Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-1
We Have It Totally Under Control? Exploring the Effects of Ideology and Knowing Someone Diagnosed With COVID-19 on Evaluations of President Trump’s Leadership on the Pandemic
President Donald Trump has made various decisions, many controversial, to manage the coronavirus pandemic. The reaction to President Trump’s leadership has been met with a mixed response from the public. This raises an important question; what factors influence a citizen’s evaluation of President Trump’s response to the pandemic? We develop a theory that links a citizen knowing someone diagnosed with COVID-19 with their evaluation of President Trump’s management of the pandemic, with the expectation that this relationship is conditioned by a citizen’s ideology. Using data from two surveys, we find that knowing someone diagnosed with COVID-19 diminishes the effect ideology has on a citizen’s evaluation. Additionally, we find that a citizen’s evaluation of President Trump’s leadership on COVID-19 is associated with their vote choice in the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. Overall, this article contributes to our understanding of public opinion on COVID-19 and its political ramifications.
AbramowitzA.McCoyJ. (2019). United States: Racial resentment, negative partisanship, and polarization in Trump’s America. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 681(1), 137–156.
4.
AtkesonL. R.MaestasC. D. (2012). Catastrophic politics: How extraordinary events redefine perceptions of government. Cambridge University Press.
5.
BacciniL.BrodeurA. (2021). Explaining governors’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. American Politics Research, 49(2), 215–220.
6.
BankertA. (2020). Let’s talk about sexism: The differential effects of gender discrimination on liberal and conservative women’s political engagement. American Politics Research, 48(6), 779–791.
7.
BarberM.PopeJ. C. (2019a). Does party trump ideology? Disentangling party and ideology in America. American Political Science Review, 113(1), 38–54.
8.
BarberM.PopeJ. C. (2019b). Conservatism in the era of Trump. Perspectives on Politics, 17(3), 719–736.
9.
BargainO.AminjonovU. (2020). Trust and compliance to public health policies in times of COVID-19. Journal of Public Economics, 192, 104316.
BrownA. R. (2010). Are governors responsible for the state economy? Partisanship, blame, and divided federalism. The Journal of Politics, 72(3), 605–615.
CairneyP.WellsteadA. (2020). COVID-19: Effective policymaking depends on trust in experts, politicians, and the public. Policy Design and Practice, 4(1), 1–14.
DevineC. J. (2015). Ideological social identity: Psychological attachment to ideological in-groups as a political phenomenon and a behavioral influence. Political Behavior, 37(3), 509–535.
22.
DruckmanJ. N.KlarS.KrupnikovY.LevenduskyM.RyanJ. B. (2020). How affective polarization shapes Americans’ political beliefs: A study of response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1–12.
23.
DruckmanJ. N.PetersonE.SlothuusR. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57–79.
24.
DryhurstS.SchneiderC. R.KerrJ.FreemanA. L. J.RecchiaG.van der BlesA. M.SpiegelhalterD.van der LindenS. (2020). Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world. Journal of Risk Research, 23(7-8), 994–1006.
25.
DunawayJ.BrantonR. P.AbrajanoM. A. (2010). Agenda setting, public opinion, and the issue of immigration reform. Social Science Quarterly, 91(2), 359–378.
26.
DurrR. H.MartinA. D.WolbrechtC. (2000). Ideological divergence and public support for the Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 768–776.
EllisC.StimsonJ. A. (2012). Ideology in America. Cambridge University Press.
30.
EversM. M.FisherA.SchaafS. D. (2019). Is there a Trump effect? An experiment on political polarization and audience costs. Perspectives on Politics, 17(2), 433–452.
31.
FavreM.SwedlowB.VerweijM. (2019). A cultural theory and model of power relations. Journal of Political Power, 12(2), 245–275.
Fox News. (2020). Fox News poll: Coronavirus/economy/2020 election: May 2020 (Version 3) [Dataset]. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. https://doi.org/10.25940/ROPER-31117412
34.
GartnerS. S. (2008). Ties to the dead: Connections to Iraq War and 9/11 casualties and disapproval of the president. American Sociological Review, 73(4), 690–695.
35.
GerringJ. (1997). Ideology: A definitional analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 50(4), 957–994.
HuddyL. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156.
40.
HuddyL.FeldmanS. (2011). Americans respond politically to 9/11: Understanding the impact of the terrorist attacks and their aftermath. American Psychologist, 66(6), 455–467.
41.
HuddyL.FeldmanS.CapelosT.ProvostC. (2002). The consequences of terrorism: Disentangling the effects of personal and national threat. Political Psychology, 23(3), 485–509.
42.
HuddyL.FeldmanS.TaberC.LahavG. (2005). Threat, anxiety, and support of antiterrorism policies. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 593–608.
43.
