beliefs and country-level social values predict support for vaccination and quarantine policy mandates to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Data from an international survey of adults from 46 countries (N = 6424) were used to evaluate how individual-level beliefs about justice for self and others, as well as national values-that is, power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, and indulgence-influence support for vaccination and quarantine behavioral mandates. Multilevel modeling revealed that support for vaccination and quarantine mandates were positively associated with individual-level beliefs about justice for self, and negatively associated with country-level uncertainty avoidance. Significant cross-level interactions revealed that beliefs about justice for self were associated more strongly with support for mandatory vaccination in countries high in individualism, whereas beliefs about justice for others were more strongly associated with support for vaccination and quarantine mandates in countries high in long-term orientation. Beliefs about justice and cultural values can independently and also interactively influence support for evidence-based practices to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, such as vaccination and quarantine. Understanding these multilevel influences may inform efforts to develop and implement effective prevention policies in varied national contexts.

Adherence to Social Distancing Guidelines Throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Roles of Pseudoscientific Beliefs, Trust, Political Party Affiliation, and Risk Perceptions

BACKGROUND

Adherence to COVID-19 social distancing guidelines varies across individuals.

PURPOSE

This study examined the relations of pseudoscientific and just world beliefs, generalized and institutional trust, and political party affiliation to adherence to COVID-19 social distancing guidelines over three months, as well as the explanatory role of COVID-19 risk perceptions in these relations.

METHODS

A U.S. nationwide sample of 430 adults (49.8% women; mean age = 40.72) completed a prospective online study, including an initial assessment (between March 27 and April 5, 2020), a 1 month follow-up (between April 27 and May 21, 2020), and a 3 month follow-up (between June 26 and July 15, 2020). We hypothesized that greater pseudoscientific and just world beliefs, lower governmental, institutional, and dispositional trust, and Republican Party affiliation would be associated with lower initial adherence to social distancing and greater reductions in social distancing over time and that COVID-19 risk perceptions would account for significant variance in these relations.

RESULTS

Results revealed unique associations of lower governmental trust, greater COVID-19 pseudoscientific beliefs, and greater trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to lower initial adherence to social distancing. Whereas greater COVID-19 risk perceptions and CDC trust were associated with less steep declines in social distancing over time, both Republican (vs. Democratic) Party affiliation and greater COVID-19 pseudoscientific beliefs were associated with steeper declines in social distancing over time (relations accounted for by lower COVID-19 risk perceptions).

CONCLUSIONS

Results highlight the utility of public health interventions aimed at improving scientific literacy and emphasizing bipartisan support for social distancing guidelines.

Religious engagement and citizen support for democratic accountability in contemporary democracies

The paper posits that individual religious engagement reduces people's motivations to hold governments accountable for their performance while in office. This expectation is based on previous research which shows that religion is closely linked with believing that the world is just, a place where people generally get what they deserve and deserve what they get. Using data from the European Social Survey 2012-13 in seventeen established democracies, the study shows that individual religious engagement - in a form of religiosity and attendance of religious services - is indeed negatively associated with believing that governing parties should be punished in elections for poor performance. Moreover, while strong believers are more satisfied with government than non-believers, religious engagement weakens the relationship between people's economic evaluations and government satisfaction. These findings have important implications for debates on democratic accountability, reward-punishment models of electoral politics, and the prospects of democratic legitimacy in states with considerable shares of religious individuals.