{"title":"How does a focusing event shape public opinion? Natural experimental evidence from the Orlando mass shooting","authors":"Youlang Zhang, Xinsheng Liu","doi":"10.1111/psj.12543","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Policy process theories posit that focusing events can trigger significant shifts in public attention and policy preferences, thereby reshaping public agenda setting. Prior studies, however, have not clearly defined the scope of public opinion changes induced by these focusing events, leading to inconsistent empirical findings. This study aims to reconceptualize the multiple layers of public opinion and formulate testable hypotheses to investigate the causal effects of a major focusing event—the 2016 Orlando nightclub mass shooting—on public opinion. Using original and unique survey data collected immediately pre‐ and post‐Orlando shooting, we find that this event significantly heightened public attention to terror‐related issues, particularly armed terror attacks on civilians. This increased attention translated into heightened support for augmented government counterterrorism spending. However, the event did not significantly alter public attention or support for government spending on other terror‐related acts less relevant to the Orlando shooting. Moreover, the event did not change individuals' policy preferences regarding specific policy proposals to address mass shootings. Our study enriches public policy and public opinion research and provides fresh insights into the relationship between focusing events and public agenda setting.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Studies Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12543","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Policy process theories posit that focusing events can trigger significant shifts in public attention and policy preferences, thereby reshaping public agenda setting. Prior studies, however, have not clearly defined the scope of public opinion changes induced by these focusing events, leading to inconsistent empirical findings. This study aims to reconceptualize the multiple layers of public opinion and formulate testable hypotheses to investigate the causal effects of a major focusing event—the 2016 Orlando nightclub mass shooting—on public opinion. Using original and unique survey data collected immediately pre‐ and post‐Orlando shooting, we find that this event significantly heightened public attention to terror‐related issues, particularly armed terror attacks on civilians. This increased attention translated into heightened support for augmented government counterterrorism spending. However, the event did not significantly alter public attention or support for government spending on other terror‐related acts less relevant to the Orlando shooting. Moreover, the event did not change individuals' policy preferences regarding specific policy proposals to address mass shootings. Our study enriches public policy and public opinion research and provides fresh insights into the relationship between focusing events and public agenda setting.
期刊介绍:
As the principal outlet for the Public Policy Section of the American Political Science Association and for the Policy Studies Organization (PSO), the Policy Studies Journal (PSJ) is the premier channel for the publication of public policy research. PSJ is best characterized as an outlet for theoretically and empirically grounded research on policy process and policy analysis. More specifically, we aim to publish articles that advance public policy theory, explicitly articulate its methods of data collection and analysis, and provide clear descriptions of how their work advances the literature.