A picture of regret: An empirical investigation of post-Brexit referendum survey data

IF 1.3 4区 社会学 Q3 SOCIOLOGY Rationality and Society Pub Date : 2021-06-18 DOI:10.1177/10434631211035202
A. Collins, Adam Cox, Gianpiero Torrisi
{"title":"A picture of regret: An empirical investigation of post-Brexit referendum survey data","authors":"A. Collins, Adam Cox, Gianpiero Torrisi","doi":"10.1177/10434631211035202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Whilst the properties of decision regret have been widely explored in experimental and game theoretic studies, the empirical features of regret from large-scale ‘binary decision’ national events in practice have garnered less scrutiny. This study is an empirical investigation of novel survey data reporting ‘Brexit’ voting choices and expressions of a desire to change voting choices post-referendum. We investigate if Leave voters are more or less likely to express a change to their binary referendum vote choice than those who voted Remain or abstained and then identify the particular characteristics of those who regret their vote choice. A large-scale pan-European survey is used to capture citizens’ perceptions of the European Union containing 17,147 interviews of adults from 15 EU member states. Using responses from UK citizens (n = 1500), focus is directed to the vote choice for the ‘Brexit’ referendum and the corresponding choice if the referendum were held ‘today’. Probit regression estimation identifies the key differences in the characteristics of those who expressed regret by indicating a desire to change voting choices. Results show that knowledge of EU funding policies, permanence of residential location, population size of the local area, educational attainment, employment status and income are key drivers for regretting the referendum voting decision.","PeriodicalId":47079,"journal":{"name":"Rationality and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/10434631211035202","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rationality and Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10434631211035202","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Whilst the properties of decision regret have been widely explored in experimental and game theoretic studies, the empirical features of regret from large-scale ‘binary decision’ national events in practice have garnered less scrutiny. This study is an empirical investigation of novel survey data reporting ‘Brexit’ voting choices and expressions of a desire to change voting choices post-referendum. We investigate if Leave voters are more or less likely to express a change to their binary referendum vote choice than those who voted Remain or abstained and then identify the particular characteristics of those who regret their vote choice. A large-scale pan-European survey is used to capture citizens’ perceptions of the European Union containing 17,147 interviews of adults from 15 EU member states. Using responses from UK citizens (n = 1500), focus is directed to the vote choice for the ‘Brexit’ referendum and the corresponding choice if the referendum were held ‘today’. Probit regression estimation identifies the key differences in the characteristics of those who expressed regret by indicating a desire to change voting choices. Results show that knowledge of EU funding policies, permanence of residential location, population size of the local area, educational attainment, employment status and income are key drivers for regretting the referendum voting decision.
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
遗憾的画面:英国脱欧后公投调查数据的实证调查
虽然决策后悔的性质在实验和博弈论研究中得到了广泛的探索,但实践中大规模“二元决策”国家事件的后悔的经验特征却很少受到关注。这项研究是对报告“脱欧”投票选择和公投后改变投票选择意愿的新调查数据的实证调查。我们调查了脱欧选民是否比投票支持留欧或弃权的选民更有可能表达对二元公投投票选择的改变,然后确定了那些后悔投票选择的人的特殊特征。一项大规模的泛欧调查旨在捕捉公民对欧盟的看法,其中包括对来自15个欧盟成员国的17147名成年人的采访。使用英国公民的回复(n = 1500),重点是“脱欧”公投的投票选择以及如果公投在“今天”举行的相应选择。Probit回归估计通过表明希望改变投票选择来确定那些表示遗憾的人的特征的关键差异。结果表明,对欧盟资助政策的了解、居住地点的永久性、当地人口规模、教育程度、就业状况和收入是对公投投票决定感到遗憾的关键驱动因素。
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
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Rationality & Society focuses on the growing contributions of rational-action based theory, and the questions and controversies surrounding this growth. Why Choose Rationality and Society? The trend toward ever-greater specialization in many areas of intellectual life has lead to fragmentation that deprives scholars of the ability to communicate even in closely adjoining fields. The emergence of the rational action paradigm as the inter-lingua of the social sciences is a remarkable exception to this trend. It is the one paradigm that offers the promise of bringing greater theoretical unity across disciplines such as economics, sociology, political science, cognitive psychology, moral philosophy and law.
期刊最新文献
Is aiming high always a good thing? A behavioral model of aspiration failure with evidence from lower-secondary students in China Official media use, political participation, and government trust structure an empirical study based on the attitude of Chinese netizens Explaining mobilization for revolts by private interests and kinship relations. A comment on Armandola, Doehne and Rost Managing and aggregating group evidence under quality and quantity trade-offs Untangling expectations and sacrifices: Ultra-Orthodox men in Israel and the religious club model
×
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