Når man vurderer COVID-planer, sætter folk fest over politik

Når en politiker, vi kan lide, støtter en COVID-19-politik, er vi tilbøjelige til at støtte den. Men når en politisk fjende støtter nøjagtig den samme plan, er vi tilbøjelige til at modsætte os den, ifølge ny forskning fra University of Colorado Boulder, der kommer den 14. januar i Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences .

På en mere optimistisk bemærkning tyder den globale undersøgelse på, at selvom politikere rundt om i verden har polariseret den offentlige mening under pandemien, kan betroede videnskabelige eksperter have magten til at forene den.

"Denne undersøgelse viser, at når det kommer til COVID-19, som med andre nutidige spørgsmål, er folk meget mere påvirket af, hvem politikken repræsenterer, end hvad politikken faktisk er," sagde seniorforfatter Leaf Van Boven, professor i psykologi og neurovidenskab. på CU Boulder. "Det viser også, at folk stoler på og kan lide eksperter mere end politikere - selv dem fra deres eget parti."

Politikere polariserer, eksperter depolariserer

Til undersøgelsen, der blev udført mellem august og november 2020, præsenterede Van Boven og hans medforfattere en undersøgelse for et nationalt repræsentativt udsnit af 13.000 personer i syv lande – Brasilien, Israel, Italien, Sverige, Sydkorea, Storbritannien og USA.

Respondenter, herunder 3.300 i USA, blev bedt om at evaluere et af to forslag til pandemihåndtering baseret på reelle planer under overvejelse, herunder foranstaltninger som social distancering, arbejdspladsbestemmelser, kontaktopsporing og rejserestriktioner.

En inkluderede strengere restriktioner og prioriterede "holde COVID-19-sagsnumrene nede." En anden lagde vægt på "genopretning af økonomien så meget som muligt og samtidig forhindre en genopblussen i COVID-19 tilfælde."

I et opfølgende eksperiment, kun udført i USA, evaluerede respondenterne internationale vaccinedistributionsplaner, hvor en prioriterede en Amerika-først-strategi, og en anden tog en mere global tilgang.

In both experiments, respondents were told that the policy was supported by either liberal elites, conservative elites, a bipartisan coalition, or nonpartisan scientific experts.

Names of elites were adapted for each country. For instance, in the U.S. survey, the policy was said to be endorsed by either Donald Trump or Joe Biden; In Brazil, it was endorsed by Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro or his political rival, Fernando Haddad.

Across all countries, liberal and conservative respondents were significantly more likely to support a policy when told elites from their party endorsed it. When a policy was presented as backed by bipartisan coalitions or neutral experts, it earned the most support.

"These findings underscore how important it is to have communications come from scientific sources that are not seen as political and to keep prominent politicians out of the spotlight of crisis communication," said co-first author Alexandra Flores, a Ph.D. student in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience.

How nonpartisan experts can help

In previous research on climate change policies, Van Boven found similar results:Republicans and Democrats had more in common than assumed and based their support more on who backed a policy than what it said.

But Van Boven was surprised to find that such political polarization has persisted so broadly, even in the face of an unprecedented global crisis requiring urgent, coordinated action.

"In the beginning of the pandemic, a lot of scholars predicted that these political divisions would be tempered, and we would all band together to confront this shared threat. That has not been the case," said Van Boven.

The United States was not, as often assumed, the most politically polarized country assessed. Sweden, Italy and Brazil were at least as politically divided, the study found, while the United Kingdom was less polarized.

As the pandemic enters its third year, the authors hope the findings will encourage politicians to pull away from the microphone and let scientific experts, disentangled from political infighting, take the lead on communicating health policies.

"When communication comes from politicians before the public really gets a chance to evaluate the relevant goals and outcomes, it can politicize things quickly and contribute to a spirit of uncooperativeness," said Flores. "A good way to combat that is to have nonpartisan experts be the ones to weigh in first."

They also hope individuals will take a hard look at why they do or don't support plans.

"In many situations, political polarization is a headache that slows things down," said Van Boven. "But in the context of this pandemic, it is costing hundreds of thousands of lives."