A new study shows how the growing political divide hurts prosocial behavior.
America’s blood banks are facing their worst blood shortage in over a decade. There are many causes for this crisis, from the hot summer to a lingering effect of the pandemic and an aging donor pool.
But here’s an unexpected reason: America’s hyper-partisan climate. In a new study, Sung Eun Kim and I show that people are less likely to donate blood when they perceive themselves to be surrounded by partisans of the opposite political party. This goes for liberals as well as conservatives – only political independents seem to be immune. With the U.S. presidential elections looming, it’s worth considering some of the far-reaching effects of these partisan divisions.
How we did our research
Using a decade of Cooperative Election Study survey data covering over 275,000 Americans, we found that local political diversity significantly impacts people’s willingness to donate blood. This annual survey includes a question about blood donation to capture respondents’ nonpolitical activity. Specifically, we found that individuals living in communities with more partisans of the opposing party are less likely to engage in behavior that would benefit the other side, like giving blood. Similarly, those who described themselves as political outliers in their community were also less likely to roll up their sleeves.
This reluctance seems to be driven by a subconscious aversion to aiding political adversaries. No one likes getting pricked with needles, and people are that much less likely to do it when they have a reason to think that their donation might help a political foe.
The deep impact of political polarization
The news isn’t all bad: Other forms of diversity, such as racial or ethnic diversity, show no equivalent negative effect. Differences in skin color or cultural background do not hold us back from a life-saving altruistic act – only our attitudes towards those in the other political camp do. This difference is consistent with a body of scholarship that finds that in many settings, partisan animosity now has a stronger effect on behavior than racial animosity. It might be because racial discrimination is widely condemned, while political elites actively encourage partisan discrimination. Expressions of partisanship are often presented as caring about the fate of the nation. But our findings suggest that when these emotions run high, partisanship can in fact harm the nation in specific ways.
Partisanship dampens activities that benefit everyone
For the past decade, political scientists have been warning of a rise in “affective polarization” – that’s when members of one political party increasingly dislike members of the opposing party. Because it is not limited to policy positions, and because it has a strong emotional aspect, affective polarization can easily spill over into areas of life that seem to have nothing to do with politics. Americans appear increasingly unwilling to hire, work for, go into business with, purchase goods from, or go on a date with people from the other party. But what we found is that affective polarization isn’t just driving up cable news ratings, or making some Thanksgiving dinners more uncomfortable. It’s putting a chokehold on behaviors that benefit society as a whole.
To our surprise, ideology itself showed no direct effect: Liberals are neither more nor less likely to donate blood than conservatives. Instead, both very liberal and very conservative individuals are significantly less likely to be donors. Moderates, by comparison, are the most likely donors. Overall, what seems to matter is people’s perception of their community’s ideology. Those whose political leanings are at odds with the views of their community are least likely to donate – and the effect is sizeable, affecting the odds of donation by as much as 20%.
It’s not just blood donation
We found the same pattern for vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic. Getting the shot is another type of pro-social activity: One person’s decision to get vaccinated benefits not only the individual, but also the community, by contributing to herd immunity. While liberals tended to get vaccinated against COVID-19 at significantly higher rates than conservatives, on average, those living in areas where their views were at odds with the average person were significantly less likely to get the vaccine.
These findings have serious implications. The effects of polarization are not limited to encounters between nonpartisans, as political scientists used to think. By affecting public health, polarization has an effect on friends and foes alike. Increasing political divisions are affecting the trust and shared sense of responsibility that collective welfare depends on. As America becomes more politically divided, people’s willingness to step up and contribute to the public good suffers.
As the election season reaches its final stretch and political divisions deepen, these findings should be a call to action. In matters of health, our common interests ought to prevail over political divides. The country needs blood donations, from liberals and conservatives alike.
You can find the blood drive nearest you at the American Red Cross website.
Krzysztof Pelc is the Lester B. Pearson Professor of International Relations at Oxford University.
The post Political polarization is draining America’s blood supply appeared first on Good Authority.