Political polarization impeded public support for policies to reduce the spread of COVID-19, much as polarization hinders responses to other contemporary challenges. Unlike previous theory and research that focused on the United States, the present research examined the effects of political elite cues and affective polarization on support for policies to manage the COVID-19 pandemic in seven countries (n = 12,955): Brazil, Israel, Italy, South Korea, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Across countries, cues from political elites polarized public attitudes toward COVID-19 policies. Liberal and conservative respondents supported policies proposed by ingroup politicians and parties more than the same policies from outgroup politicians and parties. Respondents disliked, distrusted, and felt cold toward outgroup political elites, whereas they liked, trusted, and felt warm toward both ingroup political elites and nonpartisan experts. This affective polarization was correlated with policy support. These findings imply that policies from bipartisan coalitions and nonpartisan experts would be less polarizing, enjoying broader public support. Indeed, across countries, policies from bipartisan coalitions and experts were more widely supported. A follow-up experiment replicated these findings among US respondents considering international vaccine distribution policies. The polarizing effects of partisan elites and affective polarization emerged across nations that vary in cultures, ideologies, and political systems. Contrary to some propositions, the United States was not exceptionally polarized. Rather, these results suggest that polarizing processes emerged simply from categorizing people into political ingroups and outgroups. Political elites drive polarization globally, but nonpartisan experts can help resolve the conflicts that arise from it. Significance Political polarization impeded public support for policies to address the spread of COVID-19, much as polarization hinders responses to other societal challenges. The present cross-country study demonstrates how the cues from political elites and affective polarization are analogous across countries addressing COVID-19. Far from being an outlier, the United States faces polarization challenges similar to those of other countries. Importantly, the results demonstrate that policies to combat public health crises are more supported when proposed by nonpartisan experts and bipartisan coalitions of political leaders. These results provide clear guidance on depolarizing communication strategies to improve global responses to health crises.

Although substantial research suggests that motivations have been found to mediate the relationships between impulsivity traits and various forms of substance use, no studies have examined how gambling motives may mediate the relationships between impulsivity traits and problem gambling. The primary purpose of this study was to test an integrative model linking impulsivity traits and gambling problems, evaluating the mediating effects of gambling motives. Participants were 594 students (73% male; age, M = 19.92 years; SD = 2.91) enrolled in public high schools or universities. Young people who tend to act rashly in response to extremely positive moods showed higher enhancement and coping motives, which in turn were positively related to gambling problems. Individuals with higher levels of sensation seeking were more likely to have higher levels of enhancement motives, which in turn were also positively related to gambling problems. The model was examined in several groups, separately for the level of perceived gambling risk/benefits (lower perceived gambling risk, higher perceived gambling risk, lower perceived gambling benefits, and higher perceived gambling benefits). There were significant differences between these groups for this division. These findings suggest that prevention and/or treatment strategies might need to consider the model's variables, including impulsivity traits and gambling motives, in accordance with individual levels of perceived gambling risk/benefits.

Cause related marketing (CRM) is a strategy that aims to communicate a company's striving for corporate social responsibility and to improve brand image. A strategy to increase consumers' emotional involvement toward a product–cause association is to describe the cause in vivid terms. In two experiments we investigated how vivid messages might increase the effectiveness of CRM strategy. We sought to demonstrate that a vivid description of the cause could influence consumers' preferences and trust in the effective use of money collected by selling the product. Experiment 1 results showed that individuals prefer products associated with a vivid message of the social cause rather than products associated with a pallid message. Experiment 2 results suggested that vivid messages induce more positive affective reactions and a higher trust in the effective use of money than pallid ones. In the final section, the implications of CRM for corporate social responsibility are discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.