好色App

Skip to main content Skip to secondary navigation
Main content start

'Coronavirus culture war'? Shedding light on the role of political beliefs in social distancing

New research by SIEPR鈥檚 Matthew Gentzkow shows that heavily Republican counties saw 19 percent higher movement of people than in comparable Democratic counties.

Not long after social distancing became the recommended response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a disturbing trend emerged: Surveys suggested there were large gaps in how residents of blue and red states were responding 鈥 with Democrats staying away from others at far higher rates than Republicans were. Democrats also said they considered the coronavirus to be far more dangerous.

For 好色App economist Matthew Gentzkow, the phenomenon begged a crucial question: Had a 鈥渃oronavirus culture war鈥 erupted or was there another explanation?

It鈥檚 possible, for example, that politics had nothing to do with the disparate responses. The most severe outbreaks were then occurring in major cities populated by Democrats, which means residents 鈥 regardless of political affiliation 鈥 would be more likely to practice social distancing or be subject to strict shelter-in-place mandates.

On the flip side, regions where the disease wasn鈥檛 spreading as fast 鈥 and responses were therefore more muted 鈥 just happened to be predominantly Republican.

Seeking clarity, Gentzkow and a group of fellow researchers spent the last month delving into GPS data and the results of an online survey they designed.

Their , released this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research, finds that the partisan gap is real. Differences in political beliefs are a factor in why Democrat-heavy regions practice more social distancing and predict more cases of COVID-19 than Republican-dominant areas.

By the third week in March, counties that were predominantly Republican saw 19 percent higher movement than in comparable Democratic counties. 鈥淎lthough it鈥檚 not like everyone in red states is going to bars and congregating in big groups on the street, these differences in social distancing behavior are meaningful,鈥 says Gentzkow, a senior fellow at the 好色App Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR).

Gentzkow and his co-authors suggest the divide may be attributable to differences in how political leaders of both parties and media, on the right and left, portrayed the threat.

鈥淧artisan differences in response to COVID-19 aren鈥檛 about cheerleading for 鈥榤y team,鈥欌 he says. 鈥淚nstead, the evidence points to real differences among Republicans and Democrats in their beliefs.鈥

Gentzkow says the consequences could be grave.

鈥淚f people have different beliefs about how serious the crisis is and are behaving differently as a result, that suggests that we are not saving as many lives as we could for the amount of social distancing that鈥檚 happening,鈥 he says.

Similar situations, different responses

Gentzkow has extensively studied the widening political divide in the United States and elsewhere. Among other studies, he has looked at how Facebookfake news, and language have contributed to the chasm. He also shown the political rift in the United States has grown faster and larger than it has in other established democracies.

When the COVID-19 contagion struck, Gentzkow says the country lacked the clear and consistent messaging from political leaders and broad public trust necessary to respond effectively. 鈥淲e have been saying for a long time that deep polarization in the United States will be a real handicap in a major crisis, whether it was a war, environmental catastrophe or, as it turned out, a pandemic,鈥 says Gentzkow.

For their study, Gentzkow and five collaborators 鈥 Hunt Allcott from New York University; Levi Boxell and Jacob Conway from 好色App; and Harvard University鈥檚 Michael Thaler and David Yang 鈥 undertook a two-part experiment.

First, they assembled publicly-available data on anonymized mobile GPS pings from SafeGraph, a location-tracking aggregator. The statistics, covering a ten-week period ending in late March, included measures of traffic to public locations like restaurants, retail stores, movie theaters, and hospitals.

They also collected county-level demographic information on age, race, education, income, and poverty status. Voting patterns from the 2016 election were used to determine political leanings by county.

Gentzkow鈥檚 analysis finds strong partisan differences in social distancing. This held even when the scholars controlled for alternative explanations, including population density and the severity of the outbreak.

鈥淚f you compare Republican and Democratic counties that look quite alike 鈥 say, for example, they are suburban and in the same state with similar income and education levels and have experienced similar outbreaks 鈥 you鈥檒l see that people in the Democrat-dominant place are staying home more,鈥 Gentzkow says. When the researchers compared traffic levels to the same period in 2019, they found no evidence of a partisan split.

He cautions that the data sample was not entirely random; it covered only specific apps downloaded to mobile phones and didn鈥檛 include users who had restricted location tracking.

A warning about finger-pointing

For the second part of the study, Gentzkow鈥檚 team conducted an online survey of 1,665 adults to understand the role that political beliefs played. Among other things, participants disclosed their party affiliation based on a seven-point scale, whether they saw a need to social distance, how much of it they were doing, how many confirmed cases they expected by the end of April, and what they thought President Trump鈥檚 approval rating would be at that time.

The results show clear partisan differences. For instance, Democrats reported a 25 percent chance of contracting COVID-19 without social distancing measures, while Republicans placed odds at 20 percent. When asked to predict future COVID-19 cases, Democratic estimates were 13 percent higher than Republican forecasts.

Next, the scholars set out to gauge whether responses reflected toeing the party line or personal beliefs. A portion of participants were told they would be paid $100 if their forecasts turned out to be correct. The idea is to incentivize people to think more deeply about their personal views, as opposed to giving knee-jerk responses that may be more politicized.

鈥淥ften, if you pay people a significant amount of money in surveys like these, partisan gaps shrink,鈥 Gentzkow says. 鈥淲hat鈥檚 striking here is we saw the opposite: partisan differences got bigger, which suggests that the gap is more likely to be about beliefs.鈥

Gentzkow advises against jumping to the conclusion that Republicans are making a mistake by not social distancing more or that they don鈥檛 care. For some high-risk groups, like the elderly, the need to self-isolate is urgent. For others, like low-income workers, the need to show up for their service jobs outweighs the health risks of doing so.

鈥淚 think people need to think very carefully about the possible reasons for those differences in responses so we can all understand better what the consequences are,鈥 says Gentzkow.

More News Topics

More News

  • An Axios piece cites a recent paper by SIEPR's Neale Mahoney. Learn more about his consumer sentiment research as it relates to today's political climate.
  • ABC News Australia quotes SIEPR's Steven Davison the difficulties in assessing how work-from-home affects productivity.
  • A new piece by The New York Times covers soaring consumer sentiment among Republicans and declines among Democrats since the election. SIEPR's Neale Mahoney weighs in.