Search results

One explanation for why people wear masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19 focuses on political party affiliation. This study explores the role of values in attempts by five South Dakota cities to pass local mask mandates.

A nonrandom convenience sample used search engines to find documents on mask mandates in South Dakota. The working hypotheses are: (1) the debate over mask mandates is a form of value conflict over freedom of choice and the role of government that reflect those held by Emerson, Thoreau, and Spencer and (2) the mandates themselves prescribe Value-Rational rather than Instrumental-Rational action to control the pandemic.

Antimaskers valued freedom of choice, and were willing to defy authority while promasker health professionals valued science and were willing to sacrifice themselves for the health of their patients. South Dakota cities encouraged mask wearing but did not include penalties for noncompliance. The vociferous opposition to the mask mandates resembles the opposition cities encountered when deciding to fluoridate drinking water in the 1950s and 1960s.

A case study cannot be generalized and may reflect sampling and researcher bias. Future research could include a content analysis of documents and videos presenting both sides of the debate.

This case study may provide the first in-depth analysis of values in the masking debate.

This chapter explores public perceptions of health disparities by taking political ideology and political party identification into account and applies theories of cognitive dissonance, cognitive prejudice, and moral prejudice to understand the impact of political ideology on perceptions of health disparities.

A statewide telephone survey asked 1,036 people about health disparities. Eight independent variables – political ideology, political party identification, gender, race, age, community type, income, and education achieved – were entered in an additive stepwise regression containing one of four dependent variables – unfair treatment based on health insurance, unfair treatment based on ability to speak English, minorities unable to get care when needed, and quality of care for minorities.

Political ideology entered all four equations while political party identity entered only two. Liberals were most likely to believe that minorities were unable to get routine care when needed and democrats that ability to speak English meant differential treatment. Respondents with low education were most likely to believe people were treated unfairly based on insurance, while those with lower incomes were more likely to believe that minorities received higher quality of care than whites.

A public opinion survey in one state cannot be generalized for the whole country. The survey was conducted in the spring of 2009 just as the debate over the proposed health care reform legislation was reaching a crescendo, which may explain the importance of political ideology on perceptions of health disparities.

This chapter explicitly examines the effect of political ideology and party identification on perceptions of health disparities by utilizing theories of cognitive and moral prejudice. Political ideology reflecting cognitive and moral prejudice may combine with support for a social movement or political faction that supports or opposes reducing health disparities.