We use a difference-in-differences design on the basis of daily surveys of trust and vaccination status in Denmark. On Nov 8 2021, a press conference announced that covid passports were re-introduced, in part, to make life of the unvaxxed "more burdensome". (2/4)
Among the unvaxxed, this lead to a decrease in their trust in the political strategy of handling the COVID-19 pandemic with 11 %-points. This group was already low in trust but the announcement decreased it further. The vaxxed had high and unchanged levels of trust. (3/4)
Analyses show that trust underlies motivations that are highly predictive of compliance with health advice: github.com/Hopeproject202…. Pressure may thus not only fuel political protest but also crowd out compliance with other health advice incl. about booster vaccinations. (4/4)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Many restrictions now target the unvaxxed. Beyond public health arguments, a behavioral logic is increasingly used ("we need to pressure them!").
But be warned: This logic comes with great costs.
A 🧵 on almost 2 years of research on the societal impact of the pandemic. (1/10)
A pandemic is an excessively severe crisis. Beyond the health consequences, one of the main causalities is trust in the political system. We have tracked government support across countries. And it drops as the crisis unfolds: doi.org/10.1080/014023…. (2/10)
Our research shows that this decreasing trust is driven by feelings of fatigue, which again is driven by restrictions and the time that passes as the pandemic drags on and on and on: psyarxiv.com/y6wm4/. (3/10)
Når #dkmedier spørger mig, om en eller anden restriktion kan presse folk til at tage vaccinen, så svarer jeg "sikkert". Men jeg bliver også bekymret for de spørgsmål, der ikke stilles.
Lad mig forklare hvorfor. Svaret findes i vores forskning det seneste halvandet år.
🧵(1/11)
En pandemi er en krise fra øverste hylde. Tilliden til regeringen - i Danmark og i udlandet - falder måned for måned, som krisen går frem. (2/11)
Vores forskning viser, at faldet i tillid drives af tiltagende udmattelse, der igen drives af restriktioner og tiden, der går, efterhånden, som krisen trækker ud: psyarxiv.com/y6wm4/. (3/11)
Moralization is related to norm changes. One well-studied example is smoking (sciencedirect.com/science/articl…). Moralization and condemnation are tools humans as social animals use to incentivize others to change behavior (doi.org/10.1016/j.evol…). (2/10)
The pandemic requires rapid changes. Using surveys collected from April '20 to Nov '20 in 8 countries (🇺🇸 🇩🇰 🇫🇷 🇬🇧 🇸🇪 🇩🇪 🇭🇺 🇮🇹), we ask if this led people to also engage in moralization? Yes! The majority find it justified to blame and condemn those that do not comply. (3/10)
The concept sparked debate regarding its causes, consequences - and even its existence. Thoughtful pieces in the debate include bmj.com/content/371/bm… & bmj.com/content/372/bm…. (2/9)
To study fatigue, we use longitudinal surveys from Sep '20 to July '21 in 8 countries: 🇩🇰🇮🇹🇭🇺🇩🇪🇸🇪🇬🇧🇫🇷🇺🇸. N is nearly 50,000. Fatigue is measured as agreement with the statement: "I do not think I can keep up with the restrictions against the coronavirus for much longer." (3/9)
To solve problems, the 1st step is problem-identification. This applies to SoMe too.
Don't rely on your intuitions. Don't even assume Facebook knows its impact. We need real research.
Here is a 🧵 on that. The problem is different from what many - even FB - thinks. (1/14)
Our research in @ROPHproject focuses on political hostility, i.e., the promotion of aggressive content in the context of politics. Most people find online debates more hostile than offline debates. The real question is: Why? (2/14)
"The Facebook Files" promotes a common explanation: Nice people can easily be triggered into anger on online platforms. But can they really? No, not according to our research (cambridge.org/core/journals/…). People who are jerks online are also jerks offline. (3/14)