Competition is a defining element of democracy. One of the most noteworthy events over the last quarter-century in U.S. politics is the change in the nature of elite party competition: The parties have become increasingly polarized. Scholars and pundits actively debate how these elite patterns influence polarization among the public (e.g., have citizens also become more ideologically polarized?). Yet, few have addressed what we see as perhaps more fundamental questions: Has elite polarization altered the way citizens arrive at their policy opinions in the first place and, if so, in what ways? We address these questions with a theory and two survey experiments (on the issues of drilling and immigration). We find stark evidence that polarized environments fundamentally change how citizens make decisions. Specifically, polarization intensifies the impact of party endorsements on opinions, decreases the impact of substantive information and, perhaps ironically, stimulates greater confidence in those—less substantively grounded—opinions. We discuss the implications for public opinion formation and the nature of democratic competition.

How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation (WP-12-14)

Background University students are increasingly recognized as a vulnerable population, suffering from higher levels of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and disordered eating compared to the general population. Therefore, when the nature of their educational experience radically changes—such as sheltering in place during the COVID-19 pandemic—the burden on the mental health of this vulnerable population is amplified. The objectives of this study are to 1) identify the array of psychological impacts COVID-19 has on students, 2) develop profiles to characterize students' anticipated levels of psychological impact during the pandemic, and 3) evaluate potential sociodemographic, lifestyle-related, and awareness of people infected with COVID-19 risk factors that could make students more likely to experience these impacts. Methods Cross-sectional data were collected through web-based questionnaires from seven U.S. universities. Representative and convenience sampling was used to invite students to complete the questionnaires in mid-March to early-May 2020, when most coronavirus-related sheltering in place orders were in effect. We received 2,534 completed responses, of which 61% were from women, 79% from non-Hispanic Whites, and 20% from graduate students. Results Exploratory factor analysis on close-ended responses resulted in two latent constructs, which we used to identify profiles of students with latent profile analysis, including high (45% of sample), moderate (40%), and low (14%) levels of psychological impact. Bivariate associations showed students who were women, were non-Hispanic Asian, in fair/poor health, of below-average relative family income, or who knew someone infected with COVID-19 experienced higher levels of psychological impact. Students who were non-Hispanic White, above-average social class, spent at least two hours outside, or less than eight hours on electronic screens were likely to experience lower levels of psychological impact. Multivariate modeling (mixed-effects logistic regression) showed that being a woman, having fair/poor general health status, being 18 to 24 years old, spending 8 or more hours on screens daily, and knowing someone infected predicted higher levels of psychological impact when risk factors were considered simultaneously. Conclusion Inadequate efforts to recognize and address college students’ mental health challenges, especially during a pandemic, could have long-term consequences on their health and education.

/pdf/psychological-impacts-from-covid-19-among-university-11ulcrozga.pdf

Psychological impacts from COVID-19 among university students: Risk factors across seven states in the United States.

insistent quest for the meaning of things. The question is one that faces "everyman" from the child's first awareness of the mystery of life to the adult's apprehension of the mystery of death. As one existential writer put it, "I know only two things?one, that I will be dead someday, two, that I am not dead now. The only question is what shall I do be tween those two points." Does nihilistic literature and philosophy have the answer?wallowing in nothingness? Are the Madison Avenue thought controllers right in their claim that the time for the individual has passed and that we should conform to collectivities because there is safety in numbers? Shall we follow the "beat generation" and the "angry young men" who say we should conform to non-conformity in the name of pure rebelliousness and non-constructive creativity? Or should we just capitu late with the "positive thinkers" who say that all this concern about what things mean is too nerve-wracking, and that the problems of life can best be met by taking existential tranquilizers in the form of sugar coated mottos? The way in which contemporary man is clutching at straws in his search for meaning is symptomatic both of the depth of his concern and of the inadequacy of the answers which are emerging. In the material which follows, I will develop this theme primarily by elaboration of relevant material on the problems of reality and value, and the psy chology of perception and personality. Since the search for meaning ultimately implies an effort to arrive at something irreducible, it seems reasonable to open the inquiry with the question of knowledge and reality.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/27827428.pdf

The search for meaning.

