ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2025
Political identity and risk politics: Evidence from a pandemic.
Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Political identity and risk politics: Evidence from a pandemic.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The way political identity serves as a foundation for political polarization in the United States permits elites to extend conflict rapidly to new issue areas. Further, the types of cognitive mechanisms and shortcuts used in the politically polarized information environment are similar to some of those used in risk perception. Consequently, political elites may easily create partisan risk positions, largely through politically focused social amplification of risk. The COVID-19 pandemic provided a natural experiment for testing predictions about such risk politics. We asked questions about pandemic-related views, behaviors, and policies at the outset of the pandemic in April 2020 and again in September 2020 via public opinion surveys. Our data and analyses focus primarily on a single state, with some analysis extended to four states. We begin by demonstrating strong linkages between political partisan identification on the one hand and support for co-partisan elites, use of partisan information sources, and support for co-partisan policies on the other hand. We then find evidence that pandemic risk positions correspond with partisan information sources and find support for a mechanism involving partisan-tinted evaluation of elite cues. Partisan risk positions quickly became part of the larger polarized structure of political support and views. Finally, our evidence shows on the balance that partisan risk positions related to the pandemic coalesced and strengthened over time. Overall, while self-identified Democrats consistently viewed the coronavirus as the primary threat, self-identified Republicans quickly pivoted toward threats to their freedoms and to the economy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.