“The more official, the less I believe”: Using focus groups to explore public opinion formation in politically polarized contexts

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Social Science Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1111/ssqu.13421
Isabel Pavez, Magdalena Saldaña, Cristian Cabalin, Andrés Scherman
{"title":"“The more official, the less I believe”: Using focus groups to explore public opinion formation in politically polarized contexts","authors":"Isabel Pavez, Magdalena Saldaña, Cristian Cabalin, Andrés Scherman","doi":"10.1111/ssqu.13421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionPublic opinion studies have traditionally relied on survey analyses. However, a qualitative approach is needed to address opinion formation's multidimensional and contextual nature. In this study, we argue that focus groups are a technique that addresses these unique challenges.MethodsWe test this argument by looking at the case of Chile, a country marked by a streak of eight elections in three years, including two national referendums for a constitutional proposal. In this politically polarized setting, and over the course of the latter election year, we conducted 10 focus groups comprising a diverse sample in terms of gender, age, socioeconomic status, and occupation. As participants shared news diets, political views, and values, data suggest a tendency to independently verify information regardless of the source, and highly influenced by their close ones.ResultsFrom a methodological perspective, our findings show that focus groups enable the assessment of the context‐situated opinion formation process, reveal emerging themes, and promote open discussion. These results also reflect the multifaceted nature of public opinion formation in a dynamic media landscape and can inform other countries undergoing a crisis of institutional legitimacy.","PeriodicalId":48253,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Quarterly","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13421","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

IntroductionPublic opinion studies have traditionally relied on survey analyses. However, a qualitative approach is needed to address opinion formation's multidimensional and contextual nature. In this study, we argue that focus groups are a technique that addresses these unique challenges.MethodsWe test this argument by looking at the case of Chile, a country marked by a streak of eight elections in three years, including two national referendums for a constitutional proposal. In this politically polarized setting, and over the course of the latter election year, we conducted 10 focus groups comprising a diverse sample in terms of gender, age, socioeconomic status, and occupation. As participants shared news diets, political views, and values, data suggest a tendency to independently verify information regardless of the source, and highly influenced by their close ones.ResultsFrom a methodological perspective, our findings show that focus groups enable the assessment of the context‐situated opinion formation process, reveal emerging themes, and promote open discussion. These results also reflect the multifaceted nature of public opinion formation in a dynamic media landscape and can inform other countries undergoing a crisis of institutional legitimacy.
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
"官方越多,我越不相信":利用焦点小组探讨政治两极化背景下的民意形成
导言:舆论研究历来依赖于调查分析。然而,要解决舆论形成的多维性和背景性问题,需要一种定性的方法。在本研究中,我们认为焦点小组是一种能够应对这些独特挑战的技术。方法我们通过研究智利的案例来验证这一论点,智利在三年内连续举行了八次大选,其中包括两次针对宪法提案的全民公决。在这种政治两极分化的背景下,在后一个选举年期间,我们开展了 10 个焦点小组,其中包括性别、年龄、社会经济地位和职业方面的不同样本。由于参与者共享新闻饮食、政治观点和价值观,数据表明他们倾向于独立核实信息,而不管信息来源如何,并受到其亲近者的高度影响。结果从方法学的角度来看,我们的研究结果表明,焦点小组能够评估舆论形成过程的背景情况,揭示新出现的主题,并促进公开讨论。这些结果还反映了在动态媒体环境中舆论形成的多面性,可为其他面临制度合法性危机的国家提供借鉴。
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
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
10.50%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Nationally recognized as one of the top journals in the field, Social Science Quarterly (SSQ) publishes current research on a broad range of topics including political science, sociology, economics, history, social work, geography, international studies, and women"s studies. SSQ is the journal of the Southwestern Social Science Association.
期刊最新文献
Domains of baseless belief and the characteristics of believers Attitudes toward abortion legality and abortion regulation: Insights from a nationally representative study An advanced learning approach for detecting sarcasm in social media posts: Theory and solutions Not ready to make nice: Congressional candidates’ emotional appeals on Twitter Climate‐related disasters and transparency: Records and the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency
×
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