Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35690035›Full record

ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2022

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

Ray Block, Michael Burnham, Kayla Kahn, Rachel Peng, Jeremy Seeman, Christopher Seto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Public Health Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia: The Role of the Morrison Government.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ray BlockPenn State Departments of Political Science and African American Studies, 308 Pond Laboratory, University Park, PA, 16802, USA.
Michael BurnhamPenn State Department of Political Science and the Center for Social Data Analytics, Pond Laboratory, University Park, PA, 16802, USA. Electronic address: mlb6496@psu.edu.
Kayla KahnPenn State Department of Political Science and the Center for Social Data Analytics, Pond Laboratory, University Park, PA, 16802, USA.
Rachel PengPenn State Donald P. Bellisario College of Communications and the Center for Social Data Analytics, 8 Carnegie Building University Park, PA, 16802, USA.
Jeremy SeemanPenn State Department of Statistics and the Center for Social Data Analytics, 122 Chemistry Building University Park, PA, 16802, USA.
Christopher SetoPenn State Department of Sociology and Criminology and the Center for Social Data Analytics, 1001 Oswald Tower University Park, PA, 16802, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveRisk 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.

methodAnalyses 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).

resultsFindings 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.

conclusionsPandemic-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.

Indexed as

COVID-19HumansPandemicsPhysical DistancingPoliticsSurveys and QuestionnairesAdherenceCOVID-19Disease mitigation behaviorIdeologyPolitical polarizationPublic opinionRisk perceptionSocial media

Identifiers

PMID35690035
PMCPMC9161674

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.