Search

Asian governments employed drastically different strategies—zero-infection versus living with coronavirus disease (COVID-19)—to balance control of the global pandemic and minimize disruption. This study examines inter-society differences in public responses to their government's anti-pandemic policies of zero-COVID strategy in China and neighboring societies. Three parallel telephone surveys were conducted in summer 2022 with a combined sample of 3,106 respondents in Beijing, Singapore, and Taipei. Findings provide a snapshot of public opinion toward zero-COVID policy in the late stage of the pandemic. Levels of strictness of pandemic-control measures across the 3 societies were found to be related to the public's attention to the policy, its perceived social impact, and the extent to which they would support the policy. Furthermore, whether public attention enhanced or diminished the perception of its impact or support, and how these relationships changed depended on local circumstances. Chinese respondents in Beijing perceived their government's unwavering zero-tolerance policy as having a low impact and tended to support the strict policy. Singaporeans living under the co-living policy viewed the zero-case strategy as disruptive and were less willing to support it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A burgeoning literature considers the domestic causes and consequences of democratic backsliding for public perceptions of democracy but has yet to fully examine the role of international factors in explaining these perceptions. Specifically, the effect of democratic backsliding in one democracy on public support for democratic principles in other countries has, thus far, defied theoretical and empirical investigation. Addressing this gap, we propose and test a theory of the effects of backsliding on global opinion in which information about democratic decline in one country can lead to increased support for authoritarian governance in another country. To test this, we use an original survey experiment in Israel where we test the effect of two narratives regarding the 2020 U.S. elections—one signaling democratic decline and one signaling democratic resilience—on support for authoritarian governance. We find that respondents exposed to the narrative of U.S. democratic decline were more supportive of authoritarian governance compared to respondents exposed to the narrative of democratic resilience. We further find marginal evidence that the respondents' ideological preferences condition the effect of narrative exposure. Our findings suggest that the democratic backsliding literature has insufficiently explored the global consequences of domestic events and processes on democratic decline worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study addresses a research gap by exploring the impact of emotional factors, specifically national pride, on public support for economic sanctions, which has received relatively limited attention compared to the strategic aspects of sanctions. Our proposal posits that citizens' national pride, acting as a symbolic motivation, particularly in the context of hostile national competition, can result in increased support for economic sanctions. Furthermore, we suggest that among individuals with strong national pride, the likelihood of supporting economic sanctions tends to rise as their economic perceptions improve. To investigate this relationship, we analyzed data from Japan Electoral Study VI, conducted during Japan's economic sanctions against South Korea in 2019. These findings reveal that national pride significantly shapes public opinion on economic sanctions and that among individuals with strong national pride, positive perceptions of economic conditions act as a catalyst, strengthening their support for economic sanctions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drones are now a mainstay in war. Yet not all countries can manufacture armed and networked drones, heightening global demand. While some drone-manufacturing countries have adopted permissive export policies, U.S. policymakers have been more restrictive, citing international legal commitments and domestic export controls. In this study, I consider drone exports as a question of both political economy and public opinion. I derive and test hypotheses about public support for drone exports through a conjoint survey experiment administered in the United States. I find that perceived alignment between the recipient country and United States, as well as the intended use of drones, are the most important factors shaping public support for drone exports. Export control measures are less relevant to public opinion. These findings offer the first experimental evidence about public opinion for drone exports, which have implications for the political economy of security and policies relating to the export of military technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using a nationally representative sample of Democrats and Republicans (n = 1,000), we conducted an online survey wording experiment to examine the presence of a labeling effect when a vaccine verification system is referred to as either "vaccine passports" or "vaccine verification." Critically, we use both close-ended and open-ended responses in order to understand how the different labels influence the level of support as well as individual thoughts. While our findings show slightly higher public support when a vaccine program is labeled as "vaccine verification" as compared to "vaccine passport," deep partisan divides still exist. Indeed, Republicans show less support for a vaccine program, regardless of the label used. We dig into these partisan differences using the open-ended thought listing exercise we provided to respondents. We discuss the benefits of supplementing open-ended responses as an enhancement to close-ended measures in experimental research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines whether