How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected boundaries of solidarity? Human-induced crises that impose asymmetric costs tend to sharpen pre-existing divides, but natural disasters often strengthen solidarity. The pandemic possesses properties of both kinds of crisis. In a panel survey conducted in Northern Italy, the initial epicenter of the pandemic, we asked respondents to complete conjoint tasks querying who was likely to violate health guidelines (wave 1) and who should be prioritized for vaccine distribution (wave 2). We find that while discrimination towards the rich is nearly universal, bias against other outgroups depends on ideology and personal experience with the crisis. Leftwing individuals display discrimination towards partisan outgroups, while those on the right display ethnic bias. However, this effect is conditional: those who suffered a significant income loss but no health effects display heightened discrimination, while respondents who experienced COVID-19 as a personal health crisis are less likely to penalize outgroups.
AdidaC. L.DionneK. Y.PlatasM. R. (2018). Ebola, elections, and immigration: How politicizing an epidemic can shape public attitudes. Politics, Groups, and Identities.
2.
AllcottH.BoxellL.ConwayJ.GentzkowM.ThalerM.YangD. (2020). Polarization and public health: Partisan differences in social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic. Journal of Public Economics, 191, 104254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104254
3.
AtkinsonA. B.PikettyT.SaezE. (2011). Top incomes in the Long run of history. Journal of Economic Literature, 49(1), 3–71. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.49.1.3
4.
BechtelM. M.HainmuellerJ.MargalitY. (2014). Preferences for international redistribution: The divide over the Eurozone bailouts. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 835–856. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12079
5.
BettarelliL.ReiljanA.van HauteE. (2022). A regional perspective to the study of affective polarization. European Journal of Political Research, 62(2), 645–659. First view Aug 18https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12548
6.
BornschierS.HäusermannS.ZollingerD.ColomboC. (2021). How “us” and “them” relates to voting behavior—social structure, social identities, and electoral choice. Comparative Political Studies, 54(12), 2087–2122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414021997504
7.
BowlesS.GintisH. (2013). A cooperative species: Human reciprocity and its evolution. Princeton University Press.
8.
BrewerM. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate?Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126
9.
CavailléC.FerwerdaJ. (2018). How distributional conflict over in-kind benefits generates support for anti-immigrant parties. Working Paper.
10.
ClaytonK.FerwerdaJ.HoriuchiY. (2021). Exposure to immigration and admission preferences: Evidence from France. Political Behavior, 43(1), 175–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09550-z
11.
ClintonJ.CohenJ.LapinskiJ.TrusslerM. (2021). Partisan pandemic: How partisanship and public health concerns affect individuals’ social mobility during COVID-19. Science Advances, 7(2), eabd7204. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd7204
12.
CrawfordR. (1994). The boundaries of the self and the unhealthy other: Reflections on health, culture and AIDS. Social Science & Medicine, 38(10), 1347–1365. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(94)90273-9
13.
De VriesC. E. (2018). The cosmopolitan-parochial divide: Changing patterns of party and electoral competition in The Netherlands and beyond. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(11), 1541–1565. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1339730
14.
De VriesC. E.BakkerB. N.HoboltS. B.ArceneauxK. (2021). Crisis signaling: How Italy’s coronavirus lockdown affected incumbent support in other European countries. Political Science Research and Methods, 9(3), 451–467. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2021.6
15.
DionneK. Y.TurkmenF. F. (2020). The politics of pandemic othering: Putting COVID-19 in global and historical context. International Organization, 74(S1), E213–E230. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818320000405
16.
DruckmanJ. N.KlarS.KrupnikovY.LevenduskyM.RyanJ. B. (2021). Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(1), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-01012-5
17.
EssesV. M.HamiltonL. K. (2021). Xenophobia and anti-immigrant attitudes in the time of COVID-19. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(2), 253–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220983470
18.
FaulknerJ.SchallerM.ParkJ. H.DuncanL. A. (2004). Evolved disease-avoidance mechanisms and contemporary xenophobic attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(4), 333–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430204046142
19.
