| Summary: | <p><strong>Background:</strong> While political polarization in policy opinions, preferences, and observance is well established, little is known about whether and how such divisions evolve, and possibly attenuate, over time. Using the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil as the backdrop, we examine the longitudinal evolution of a highly relevant and polarizing policy: adherence to the COVID-19 vaccination.</p>
<p><strong>Methods:</strong> Studies 1 (N = 3346) and 2 (N = 10,214) use nationwide surveys to document initial differences and subsequent changes in vaccination adherence between conservatives ("Bolsonaristas") and non-conservatives ("non-Bolsonaristas"). Study 3 (N = 742) uses an original dataset to investigate belief changes among conservatives and their association with asymmetric changes in vaccination adherence.</p>
<p><strong>Results:</strong> Despite substantial differences at the early stages of rollout, the gap in vaccination adherence between conservatives and non-conservatives significantly decreased with the passage of time, driven essentially by a much faster uptake among the initially most skeptic—the conservatives. Study 3 demonstrates that the asymmetric changes in vaccination adherence were associated with meaningful belief changes among the conservatives, especially about the perceived effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines and the expected adherence of peers to the vaccination campaign.</p>
<p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Together, these studies show that, in a context where the superiority of the promoted policy becomes clear over time and individuals have the opportunity to revisit prior beliefs, even intense political polarization can be attenuated.</p>
|
|---|