Public Opinion Quarterly最新文献

Much research in public opinion attempts to operationalize and measure individual issue salience. Measuring this concept presents its own set of challenges, due in part to the fact that studies rely mostly on so-called "subjective" methods to measure the strength of attitudes. This paper aims to transcend the classical methods used in surveys to measure salience by comparing the results of these common approaches with results obtained with physiological measures. Using the Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model with the Correlated Uniquenesses method, correlations between three survey question methods and two physiological measurements are compared to measure individual issue salience. Results show a strong correlation between all the measures tested and therefore add validation to survey approaches used in social sciences to measure issue salience. The results therefore demonstrate that individuals know which issues trigger the most reactions in them.

Research suggests that partisan gaps in political knowledge with partisan implications are wide and widespread in the United States. Using a series of experiments, we estimate the extent to which the partisan gaps in commercial surveys reflect differences in confidently held beliefs rather than motivated guessing. Knowledge items on commercial surveys often have guessing-encouraging features. Removing such features yields scales with greater reliability and higher criterion validity. More substantively, partisan gaps on scales without these "inflationary" features are roughly 40 percent smaller. Thus, contrary to some prior research, which finds that the upward bias is explained by the knowledgeable deliberately marking the wrong answer (partisan cheerleading), our data suggest that partisan gaps on commercial surveys in the United States are strongly upwardly biased by motivated guessing by the ignorant. Relatedly, we also find that partisans know less than what toplines of commercial polls suggest.

An empirical result in Moral Foundations Theory is that liberals and progressives endorse the individualizing factors of care and fairness, while conservatives claim that the binding factors of authority, loyalty, and purity are equally relevant when determining what is moral. Does this translate into persuasiveness of arguments and opinion change? We here test the hypothesis that conservatives can be swayed by binding moral arguments, while everyone is susceptible to individualizing moral arguments. Using a classic experimental design (N = 375) where respondents are given moral arguments for a position in nine moral issues, we find support for this hypothesis. In line with motivational matching, the moral foundation support of respondents predicts the type of arguments to which they are susceptible. Along with previous studies on which type of moral argument supports which moral position in the public debate, these findings provide a mechanistic explanation for public opinion change, and in particular for the observation that moral values are becoming more liberal and progressive across the board. Although people tend to be resistant to belief revision, their opinions on politically polarized issues can change when arguments match their beliefs, reflected in their ideology.

Evidence concerning inferences between political and apolitical traits has grown exponentially in recent years. This thriving literature-dealing with research on political stereotypes and projection around sociodemographic, psychological, and lifestyle traits-is disconnected and needs to be placed under a unifying framework. To achieve this, we introduce "Politicultural Linking," a concept subsuming political inferences from apolitical cues and apolitical inferences from political cues. Through an extensive literature review of the works produced since 2009, we discuss and classify research on this topic, identifying common features, strengths, and weaknesses, and depicting a comprehensive conceptual framework. Moreover, we identify relevant gaps in the literature: the underexploration of inferences involving lifestyle preferences, the overrepresentation of US-based studies, the overlooked role of projection, and the lack of non-survey-based research. Consequently, we aim to set the agenda for future studies on this topic.

Opioid use disorder and mortality due to opioid overdose pose significant public health problems in the United States, particularly among American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities that experience disproportionately high rates of opioid overdose deaths. Such health inequities are related to centuries of ongoing colonization and oppression that inform social determinants of health today. Using medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD) has broad support among health professionals due to substantial evidence of its effectiveness and benefits to patients. However, most AI/ANs who need MOUD never receive it. This analysis sought to identify concerns related to the use of MOUD and how they inform barriers to implementing MOUD in a rural AI reservation community. Secondary analysis of qualitative data was conducted using reflexive thematic analysis. Findings reveal key themes related to conditions for when to use MOUD, recovery, distrust of Western medicine, and individual viewpoints on MOUD. Implications of these findings for reducing barriers to MOUD in AI/AN communities are discussed.