assumptions about the contradiction between national identity and support for international organizations are reflected in public support of the World Health Organization (WHO). Study 1 uses a comparative multilevel analysis to examine the link between national identification and confidence in the WHO as well as the influence of globalization on these attitudes. Study 2, which is based on a panel survey in Israel, explores whether attitudes toward the WHO have changed over time and under the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic and whether relations between national identification, national chauvinism, and perceptions of the WHO have also changed. Overall, the findings indicate that there is no clear-cut contradiction between national identity and public support for the WHO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the rapid development of science and technology (S&T) in China, few studies have examined the factors related to public opinions toward funding S&T development. Using a nationwide sample from an online survey in China (N = 702), this study examined how Chinese attention to S&T information on digital media was associated with public support for funding, based on an extended cognitive mediation model, in which their scientific literacy and nationalism toward scientific and technological development in China were examined as the outcomes of information consumption and as predictors of support for funding S&T development. The results indicated that attention to S&T information on digital media was positively associated with two information processing strategies—elaboration of S&T information and digital media engagement with S&T topics. Moreover, elaboration was positively related to scientific literacy and nationalism, whereas digital media engagement was positively associated with the nationalism but not with the literacy. Next, individuals' scientific literacy and nationalism were positively associated with their support for funding S&T development. The theoretical and practical implications of the study are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While previous research has thoroughly investigated the structure of Americans' foreign policy beliefs, existing literature tells us far less about the determinants of public support for U.S. military alliances. In the following paper, we examine whether former President Donald Trump's framing altered public support for the U.S.-North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military alliance. First, using survey data from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, we show that support for NATO became polarized after 2016. Second, employing a survey experiment, we test two causal mechanisms that might explain these shifts: (1) a framing model positing that reframing the alliance to emphasize financial costs decreased public support and (2) a cue-taking model positing that opinion on NATO realigned to conform to (or reject) former President Trump's stated positions. Our experimental results reveal that reframing the alliance decreased support for NATO while the presence of a partisan cue had little or no effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We conducted a poll with a survey-experimental design to examine whether variations in how the US policy of drone warfare was framed significantly impacted public support. Consistent with scholarship on motivated reasoning and valence framing, we find that respondents could be primed to express significantly greater or lesser support based on questions that either affirmed or challenged: the strategic value , international legality , domestic legality , or technological capability of drone strikes or whether they cause collateral damage. While affirming the policy generally had insignificant effects on opinion reports, compared to the control group, challenges to the policy produced significant decreases in American support for drone warfare. These results illustrate the importance of exposing citizens to contested discourse on controversial public policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A key claim in the study of emotions is that anger makes people less responsive to risks, whereas fear makes people more responsive. Although risk is a fundamental concern in the area of military conflict, no studies have directly tested whether anger and fear moderate the impact of risk on public support for war. We test this key claim with casualty risks as our case. Across five experiments (N  = 4,559), utilizing well-established treatment material to vary casualty risk and induce emotions, we replicate the central finding that higher casualty risk decreases support for war. Emotions, however, do not moderate the effect of risk. These findings, combined with limitations in existing research, raise debate about the empirical robustness of the prominent emotion–risk interaction as well as widely used emotion inductions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines how user comments influence assessment of public opinion climate and perceived support for one's opinion. The effects of user-comment sentiment (positive vs. negative) and of user-comment content (with or without personal exemplification) were tested with an online experiment (n = 1,510). Results show that user-comment effects on estimates of public opinion depend mainly on the sentiment of the comments and not on their framing as opinions with or without personal exemplification. Negative comments significantly reduce readers' estimation of public opinion support of the issue dealt with by the article and affect the perceived support of one's opinion. Study results refer to the possible dangers in user comments deliberate manipulation in democratic public discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the Brexit referendum has demonstrated, public support for the European Union (EU) is important for the future of the EU. The existing research shows that young citizens tend