Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
8,451
result(s) for
"Political polarization"
Sort by:
Political polarization in US residents' COVID-19 risk perceptions, policy preferences, and protective behaviors
When the novel coronavirus entered the US, most US states implemented lockdown measures. In April—May 2020, state governments started political discussions about whether it would be worth the risk to reduce protective measures. In a highly politicized environment, risk perceptions and preferences for risk mitigation may vary by political inclinations. In April—May 2020, we surveyed a nationally representative sample of 5517 members of the University of Southern California's Understanding America Study. Of those, 37% identified as Democrats, 32% as Republican, and 31% as Third Party/Independent. Overall, Democrats perceived more risk associated with COVID-19 than Republicans, including for getting infected, being hospitalized and dying if infected, as well as running out of money as a result of the pandemic. Democrats were also more likely than Republicans to express concerns that states would lift economic restrictions too quickly, and to report mask use and social distancing. Generally, participants who identified as Third Party/Independent fell in between. Democrats were more likely to report watching MSNBC or CNN (vs. not), while Republicans were more likely to report watching Fox News (vs. not), and Third Party/Independents tended to watch neither. However, political inclinations predicted reported policy preferences, mask use, and social distancing, in analyses that accounted for differences in use of media sources, risk perceptions, and demographic background. In these analyses, participants' reported media use added to the partisan divide in preferences for the timing of lifting economic restrictions and reported protective behaviors. Implications for risk communication are discussed.
Journal Article
Prius or pickup ? : how the answers to four simple questions explain America's great divide
\"Two award-winning political scientists provide the psychological key to America's deadlocked politics, showing that we are divided not by ideologies but something deeper: personality differences that appear in everything from politicsto parenting to the workplace to TV preferences, and which would be innocuousif only we could decouple them from our noxious political debate. What's in your garage: a Prius or a pickup? What's in your coffee cup: Starbucks or Dunkin' Donuts? What about your pet: cat or dog? As award-winning political scholars Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler explain, even our smallest choices speak volumes about us--especially when it comes to our personalities and our politics. Liberals and conservatives seem to occupy different worlds because we have fundamentally different worldviews: systems of values that can be quickly diagnosed with a handful of simple parenting questions, but which shape our lives and decisions in the most elemental ways. If we're to overcome our seemingly intractable differences, Hetherington and Weiler show, we must first learn to master the psychological impulses that give rise to them, and to understand how politicians manipulate our mindsets for their own benefit. Drawing on groundbreaking original research, Prius or Pickup? is an incisive, illuminating study of the fracturing of the Americanmind\"-- Provided by publisher.
Political Polarization and Christian Nationalism in Our Pews
Congregational leaders in the US must navigate a political landscape marked by increasing political polarization and a notable rise in support for ideas aligned with Christian nationalism. While gender, race, ethnicity, and religious affiliation have long shaped political lines, the US population has steadily become more entrenched in partisan political divides. Recent research shows the relationship between religious identity and willingness to use violence to support political and religious ideologies. These trends profoundly affect faith communities, challenging theological perspectives, social dynamics, and civic engagement. This paper examines how political polarization and Christian nationalist impulses within mainline Christian congregations impact congregational leadership. This study identifies key factors driving these changes through qualitative analysis of case studies and quantitative research. It explores their implications for community cohesion and the broader societal fabric. The findings suggest that while some communities experience heightened internal conflict and fragmentation, others adapt by engaging in dialogue, story-sharing, and education. The paper concludes with recommendations to counter political polarization and ideological extremism through increased understanding, nuanced theological reflection, and political awareness. This research contributes to the ongoing discourse on congregational leadership and political engagement, highlighting the need for nuanced strategies to address the challenges of political polarization and Christian nationalism in the US today.
Journal Article
American manifesto : saving democracy from villains, vandals, and ourselves
\"Why is our society in the fix it is in? Is it all Trump's fault? Well, no. As often observed, Trump is a symptom of a virus has been incubating for at least 50 years and maybe 150. But not often observed is where the virus is imbedded: in the psychic core of identity. This book explores the primacy of identity in American society and makes the argument that hyper-polarization was not only predictable but inevitable, based on such unlikely causal bedfellows as biology, multiculturalism and collateral damage from the American Dream\"-- Provided by publisher.
Book
Acceptance of climate change and climate refugee policy in Australia and New Zealand: The case against political polarisation
Despite the seriousness of climate change, political polarisation and right-wing denial of climate change is frequently blamed for stalling effective climate policy. One concerning consequence of climate change is the displacement of people. We identify demographic correlates of acceptance of climate change and support for climate refugee policy within two nations likely to become early recipients of climate-driven migrants: Australia (N = 5110) and New Zealand (N = 5039). Political orientation is the strongest demographic correlate of climate change denial and climate refugee policy support, but deeper analysis shows that while support is highest amongst left-wing partisans, almost all voting groups on average accept climate change and climate migration policy. We argue that current high levels of support indicate potential for cross-partisan policy solutions in both Australia and New Zealand. We also caution about ways polarisation may deepen as we approach a climate refugee crisis.
Journal Article
Polarization : what everyone needs to know
\"The weeks following the election and inauguration of Donald J. Trump have been a time for reflection about the state of American politics and its deep ideological, cultural, racial, regional, and economic divisions. But one aspect that the contemporary discussions often miss is that these fissures have been opening over several decades and are deeply rooted in the structure of American politics and society. Long before the historically divisive presidential election of 2016, the polarization of American politics has been an important concern of scholars, journalists, and elected officials. Unfortunately, there have been few, if any, attempts to synthesize these debates in ways that are accessible to the educated general public. Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know
Book
Polarization and health-related behaviours and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review protocol version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic affected people's health behaviours and health outcomes. Political or affective polarization could be associated with health behaviours such as mask-wearing or vaccine uptake and with health outcomes, e.g., infection or mortality rate. Political polarization relates to divergence or spread of ideological beliefs and affective polarization is about dislike between people of different political groups, such as ideologies or parties. The objectives of this study are to investigate and synthesize evidence about associations between both forms of polarization and COVID-19 health behaviours and outcomes.
Methods
In this systematic review, we will include quantitative studies that assess the relationship between political or affective polarization and COVID-19-related behaviours and outcomes, including adherence to mask mandates, vaccine uptake, infection and mortality rate. We will use a predetermined strategy to search EMBASE, Medline (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Global Health (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), Web of Science, CINAHL, EconLit (EBSCOhost), WHO COVID-19 Database, iSearch COVID-19 Portfolio (NIH) and Google Scholar from 2019 to September 8 2023. One reviewer will screen unique records according to eligibility criteria. A second reviewer will verify the selection. Data extraction, using pre-piloted electronic forms, will follow a similar process. The risk of bias of the included studies will be assessed using the JBI checklist for analytical cross sectional studies. We will summarise the included studies descriptively and examine the heterogeneity between studies. Quantitative data pooling might not be feasible due to variations in measurement methods used to evaluate exposure, affective and political polarization. If there are enough relevant studies for statistical data synthesis, we will conduct a meta-analysis.
Discussion
This review will help to better understand the concept of polarization in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and might inform decision making for future pandemics.
Protocol registration
PROSPERO ID: CRD42023475828.
Journal Article