Cited by 29Communication and COVID-19 ImpactElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationRisk Perception and Management

The Costs of Polarizing a Pandemic: Antecedents, Consequences, and Lessons

Open access
Van Bavel, Jay J., Pretus, Clara, Rathje, Steve, Pärnamets, Philip, Vlasceanu, Madalina, Knowles, Eric D.·2024·Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract

Polarization has been rising in the United States of America for the past few decades and now poses a significant—and growing—public-health risk. One of the signature features of the American response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been the degree to which perceptions of risk and willingness to follow public-health recommendations have been politically polarized. Although COVID-19 has proven more lethal than any war or public-health crisis in American history, the deadly consequences of the pandemic were exacerbated by polarization. We review research detailing how every phase of the COVID-19 pandemic has been polarized, including judgments of risk, spatial distancing, mask wearing, and vaccination. We describe the role of political ideology, partisan identity, leadership, misinformation, and mass communication in this public-health crisis. We then assess the overall impact of polarization on infections, illness, and mortality during the pandemic; offer a psychological analysis of key policy questions; and identify a set of future research questions for scholars and policy experts. Our analysis suggests that the catastrophic death toll in the United States was largely preventable and due, in large part, to the polarization of the pandemic. Finally, we discuss implications for public policy to help avoid the same deadly mistakes in future public-health crises.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/17456916231190395

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 113 · Cited by 29

Authors
Van Bavel, J. J., Pretus, C., Rathje, S., Pärnamets, P., Vlasceanu, M., & Knowles, E. D.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychology and Center for Neural Science, New York University
  • Hospital Del Mar (ES)
  • New York University (US)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Published
2023-10-09
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
624-639
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
OpenAlex
W4387440316
Cited by
29
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 3
FWCI
13.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
Keywords
political polarization, COVID-19 pandemic, risk perception, masking, social distancing, COVID-19 vaccination, political ideology, partisan identity, political leadership, misinformation, mass communication, public health policy, pandemic mortality, preventable deaths
MeSH terms
Physical Distancing, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Humans, Politics, Public Health, United States, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review