to be more supportive of the EU than old citizens. How stable, however, is this support? Do individuals who grew up in a strongly integrated EU have more stable support for the EU? Analysis of six-wave panel data from The Netherlands reveals that support for the EU is about equally stable among all generations, young and old. Given the higher level of support for the EU among younger generations, these findings suggest that support for the EU may increase as older, more skeptical generations are replaced by younger generations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite nearly three decades of democratic rule throughout the Latin American region, public support for authoritarian norms has persisted. These "pockets of authoritarianism" can bolster support for policies and practices that weaken democratic governance, such as allowing authorities to abuse power. We examine why some Latin Americans endorse nondemocratic governance options by testing the predictive power of a psychological measure of authoritarianism, operationalized as support for particular child-rearing practices. We find that this psychological variable explains support for several nondemocratic governance options in the region: presidential limits on the opposition, iron-fist policies, torture of suspected criminals, and a military coup. Authoritarian parenting attitudes are also correlated with perceptions that political minorities threaten the country and lower support for democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rational choice theories have claimed that small states exploit their large allies' defense spending. However, little work has been done on the foundations of free riding at the levels of elite and public opinion. If smaller states free ride, it is unclear whether they are following the expressed wishes of their constituents or something else. Using a novel method for measuring public support for free riding in the Australian candidate and election studies together with Australian defense spending data, this article rectifies the gap. Neither Australian voters nor parliamentary candidates consciously support Australian free riding on the United States, but I find that Australia free rides nonetheless. This suggests that rational state behavior may arise from elite calculation rather than pressure from below. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The belief that immigrants threaten the American culture is a paramount source of opposition to immigration in the U.S. Known as cultural threat, this trepidation is largely conceptualized in the opinion research as symbolic in nature and stemming from concern over the maintenance of national identity. A problematic feature of this conceptualization is that it neglects contact as a potential realistic aspect of the cultural threat of immigration. In response, this article develops a realistic theory of cultural threat that emphasizes personal encounters with unassimilated immigrants. Relying on national survey data, this article demonstrates that contact with non-English-speaking immigrants, as well as the negative emotions it engenders, heightens perceived threat to American culture and support for restrictive immigration policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which examines the effect of political comedy programs on public's participation in politics. It defines political comedy shows as television programs which stress humorous coverage of issues and parodies of figures in politics. It explores the relationships between the exposure to political comedy shows and the measures in political participation. It indicates that exposure to political comedy shows is positively associated with two activities, which are the presence in a campaign event and the membership in an organization.

In a past investigation, we examined the impact of negative advertising to account for the shift in public support for the Republican Party candidate during the 1996 U.S. Senate race in Minnesota. However, directly viewing the advertising was only one way that citizens could have been exposed to the negative ads that contributed to public opinion about the candidate. Citizens also could have received information about the advertising indirectly through the press coverage of the campaign. This paper considers the role of both ads and news as it compares the earlier model of advertising with a model of press coverage to determine which model presents the best explanation for the decline in the Republican candidate's favorability over the course of the Senate campaign. Findings indicate that the press model accounts for a greater degree of variance in the Republican candidate's favorability, suggesting that citizens are more likely to rely upon press spin in processing information about campaigns. This suggests that advertising may be more accurately modeled as having an indirect impact on favorability filtered through press coverage of the campaign, particularly in competitive, high intensity races. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The issue of public support for a democratic form of government in countries undergoing a political transition is approached from two perspectives. On a substantive level, in countries that have experienced dramatically different forms of government in a relatively short period of time, the meaning of democracy for the mass public may be subject to considerable variation across individuals. Related to the rationale underlying citizen views of democracy as a form of government is the methodological issue of the impact that different alternatives to democracy have on levels of support for democracy as measured through standard `best form of government' survey items. Capitalizing on a variation in response choices for two identical `best form of government' questions included in a 1994 survey of the Nicaraguan mass public, this paper explores the consequences of pitting `democracy' against abstract and `name-brand' alternatives. The paper finds that the methodological choice of which alternatives to use alongside the democracy option has a substantial effect on what citizens view as their `preferred form of government'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examined how people's willingness to speak their opinions in a real situation varied as a function of perceived support for those opinions. When given a list of six potential topics to discuss with a real group of people, the participants reported a greater willingness to discuss a topic if they perceived greater support for their own opinions on that topic. The relationship we observed was much larger than the average correlation reported in a recent meta-analysis (Glynn, Hayes, and Shanahan 1997). Methodological and psychological explanations for the discrepancy are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on public support for increased spending on drug problem in the U.S. In general, the American public has supported increases in drug control spending. Currently, drug policy in the U.S. comprises programs of prevention, treatment, law enforcement, and interdiction of drugs flowing across U.S. borders. These programs can be differentiated on the dimensions of having elements of social welfare or social control. Democrats are significantly more likely to support increased drug spending than Republicans, suggesting that support among Democrats is not simply an artifact of their higher rate of support for spending in general. In contrast, political liberals are significantly less likely than conservatives to support increased drug spending, but political moderates are not significantly different from conservatives in their support for increased drug spending. Thus, political liberals are more likely to support policies that emphasize social welfare, such as prevention and treatment programs.

This study analyzes actual and perceived support for the Persian Gulf War in the United States. Data were collected from 292 residents of New Castle County, Delaware, during the 1991 Gulf War. Results show that support for the war was not the strong consensus reported in mainstream media. In fact, 53.1 percent of the respondents fell within the neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree ranges of a support for the war scale. Only 6.6 percent of the respondents were in the strong support range. However, responses were significantly higher on an item measuring perceived support for the war. Consistent with Noelle-Neumann's spiral of silence theory, perceived public support for the war was a significant predictor of support for the war even after 13 variables were controlled. The alternative explanation that subjects were `projecting' the their own perceptions onto the public, is discounted by the finding that liberals, moderates and conservatives did not differ in their perceptions of public support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study provides a quantitative content analysis of the depictions of sex roles in the American news magazine Time and the West German news magazine Stern from 1969 to iç88. The underlying assumption of the study is that advertisements reflect changes in social reality. While most studies focus on explicit aspects of gender role depictions such as jobs, activities, interactions and situations, this content analysis also covers implicit aspects of role depictions such as posture, gestures, and facial expression. Some authors have claimed that these are powerful means of transmitting traditional sex role stereotypes of women as being submissive and of men as being dominant. Results indicate that while there have been considerable changes in the explicit presentation of male and female roles, the implicit presentation remained quite consistent over the 20- year period. According to these findings, sex roles may have changed primarily on the surface, while nonverbal sex role stereotypes still linger on. Differences between the developments in Germany and the US are outlined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article the authors argue that studies of the influence of the mass media on public support for presidential candidates in primary elections should return to the social pyschological model of attitude change. This model should take into account, however, that in the real world, unlike laboratory settings, randomization and complete controls of variables are not possible, and rational and strategic choice considerations come into play, along with the cumulative effects of new information on aggregate opinion. The variables found to be relevant to attitude change, especially the characteristics of the communicator and the communication, have not been studied systematically in natural settings. Little is known about how new information unrelated to electoral `momentum' affects the public's evaluations and support for candidates. A fuller explanation is needed of what are complex media influences on candidate support in primary elections- including especially those messages conveyed through the media which tend to be distinctive and most accessible to memory: information about the viability of candidates; positive messages and images conveyed directly from the candidates themselves and (to a lesser extent) from other major party leaders who support or oppose them; and, of special theoretical importance, the ostensibly credible news commentary about the candidates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This section discusses the article "Public Confidence in Charitable Nonprofits," by Michael O'Neill, published in "Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly." O'Neill examined the proposition that charitable organizations suffered a crisis of confidence in the U.S., as suggested by some surveys. He explored data on the attitudes of U.S. citizens to the nonprofit sector and to many of its subsectors. It was concluded that the evidence does not show any crisis of confidence.