A United States Presidential election and voting concept produced by Getty Images with protective face mask, vintage campaign buttons and American flags on an old wood background
People’s political persuasions can have a significant influence on their initial response to a global health crisis, according to new research.
But while they do tend to respond to guidance issued or followed by their political leaders of choice, the study showed that people’s behaviour can be altered by targeted interventions that highlight the potential impact of choices they make on those around them.
The research was carried out around the time of the COVID-19 pandemic and recruited more than 800 United States citizens who had voted for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential Election.
They were invited to take part in an interactive game that included simulations of a virtual disease outbreak, with efforts to reduce the transmission risk incurring a personal cost while participants contracting the virtual disease losing all bonus payments for the game.
The researchers observed the participants’ responses and compared differences in behaviour among participants who had voted for either candidate in the election.
They found voters for the Republican Party (Trump) were significantly more likely to make decisions involving an element of risk than those who voted for the Democrats (Clinton), and risk-takers in the game were less likely to intend to wear masks, engage in physical distancing, wash their hands or reduce their mobility in the context of the real ongoing pandemic.
However, despite starting from different baselines, both groups reduced their risk-taking tendencies when presented with a simple message asking them to choose the safer option for their own and others’ benefit.
The effect of the intervention was stronger in an abstract version of the game (avoiding medical terms) than in a version directly addressing a pandemic. At the same time, both groups showed a strong effect of reducing their risk-taking in the pandemic-framed version, showing a potential effect of prevalent messaging at the time of the study.
The study was led by researchers in the University of Plymouth’s School of Psychology working with colleagues from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin and the IESE Business School in Barcelona.
They say the research, published in the Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, does support previous suggestions that people on the political left are more likely to adopt preventive health behaviours than those on the political right.
However, the researchers believe their findings also demonstrate that exploring ways to connect with people based on personal principles is as important – if not more so – than reaching out to them on the basis of their political views.

This study was carried out at a time when the world was experiencing one of the worst health crises in living memory and in the United States, there was a massive partisan gap in COVID-19 death rates.

Our results show that while there was a partisan gap rooted in fundamental differences in personal characteristics, it was not immovable. Whether they were Trump or Clinton voters, people significantly reduced their risk-taking when presented with a simple message asking them to choose the safer option for their own and others’ benefit.

Jan K. WoikeDr Jan K. Woike
Lecturer in Psychology

The study builds on existing research at the University into the use of games to study human behaviour and investigate ways to promote cooperation.
Researchers are currently using experimental games to study public responses to other societal issues, from efforts to mitigate the impacts of climate change to delivering long-term benefits in sustainable behaviour.
Their interest is to explore how social preferences and cognitive abilities affect decision making in situations that impact both the decision maker, those they engage with on a regular basis and wider society.

We believe this new study offers valuable lessons to take into account during health crises like the COVID-19 pandemic in the future.

Our approach offers a valuable tool and sandbox for studying effective interventions when people might already be exposed to public messaging and information. Some studies may underestimate the power of interventions as people have already experienced them in their daily life. Our game-based simulation approach allows us to isolate causal factors from an ongoing situation.

Patricia KanngiesserDr Patricia Kanngiesser
Associate Professor in Psychology

  • The full study – Woike et al: Partisan differences in risk-taking in a simulated pandemic – is published in the Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, DOI: 10.1002/bdm.80066.
 

Study Psychology at the University of Plymouth and experience hands-on learning in a research-led environment:

A psychological student conducting brain research