FloresA.ColeJ. C.DickertS.EomK.Jiga-BoyG. M.KogutT.LoriaR.MayorgaM.PedersenE. J.PereiraB.RubaltelliE.ShermanD. K.SlovicP.VästfjällD.Van BovenL. (2022). Politicians polarize and experts depolarize public support for COVID-19 management policies across countries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117543119
20.
FordR. (2016). Who should we help? An experimental test of discrimination in the British welfare state. Political Studies, 64(3), 630–650. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12194
21.
GadarianS. K.GoodmanS. W.PepinskyT. B. (2021). Partisanship, health behavior, and policy attitudes in the early stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic. PLoS ONE, 16(4), e0249596. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249596
22.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Sheridan Books.
23.
GidronN.AdamsJ.HorneW. (2022). Who dislikes whom? Affective polarization between pairs of parties in western democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123422000394
24.
GidronN.HallP. (2017). The politics of social status: Economic and cultural roots of the populist right. The British Journal of Sociology, 68(Suppl 1), S57–S84. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12319
25.
GidronN.MijsJ. J. B. (2019). Do changes in material circumstances drive support for populist radical parties? Panel data evidence from The Netherlands during the great recession, 2007–2015. European Sociological Review, 35(5), 637–650. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcz023
26.
GiftK.GiftT. (2015). Does politics influence hiring? Evidence from a randomized experiment. Political Behavior, 37(3), 653–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9286-0
27.
GodefroidtA. (2022). How terrorism does (and does not) affect citizens’ political attitudes: A meta‐analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 67(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12692
28.
GollwitzerA.MartelC.BradyW. J.ParnametsP.FreedmanI. G.KnowlesE. D.van BavelJ. J. (2020). Partisan differences in physical distancing are linked to health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(11), 1186–1197. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00977-7
29.
HarellA.BantingK.KymlickaW.WallaceR. (2021). Shared membership beyond national identity: Deservingness and solidarity in diverse societies. Political Studies, 70(4), 983–1005. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321721996939
30.
HarteveldE.MendozaP.RooduijnM. (2021). Affective polarization and the populist radical right: Creating the hating?Government and Opposition, 1–25. First Viewhttps://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.31
31.
HaverlandM.van der VeerR.OndercoM. (2022). Is this crisis different? Attitudes towards EU fiscal transfers in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. European Union Politics. First view: July 11, 2022https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221112988
HelblingM.MaxwellR.MunzertS.TraunmüllerR. (2022). The importance of citizenship for deserving Covid-19 treatment. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), 302–308. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01311-4
34.
HochschildA. R. (2016). Strangers in their own land: Anger and mourning on the American right. The New Press.
35.
HoogheL.MarksG. (2018). Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the transnational cleavage. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(1), 109–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1310279
36.
HoogheL.MarksG.WilsonC. J. (2002). Does left/right structure party positions on European integration?Comparative Political Studies, 35(8), 965–989. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041402236310
37.
IyengarS.WestwoodS. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152
38.
JacksonD.JollyS. (2021). A new divide? Assessing the transnational-nationalist dimension among political parties and the public across the EU. European Union Politics, 22(2), 316–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116520988915
39.
JensenC.PetersenM. B. (2017). The deservingness heuristic and the politics of health care. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12251
40.
KleiderH.StoeckelF. (2019). The politics of international redistribution: Explaining public support for fiscal transfers in the EU. European Journal of Political Research, 58(1), 4–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12268
41.
LermanA. E.SadinM. L.TrachtmanS. (2017). Policy uptake as political behavior: Evidence from the affordable care act. American Political Science Review, 111(4), 755–770. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055417000272
42.
LipsitzK.Pop-ElechesG. (2020). The partisan divide in social distancing. Available at SSRN 3595695 (2020).
43.
MagniG. (forthcoming). Boundaries of Solidarity: Immigrants, Economic Contributions, and Welfare Attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, Early view online https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12707
44.
MagniG. (2021). Economic inequality, immigrants and selective solidarity: From perceived lack of opportunity to in-group favoritism. British Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 1357–1380. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123420000046
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
47.
McCallL.BurkD.LaperrièreM.RichesonJ. A. (2017). Exposure to rising inequality shapes Americans’ opportunity beliefs and policy support. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(36), 9593–9598. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706253114
48.
