Testing the person-positivity bias in a political context: Voters’ affective responses to (non-)personalized individual political actors versus collective political actors

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Electoral Studies Pub Date : 2024-06-15 DOI:10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102820
Robin Devroe, Bram Wauters
{"title":"Testing the person-positivity bias in a political context: Voters’ affective responses to (non-)personalized individual political actors versus collective political actors","authors":"Robin Devroe,&nbsp;Bram Wauters","doi":"10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102820","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The person-positivity bias states that evaluations of real-life individuals are more positive compared to evaluations of collectivities or impersonal objects. This paper aims to test the prevalence of a person-positivity bias in a political context in two respects: (1) we examine whether voters develop stronger negative affective reactions towards other-minded collective actors (i.e. political parties) compared to individual actors (i.e. politicians), and (2) we investigate whether the provision of personalized individuating information tempers the development of negative feelings towards politicians. A survey experiment conducted among a representative sample of the Flemish population (N = 1200) reveals patterns of vertical affective polarization. However, our study did not find significant evidence that voters dislike other-minded collective actors more than other-minded individual politicians. Also the extent to which individual MPs are personalized has little effect on voters' affective evaluations. Taken together, this study highlights that ideological (dis)agreement is primarily steering voters’ evaluation of political actors.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48188,"journal":{"name":"Electoral Studies","volume":"90 ","pages":"Article 102820"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424000787","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The person-positivity bias states that evaluations of real-life individuals are more positive compared to evaluations of collectivities or impersonal objects. This paper aims to test the prevalence of a person-positivity bias in a political context in two respects: (1) we examine whether voters develop stronger negative affective reactions towards other-minded collective actors (i.e. political parties) compared to individual actors (i.e. politicians), and (2) we investigate whether the provision of personalized individuating information tempers the development of negative feelings towards politicians. A survey experiment conducted among a representative sample of the Flemish population (N = 1200) reveals patterns of vertical affective polarization. However, our study did not find significant evidence that voters dislike other-minded collective actors more than other-minded individual politicians. Also the extent to which individual MPs are personalized has little effect on voters' affective evaluations. Taken together, this study highlights that ideological (dis)agreement is primarily steering voters’ evaluation of political actors.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
测试政治背景下的个人积极性偏差:选民对(非)个性化个人政治行为者和集体政治行为者的情感反应
个人积极性偏差认为,与对集体或非个人对象的评价相比,对现实生活中的个人的评价更为积极。本文旨在从两个方面检验政治背景下个人积极性偏差的普遍性:(1) 与个人行为者(即政治家)相比,我们研究了选民是否会对有其他想法的集体行为者(即政党)产生更强烈的负面情绪反应;(2) 我们研究了提供个性化的个体化信息是否会缓和选民对政治家产生的负面情绪。在弗拉芒人口(1200 人)中进行的一项调查实验揭示了纵向情感极化的模式。然而,我们的研究并没有发现明显的证据表明,选民更不喜欢有其他想法的集体行为者,而不是有其他想法的政治家个人。此外,国会议员个人的个性化程度对选民的情感评价几乎没有影响。综上所述,本研究强调,意识形态(不)一致主要引导着选民对政治行为者的评价。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Electoral Studies
Electoral Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: Electoral Studies is an international journal covering all aspects of voting, the central act in the democratic process. Political scientists, economists, sociologists, game theorists, geographers, contemporary historians and lawyers have common, and overlapping, interests in what causes voters to act as they do, and the consequences. Electoral Studies provides a forum for these diverse approaches. It publishes fully refereed papers, both theoretical and empirical, on such topics as relationships between votes and seats, and between election outcomes and politicians reactions; historical, sociological, or geographical correlates of voting behaviour; rational choice analysis of political acts, and critiques of such analyses.
期刊最新文献
Does disability affect support for political parties? Economic growth, largest-party vote shares, and electoral authoritarianism Targeting voters online: How parties’ campaigns differ Masking turnout inequality. Invalid voting and class bias when compulsory voting is reinstated Does decentralization boost electoral participation? Revisiting the question in a non-western context
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1