The Costs of Polarizing a Pandemic: Antecedents, Consequences, and Lessons.

IF 10.5 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Perspectives on Psychological Science Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-09 DOI:10.1177/17456916231190395
Jay J Van Bavel, Clara Pretus, Steve Rathje, Philip Pärnamets, Madalina Vlasceanu, Eric D Knowles
{"title":"The Costs of Polarizing a Pandemic: Antecedents, Consequences, and Lessons.","authors":"Jay J Van Bavel, Clara Pretus, Steve Rathje, Philip Pärnamets, Madalina Vlasceanu, Eric D Knowles","doi":"10.1177/17456916231190395","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Polarization has been rising in the United States of America for the past few decades and now poses a significant-and growing-public-health risk. One of the signature features of the American response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been the degree to which perceptions of risk and willingness to follow public-health recommendations have been politically polarized. Although COVID-19 has proven more lethal than any war or public-health crisis in American history, the deadly consequences of the pandemic were exacerbated by polarization. We review research detailing how every phase of the COVID-19 pandemic has been polarized, including judgments of risk, spatial distancing, mask wearing, and vaccination. We describe the role of political ideology, partisan identity, leadership, misinformation, and mass communication in this public-health crisis. We then assess the overall impact of polarization on infections, illness, and mortality during the pandemic; offer a psychological analysis of key policy questions; and identify a set of future research questions for scholars and policy experts. Our analysis suggests that the catastrophic death toll in the United States was largely preventable and due, in large part, to the polarization of the pandemic. Finally, we discuss implications for public policy to help avoid the same deadly mistakes in future public-health crises.</p>","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":" ","pages":"624-639"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231190395","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Polarization has been rising in the United States of America for the past few decades and now poses a significant-and growing-public-health risk. One of the signature features of the American response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been the degree to which perceptions of risk and willingness to follow public-health recommendations have been politically polarized. Although COVID-19 has proven more lethal than any war or public-health crisis in American history, the deadly consequences of the pandemic were exacerbated by polarization. We review research detailing how every phase of the COVID-19 pandemic has been polarized, including judgments of risk, spatial distancing, mask wearing, and vaccination. We describe the role of political ideology, partisan identity, leadership, misinformation, and mass communication in this public-health crisis. We then assess the overall impact of polarization on infections, illness, and mortality during the pandemic; offer a psychological analysis of key policy questions; and identify a set of future research questions for scholars and policy experts. Our analysis suggests that the catastrophic death toll in the United States was largely preventable and due, in large part, to the polarization of the pandemic. Finally, we discuss implications for public policy to help avoid the same deadly mistakes in future public-health crises.

流行病两极分化的代价:前因、后果和教训。
在过去几十年里,美利坚合众国的两极分化一直在加剧,现在构成了重大且日益严重的公共健康风险。美国应对新冠肺炎疫情的标志性特征之一是,对风险的认知和遵循公共卫生建议的意愿在政治上两极分化。尽管新冠肺炎已被证明比美国历史上任何一场战争或公共卫生危机都更致命,但两极分化加剧了疫情的致命后果。我们回顾了新冠肺炎大流行的每个阶段是如何两极分化的研究,包括对风险、空间距离、戴口罩和疫苗接种的判断。我们描述了政治意识形态、党派身份、领导力、错误信息和大众传播在这场公共卫生危机中的作用。然后,我们评估了疫情期间两极分化对感染、疾病和死亡率的总体影响;对关键政策问题进行心理分析;并为学者和政策专家确定一系列未来的研究问题。我们的分析表明,美国的灾难性死亡人数在很大程度上是可以预防的,在很大程度上将是由于疫情的两极分化。最后,我们讨论了对公共政策的影响,以帮助避免在未来的公共卫生危机中出现同样的致命错误。
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
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Perspectives on Psychological Science PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
22.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Perspectives on Psychological Science is a journal that publishes a diverse range of articles and reports in the field of psychology. The journal includes broad integrative reviews, overviews of research programs, meta-analyses, theoretical statements, book reviews, and articles on various topics such as the philosophy of science and opinion pieces about major issues in the field. It also features autobiographical reflections of senior members of the field, occasional humorous essays and sketches, and even has a section for invited and submitted articles. The impact of the journal can be seen through the reverberation of a 2009 article on correlative analyses commonly used in neuroimaging studies, which still influences the field. Additionally, a recent special issue of Perspectives, featuring prominent researchers discussing the "Next Big Questions in Psychology," is shaping the future trajectory of the discipline. Perspectives on Psychological Science provides metrics that showcase the performance of the journal. However, the Association for Psychological Science, of which the journal is a signatory of DORA, recommends against using journal-based metrics for assessing individual scientist contributions, such as for hiring, promotion, or funding decisions. Therefore, the metrics provided by Perspectives on Psychological Science should only be used by those interested in evaluating the journal itself.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信