The WHO defined age-friendly cities (AFCs) as places with policies, services, settings, and structures that enable people to age in place. Although AFCs have gained attention recently, little is known about the applicability of age-friendly domains to low-income cities. We conducted flexible semistructured interviews with 28 adults aged 65 and older who had lived in New Jersey cities with high poverty rates and low median incomes for at least 15 years. Participants described their neighborhoods in ways that mapped onto the eight AFC domains. Themes of agency and safety linked the domains. Participants suggested ways to change neighborhoods in low-income cities that would make them age friendly. Findings suggest that the AFC domains have utility as a framework for how older long-term residents of low-income cities describe their neighborhoods. They provide unique information about how these domains relate to one another and identify strategies for making low-income places better environments for older people.

Journalists face intricate decisions regarding what to publish, especially when problematic content may impact public opinion in a way that could fuel hate and/or undermine democratic attitudes. While scholarship has recognized the importance of this issue, most studies focus on published content, how citizens engage with it, and the implications of published news. In this article, we provide a fresh perspective on the crucial dilemma faced by journalists concerning their perceived impact on public opinion, by leveraging data based on 36 semistructured in-depth interviews with journalists covering Brazil's political landscape. The interviews were conducted between December 7, 2021, and July 20, 2022. Our main findings are threefold. First, we find a consensus among journalists regarding what is seen as problematic content, which is centered around threats to democratic attitudes and misinformation on critical issues. Second, we examine the rationales underpinning journalists' choices to publish problematic content, which include the concept of "competing voices," the legitimacy conferred to elected representatives (e.g., the head of a government), and journalists' fear of being viewed as left leaning and losing their audience. Third, we find that journalists who do not publish problematic content do so because they expect to negatively impact public opinion, in particular democratic attitudes, and that their reporting of hate speech may not meet ethical standards. We conclude by highlighting the complex interplay of journalistic norms and expectations regarding their impact on public opinion and the news production process.

Thematic analysis (TA) has become a prominent qualitative research method for identifying patterns in experiences, responses, narratives, and meanings in relation to a research question. In this paper, we provide researchers with an understanding of different approaches to TA and offer practical guidance on conducting a blended approach to TA, which combines the strengths of different TA approaches. Despite their prevalence in the literature, blended approaches to TA are rarely clearly illustrated in research publications. To address this gap, we present a detailed case study of a blended approach to TA, based on a qualitative study exploring the experiences of incarcerated fathers participating in a prison family program in the Netherlands. This case study offers researchers practical guidance for thoughtfully implementing a blended approach to TA in their own work. It also highlights the nuances and complexities of a blended approach to TA, emphasizing the importance of aligning the chosen TA approach to the research context and objectives. We conclude by discussing the value of blended approaches to TA in qualitative research, underscoring the importance of thoughtful application and transparent reporting of these approaches.

Understanding the realities of members of marginalized communities is central to the advancement of social and behavioral sciences. We argue that the development of data accurately representing the perspectives and experiences of such communities is fundamentally contingent on relationships of trust and accountability, and on researcher critical reflexivity. We showcase our methodology in three vignettes based on how we conduct research with communities that are "hard to reach" due to their societal marginalization. These vignettes include our reflections on the quality of data as a function of relationships, trust, accountability, and critical reflexivity. Our stories from the field highlight the importance of relational research with communities experiencing marginalization.

Social surveys can be enriched with the collection of objective health measures, allowing new types of research in both health and social sciences. We experimentally tested three alternative designs for collecting survey responses and biomeasures within a longitudinal survey. In the nurse-administered design, a nurse conducts the survey and collects biomeasures in person. In the interviewer-first design, an interviewer initially attempts to carry out the survey in person, collects a subset of biomeasures, and then leaves a further biomeasure sample collection kit with the respondent. The web-first design invites respondents to complete the survey in web mode, and a biomeasure sample collection kit is sent after they do so. Nonrespondents to their initial mode are followed up with in an alternate mode. The outcomes of interest are both (i) response to the survey, and (ii) take-up and completion of the biomeasure sample collection. The impact of the experimental design is tested on both outcomes, utilizing intention-to-treat analysis (that is, by allocated design). To account for the importance of channel of communication in the consent decision for biomeasures, we also analyze observed consent outcomes by realized mode of response, other survey factors, and respondent characteristics. Findings show that the web-first design is superior in obtaining survey response, with nonsignificant differences between in-person interviewer-administered and nurse-administered designs. Conversely, the web was the least effective design for obtaining biomeasures. These findings imply that there is a design trade-off between obtaining survey responses and biomeasures, and this should be considered in future studies.