政治认同与风险政治:大流行病的证据。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Risk Analysis Pub Date : 2024-10-14 DOI:10.1111/risa.17654
Eric D Raile, Pavielle Haines, Amber N W Raile, Elizabeth A Shanahan, David C W Parker
{"title":"政治认同与风险政治:大流行病的证据。","authors":"Eric D Raile, Pavielle Haines, Amber N W Raile, Elizabeth A Shanahan, David C W Parker","doi":"10.1111/risa.17654","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":21472,"journal":{"name":"Risk Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Political identity and risk politics: Evidence from a pandemic.\",\"authors\":\"Eric D Raile, Pavielle Haines, Amber N W Raile, Elizabeth A Shanahan, David C W Parker\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/risa.17654\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Risk Analysis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Risk Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.17654\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.17654","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在美国,政治认同是政治两极化的基础,它允许精英们将冲突迅速扩展到新的问题领域。此外,在政治两极化的信息环境中使用的认知机制和捷径类型与风险认知中使用的一些机制和捷径类型相似。因此,政治精英们可以很容易地形成党派风险立场,主要是通过以政治为重点的社会风险放大。COVID-19 大流行为检验这种风险政治的预测提供了一个自然实验。我们在 2020 年 4 月大流行开始时和 2020 年 9 月通过民意调查询问了与大流行相关的观点、行为和政策。我们的数据和分析主要集中在一个州,部分分析扩展到四个州。首先,我们证明了政治党派认同与对党派精英的支持、党派信息来源的使用以及对党派政策的支持之间的紧密联系。然后,我们发现了大流行病风险立场与党派信息来源相对应的证据,并支持对精英线索进行党派色彩评估的机制。党派风险立场很快成为政治支持和观点两极化结构的一部分。最后,我们的证据表明,总的来说,与大流行病相关的党派风险立场随着时间的推移而凝聚和加强。总体而言,自我认同的民主党人始终认为冠状病毒是主要威胁,而自我认同的共和党人则很快转向对其自由和经济的威胁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Political identity and risk politics: Evidence from a pandemic.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Risk Analysis
Risk Analysis 数学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
10.50%
发文量
183
审稿时长
4.2 months
期刊介绍: Published on behalf of the Society for Risk Analysis, Risk Analysis is ranked among the top 10 journals in the ISI Journal Citation Reports under the social sciences, mathematical methods category, and provides a focal point for new developments in the field of risk analysis. This international peer-reviewed journal is committed to publishing critical empirical research and commentaries dealing with risk issues. The topics covered include: • Human health and safety risks • Microbial risks • Engineering • Mathematical modeling • Risk characterization • Risk communication • Risk management and decision-making • Risk perception, acceptability, and ethics • Laws and regulatory policy • Ecological risks.
×
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