TABLE 4.
The effect of opposing party status, by the strength of state policy responses
| Dependent variable: number of behaviors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | |
| Opposing | −0.248** | 0.064 | −0.024 | −0.212** | −0.144*** | −0.058 | −0.034 |
| (0.102) | (0.073) | (0.059) | (0.086) | (0.040) | (0.044) | (0.044) | |
| Opposing x | 0.015 | ||||||
| date emerg. declared | (0.010) | ||||||
| Opposing x | −0.191* | ||||||
| schools closed | (0.094) | ||||||
| Opposing x | −0.102 | ||||||
| bars/restaurants closed | (0.077) | ||||||
| Opposing x | 0.140 | ||||||
| gatherings banned | (0.093) | ||||||
| Opposing x | 0.092 | ||||||
| non‐ess. business closed | (0.078) | ||||||
| Opposing x | −0.131* | ||||||
| mandatory quarantine | (0.076) | ||||||
| Opposing x | −0.136* | ||||||
| strong response | (0.073) | ||||||
| N | 1753 | 1753 | 1753 | 1753 | 1753 | 1753 | 1753 |
| R 2 | 0.051 | 0.051 | 0.050 | 0.051 | 0.051 | 0.051 | 0.051 |
Note: This table shows the results from a regression of the number of preventative behaviors an individual reports on an indicator for having an opposing party governor, and on this indicator interacted with variables measuring the policy response of the state at the time of the survey. All states in our sample had declared emergencies as of the survey date; the variable “Date emerg. declared” is the date of the declaration relative to March 1st. The policy variables used in columns (2)‐(6) are indicators for the policy described. The variable used in column (7) is an indicator that the state is above average in the first principal component of the six policy variables, indicating a relatively strong policy response.
***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.