Cuando un político que nos gusta apoya una política de COVID-19, tendemos a apoyarla. Pero cuando un enemigo político respalda exactamente el mismo plan, tendemos a oponernos, según una nueva investigación de la Universidad de Colorado Boulder que se publicará el 14 de enero en las Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. .

En una nota más optimista, el estudio global sugiere que mientras los políticos de todo el mundo han polarizado la opinión pública durante la pandemia, los expertos científicos de confianza pueden tener el poder de unificarla.

"Este estudio demuestra que cuando se trata de COVID-19, al igual que con otros problemas contemporáneos, las personas se dejan influir mucho más por quién representa la política que por lo que realmente es", dijo el autor principal Leaf Van Boven, profesor de psicología y neurociencia. en CU Boulder. "También muestra que a la gente le gustan más los expertos que los políticos, incluso los de su propio partido".

Los políticos polarizan, los expertos despolarizan

Para el estudio, realizado entre agosto y noviembre de 2020, Van Boven y sus coautores presentaron una encuesta a una muestra representativa a nivel nacional de 13 000 personas en siete países:Brasil, Israel, Italia, Suecia, Corea del Sur, el Reino Unido y los Estados Unidos.

Se pidió a los encuestados, incluidos 3300 en los Estados Unidos, que evaluaran una de las dos propuestas de gestión de pandemias, basadas en planes reales que se estaban considerando, incluidas medidas como el distanciamiento social, las regulaciones del lugar de trabajo, el rastreo de contactos y las restricciones de viaje.

Uno incluía restricciones más severas y priorizaba "mantener bajos los números de casos de COVID-19". Otro enfatizó "la recuperación de la economía tanto como sea posible mientras se evita un resurgimiento de los casos de COVID-19".

En un experimento de seguimiento, realizado solo en los Estados Unidos, los encuestados evaluaron los planes internacionales de distribución de vacunas, uno de los cuales priorizó una estrategia de América primero y otro adoptó un enfoque más global.

In both experiments, respondents were told that the policy was supported by either liberal elites, conservative elites, a bipartisan coalition, or nonpartisan scientific experts.

Names of elites were adapted for each country. For instance, in the U.S. survey, the policy was said to be endorsed by either Donald Trump or Joe Biden; In Brazil, it was endorsed by Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro or his political rival, Fernando Haddad.

Across all countries, liberal and conservative respondents were significantly more likely to support a policy when told elites from their party endorsed it. When a policy was presented as backed by bipartisan coalitions or neutral experts, it earned the most support.

"These findings underscore how important it is to have communications come from scientific sources that are not seen as political and to keep prominent politicians out of the spotlight of crisis communication," said co-first author Alexandra Flores, a Ph.D. student in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience.

How nonpartisan experts can help

In previous research on climate change policies, Van Boven found similar results:Republicans and Democrats had more in common than assumed and based their support more on who backed a policy than what it said.

But Van Boven was surprised to find that such political polarization has persisted so broadly, even in the face of an unprecedented global crisis requiring urgent, coordinated action.

"In the beginning of the pandemic, a lot of scholars predicted that these political divisions would be tempered, and we would all band together to confront this shared threat. That has not been the case," said Van Boven.

The United States was not, as often assumed, the most politically polarized country assessed. Sweden, Italy and Brazil were at least as politically divided, the study found, while the United Kingdom was less polarized.

As the pandemic enters its third year, the authors hope the findings will encourage politicians to pull away from the microphone and let scientific experts, disentangled from political infighting, take the lead on communicating health policies.

"When communication comes from politicians before the public really gets a chance to evaluate the relevant goals and outcomes, it can politicize things quickly and contribute to a spirit of uncooperativeness," said Flores. "A good way to combat that is to have nonpartisan experts be the ones to weigh in first."

They also hope individuals will take a hard look at why they do or don't support plans.

"In many situations, political polarization is a headache that slows things down," said Van Boven. "But in the context of this pandemic, it is costing hundreds of thousands of lives."