COVID-19 Risk Perception and Support for COVID-19 Mitigation Measures among Local Government Officials in the U.S.: A Test of a Cultural Theory of Risk

• Author: Tamara Dimitrijevska-Markoski,Julius A. Nukpezah
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00953997221147243
• Published date: 01 March 2023
• Date: 01 March 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997221147243

Administration & Society

2023, Vol. 55(3) 351 –380

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00953997221147243

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

COVID-19 Risk

Perception and Support

for COVID-19 Mitigation

Measures among Local

Government Officials

in the U.S.: A Test of a

Cultural Theory of Risk

Tamara Dimitrijevska-Markoski1

and Julius A. Nukpezah2

Abstract

This study relies on a cultural theory of risk to examine how cultural biases

(hierarchy, individualism, egalitarianism, and fatalism) of local government

officials affect their COVID-19 risk perception and support for COVID-19

mitigation measures. After controlling for partisanship, religiosity, and other

factors, the analysis of survey data from county governments in the U.S.

revealed that cultural biases matter. Officials with egalitarian and hierarchical

cultural biases report higher support for adopting COVID-19 mitigation

measures, while those with individualistic cultural biases report lower

support. These findings highlight the need to understand cultural worldviews

and develop cultural competencies necessary for governing traumatic events.

Keywords

cultural theory of risk, COVID-19, county, partisanship, religion

1University of South Florida, USA

2Mississippi State University, USA

Corresponding Author:

Tamara Dimitrijevska-Markoski, School of Public Affairs, University of South Florida, 4202 E.

Fowler Avenue, SOC 396 Tampa, FL 33620, USA.

Email: tamara77@usf.edu

1147243AAS0010.1177/00953997221147243Administration & SocietyDimitrijevska-Markoski and Nukpezah

research-article2023

352 Administration & Society 55(3)

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic took the lives of millions of people, brought dev-

astating health and economic consequences, but has also divided, or at least

heightened, many divisions within communities and across state lines (Soujaa

et al., 2021). Soon after the onset of COVID-19 in the U.S., all states declared

a “state of emergency or a public health emergency” (Bergquist et al., 2020,

p. 628). However, in the months that followed, the adoption of mitigation

measures such as social distancing and mask mandates varied widely (Bazzi

et al., 2020), and states were reopening their economies at varying speeds

(Bergquist et al., 2020).

As a federal system, the U.S. had a decentralized response to the COVID-

19 pandemic, where the federal government led the economic and fiscal

response, funding testing and vaccines research, and the state governments

were primarily responsible for containment of the virus and testing with local

governments providing immediate needs of their residents (Benavides &

Nukpezah, 2020; Bergquist et al., 2020). While the premise of decentralized

systems is that state governments are better positioned to decide what is best

for their residents, data have shown regional differences in COVID-19 cases

(Frey, 2021) and in COVID-19 prevention behavior (Desmon, 2020). The

uncoordinated approach and lack of critical unified political commitment

may have handicapped the COVID-19 pandemic response (Carter & May,

2020). Research has shown that mitigation measures reduce the transmission

of the virus and lead to fewer hospitalizations and deaths (Courtemanche

et al., 2020; Sears et al., 2020). Moreover, appointed and elected public man-

agers are at the forefront in local COVID-19 response. They take the lead in

developing policies and implementing them to address the challenges that the

COVID-19 has unleashed on society. Consequently, this study aims to exam-

ine what factors drive the varying levels of COVID-19 risk perceptions and

support for COVID-19 mitigation measures among county officials.

Most of the decisions to loosen the COVID-19 restrictions have followed

party and geographic lines, with southern states and Republican governors

reopened their economies faster (Manchester & Easley, 2020). Recent

research has also shown strong partisan division in social distancing behav-

ior, miles traveled, non-essential visits, mask-wearing, and concern over the

virus (Allcott et al., 2020; Barrios & Hochberg, 2020; Fan et al., 2020;

Kushner Gadarian et al., 2020). In addition to partisanship, religiosity nega-

tively affects adherence to mitigation measures (DeFranza et al., 2021) and is

associated with higher mobility (Hill et al., 2020). On the other hand, there is

also evidence that political orientation and religiosity are inadequate explana-

tions of behavior during the pandemic, and most people were very concerned