Negative Experience Overcomes Partisan Differences in Polarized Crises

• In Event: Partisanship

Abstract

COVID-19 and climate change share similarities. They are politicized, partisan topics in the United States. Much of our knowledge of how they evolve comes from scientific models that are subject to politically-motivated public skepticism. They are global collective action problems requiring urgent coordination and proactive governance. They require costly and widespread behavior change. Their impacts fall disproportionately on vulnerable groups, and they unfold at exponential rates, so deferred action has large repercussions. Studying responses to the unfolding pandemic could therefore hold insights for the looming crisis of climate change. Furthermore, this may be a critical juncture from which new policy and behavioral paths are charted, and narratives, priorities and expectations created, with direct repercussions for climate change.While COVID-19 was initially seen as a common threat, attitudes towards the pandemic have become increasingly partisan. Democrats and Republicans are divided on the utility and importance of social distancing measures, and which relief policies to enact. Broader norms, such as trust in science, continue to be eroded. Geospatial analysis of social distancing behaviors show that attitudes towards climate change are a robust predictor.Given these overlaps, we ask: What drives people to resist or act in the face of existing and impending crises?
Theory:Substantial evidence points to the importance of experience in the formation of beliefs, actions and political preferences. Evidence of the relative effectiveness of learning from experience vs. description (Weber 2004) suggests that recent experience with a hazard increases people’s estimates of its riskiness (Marx 2007). Hypothesis1:Experience with a hazard will lead to increased worry and desire for action related to that hazard (“seeing is believing”).Party affiliation is strongly correlated with worry and action on climate change and COVID-19. The uneven spatial distribution of both hazards raises the question of whether observed partisan differences mask differences in negative impact. With respect to climate change, the effect of experience prompts some optimism that increasing severity of storms affecting predominantly Republican areas may lead to increased climate change concern. With COVID-19, initial outbreaks were concentrated in dense metropolitan areas that are largely Democratic, but in summer 2020 the second wave of the virus impacted rural, predominantly Republican counties. Hypothesis2:Experience with a hazard will close partisan gaps on worry and desire for action related to that hazard. This optimism is tempered by the observation that experience is in turn mediated by party affiliation, information source and worldviews, such as belief in science or climate change (Howe et al., 2019). Party endorsements and partisan motivated reasoning affect public opinion (Bullock 2011, Bolson 2013). Endorsements by co-partisan messengers, especially Republican Party leaders, have a positive effect on responses to climate change (Stokes and Warshaw 2017; Bolsen 2019). Hypothesis3a:Co-partisan endorsement of an action related to a polarized hazard increases desire for that action and narrows the partisan gap.Divisions between Republicans and Democrats also mask variation within the Republican Party regarding trust in institutions and belief in science and conspiracy. Personal experience generates worry, insofar as these impacts are attributed to the hazard – an attribution that can be disrupted by intense prior beliefs. This proposition leads us to an investigation of subjects’ broader ideologies and worldviews, particularly with respect to trust in science and belief in conspiracies.Hypothesis3b:Experience of a hazard and the influence of co-partisan messaging will be conditioned by worldviews and politically motivated reasoning.
Results:In analyses of three waves of a longitudinal survey of a nationally representative U.S. sample (N~4,500 per wave; April, June/July, October 2020), merged with county-level COVID-19 mandates, incidence and extreme weather risks, we find that negative experience with a hazard closes the partisan gap on 1) worry about the hazard, 2) perceived importance of taking action, and 3) willingness to pay to compensate victims of the hazard. Endorsement by a co-partisan increases support for policies related to hazard mitigation, especially among Republicans. While the results are fairly consistent across hazards, the effects are more pronounced for climate change. However, the effects of experience and messenger depend on worldview. The findings have implications for our understanding of public opinion formation around major political and environmental issues. Given that experience is unevenly distributed, copartisan messengers can play a role in bridging this divide, but this requires sensitivity to underlying worldviews.

Authors

• Sara Constantino, Northeastern University

• Alicia Dailey Cooperman, Texas A&M University

• Robert O. Keohane, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University