Do people in authoritarian countries have lower standards when evaluating their governments? An anchoring vignettes approach

IF 2.1 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Politics Pub Date : 2023-01-15 DOI:10.1177/02633957221144010
Y. Zhou
{"title":"Do people in authoritarian countries have lower standards when evaluating their governments? An anchoring vignettes approach","authors":"Y. Zhou","doi":"10.1177/02633957221144010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Why do people in authoritarian countries think more positively of their governments than people in democratic countries? Existing research suggests three explanations: (1) people in authoritarian countries lie; (2) people in authoritarian countries are indoctrinated; and (3) authoritarian governments have better performance than their democratic counterparts. In this study, I explore a fourth explanation – people in authoritarian countries apply lower standards. To test it, I apply the anchoring vignettes method developed by Gary King and others to original data from China, Vietnam, Russia, Mexico, and the United States, and from the cities of Beijing and Taipei. Adding a case study of Taiwan’s economic trajectory as a robustness check, I conclude that people in authoritarian countries tend to use lower standards when reporting political trust and government responsiveness, but the lower standards are likely to be caused by fast economic growth rather than authoritarianism.","PeriodicalId":47206,"journal":{"name":"Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02633957221144010","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Why do people in authoritarian countries think more positively of their governments than people in democratic countries? Existing research suggests three explanations: (1) people in authoritarian countries lie; (2) people in authoritarian countries are indoctrinated; and (3) authoritarian governments have better performance than their democratic counterparts. In this study, I explore a fourth explanation – people in authoritarian countries apply lower standards. To test it, I apply the anchoring vignettes method developed by Gary King and others to original data from China, Vietnam, Russia, Mexico, and the United States, and from the cities of Beijing and Taipei. Adding a case study of Taiwan’s economic trajectory as a robustness check, I conclude that people in authoritarian countries tend to use lower standards when reporting political trust and government responsiveness, but the lower standards are likely to be caused by fast economic growth rather than authoritarianism.
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
专制国家的人民在评价政府时是否有较低的标准?锚定的小插曲方法
为什么专制国家的人比民主国家的人更积极地看待他们的政府?现有研究提出了三种解释:(1)专制国家的人说谎;(2)专制国家的人被灌输思想;(3)威权政府比民主政府有更好的表现。在这项研究中,我探索了第四种解释——专制国家的人们采用较低的标准。为了验证它,我将Gary King和其他人开发的锚定小片段方法应用于来自中国、越南、俄罗斯、墨西哥和美国以及北京和台北等城市的原始数据。通过对台湾经济轨迹的案例研究作为稳健性检验,我得出结论,威权国家的人们在报告政治信任和政府反应时倾向于使用较低的标准,但较低的标准可能是由快速的经济增长而不是威权主义造成的。
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
Politics
Politics Multiple-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Politics publishes cutting-edge peer-reviewed analysis in politics and international studies. The ethos of Politics is the dissemination of timely, research-led reflections on the state of the art, the state of the world and the state of disciplinary pedagogy that make significant and original contributions to the disciplines of political and international studies. Politics is pluralist with regards to approaches, theories, methods, and empirical foci. Politics publishes articles from 4000 to 8000 words in length. We welcome 3 types of articles from scholars at all stages of their careers: Accessible presentations of state of the art research; Research-led analyses of contemporary events in politics or international relations; Theoretically informed and evidence-based research on learning and teaching in politics and international studies. We are open to articles providing accounts of where teaching innovation may have produced mixed results, so long as reasons why these results may have been mixed are analysed.
期刊最新文献
Legacies of States and Social Revolutions Decolonising politics curricula: Exploring the experiences and views of racially minoritised students ‘Importing’ the personal vote to maximise the party vote? ‘Parachute personalization’ in an intraparty preference electoral system The European Union, immigration and the Left–Right divide: Explaining voting preferences for Western European radical right parties Reflections on an anniversary
×
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