Walking the party line: The growing role of political ideology in shaping health behavior in the United States

Objective To assess the extent to which political ideology affects COVID-19 preventive behaviors and related beliefs and attitudes in the U.S. Methods Two surveys, one using a convenience sample and another using a nationally representative sample, were conducted in September and November 2020, respectively. Multiple regressions compared political ideology with identified COVID-19 risk factors and demographics as well as knowledge measures. Surveys were followed by a review of the emerging COVID-19 behavioral literature (completed in January 2021) to assess the frequency of ideological effects in publicly reported data. Results In the survey data, political ideology was a significant predictor for all dependent variables in both surveys, and the strongest predictor for most of them. Out of 141 estimates from 44 selected studies, political ideology was a significant predictor of responses in 112 (79%) and showed the largest effect on COVID-19-related measures in close to half of these estimates (44%). Conclusions This study reinforces previous research that found partisan differences in engaging in behaviors with long-term health consequences by showing that these ideologically-driven differences manifest in situations where the possibility of severe illness or death is immediate and the potential societal impact is significant. The substantial implications for public health research and practice are both methodological and conceptual

Responsiveness to evidence : a political cognition approach

Questions of societal import have both normative (what should be done) and descriptive (what is the case) dimensions. In this chapter, we address disagreements about the latter through the lens of political cognition, a research effort spanning cognitive psychology and experimental political science. We consider various explanations for fierce disagreements about "facts on the ground" and find that first, extensive evidence shows that judgments sort by political partisanship. Second, individual differences in threat sensitivity and uncertainty tolerance predict partisan group membership, which aids understanding of group differences but not necessarily differences in descriptive beliefs. Third, no evidence suggests a historically unusual deficit in scientific understanding. Fourth, some evidence implicates well-studied features of thought (confirmation bias, motivated reasoning), but these features appear to be symmetrical across the partisan divide. Finally, emergent evidence implicates people's assessments of information sources, processes that are also susceptible to motivated reasoning and partisan cueing and moreover are challenged by a media environment that is historically unusual. We conclude that the most promising conceptualizations of disagreement over empirical matters will acknowledge that partisan cues are often valid cues indicating the beliefs of people's groups and address difficulties of information source assessment in our current, unstable information environment

Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views on controversial scientific issues

Public attitudes that are in opposition to scientific consensus can be disastrous and include rejection of vaccines and opposition to climate change mitigation policies. Five studies examine the interrelationships between opposition to expert consensus on controversial scientific issues, how much people actually know about these issues, and how much they think they know. Across seven critical issues that enjoy substantial scientific consensus, as well as attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines and mitigation measures like mask wearing and social distancing, results indicate that those with the highest levels of opposition have the lowest levels of objective knowledge but the highest levels of subjective knowledge. Implications for scientists, policymakers, and science communicators are discussed

Knowledge Overconfidence is Associated with Anti-Consensus Views on Controversial Scientific Issues

Public attitudes that are in opposition to scientific consensus can be disastrous and include rejection of vaccines and opposition to climate change mitigation policies. Five studies examine the interrelationships between opposition to expert consensus on controversial scientific issues, how much people actually know about these issues, and how much they think they know. Across seven critical issues that enjoy substantial scientific consensus, as well as attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines and mitigation measures like mask wearing and social distancing, results indicate that those with the highest levels of opposition have the lowest levels of objective knowledge but the highest levels of subjective knowledge. Implications for scientists, policymakers, and science communicators are discussed