Previous studies have examined not only whether people answer correctly to questions about political knowledge, but also whether “don’t know” (DK) is a response that implies low self-confidence in their knowledge. However, while it has become clear that different people have accurate knowledge in different topics, there has been little discussion of whether knowledge on specific facts promotes self-confidence. Furthermore, it is believed that people learn about politics through news media, but it is unclear whether the type of media consumption correlates with patterns of correct, incorrect, or DK responses on political knowledge questions. We conducted a survey that asks about knowledge on a variety of topics, such as the political system and current affairs, to (1) categorize patterns of correct, incorrect, and DK answers, and (2) examine their relationship to media choices. We find that those who read newspapers or online news are more knowledgeable about the political system and tend not to choose DK even on questions about knowledge they do not know accurately. In contrast, those who gain knowledge of current issues from watching TV have less confidence in their knowledge and answer DK to questions for which they do not know the correct answer.
{"title":"Media Choice and Response Patterns to Questions About Political Knowledge","authors":"Taka-aki Asano","doi":"10.1093/ijpor/edad017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edad017","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Previous studies have examined not only whether people answer correctly to questions about political knowledge, but also whether “don’t know” (DK) is a response that implies low self-confidence in their knowledge. However, while it has become clear that different people have accurate knowledge in different topics, there has been little discussion of whether knowledge on specific facts promotes self-confidence. Furthermore, it is believed that people learn about politics through news media, but it is unclear whether the type of media consumption correlates with patterns of correct, incorrect, or DK responses on political knowledge questions. We conducted a survey that asks about knowledge on a variety of topics, such as the political system and current affairs, to (1) categorize patterns of correct, incorrect, and DK answers, and (2) examine their relationship to media choices. We find that those who read newspapers or online news are more knowledgeable about the political system and tend not to choose DK even on questions about knowledge they do not know accurately. In contrast, those who gain knowledge of current issues from watching TV have less confidence in their knowledge and answer DK to questions for which they do not know the correct answer.","PeriodicalId":51480,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Public Opinion Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47158441","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study examined the effectiveness of fact-checking in reducing misperceptions held by people of two opposing camps in the Anti-Extradition Bill Movement in Hong Kong. The experimental design mirrored the political rhetoric in the city’s media and exposed participants to erroneous information in news reports that cast protesters in a negative light or accused the police unfoundedly. We found that directional motivation persistently exerted a profound influence on people’s acceptance of misinformation. Exposure to fact-checks was found to have limited effects in combating the influence of misinformation and mitigating social division. The effects were contingent on the audiences’ attitude strength and fact-checkers. The findings suggest that the effectiveness of fact-checking is subject to the political and media contexts in which misinformation and fact-checks are circulated as well as the implications of those contexts on people’s trust in fact-checks.
{"title":"Could Fact-checks Intervene Directionally Motivated Reasoning and Mitigate Social Divisions? A Case Study in Hong Kong","authors":"Stella C. Chia, Fangcao Lu, Albert C. Gunther","doi":"10.1093/ijpor/edad016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edad016","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This study examined the effectiveness of fact-checking in reducing misperceptions held by people of two opposing camps in the Anti-Extradition Bill Movement in Hong Kong. The experimental design mirrored the political rhetoric in the city’s media and exposed participants to erroneous information in news reports that cast protesters in a negative light or accused the police unfoundedly. We found that directional motivation persistently exerted a profound influence on people’s acceptance of misinformation. Exposure to fact-checks was found to have limited effects in combating the influence of misinformation and mitigating social division. The effects were contingent on the audiences’ attitude strength and fact-checkers. The findings suggest that the effectiveness of fact-checking is subject to the political and media contexts in which misinformation and fact-checks are circulated as well as the implications of those contexts on people’s trust in fact-checks.","PeriodicalId":51480,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Public Opinion Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43880100","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The effect of inequality on income bias in voting is a contentious topic in the literature. In this article, we explore the effect of inequality in terms of social context. We argue that perceptions of inequality and regional economic inequality provide a social context in which citizens form relative class identity and shape their political behavior. We analyze individual-level surveys and administrative district-level data consisting of 252 South Korean administrative units in 2012–2020. The findings of the individual-level analysis suggest that perceptions of high inequality boost voter turnout, and that this effect is stronger among citizens with low incomes. As lower-income earners recognize themselves as being at a greater distance from the higher-income group, it activates a grievance effect and increases their incentive to participate in voting. The results from the district-level analysis suggest that the participation of lower-income individuals is more likely to increase in response to local inequality than the participation levels of their higher-income neighbors. Our findings suggest that the mass public utilizes their perceptions of inequality and the degree of intra-regional economic inequality as a heuristic to decide whether to turnout to vote, and that this occurs among both the rich and the poor.