This study examines the level of politicization and polarization in COVID-19 news in U.S. newspapers and televised network news from March to May 2020. Using multiple computer-assisted content analytic approaches, we find that newspaper coverage is highly politicized, network news coverage somewhat less so, and both newspaper and network news coverage are highly polarized. We find that politicians appear in newspaper coverage more frequently than scientists, whereas politicians and scientists are more equally featured in network news. We suggest that the high degree of politicization and polarization in initial COVID-19 coverage may have contributed to polarization in U.S. COVID-19 attitudes.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1075547020950735

Politicization and Polarization in COVID-19 News Coverage

Social media has increasingly enabled “fake news” to circulate widely, most notably during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. These intentionally false or misleading stories threaten the democratic goal of a well-informed electorate. This study evaluates the effectiveness of strategies that could be used by Facebook and other social media to counter false stories. Results from a pre-registered experiment indicate that false headlines are perceived as less accurate when people receive a general warning about misleading information on social media or when specific headlines are accompanied by a “Disputed” or “Rated false” tag. Though the magnitudes of these effects are relatively modest, they generally do not vary by whether headlines were congenial to respondents’ political views. In addition, we find that adding a “Rated false” tag to an article headline lowers its perceived accuracy more than adding a “Disputed” tag (Facebook’s original approach) relative to a control condition. Finally, though exposure to the “Disputed” or “Rated false” tags did not affect the perceived accuracy of unlabeled false or true headlines, exposure to a general warning decreased belief in the accuracy of true headlines, suggesting the need for further research into how to most effectively counter false news without distorting belief in true information.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11109-019-09533-0.pdf

Real Solutions for Fake News? Measuring the Effectiveness of General Warnings and Fact-Check Tags in Reducing Belief in False Stories on Social Media

Despite concerns about politicization and polarization in climate change news, previous work has not been able to offer evidence concerning long-term trends. Using computer-assisted content analyse...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1075547019900290

Politicization and Polarization in Climate Change News Content, 1985-2017:

Scholars have recently suggested that communicating levels of scientific consensus (e.g. the percentage of scientists who agree about human-caused climate change) can shift public opinion toward the dominant scientific opinion. Initial research suggested that consensus communication effectively reduces public skepticism. However, other research failed to find a persuasive effect for those with conflicting prior beliefs. This study enters this contested space by experimentally testing how different levels of consensus shape perceptions of scientific certainty. We further examine how perceptions of certainty influence personal agreement and policy support. Findings indicate that communicating higher levels of consensus increases perceptions of scientific certainty, which is associated with greater personal agreement and policy support for non-political issues. We find some suggestive evidence that this mediated effect is moderated by participants' overall trust in science, such that those with low trust in science fail to perceive higher agreement as indicative of greater scientific certainty.

In consensus we trust? Persuasive effects of scientific consensus communication.

Previous research has offered conflicting findings regarding the influence of help appeals that feature an individual victim compared to a group of victims. Studies examining emotional responses and donation behavior have generally found that help appeals focusing on a single victim elicit more prosocial responses, while studies examining policy support have found the opposite. The present studies investigate these effects while addressing potential confounds that may have arisen in previous research. Study 1 (N = 924) compares the effects of help appeals that focus on either a) an identified individual, b) an identified group, c) statistics describing many individuals, or d) statistics paired with an individual. Study 1 also examines how the location of the individual(s) in need moderates observed effects. Study 2 (N = 1,085) compares the effects of help appeals that describe either an identified individual or statistics about many individuals, while fully crossing the text manipulation with either a) no imagery, b) an image of an individual, or c) a map indicating areas of poverty. In both Study 1 and Study 2 no significant differences were found between the individual and the group conditions.

/pdf/the-elusive-power-of-the-individual-victim-failure-to-find-a-2ab16hbqgx.pdf

The elusive power of the individual victim: Failure to find a difference in the effectiveness of charitable appeals focused on one compared to many victims.

Several recent studies have debated whether climate change consensus messages cause reactance, although they sometimes employ different procedures and measurement. This study uses procedures and me...

Sedona Chinn

Papers

Politicization and Polarization in COVID-19 News Coverage

Politicization and Polarization in Climate Change News Content, 1985-2017:

In consensus we trust? Persuasive effects of scientific consensus communication.

The elusive power of the individual victim: Failure to find a difference in the effectiveness of charitable appeals focused on one compared to many victims.

Climate Change Consensus Messages Cause Reactance