» Articles » PMID: 35077546

Opposing Views: Associations of Political Polarization, Political Party Affiliation, and Social Trust with COVID-19 Vaccination Intent and Receipt

Overview
Specialty Public Health
Date 2022 Jan 25
PMID 35077546
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Political polarization has increased in the USA within recent years. Studies have shown Republicans are less likely to accept COVID-19 vaccinations than Democrats; however, little is known regarding the association between COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and political polarization.

Methods: We used data from a nationally-representative survey of 1427 participants conducted between 9 February 2021 and 17 February 2021. We estimated multivariate-adjusted odds ratios for COVID-19 vaccination intent and receipt according to perceived political polarization (measured as the perceived size of the ideological gap between Democrats and Republicans), political party affiliation, and social trust, controlling for demographic and socioeconomic factors.

Results: Among participants perceiving high levels of polarization, Republicans (versus Democrats) reported a 90% lower odds of vaccination intent (OR = 0.10 [0.05, 0.19], P < 0.001). Participants with high (versus low) social trust and low perceived polarization had a 2-folder higher vaccination intent (OR = 2.39 [1.34, 4.21], P = 0.003); this association was substantially weaker in the high perceived polarization group.

Conclusions: High perceived levels of political polarization appear to magnify the decrease in the odds of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine and the intent to get vaccinated among Republicans versus Democrats. Political polarization may further attenuate the protective associations of high social capital with vaccination.

Citing Articles

Understanding the rationales and information environments for early, late, and nonadopters of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Singh L, Bao L, Bode L, Budak C, Pasek J, Raghunathan T NPJ Vaccines. 2024; 9(1):168.

PMID: 39271667 PMC: 11399438. DOI: 10.1038/s41541-024-00962-5.


Navigating persuasive strategies in online health misinformation: An interview study with older adults on misinformation management.

Peng W, Meng J, Issaka B PLoS One. 2024; 19(7):e0307771.

PMID: 39052635 PMC: 11271879. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307771.


Polarization and health-related behaviours and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review protocol.

Ipekci A, Filsinger M, Buitrago-Garcia D, Kobler Betancourt C, Frahsa A, Low N F1000Res. 2024; 13:488.

PMID: 39026510 PMC: 11255549. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.145852.1.


Toward trustworthy COVID-19 interventions: Building vaccine trust through community-university partnerships.

Bray L, Jervis L, Janitz A, Ross L, Tallbull G, VanWagoner T PLoS One. 2024; 19(3):e0300872.

PMID: 38536876 PMC: 10971327. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300872.


Personal rights over public Health: Anti-vaccine rhetoric in the Texas Legislature.

Matthews K, Lakshmanan R, Kalakuntla N, Tallapragada N Vaccine X. 2024; 18:100468.

PMID: 38450107 PMC: 10915400. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100468.