The effects of partisan framing on COVID-19 attitudes: Experimental evidence from early and late pandemic
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wichowsky A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9130101 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:One of the ways to overcome the sheer devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic is to get vaccinated. However, vaccine hesitancy could be a significant barrier. The main purposes of the current study are to examine the impact of four types of theory-driven messages on COVID-19 vaccination intention and to understand the moderating role of partisan media use and vaccination attitudes. The study used a between-subject randomized online experiment with four conditions. The manipulation messages were presented as screenshots from the CDC's Facebook page. The total number of participants were 387 (female 43%, mean age 37 years). The participants were from the U.S. and older than 18 years. The findings show that loss vs. gain message frames did not have any impact on COVID-19 vaccine intention. The moderating effects of conservative media and attitudes show that in general, those who consumed lower conservative media and held positive attitudes were higher on vaccine intention, and individual vs. collective frames did not have a strong impact. However, among those participants who scored high on conservative media use, and held negative vaccination attitudes, the individual frame had a higher impact on vaccine intention. The current study experimentally tested the intertwined relationships among message frames, partisan media use, and attitudes on vaccine intention. These relationships are critical considering the political nature of the pandemic.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-022-02851-3.
| S-EPMC8813160 | biostudies-literature
Project description:COVID-19 is a news issue that can be covered from many different angles. When reporting, journalists have to select, accentuate, or exclude particular aspects, which, in turn, may evoke a specific, and possibly constricted, perspective in viewers, a phenomenon termed the news-framing effect. Guided by the reinforcing spiral framework, we conducted a multi-study project that investigated the news-framing effect's underlying mechanism by studying the dynamic of self-reinforcing effects. Grounded in a real-life framing environment observed during the pandemic and systematically assessed via a content analysis (study 1) and survey (study 2), we offer supporting evidence for a preference-based reinforcement model by utilizing a combination of the selective exposure (i.e., self-selected exposure) and causal effects (i.e., forced exposure) paradigms within one randomized controlled study (study 3). Self-selection of news content by viewers was a necessary precondition for frame-consistent (reinforcement) effects. Forced exposure did not elicit causal effects in a frame-consistent direction.
| S-EPMC9922665 | biostudies-literature
Project description:How does a public health crisis like a global pandemic affect political opinions in fragile democratic contexts? Research in political science suggests several possible public reactions to crisis, from retrospective anti-incumbency to rally 'round the flag effects to democratic erosion and authoritarianism. Which of these obtains depends on the nature of the crisis. We examine whether and how the onset of the global pandemic shifted public opinion toward the president, elections, and democracy in Haiti. We embedded two experiments in a phone survey administered to a nationally representative sample of Haitians in April-June 2020. We find that the early pandemic boosted presidential approval and intentions to vote for the incumbent president, consistent with a rally effect. These results show that a rally effect occurs even in the most unlikely of places-an unstable context in which the incumbent president is struggling to maintain order and support. At the same time, we find scant evidence that the onset of the pandemic eroded democratic attitudes, even in a context in which democracy rests on uncertain grounds.
| S-EPMC8219124 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the lives of all Americans, but the severity of the pandemic has been experienced unevenly across space and time. Some states saw sharp rises in COVID-19 cases in early March, whereas case counts rose much later in the rest of the country. In this article, we examine the relationship between exposure to COVID-19 and citizens' views on what type of measures are required to deal with the crises and how experience with and exposure to COVID-19 is associated with greater partisan polarization. We find consistent evidence of partisan divergence in pandemic-response policy preferences across the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic: Republicans support national control measures whereas Democrats support welfare policies, and interparty differences grow over time. We find only limited evidence that exposure or experience moderates these partisan differences. Our findings are consistent with the view that Americans interpret the COVID-19 pandemic in fundamentally partisan manner, and that objective pandemic conditions play at most a minor role in shaping mass preferences.
| S-EPMC9115507 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Empirical research provides evidence on changes in individuals' risk attitudes after experiencing exogenous shocks. The global outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has had various adverse impacts on economies and households. This study utilizes the COVID-19 pandemic and the accompanying lockdown to explore its impact on risk attitudes in rural Thailand using a difference-in-difference (DiD) approach. Overall, we do not find evidence on considerable changes in the willingness to take risks of rural household members after experiencing a lockdown during the pandemic. However, a significant heterogenous effect is found between individuals working inside and outside the agricultural sector. Individuals working outside the agricultural sector have a statistically significant reduction in their willingness to take risks after experiencing a lockdown. Our study provides additional empirical evidence to understand the impact of shocks on rural households' risk attitudes. This sheds light on how policy designs can better help mitigate downward economic trends following exogenous shocks.