{"title":"Inequality, Social Context, and Income Bias in Voting: Evidence from South Korea","authors":"Seungwoo Han, H. Kwon","doi":"10.1093/ijpor/edad018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edad018","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The effect of inequality on income bias in voting is a contentious topic in the literature. In this article, we explore the effect of inequality in terms of social context. We argue that perceptions of inequality and regional economic inequality provide a social context in which citizens form relative class identity and shape their political behavior. We analyze individual-level surveys and administrative district-level data consisting of 252 South Korean administrative units in 2012–2020. The findings of the individual-level analysis suggest that perceptions of high inequality boost voter turnout, and that this effect is stronger among citizens with low incomes. As lower-income earners recognize themselves as being at a greater distance from the higher-income group, it activates a grievance effect and increases their incentive to participate in voting. The results from the district-level analysis suggest that the participation of lower-income individuals is more likely to increase in response to local inequality than the participation levels of their higher-income neighbors. Our findings suggest that the mass public utilizes their perceptions of inequality and the degree of intra-regional economic inequality as a heuristic to decide whether to turnout to vote, and that this occurs among both the rich and the poor.","PeriodicalId":51480,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Public Opinion Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46910268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In recent years there has been an increasing interest in whether populism is related to opinion extremity. Yet, research on the topic offers little direct evidence on whether and under which conditions populist ideas at the individual level are related to policy extremity and inter-party dislike. This article aims to fill this gap by focusing on the reasons populist individuals hold more or less extreme opinions. Using data from the 2016 American National Electoral Study, I find that populist attitudes are a strong correlate of both ideological extremity and affective polarization, yet this association is conditional on respondent’s party affiliation. Populism is related to higher levels of ideological extremity among Democrats and stronger negative leader evaluations among Republicans. This finding indicates that the relationship between populism and citizens’ political judgements varies depending on the ability of populist leaders to make certain dimensions of the competition salient (i.e., ideological or affective) and exploit pre-existing ideological and partisan rivalries (i.e., party identity).
近年来，人们越来越关注民粹主义是否与舆论极端有关。然而，关于这一主题的研究几乎没有提供直接证据，证明个人层面的民粹主义思想是否以及在何种条件下与政策极端和党派间的厌恶有关。本文旨在通过关注民粹主义个人持有或多或少极端观点的原因来填补这一空白。利用2016年美国全国选举研究(American National Electoral Study)的数据，我发现民粹主义态度与意识形态极端和情感两极分化密切相关，但这种关联取决于受访者所属的政党。民粹主义与民主党人意识形态极端化程度较高以及共和党人对领导人的负面评价较高有关。这一发现表明，民粹主义与公民政治判断之间的关系取决于民粹主义领导人使竞争的某些维度突出(即意识形态或情感)并利用已有的意识形态和党派竞争(即政党认同)的能力。
{"title":"The Conditional Association Between Populism, Ideological Extremity, and Affective Polarization","authors":"Alberto Stefanelli","doi":"10.1093/ijpor/edad014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edad014","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In recent years there has been an increasing interest in whether populism is related to opinion extremity. Yet, research on the topic offers little direct evidence on whether and under which conditions populist ideas at the individual level are related to policy extremity and inter-party dislike. This article aims to fill this gap by focusing on the reasons populist individuals hold more or less extreme opinions. Using data from the 2016 American National Electoral Study, I find that populist attitudes are a strong correlate of both ideological extremity and affective polarization, yet this association is conditional on respondent’s party affiliation. Populism is related to higher levels of ideological extremity among Democrats and stronger negative leader evaluations among Republicans. This finding indicates that the relationship between populism and citizens’ political judgements varies depending on the ability of populist leaders to make certain dimensions of the competition salient (i.e., ideological or affective) and exploit pre-existing ideological and partisan rivalries (i.e., party identity).","PeriodicalId":51480,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Public Opinion Research","volume":"296 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135348151","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ebe Ouattara, E. Steenvoorden, T. V. D. van der Meer