HuddyL.MasonL.AarøeL. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109, 1–17.
44.
IyengarS.HahnK. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19–39.
45.
JeritJ.BarabasJ. (2012). Partisan perceptual bias and the information environment. The Journal of Politics, 74(3), 672–684.
46.
JesseeS. A. (2010). Partisan bias, political information and spatial voting in the 2008 presidential election. The Journal of Politics, 72(2), 327–340.
47.
JonesD. R.McDermottM. L. (2002). Ideological distance from the majority party and public approval of congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 27(2), 245–264.
48.
JostJ. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61(7), 651–670.
49.
KeiserL. R.MillerS. M. (2020). Does administrative burden influence public support for government programs? Evidence from a survey experiment. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 137–150.
50.
KerrJ.PanagopoulosC.van der LindenS. (2021). Political polarization on COVID-19 pandemic response in the United States. Personality and Individual Differences, 179, 110892.
51.
KiewietD. R. (1983). Macroeconomics and micropolitics: The electoral effects of economic issues. University of Chicago Press.
52.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.
LeboM. J.CassinoD. (2007). The aggregated consequences of motivated reasoning and the dynamics of partisan presidential approval. Political Psychology, 28(6), 719–746.
55.
LeeM. J. (2017). Considering political identity: Conservatives, republicans, and Donald Trump. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 20(4), 719–730.
MalkaA.LelkesY. (2010). More than ideology: Conservative–liberal identity and receptivity to political cues. Social Justice Research, 23(2-3), 156–188.
59.
McCartyN. (2015). Reducing polarization by making parties stronger. In PersilyN. (Ed.), Solutions to polarization in America (pp. 136–145). Cambridge University Press.
MillerS. M. (2016). Public support for sale: Government spending and public approval of federal agency performance. American Politics Research, 44(3), 523–547.
RedlawskD. P.CivettiniA. J. W.EmmersonK. M. (2010). The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever “get it”?Political Psychology, 31(4), 563–593.
SchaffnerB. F.MacwilliamsM.NtetaT. (2018). Understanding white polarization in the 2016 vote for president: The sobering role of racism and sexism. Political Science Quarterly, 133(1), 9–34.
70.
SchaffnerB. F.SchillerW. J.SellersP. J. (2003). Tactical and contextual determinants of US senators’ approval ratings. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 28(2), 203–223.
71.
SchlengerW. E.CaddellJ. M.EbertL.JordanB. K.RourkeK. M.WilsonD.ThaljiL.DennisJ. M.FairbankJ. A.KulkaR. A. (2002). Psychological reactions to terrorist attacks: Findings from the National study of Americans’ reactions to September 11. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(5), 581–588.
72.
SchraffD. (2020). Political trust during the Covid-19 pandemic: Rally around the flag or lockdown effects?European Journal of Political Research, 1–11.
73.
SchusterM. A.SteinB. D.JaycoxL. H.CollinsR. L.MarshallG. N.ElliottM. N.ZhouA. J.KanouseD. E.MorrisonJ. L.BerryS. H. (2001). A national survey of stress reactions after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. New England Journal of Medicine, 345(20), 1507–1512.
74.
SearsD. O.ValentinoN. A. (1997). Politics matters: Political events as catalysts for preadult socialization. American Political Science Review, 91, 45–65.
ShayL. P. (2020). Closing time! Examining the impact of gender and executive branch policy makers on the timing of stay-at-home orders. Politics and Gender, 16, 935–942.
StauferS. J. (2021). Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and the question of populism. Journal of Political Ideologies, 26, 220–238.
81.
TaberC. S.CannD.KucsovaS. (2009). The motivated processing of political arguments. Political Behavior, 31(2), 137–155.
82.
TaberC. S.LodgeM. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.
83.
TadlockB. L.FloresA. R.Haider-MarkelD. P.LewisD. C.MillerP. R.TaylorJ. K. (2017). Testing contact theory and attitudes on transgender rights. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81(4), 956–972.
84.
TedinK. L. (1987). Political ideology and the vote. Research in Micropolitics, 2, 63–94.
VignolesV. L.JaserZ.TaylorF.NtontisE. (2021). Harnessing shared identities to mobilize resilient responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Political Psychology, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12726
87.
WarshawC.VavreckL.Baxter-KingR. (2020). Fatalities from COVID-19 are reducing Americans’ support for Republicans at every level of federal office. Science Advances, 6(44), pii: eabd8564.
88.
Washington Post/ABC News. (2020). ABC News/Washington Post poll: March 2020 coronavirus (Version 3) [Dataset]. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. https://doi.org/10.25940/ROPER-31117260.
89.
WattierM. J. (1983). Ideological voting in 1980 Republican presidential primaries. The Journal of Politics, 45(4), 1016–1026.
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.