| S-EPMC10586670 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesOn January 26, 2023, an advisory panel of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a plan for annual vaccination for COVID-19. Given slowing booster uptake in the US, full participation of the public is in doubt. Using data from a longitudinal survey, we investigated the predictors of attitudes toward receiving a COVID-19 booster dose annually.Study designIn February 2023, we completed a panel study of 243 adults from South Dakota who indicated being at least fully vaccinated in a survey conducted in May 2022.MethodsIn addition to attitudes on an annual booster, we measured partisan self-identification, trust in government, interpersonal trust, COVID-19 vaccination status, age, gender, education, and income. We examined the effect of changes in COVID-19 vaccination status, and the two trust variables on the willingness to receive a COVID-19 booster dose annually.ResultsLogistic regression analysis results showed statistically significant relationships between partisan self-identification, changes in trust in government and COVID-19 vaccination status, age, and the willingness to receive a COVID-19 booster dose annually.ConclusionsThe findings underscore the continued relevance of partisan self-identification and trust in government on attitudes toward COVID-19 mitigation measures.
| S-EPMC10290170 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Governments around the world are increasingly considering vaccine mandates to curb the spread of COVID-19. In May 2022, we surveyed 394 residents of South Dakota to examine predictors of popular attitudes toward a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. We investigated the role of Big Five personality traits, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation, as well as partisan self-identification, evangelical identity, and COVID-19 vaccination status. Results showed that Big Five personality traits (openness and emotional stability), right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, evangelical identity, and partisan self-identification are linked to attitudes toward a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Our findings underscore the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the impact of dispositional factors on attitudes toward mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.
| S-EPMC9910023 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract What is the effect of pandemics on partisan perceptions of government competence? Taking the case of Covid‐19 in the UK, we explore how voters’ assessments of the government’s handling of the economy and health were affected by four events: the first UK Covid‐19 death; the national lockdown; Boris Johnson’s hospitalisation; and Cummings’ scandal. Using a large representative weekly survey in the last year totalling over around 30’000 respondents, our results show that Labour voters had the worst assessments of government handling. The first death deteriorated perceptions of government handling of health among both Labour and Conservative voters, while Boris Johnson’s hospitalisation improved perceptions among most voters. Lockdown improved the perception of health handling but at the cost of more negative perceptions of its handling of the economy. The Cummings scandal had a negative effect on perceptions of government handling of economy but surprisingly improved perceptions of its handling of health.
| S-EPMC8242772 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study explores the influence of both group identity (e.g., partisan
| S-EPMC8371399 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Doctors and nurses in these weeks and months are busy in the trenches, fighting against a new invisible enemy: Covid-19. Cities are locked down and civilians are besieged in their own homes, to prevent the spreading of the virus. War-related terminology is commonly used to frame the discourse around epidemics and diseases. The discourse around the current epidemic makes use of war-related metaphors too, not only in public discourse and in the media, but also in the tweets written by non-experts of mass communication. We hereby present an analysis of the discourse around #Covid-19, based on a large corpus tweets posted on Twitter during March and April 2020. Using topic modelling we first analyze the topics around which the discourse can be classified. Then, we show that the WAR framing is used to talk about specific topics, such as the virus treatment, but not others, such as the effects of social distancing on the population. We then measure and compare the popularity of the WAR frame to three alternative figurative frames (MONSTER, STORM and TSUNAMI) and a literal frame used as control (FAMILY). The results show that while the FAMILY frame covers a wider portion of the corpus, among the figurative frames WAR, a highly conventional one, is the frame used most frequently. Yet, this frame does not seem to be apt to elaborate the discourse around some aspects involved in the current situation. Therefore, we conclude, in line with previous suggestions, a plethora of framing options-or a metaphor menu-may facilitate the communication of various aspects involved in the Covid-19-related discourse on the social media, and thus support civilians in the expression of their feelings, opinions and beliefs during the current pandemic.
| S-EPMC7526906 | biostudies-literature