The dominant model that guides scholarly research on political trust rests on the assumption that this attitude is evaluative. It states that citizens evaluate political actors’ trustworthiness traits against a set of normative benchmarks. Remarkably, despite its dominance in political trust research and its serious implications for theories on democratic accountability, this assumption has not been tested systematically. This paper tests the micro-level foundations of the trust-as-evaluation model via an extensive two-wave survey experiment among 15,997 respondents. We assess to what extent normative benchmarks of trustworthiness condition citizens’ trust in politicians with 11 randomized traits. Our findings challenge the commonly held view of the role of normative benchmarks in the trust-as-evaluation model. While respondents clearly differentiate trustworthy politicians from untrustworthy ones and withdraw trust from politicians with negative traits, their normative benchmarks do not systematically influence this judgment. We discuss the implications of these findings for the trust-as-evaluation model.
{"title":"Political Trust as an Evaluation against Normative Benchmarks? A Two-wave Survey Experiment on the Role of Normative Benchmarks in the Evaluative Model of Political Trust","authors":"Ebe Ouattara, E. Steenvoorden, T. V. D. van der Meer","doi":"10.1093/ijpor/edad015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edad015","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The dominant model that guides scholarly research on political trust rests on the assumption that this attitude is evaluative. It states that citizens evaluate political actors’ trustworthiness traits against a set of normative benchmarks. Remarkably, despite its dominance in political trust research and its serious implications for theories on democratic accountability, this assumption has not been tested systematically. This paper tests the micro-level foundations of the trust-as-evaluation model via an extensive two-wave survey experiment among 15,997 respondents. We assess to what extent normative benchmarks of trustworthiness condition citizens’ trust in politicians with 11 randomized traits. Our findings challenge the commonly held view of the role of normative benchmarks in the trust-as-evaluation model. While respondents clearly differentiate trustworthy politicians from untrustworthy ones and withdraw trust from politicians with negative traits, their normative benchmarks do not systematically influence this judgment. We discuss the implications of these findings for the trust-as-evaluation model.","PeriodicalId":51480,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Public Opinion Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47488291","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jennifer Oser, Fernando Feitosa, Ruth Dassonneville
While recent research has produced robust objective evidence of unequal representation in democracies, there is little evidence about whether this inequality is consistent with individuals’ subjective perceptions of their own political efficacy. To answer this question, we use all available data on political efficacy from the International Social Survey Programme modules for 46 countries (1996–2016) to investigate trends and correlates of external and internal political efficacy. We focus on socio-demographic characteristics that are central to recent literature on unequal representation: gender, education, and income. Our individual-level findings show that education and income are positively associated with both external and internal efficacy while being female is associated with lower levels of internal efficacy but unrelated to external efficacy. We complement these individual-level analyses with a contextual investigation of how descriptive representation contributes to efficacy gaps. Focusing on gender, we show that women feel that they have more of a say in governmental decisions in contexts with a higher level of female representation among elected representatives. We conclude by noting how future research can leverage cross-national data to identify contextual mechanisms that may have an impact upon persistent social gaps in political efficacy across contexts and over time.
