Research

This study shows that social and political trust may diverge in the face of shared threats, and that this pattern is driven by negative information about crisis management. Leveraging a three-wave panel survey and an information-provision experiment in the USA during the COVID-19 crisis, our research reveals that negative perceptions of pandemic management lead to a decline in political trust and a parallel increase in social trust. This dynamic is pronounced among government supporters, who, confronted with COVID-19 challenges, experience a substantial erosion of political trust. Simultaneously, there is a notable rise in social trust within this group. Our analysis suggests that, as government supporters attributed more responsibility for the crisis to their political leader, political trust was supplanted by social trust. Disenchanted voters, feeling let down by institutions, sought support in society. Both the survey and the experiment underscore that societal shocks can prompt individuals to shift from relying on formal institutions to informal ones as a coping strategy. This research contributes a generalizable framework explaining how negative perceptions of crisis management can lead societies to substitute political trust with social trust, advancing our understanding of societal responses to shared threats and adaptive strategies during crises.

Despite growing awareness of climate change, individual action remains limited. We conducted two pre-registered experiments (one online with a representative sample, one in the laboratory with incentivized tasks) to examine whether framing climate risks as natural disasters – i.e., an immediate, unpredictable threat – or climate migration – i.e., a distant, gradual threat – in one's own country fosters pro-environmental behavior, also identifying mechanisms behind the persistent intention–action gap. Exposure to nature risks increased personal normative beliefs, concern, and donations to environmental causes, but did not promote cooperation in settings prone to free-riding. Hormonal data revealed a defensive 'flight' response, suggesting risk avoidance in strategic contexts. Altruism emerged in non-competitive settings, but collective action remained limited by fear that others would not cooperate, prompting individuals to delegate responsibility to institutions. This tendency was especially pronounced among participants with high institutional trust, who, after exposure to climate risks, lowered their contributions and expectations in strategic settings, while increasing donations in non-strategic contexts.

One of the advantages of multi-level government is that it can bring policies closer to voters, thus improving accountability. In this paper we ask whether such a layered and complex system can also erode transparency, undercutting accountability instead. We conduct a survey experiment with a nationally representative sample of 5,000 Italian citizens to investigate how responsibility for public services as well as their quality is perceived. We find that when respondents are asked which level of government is responsible for certain important services — local, regional, or central — incorrect answers abound. A subset of respondents is then provided with correct information about which level of government is actually responsible. We find that when this feedback shifts perceived responsibility toward a level of government that is politically aligned with the respondent, service quality assessments become more favorable. Providing feedback to respondents who answered correctly also boosts reported service quality, especially for the non-aligned, suggesting a confirmation effect. These findings highlight the importance of information provision and the politically motivated quality assessment that may be present without it.