När en politiker vi gillar stöder en covid-19-policy, tenderar vi att stödja den. Men när en politisk fiende stöder exakt samma plan, tenderar vi att motsätta oss den, enligt ny forskning från University of Colorado Boulder som kommer kommande 14 januari i Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences .

På ett mer optimistiskt sätt antyder den globala studien att även om politiker runt om i världen har polariserat den allmänna opinionen under pandemin, kan pålitliga vetenskapliga experter ha makten att ena den.

"Denna studie visar att när det gäller covid-19, som med andra samtida frågor, så styrs människor mycket mer av vem policyn representerar än vad policyn faktiskt är", säger seniorförfattaren Leaf Van Boven, professor i psykologi och neurovetenskap. på CU Boulder. "Det visar också att människor litar på och gillar experter mer än politiker – även de från deras eget parti."

Politiker polariserar, experter depolariserar

För studien, som genomfördes mellan augusti och november 2020, presenterade Van Boven och hans medförfattare en undersökning för ett nationellt representativt urval av 13 000 personer i sju länder – Brasilien, Israel, Italien, Sverige, Sydkorea, Storbritannien och USA.

Respondenter, inklusive 3 300 i USA, ombads att utvärdera ett av två förslag till pandemihantering, baserat på verkliga planer som övervägdes, inklusive åtgärder som social distansering, arbetsplatsbestämmelser, kontaktspårning och resebegränsningar.

En inkluderade strängare restriktioner och prioriterade "att hålla nere antalet fall av COVID-19." En annan betonade "återhämtning av ekonomin så mycket som möjligt samtidigt som man förhindrar ett återuppsving i fall av covid-19."

I ett uppföljningsexperiment, endast utfört i USA, utvärderade respondenterna internationella vaccindistributionsplaner, där en prioriterade en Amerika-först-strategi och en annan tog en mer global strategi.

In both experiments, respondents were told that the policy was supported by either liberal elites, conservative elites, a bipartisan coalition, or nonpartisan scientific experts.

Names of elites were adapted for each country. For instance, in the U.S. survey, the policy was said to be endorsed by either Donald Trump or Joe Biden; In Brazil, it was endorsed by Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro or his political rival, Fernando Haddad.

Across all countries, liberal and conservative respondents were significantly more likely to support a policy when told elites from their party endorsed it. When a policy was presented as backed by bipartisan coalitions or neutral experts, it earned the most support.

"These findings underscore how important it is to have communications come from scientific sources that are not seen as political and to keep prominent politicians out of the spotlight of crisis communication," said co-first author Alexandra Flores, a Ph.D. student in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience.

How nonpartisan experts can help

In previous research on climate change policies, Van Boven found similar results:Republicans and Democrats had more in common than assumed and based their support more on who backed a policy than what it said.

But Van Boven was surprised to find that such political polarization has persisted so broadly, even in the face of an unprecedented global crisis requiring urgent, coordinated action.

"In the beginning of the pandemic, a lot of scholars predicted that these political divisions would be tempered, and we would all band together to confront this shared threat. That has not been the case," said Van Boven.

The United States was not, as often assumed, the most politically polarized country assessed. Sweden, Italy and Brazil were at least as politically divided, the study found, while the United Kingdom was less polarized.

As the pandemic enters its third year, the authors hope the findings will encourage politicians to pull away from the microphone and let scientific experts, disentangled from political infighting, take the lead on communicating health policies.

"When communication comes from politicians before the public really gets a chance to evaluate the relevant goals and outcomes, it can politicize things quickly and contribute to a spirit of uncooperativeness," said Flores. "A good way to combat that is to have nonpartisan experts be the ones to weigh in first."

They also hope individuals will take a hard look at why they do or don't support plans.

"In many situations, political polarization is a headache that slows things down," said Van Boven. "But in the context of this pandemic, it is costing hundreds of thousands of lives."