Psychological Distress and Political Distrust during a Global Health Crisis: Evidence from a Cross-National Survey
| Published date | 01 November 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/14789299221106006 |
| Author | Harris Hyun-soo Kim |
| Date | 01 November 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299221106006
Political Studies Review
2023, Vol. 21(4) 639 –661
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14789299221106006
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
Psychological Distress and
Political Distrust during a
Global Health Crisis: Evidence
from a Cross-National Survey
Harris Hyun-soo Kim
Abstract
In addition to causing unprecedented mortality and wreaking havoc on national economies, the
coronavirus disease pandemic has significantly undermined public mental health. How has the
pandemic-induced psychological and mental distress contributed to declining political trust cross-
nationally? Using a large-scale global survey comprising respondents from Africa, Americas, Asia,
Middle East, and Europe, the present study addresses this question. Results from multilevel analysis
show that across dozens of low- as well as high-income countries, pandemic distress experienced
by individuals is negatively linked with political trust (public confidence in the government’s
capacity and transparency). Moreover, this relationship is conditional on alternative “performance
measures” or contextual moderators: Human Development Index, Corruption Perceptions Index,
and Fragile States Index. Specifically, the magnitude of the association between pandemic distress
and political distrust increases in countries that are less economically developed, perceived to be
more corrupt, and politically more fragile or vulnerable.
Keywords
coronavirus disease pandemic, political trust, psychological distress, government performance,
multilevel approach
Accepted: 23 May 2022
Introduction
Political trust, “people’s evaluation of government performance relative to their normative
expectations of how government ought to perform” (Hetherington and Hauser, 2012: 313),
has long been recognized as a critical resource for well-functioning democracy (e.g.
Dalton, 2004; Hetherington, 1998; Norris, 1999). In the literature, the bulk of analysis
focuses on its determinants, that is, reasons behind public confidence in the government or
lack thereof (for review, see Citrin and Stoker, 2018; Levi and Stoker, 2000). The current
Department of Sociology, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Corresponding author:
Harris Hyun-soo Kim, Department of Sociology, Ewha Womans University, 52 Ewhayeodae-gil,
Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03760, Republic of Korea.
Email: harrishkim@ewha.ac.kr
1106006PSW0010.1177/14789299221106006Political Studies ReviewKim
research-article2022
Article
640 Political Studies Review 21(4)
coronavirus disease (Covid-19) pandemic presents a unique opportunity to examine the
relationship between political trust and its antecedents in an extraordinary setting, that is,
in the context of a global exogenous shock. Has the novel pathogen with its devastating
consequences altered this relationship? Since its initial outbreak a growing volume of
research has explored the link between the pandemic and political trust (Devine et al.,
2020). Existing findings fall into two broad categories. On the one hand, studies have
shown that trust plays a vital role in individual willingness to support and comply with
government policies to contain the spread of Covid-19. To lesser extent, evidence has also
accumulated on the predictors or causes of political trust.
With respect to the former, an emerging consensus exists on the role of political trust
in facilitating the public’s compliance with Covid-19 restrictions (Altiparmakis et al.,
2021; Cairney and Wellstead, 2020; Weinberg, 2020; for an overview, see Van Bavel
et al., 2020). Concerning the latter, however, it remains unclear if and why during the
pandemic political trust has risen or fallen among individuals as well as between nations.
According to a recent review, dynamics of trust are driven by socio-tropic (societal) and
ego-tropic (personal) factors (Devine et al., 2020). Using aggregate data, research points
to an overall, although a temporary, increase in political trust associated with societal-
level lockdown measures and infection rates (Baum et al., 2020; Kritzinger et al., 2021),
a phenomenon known as the “rally-round-the-flag” effect (Schraff, 2020). At the other
end of the analytic spectrum, studies focusing on ego-tropic variables using micro
(survey) data have prioritized socioeconomic and demograp hic determin ants of
political trust, with a rather mixed set of findings (Bol et al., 2020; Enria et al., 2021;
Gozgor, 2020; Rieger and Wang, 2021).
One of the best-known facts about the present pandemic is its negative mental health
consequences. Across the world, many have suffered from elevated forms of depression
and anxiety directly and indirectly caused by social distancing mandates (Abbott, 2021;
World Health Organization, 2020). Curiously, however, the extant literature does not
explicitly consider the connection between coronavirus-induced distress and political
trust, irrespective of the unit of analysis (ego-tropic vs socio-tropic). Instead, when using
aggregate data most are concerned with describing pre- and post-pandemic differences
(time trends) in trust. Similarly, analyses of individual data omit pandemic distress as an
explanatory variable. Yet, this common omission should be rectified since how people
may have suffered mentally from pandemic-related issues would have a direct bearing
on how they evaluate government institutions and the leaders in charge. During crisis
situations, such as the one confronting the contemporary world, citizens often turn to
central authority figures for protection and guidance to reduce uncertainty and regain a
sense of control (Ellinas and Lamprianou, 2014; Schraff, 2020). When political leaders
fail to live up to public expectations, citizens often react critically by withdrawing their
support, as exemplified by the so-called “Cummings effect” in the United Kingdom
(Fancourt et al., 2020).1
In a cross-national context, the present study offers novel contributions to the literature
by examining the extent to which psychological distress (concerns, worries, anxieties,
etc.) from the dangers of Covid-19—a missing factor in the literature—is associated with
reduced political trust cross-nationally. The implicit assumption here is that those who
suffered psychologically blamed, at least partially, their predicament on those in political
power for failing to successfully combat the pandemic threat. Also, the concept of “trust”
used in this article does not refer to willingness to accept vulnerability per se, as typically
defined in the literature (see Hardin, 2002). Rather, it is about the evaluative judgment of
the government’s (leader’s) willingness and capacity to successfully deliver public health
To continue reading
Request your trial