@article{MunzertRamirezRuizCalıetal., author = {Munzert, Simon and Ramirez-Ruiz, Sebastian and {\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak and Stoetzer, Lukas F. and Gohdes, Anita R. and Lowe, Will}, title = {Prioritization preferences for COVID-19 vaccination are consistent across five countries}, series = {Humanities and Social Sciences Communications}, volume = {9}, journal = {Humanities and Social Sciences Communications}, number = {439}, doi = {10.1057/s41599-022-01392-1}, abstract = {Vaccination against COVID-19 is making progress globally, but vaccine doses remain a rare commodity in many parts of the world. New virus variants require vaccines to be updated, hampering the availability of effective vaccines. Policymakers have defined criteria to regulate who gets priority access to the vaccination, such as age, health complications, or those who hold system-relevant jobs. But how does the public think about vaccine allocation? To explore those preferences, we surveyed respondents in Brazil, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the United States from September to December of 2020 using ranking and forced-choice tasks. We find that public preferences are consistent with expert guidelines prioritizing health-care workers and people with medical preconditions. However, the public also considers those signing up early for vaccination and citizens of the country to be more deserving than later-comers and non-citizens. These results hold across measures, countries, and socio-demographic subgroups.}, language = {en} } @article{StoetzerMunzertLoweetal., author = {Stoetzer, Lukas F. and Munzert, Simon and Lowe, Will and {\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak and Gohdes, Anita R. and Helbling, Marc and Maxwell, Rahsaan and Traunm{\"u}ller, Richard}, title = {Affective partisan polarization and moral dilemmas during the COVID-19 pandemic}, series = {Political Science Research and Methods}, journal = {Political Science Research and Methods}, doi = {10.1017/psrm.2022.13}, pages = {1 -- 8}, abstract = {Recent scholarship on affective polarization documents partisan animosity in people's everyday lives. But does partisan dislike go so far as to deny fundamental rights? We study this question through a moral dilemma that gained notoriety during the COVID-19 pandemic: triage decisions on the allocation of intensive medical care. Using a conjoint experiment in five countries we analyze the influence of patients' partisanship next to commonly discussed factors determining access to intensive medical care. We find that while participants' choices are consistent with a utilitarian heuristic, revealed partisanship influences decisions across most countries. Supporters of left or right political camps are more likely to withhold support from partisan opponents. Our findings offer comparative evidence on affective polarization in non-political contexts.}, language = {en} }