Longitudinal attenuation in political polarization: evidence from COVID-19 vaccination adherence in Brazil

Background: While political polarization in policy opinions, preferences, and observance is well established, little is known about whether and how such divisions evolve, and possibly attenuate, over time. Using the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil as the backdrop, we examine the longitudinal evolution of a highly relevant and polarizing policy: adherence to the COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: Studies 1 (N = 3346) and 2 (N = 10,214) use nationwide surveys to document initial differences and subsequent changes in vaccination adherence between conservatives ("Bolsonaristas") and non-conservatives ("non-Bolsonaristas"). Study 3 (N = 742) uses an original dataset to investigate belief changes among conservatives and their association with asymmetric changes in vaccination adherence. Results: Despite substantial differences at the early stages of rollout, the gap in vaccination adherence between conservatives and non-conservatives significantly decreased with the passage of time, driven essentially by a much faster uptake among the initially most skeptic—the conservatives. Study 3 demonstrates that the asymmetric changes in vaccination adherence were associated with meaningful belief changes among the conservatives, especially about the perceived effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines and the expected adherence of peers to the vaccination campaign. Conclusions: Together, these studies show that, in a context where the superiority of the promoted policy becomes clear over time and individuals have the opportunity to revisit prior beliefs, even intense political polarization can be attenuated

Social Class Shapes Donation Allocation Preferences

When considering a charitable act, consumers must often decide on how to allocate their resources across a multitude of possible causes. This article assesses how the relative “urgency” of the causes under consideration (i.e., how critical to human survival the causes are) shapes preferences for specific causes among higher and lower social class consumers. Across a series of studies in a highly unequal socioeconomic environment (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), we demonstrate that lower-class consumers prefer to donate to urgent causes (e.g., alleviating hunger) compared to non-urgent causes (e.g., encouraging cultural activities), whereas the effect reverses among higher-class consumers. Contrasting experiences with scarcity across social classes vary the consumers’ intrinsic sympathy toward people’s unmet basic needs, which in turn shapes donation allocation preferences. Consistent with this theoretical rationale, class differences in charitable allocations decrease when (a) vivid contextual cues induce sympathy among both higher- and lower-class consumers or (b) the experience with scarcity is similar across social classes. Thus, although class differences in preferences for specific causes can be shifted with relative ease, our findings suggest that those who have the most to give do not spontaneously prioritize what is most urgently needed in society

Effectively communicating the removal of fossil energy subsidies: Evidence from Latin America

Fossil energy subsidies create a series of distortions that often have negative environmental and social consequences. Yet, since subsidies confer salient and tangible benefits in the form of cheaper prices, citizens are very resistant to reforms. This research investigates how to best communicate the removal of fossil subsidies using a highly powered, pre-registered study with 5,498 participants across 11 countries in Latin America. We assessed baseline knowledge and views about subsidies and randomly assigned participants to one of eight experimental conditions varying in both the aspects emphasized (e.g., environment, distributive justice, prospective fiscal benefits) and the form of providing the message (i.e., complete or summarized information). Our results show that citizens (a) display a generalized lack of knowledge about the existence of energy subsidies, (b) are very unwilling to remove these subsidies once they know of their existence, and (c) would like subsidies to actually increase rather than decrease. Despite these results, our experiment revealed that communication strategies can be tailored to increase the acceptance of energy reforms. Specifically, emphasizing the negative consequences of subsidies (e.g., overconsumption of natural resources and unfair allocation of resources to the wealthy) is more effective than highlighting the potential benefits to be obtained via their removal (e.g., higher investment in healthcare, education, public safety, or welfare programs). Further, providing complete information is more effective than offering summarized pieces of information. These findings provide guidance on how to effectively communicate energy reforms