{"title":"Who Feels They Can Understand and Have an Impact on Political Processes? Socio-demographic Correlates of Political Efficacy in 46 Countries, 1996–2016","authors":"Jennifer Oser, Fernando Feitosa, Ruth Dassonneville","doi":"10.1093/ijpor/edad013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edad013","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 While recent research has produced robust objective evidence of unequal representation in democracies, there is little evidence about whether this inequality is consistent with individuals’ subjective perceptions of their own political efficacy. To answer this question, we use all available data on political efficacy from the International Social Survey Programme modules for 46 countries (1996–2016) to investigate trends and correlates of external and internal political efficacy. We focus on socio-demographic characteristics that are central to recent literature on unequal representation: gender, education, and income. Our individual-level findings show that education and income are positively associated with both external and internal efficacy while being female is associated with lower levels of internal efficacy but unrelated to external efficacy. We complement these individual-level analyses with a contextual investigation of how descriptive representation contributes to efficacy gaps. Focusing on gender, we show that women feel that they have more of a say in governmental decisions in contexts with a higher level of female representation among elected representatives. We conclude by noting how future research can leverage cross-national data to identify contextual mechanisms that may have an impact upon persistent social gaps in political efficacy across contexts and over time.","PeriodicalId":51480,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Public Opinion Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46636226","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this study, we use qualitative research methods to identify, discuss, and investigate the self-reported motivational factors and barriers in all stages of the probability-based online panel lifecycle—recruitment to the panel, wave-by-wave data collection, and voluntary attrition. Our data were gathered with qualitative in-depth interviews (IDIs). Between March 2020 and February 2021, panelists from the Life in Australia™ probability online panel were classified into four groups based on their previous panel response behavior and each was interviewed. The qualitative data were used to link the reported motivation for and barriers against joining and staying active in the panel with theories about survey participation. Evidence from the IDIs shows that motivations and barriers can be directly linked to social-psychological theories that explain panel/longitudinal survey participation, including how theories such as social-exchange theory, leverage-salience theory, and the reasoned action approach, are sufficiently robust to help understand the time dimension of survey participation and behavioral change of panel members. Our findings have practical implications for probability-based online panel management.
{"title":"Social-psychological Aspects of Probability-based Online Panel Participation","authors":"Sebastian Kočar, P. Lavrakas","doi":"10.1093/ijpor/edad012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edad012","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In this study, we use qualitative research methods to identify, discuss, and investigate the self-reported motivational factors and barriers in all stages of the probability-based online panel lifecycle—recruitment to the panel, wave-by-wave data collection, and voluntary attrition. Our data were gathered with qualitative in-depth interviews (IDIs). Between March 2020 and February 2021, panelists from the Life in Australia™ probability online panel were classified into four groups based on their previous panel response behavior and each was interviewed. The qualitative data were used to link the reported motivation for and barriers against joining and staying active in the panel with theories about survey participation. Evidence from the IDIs shows that motivations and barriers can be directly linked to social-psychological theories that explain panel/longitudinal survey participation, including how theories such as social-exchange theory, leverage-salience theory, and the reasoned action approach, are sufficiently robust to help understand the time dimension of survey participation and behavioral change of panel members. Our findings have practical implications for probability-based online panel management.","PeriodicalId":51480,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Public Opinion Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45420695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
R. Queirolo, L. Repetto, Belén Sotto, Eliana Alvarez
Laws and public policies can change social norms by signaling which behaviors are legal or illegal. Recent cannabis legalization policies might have this effect. Does cannabis legalization increase social acceptance toward its users? This article focuses on understanding the impact of Uruguayan cannabis legalization on attitudes toward cannabis users by taking advantage of having legal and illegal mechanisms for getting cannabis under the same national context. To do so, we conducted a conjoint experiment in a national face-to-face survey (N = 2,181). Participants were presented with two different profiles of potential neighbors and asked to choose one. These profiles randomized attributes such as being a registered user, mechanism of cannabis acquisition, frequency of cannabis use, as well as sociodemographic characteristics. Participants rated each profile from 1 to 7 based on how much they would like to have them as neighbors. Subsequently, we estimated the average marginal component effect as the critical causal quantity of interest. Results reveal that users who access cannabis through a legal mechanism are more preferred as neighbors than those who do not. Thus, the evidence presented in this article indicates that regulation, by proving legal access, increases the social acceptance of cannabis users.
