超越价值观与自身利益:就业转型后谁的态度会改变?

IF 1.8 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Research Exchange Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1080/2474736X.2020.1809473
Nadja Wehl
{"title":"超越价值观与自身利益:就业转型后谁的态度会改变?","authors":"Nadja Wehl","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2020.1809473","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Are self-interest or presumably stable value orientations and other predispositions the main drivers behind social policy attitudes? This article contributes to this debate by moving away from its binary discussion. It differentiates between attitude changes driven by self-interest that are in line with pre-existing predispositions and those that are not. Empirically, this article focuses on changes of labour market policy attitudes after employment transitions and job insecurity changes. More precisely, this article differentiates between attitude changes within three subgroups. (A) People whose self-interest after the employment transitions reinforces their prior predispositions. (B) People without strong prior predispositions, who are thus unconstrained by them. And (C) people whose self-interest after the employment transitions contradicts their prior predispositions. Panel analyses with fixed effects use German SOEP waves from 1997 and 2002. Main effects suggest an important role for self-interest as they show significant attitudinal reactions after most of the transitions and perception changes. However, subgroup analyses result in a somewhat mixed picture. They show attitude changes within different subgroups after different transitions and perception changes. This mixed empirical picture suggests caution when interpreting attitudinal change or stability after changing material circumstances as a sign for the relative importance of self-interest or predispositions.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2474736X.2020.1809473","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Going beyond values versus self-interest: whose attitudes change after employment transitions?\",\"authors\":\"Nadja Wehl\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/2474736X.2020.1809473\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Are self-interest or presumably stable value orientations and other predispositions the main drivers behind social policy attitudes? This article contributes to this debate by moving away from its binary discussion. It differentiates between attitude changes driven by self-interest that are in line with pre-existing predispositions and those that are not. Empirically, this article focuses on changes of labour market policy attitudes after employment transitions and job insecurity changes. More precisely, this article differentiates between attitude changes within three subgroups. (A) People whose self-interest after the employment transitions reinforces their prior predispositions. (B) People without strong prior predispositions, who are thus unconstrained by them. And (C) people whose self-interest after the employment transitions contradicts their prior predispositions. Panel analyses with fixed effects use German SOEP waves from 1997 and 2002. Main effects suggest an important role for self-interest as they show significant attitudinal reactions after most of the transitions and perception changes. However, subgroup analyses result in a somewhat mixed picture. They show attitude changes within different subgroups after different transitions and perception changes. This mixed empirical picture suggests caution when interpreting attitudinal change or stability after changing material circumstances as a sign for the relative importance of self-interest or predispositions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20269,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Research Exchange\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2474736X.2020.1809473\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Research Exchange\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2020.1809473\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Research Exchange","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2020.1809473","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要社会政策态度背后的主要驱动因素是自身利益还是稳定的价值取向和其他倾向?这篇文章脱离了二元讨论,为这场辩论做出了贡献。它区分了由符合预先存在的倾向的自身利益驱动的态度变化和不符合预先存在倾向的态度变化。从经验上看,本文关注的是就业转型后劳动力市场政策态度的变化和工作不安全感的变化。更准确地说,这篇文章区分了三个子组中的态度变化。(A) 就业转型后的个人利益强化了他们之前的倾向。(B) 先前没有强烈倾向的人,因此不受其约束。以及(C)在就业转变后,其自身利益与之前的倾向相矛盾的人。具有固定效应的面板分析使用了1997年和2002年的德国SOEP波。主要效应表明自身利益发挥着重要作用,因为它们在大多数转变和认知变化后表现出显著的态度反应。然而,亚组分析的结果有点喜忧参半。它们显示了不同亚组在不同的转变和感知变化后的态度变化。这种混合的经验图景表明,在将物质环境变化后的态度变化或稳定解释为自身利益或倾向的相对重要性时要谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Going beyond values versus self-interest: whose attitudes change after employment transitions?
ABSTRACT Are self-interest or presumably stable value orientations and other predispositions the main drivers behind social policy attitudes? This article contributes to this debate by moving away from its binary discussion. It differentiates between attitude changes driven by self-interest that are in line with pre-existing predispositions and those that are not. Empirically, this article focuses on changes of labour market policy attitudes after employment transitions and job insecurity changes. More precisely, this article differentiates between attitude changes within three subgroups. (A) People whose self-interest after the employment transitions reinforces their prior predispositions. (B) People without strong prior predispositions, who are thus unconstrained by them. And (C) people whose self-interest after the employment transitions contradicts their prior predispositions. Panel analyses with fixed effects use German SOEP waves from 1997 and 2002. Main effects suggest an important role for self-interest as they show significant attitudinal reactions after most of the transitions and perception changes. However, subgroup analyses result in a somewhat mixed picture. They show attitude changes within different subgroups after different transitions and perception changes. This mixed empirical picture suggests caution when interpreting attitudinal change or stability after changing material circumstances as a sign for the relative importance of self-interest or predispositions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Political Research Exchange
Political Research Exchange POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
39 weeks
期刊最新文献
Online repression and transnational social movements: Thailand and the #MilkTeaAlliance Did Russia’s invasion of Ukraine unite Europe? Cohesion and divisions of the European Parliament on Twitter Quantifying the ideational context: political frames, meaning trajectories and punctuated equilibria in Spanish mainstream press during the Catalan nationalist challenge Breakdown by disengagement: Tunisia’s transition from representative democracy Merging the Great Patriotic War and Russian warfare in Ukraine. A case-study of Russian military patriotic clubs in 2022
×
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