Search

ABSTRACTSocial norms are based on expectations of what others believe and do, and so they can shift in response to what trendsetters—highly visible media or political leaders—say or do. There is evidence that former President Trump as a trendsetter has weakened norms against expressing anti-immigrant attitudes in the US. As such, we ask: can trendsetters affect anti-immigrant norms across national borders? Can such spillovers be mitigated by countervailing norms attached to a national identity? We conduct two survey experiments to determine if there is potential for a Trump spillover effect in Canada and whether it can be mitigated by norms attached to Canadian identity. We find that priming Trump can weaken norms against expressing anti-immigrant sentiment in Canada. We also find that priming Canadian identity can mitigate the Trump as trendsetter effect, and attaching pro-immigrant norms to Canadian identity can strengthen norms against expressing anti-immigrant attitudes. The potential for a political trendsetter to have effects on immigration attitudes across national borders and the potential for national identity norms to mitigate such effects are important to understand given the recent global spread of anti-immigrant sentiment.

Background:Through medicare, residents in Canada are entitled to medically necessary physician services without paying out of pocket, but still many people struggle to access primary care. We conducted a survey to explore people’s experience with and priorities for primary care.Methods:We conducted an online, bilingual survey of adults in Canada in fall 2022. We distributed an anonymous link through diverse channels and a closed link to 122 053 people via a national public opinion firm. We weighted completed responses to mirror Canada’s population and adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics using regression models.Results:We analyzed 9279 completed surveys (5.9% response rate via closed link). More than one-fifth of respondents (21.8%) reported having no primary care clinician, and among those who did, 34.5% reported getting a same or next-day appointment for urgent issues. Of respondents, 89.4% expressed comfort seeing another team member if their doctor recommended it, but only 35.9%, 9.5%, and 12.4% reported that their practice had a nurse, social worker, or pharmacist, respectively. The primary care attribute that mattered most was having a clinician who “knows me as a person and considers all the factors that affect my health.” After we adjusted for respondent characteristics, people in Quebec, the Atlantic region, and British Columbia had lower odds of reporting a primary care clinician than people in Ontario (adjusted odds ratio 0.30, 0.33, and 0.39, respectively; p< 0.001). We also observed large provincial variations in timely access, interprofessional care, and walk-in clinic use.Interpretation:More than 1 in 5 respondents did not have access to primary care, with large variation by province. Reforms should strive to expand access to relationship-based, longitudinal care in a team setting.

Abstract:The Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand publics have long been divided on the issue of whether their countries should remain constitutional monarchies or become republics. A maturing sense of nationhood in each country has spurred debate as to the continuing relevance of remaining constitutional ties with Britain. This article aims to test whether support toward monarchy is explained by ethnic nationalism, a conception of nationhood founded on cultural unity. To do so, we rely on national electoral studies, covering the period from 1964 to 2021. This data allows for a fine-grained description of the attitudes toward monarchy among various sub-groups. Our findings suggest that reluctance to break away from the monarchy can be understood as part of a nationalist response to growing ethnic diversity and an accompanying perception of cultural threat. These findings contribute to a better understanding of public attitudes toward the monarchy in three Commonwealth countries.Abstract:Depuis plusieurs décennies, les Canadiens, les Australiens et les Néo-Zélandais sont divisés face à la perspective de former une république, et donc d'abolir la monarchie. À l'heure actuelle, alors que les trois pays font toujours partie du Commonwealth, une partie importante de chacune de ces populations espère toujours voir son pays rompre tout lien constitutionnel avec la Grande-Bretagne. Cet article examine dans quelle mesure l'appui à la monarchie peut s'expliquer par une forme de nationalisme ethnique, une conception de la nation fondée sur l'unité culturelle. Pour ce faire, nous nous appuyons sur des études électorales nationales, couvrant la période de 1964 à 2021. Ces données permettent entre autres une description granulaire des attitudes envers la monarchie dans divers sous-groupes de la population. Les résultats suggèrent que la réticence à rejeter la monarchie s'explique notamment comme une réaction face à une diversité culturelle croissante ainsi qu'une perception de menace culturelle. Plus généralement, cet article contribue à une meilleure compréhension des facteurs qui structurent les attitudes pro-monarchie dans trois pays du Commonwealth.

The Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand publics have long been divided on the issue of whether their countries should remain constitutional monarchies or become republics. A maturing sense of nationhood in each country has spurred debate as to the continuing relevance of remaining constitutional ties with Britain. This article aims to test whether support toward monarchy is explained by ethnic nationalism, a conception of nationhood founded on cultural unity. To do so, we rely on national electoral studies, covering the period from 1964 to 2021. This data allows for a fine-grained description of the attitudes toward monarchy among various sub-groups. Our findings suggest that reluctance to break away from the monarchy can be understood as part of a nationalist response to growing ethnic diversity and an accompanying perception of cultural threat. These findings contribute to a better understanding of public attitudes toward the monarchy in three Commonwealth countries.

AbstractThe extent to which citizens comply with newly enacted public health measures such as social distancing or lockdowns strongly affects the propagation of the virus and the number of deaths from COVID-19. It is however very difficult to identify non-compliance through survey research because claiming to follow the rules is socially desirable. Using three survey experiments, we examine the efficacy of different ‘face-saving’ questions that aim to reduce social desirability in the measurement of compliance with public health measures. Our treatments soften the social norm of compliance by way of a short preamble in combination with a guilty-free answer choice making it easier for respondents to admit non-compliance. We find that self-reported non-compliance increases by up to +11 percentage points when making use of a face-saving question. Considering the current context and the importance of measuring non-compliance, we argue that researchers around the world should adopt our most efficient face-saving question.

The article discusses the 2011 Canadian election held on May 2, 2011, with particular focus on issues tackled in the election by political parties and candidates and the division between Quebec and the rest of Canada. It explores the success of the New Democratic Party (NDP), and the Conservative Party and the defeat of the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois. It mentions issues such as the place of Quebec in the Canadian constitution and the role of the privates sector in health care.