{"title":"Explaining the Impact of Legal Access to Cannabis on Attitudes toward Users","authors":"R. Queirolo, L. Repetto, Belén Sotto, Eliana Alvarez","doi":"10.1093/ijpor/edad010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edad010","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Laws and public policies can change social norms by signaling which behaviors are legal or illegal. Recent cannabis legalization policies might have this effect. Does cannabis legalization increase social acceptance toward its users? This article focuses on understanding the impact of Uruguayan cannabis legalization on attitudes toward cannabis users by taking advantage of having legal and illegal mechanisms for getting cannabis under the same national context. To do so, we conducted a conjoint experiment in a national face-to-face survey (N = 2,181). Participants were presented with two different profiles of potential neighbors and asked to choose one. These profiles randomized attributes such as being a registered user, mechanism of cannabis acquisition, frequency of cannabis use, as well as sociodemographic characteristics. Participants rated each profile from 1 to 7 based on how much they would like to have them as neighbors. Subsequently, we estimated the average marginal component effect as the critical causal quantity of interest. Results reveal that users who access cannabis through a legal mechanism are more preferred as neighbors than those who do not. Thus, the evidence presented in this article indicates that regulation, by proving legal access, increases the social acceptance of cannabis users.","PeriodicalId":51480,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Public Opinion Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47635023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Katrin Müller, Lieselotte Blommaert, Michael Savelkoul, Marcel Lubbers, Peer Scheepers
Abstract This article investigates European majority members’ perceptions of the prevalence of ethnic discrimination. We use individual-level data from the Eurobarometer ‘Discrimination in the EU’ series, covering 26 European countries and six years (2006, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2019), enriched with contextual information on political elite discourses from the Comparative Manifesto Project. We shed light on significant and substantive cross-country and cross-temporal variations in these perceptions. Next, we explore how these variations are related to national political elite discourses by employing multilevel models. By disentangling between and within country variations, we find that particularly changes in political elite discourses within countries over time are associated with variations in majority members’ beliefs about the prevalence of ethnic discrimination in their society. Exclusive discourses, which emphasize nationalistic ideas and demarcate strong boundaries between ethnic groups, are associated with majority members thinking that ethnic discrimination is less widespread in their country. The reverse holds for inclusive discourses: when political elites underline the importance of cultural diversity and multiculturalism, majorities perceive more ethnic discrimination. While these discourses are only related to within country variations, our descriptive and multilevel results show that the national context matters for majorities’ perceptions of the prevalence of ethnic discrimination.
{"title":"Political Elite Discourses and Majority Members’ Beliefs About the Prevalence of Ethnic Discrimination in Europe","authors":"Katrin Müller, Lieselotte Blommaert, Michael Savelkoul, Marcel Lubbers, Peer Scheepers","doi":"10.1093/ijpor/edad003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edad003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article investigates European majority members’ perceptions of the prevalence of ethnic discrimination. We use individual-level data from the Eurobarometer ‘Discrimination in the EU’ series, covering 26 European countries and six years (2006, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2019), enriched with contextual information on political elite discourses from the Comparative Manifesto Project. We shed light on significant and substantive cross-country and cross-temporal variations in these perceptions. Next, we explore how these variations are related to national political elite discourses by employing multilevel models. By disentangling between and within country variations, we find that particularly changes in political elite discourses within countries over time are associated with variations in majority members’ beliefs about the prevalence of ethnic discrimination in their society. Exclusive discourses, which emphasize nationalistic ideas and demarcate strong boundaries between ethnic groups, are associated with majority members thinking that ethnic discrimination is less widespread in their country. The reverse holds for inclusive discourses: when political elites underline the importance of cultural diversity and multiculturalism, majorities perceive more ethnic discrimination. While these discourses are only related to within country variations, our descriptive and multilevel results show that the national context matters for majorities’ perceptions of the prevalence of ethnic discrimination.","PeriodicalId":51480,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Public Opinion Research","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135543692","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This is a brief about past and future activities of the World Association for Public Opinion Research and its members, as well as previews of forthcoming conferences and seminars.
本文简要介绍了世界民意研究协会及其成员过去和未来的活动，并对即将举行的会议和研讨会进行了展望。
{"title":"Wapor News 2022","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/ijpor/edad011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edad011","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This is a brief about past and future activities of the World Association for Public Opinion Research and its members, as well as previews of forthcoming conferences and seminars.","PeriodicalId":51480,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Public Opinion Research","volume":"104 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135647906","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：