McConnellC.MargalitY.MalhotraN.LevenduskyM. (2018). The economic consequences of partisanship in a polarized era. American Journal of Political Science, 62(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12330
49.
MewesJ.MauS. (2012). Unraveling working-class welfare chauvinism. In MewesJ.MauS. (Eds.), Contested welfare states: Welfare attitudes in Europe and beyond (pp. 119–157). Stanford University Press.
50.
MichelitchK. (2015). Does electoral competition exacerbate interethnic or interpartisan economic discrimination? Evidence from a field experiment in market price bargaining. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055414000628
51.
MutzD. C. (2018). Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(19), E4330–E4339. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718155115
52.
NavarreteC. D.FesslerD. M. (2006). Disease avoidance and ethnocentrism: The effects of disease vulnerability and disgust sensitivity on intergroup attitudes. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(4), 270–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.12.001
53.
NorrisP.InglehartR. (2019). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press.
54.
PetersenM. B. (2012). Social welfare as small‐scale help: Evolutionary psychology and the deservingness heuristic. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00545.x
55.
ReeskensT.RoosmaF.WandersE. (2021). The perceived deservingness of COVID-19 healthcare in The Netherlands: A conjoint experiment on priority access to intensive care and vaccination. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10488-3
56.
ReeskensT.Van OorschotW. (2012). Disentangling the ‘new liberal dilemma’: On the relation between general welfare redistribution preferences and welfare chauvinism. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 53(2), 120–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715212451987
57.
ReiljanA. (2020). Fear and loathing across party lines’(also) in Europe: Affective polarisation in European party systems. European Journal of Political Research, 59(2), 376–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12351
58.
RodriguezC.GadarianS.Wallace GoodmanS.PepinskyT. (2020). Morbid Polarization: Exposure to COVID-19 and partisan disagreement about pandemic response. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wvyr7
59.
RovnyJ.BakkerR.HoogheL.JollyS.MarksG.PolkJ.SteenbergenM.VachudovaM. A. (2022). Contesting Covid: The ideological bases of partisan responses to the Covid‐19 pandemic. European Journal of Political Research. 61(4), 1155–1164, First view: Jan 31, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12510
60.
SambanisN.NikolovaE.SchultzA. (2022). The effects of economic austerity on pro-sociality: Evidence from Greece. European Union Politics. First view, Aug 29, 2022https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221120527
61.
SibleyC. G.DuckittJ. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 12(3), 248–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308319226
62.
SkitkaL. J. (2005). Patriotism or nationalism? Understanding post‐september 11, 2001, flag‐display behavior 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(10), 1995–2011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02206.x
63.
SnidermanP. M.HagendoornL.PriorM. (2004). Predisposing factors and situational triggers: Exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000305540400098x
64.
StoetzerL.MunzertS.LoweW.ÇalıB.GohdesA.HelblingM.MaxwellR.TraunmuellerR. (2021). Affective partisan polarization and moral dilemmas during the COVID-19 pandemic. Working paper.
65.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
Van der WaalJ.AchterbergP.HoutmanD.De KosterW.ManevskaK. (2010). Some are more equal than others: Economic egalitarianism and welfare chauvinism in The Netherlands. Journal of European Social Policy, 20(4), 350–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928710374376
68.
Van der WaalJ.De KosterW.Van OorschotW. (2013). Three worlds of welfare chauvinism? How welfare regimes affect support for distributing welfare to immigrants in Europe. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 15(2), 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2013.785147
69.
Van OorschotW. (2000). Who should get what, and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public. Policy & Politics, 28(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1332/0305573002500811
70.
VillaniL.McKeeM.CasciniF.RicciardiW.BocciaS. (2020). Comparison of death rates for COVID-19 across Europe during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Public Health, 8(Dec, 620416), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.620416
71.
VolschoT. W.KellyN. J. (2012). The rise of the super-rich: Power resources, taxes, financial markets, and the dynamics of the top 1 percent, 1949 to 2008. American Sociological Review, 77(5), 679–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412458508
72.
ZagefkaH. (2021). Intergroup helping during the coronavirus crisis: Effects of group identification, ingroup blame and third party outgroup blame. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 31(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2487
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
