Bridging political divides during COVID-19

By Alvin Lee

SMU Office of Research & Tech Transfer– In a 2021 Pew Research Center survey done about a year after COVID-19 swept across the globe, respondents in 17 advanced economies were asked if their countries had become more divided or united since the beginning of the pandemic. Unsurprisingly, all 17 countries saw an increased proportion of people in the ‘divided’ camp, with every country recording a ‘divided’ majority among respondents.

Between mask mandates, social distancing measures, and vaccination drives, there is plenty of scope for people to disagree. In a paper titled “Politicians polarize and experts depolarize public support for COVID-19 management policies across countries”, SMU Assistant Professor of Psychology Kimin Eom and his co-authors explored globally observed politically polarised responses to measures meant to achieve the key goals of: (1) reducing infection and death and (2) robust economic recovery.

“We wanted to identify a potential psychological reason for this even in the face of an urgent, life-threatening global issue, as well as to generate insights into a solution to resolve conflicts and promote coalition to address issues such as COVID,” says Professor Eom of the paper in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America).

Ingroup v Outgroup

The paper is based on international collaborative research of responses to COVID-19 management policies in seven countries: Brazil, Israel, Italy, South Korea, Sweden, United Kingdom, and the United States. With regard to polarisation, “people react to policies based not only on their content but on the political identities of policy proponents”, which reflects what Professor Eom believes is “a widespread human tendency to categorise people into political ingroups and outgroups”.

“Social categorisation (categorising others into ingroup vs. outgroup) is a fundamental psychological process that numerous empirical studies have demonstrated,” explains Professor Eom, adding that even little kids display such behaviour without being aware of it. “It does not mean people treat outgroup as hateful enemies. It’s relative and binary.

“If someone is not ingroup, then he/she is outgroup. It does not necessarily require strong rivalry between two competing groups. Indeed, our research shows that the polarised responses to political elite cues (supporting policies proposed by ingroup politicians more than those proposed by outgroup politicians) are observed broadly across countries, not just in the U.S.”

Such affective polarisation, which describes a feeling of distrust/dislike to cues from those in political outgroups, is perhaps most visible in the United States but Professor Eom’s research shows this to be true in the other six countries, albeit in less extreme degrees.

The implication, therefore, is that policies to combat health crises are more supported when proposed by nonpartisan experts and bipartisan coalitions of political leaders. That also raises the question: Does that not make such experts prime targets for corruption i.e. ‘I’ll pay you to propose measures that I like’?

“There is always a possibility that experts are bribed by politicians and/or interest groups to promote certain views,” notes Professor Eom, adding that increasing diversity in expert groups can minimise such vulnerabilities. “Form expert groups with members with diverse backgrounds in multiple aspects, such as political views, religious views, ethnicity, and gender. It can reduce the possibility that expert groups are biased.”

Overcoming politicisation

The paper noted that “the politicisation of experts undermines their broad credibility, which has begun to erode among conservatives worldwide”. Anthony Fauci, Director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), is perhaps the most visible victim of the development, with Republicans calling him names such as “liar” to being “put in front of a firing squad”. Conspiracy theorists online mirror that stridency, with some claiming Fauci to be a devil-worshipper and the source of AIDS.

What is the explanation for conservatives’ apparent hostility to science?

“Research shows that conservatives do not always oppose and distrust science,” Professor Eom tells the Office of Research & Tech Transfer. “They distrust science because they perceive it promotes policies and solutions that conflict with their ideological beliefs.

“Consider climate change as an example. According to research, conservatives’ scientific scepticism of climate change stems in part from their opposition to regulation-based policy solutions that are commonly discussed as a way to tackle climate change (e.g., environmental tax), which contradict conservatives’ beliefs in the inefficacy of governmental regulations (Campbell & Kay, 2014).

“This scepticism significantly decreases when economic stimulation and growth are presented as possible outcomes when climate change issues are addressed. Thus, depending on how to design solutions and communicate them, conservatives’ hostility to science can be reduced.”

So, besides foregrounding experts and bipartisan coalitions, what else can be done to prevent or minimise polarisation?

“What psychological research convergingly shows is: the key is to make people find a commonality between themselves and outgroup members.

“One way, according to research, is to highlight a common, overarching identity in communication. When people find such identity, the seemingly large boundary between ingroup and outgroup starts to blur. For example, regardless of what parties people support or what political views people take, they can see we are all citizens of the same country at a broader level.

“Such ways of thinking can help find a common ground and enable a more constructive discussion and cooperation amongst different groups.”

The paper “Politicians polarize and experts depolarize public support for COVID-19 management policies across countries” was co-written by: Alexandra Flores (co-first author) – Ph.D. candidate; the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of Colorado; Jennifer Cole (co-first author) – Postdoctoral research fellow; Vanderbilt University; Leaf Van Boven (senior author) – Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of Colorado.

Back to Research@SMU May 2022 Issue