Politically-polarized perceptions of governmental autonomy-support impact internal motivations to comply with COVID-19 safety guidelines.

IF 1.7 3区心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL

Motivation and Emotion Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1007/s11031-022-09974-x

Daniel A DeCaro, Marci S DeCaro

{"title":"Politically-polarized perceptions of governmental autonomy-support impact internal motivations to comply with COVID-19 safety guidelines.","authors":"Daniel A DeCaro, Marci S DeCaro","doi":"10.1007/s11031-022-09974-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Compliance with health safety guidelines is essential during pandemics. However, political polarization in the U.S. is reducing compliance. We investigated how polarized perceptions of government leaders' autonomy-support and enforcement policies impacted security and internally-motivated compliance with national (Study 1a) and state (Study 1b) safety guidelines. We surveyed 773 Republicans and Democrats from four states (California, Florida, New York, Texas) during the first wave of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, participants perceived that the decision processes of opposing political administrations did not support their autonomy. Lack of autonomy-support was associated with reduced security and internal motivations to comply (R 2 = 50.83%). When political administrations enforced health safety mandates (Democrat state leaders in this study) and were perceived as autonomy-supportive, participants reported the highest security and internally-motivated compliance (R 2 = 49.57%). This effect was especially pronounced for Republicans, who reacted negatively to enforcement without autonomy-support. Political leaders who use fair and supportive decision-making processes may legitimize enforcement of health safety guidelines, improving compliance.Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11031-022-09974-x.","PeriodicalId":48282,"journal":{"name":"Motivation and Emotion","volume":"47 1","pages":"7-27"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9363853/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Motivation and Emotion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-022-09974-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Compliance with health safety guidelines is essential during pandemics. However, political polarization in the U.S. is reducing compliance. We investigated how polarized perceptions of government leaders' autonomy-support and enforcement policies impacted security and internally-motivated compliance with national (Study 1a) and state (Study 1b) safety guidelines. We surveyed 773 Republicans and Democrats from four states (California, Florida, New York, Texas) during the first wave of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, participants perceived that the decision processes of opposing political administrations did not support their autonomy. Lack of autonomy-support was associated with reduced security and internal motivations to comply (R ² = 50.83%). When political administrations enforced health safety mandates (Democrat state leaders in this study) and were perceived as autonomy-supportive, participants reported the highest security and internally-motivated compliance (R ² = 49.57%). This effect was especially pronounced for Republicans, who reacted negatively to enforcement without autonomy-support. Political leaders who use fair and supportive decision-making processes may legitimize enforcement of health safety guidelines, improving compliance.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11031-022-09974-x.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

对政府自主支持的政治两极分化看法影响了遵守COVID-19安全指南的内在动机。

在大流行期间，遵守卫生安全准则至关重要。然而，美国的政治两极分化正在减少合规。我们调查了对政府领导人自主支持和执法政策的两极分化看法如何影响安全和内部动机遵守国家(研究1a)和州(研究1b)安全指南。在2020年COVID-19大流行的第一波期间，我们调查了来自四个州(加利福尼亚州、佛罗里达州、纽约州、德克萨斯州)的773名共和党人和民主党人。总的说来，与会者认为对立的政治行政当局的决策过程并不支持他们的自治。缺乏自主支持与安全性降低和服从的内部动机相关(r2 = 50.83%)。当政治行政当局执行健康安全指令(本研究中的民主党州领导人)并被认为支持自主时，参与者报告的安全性和内部动机依从性最高(r2 = 49.57%)。这种影响对共和党人来说尤其明显，他们对没有自治支持的执法反应消极。使用公平和支持性决策程序的政治领导人可以使卫生安全准则的执行合法化，并改善遵守情况。补充资料:在线版本提供补充资料，编号为10.1007/s11031-022-09974-x。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Motivation and Emotion Multiple-

CiteScore

5.40

自引率

4.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Motivation and Emotion publishes articles on human motivational and emotional phenomena that make theoretical advances by linking empirical findings to underlying processes. Submissions should focus on key problems in motivation and emotion, and, if using non-human participants, should contribute to theories concerning human behavior. Articles should be explanatory rather than merely descriptive, providing the data necessary to understand the origins of motivation and emotion, to explicate why, how, and under what conditions motivational and emotional states change, and to document that these processes are important to human functioning.A range of methodological approaches are welcome, with methodological rigor as the key criterion. Manuscripts that rely exclusively on self-report data are appropriate, but published articles tend to be those that rely on objective measures (e.g., behavioral observations, psychophysiological responses, reaction times, brain activity, and performance or achievement indicators) either singly or combination with self-report data.The journal generally does not publish scale development and validation articles. However, it is open to articles that focus on the post-validation contribution that a new measure can make. Scale development and validation work therefore may be submitted if it is used as a necessary prerequisite to follow-up studies that demonstrate the importance of the new scale in making a theoretical advance.