Suchergebnisse

Need for cognition (NFC) is the personality trait that describes differences in the enjoyment of cognitive efforts. By relying on data collected over two elections in Sweden in 2014, I show the trait's multifaceted political relevance. Individuals who enjoy cognitive challenges are more likely to think that it matters what government that is formed after the election, engage with campaign information, favor complex news over simple news and select stronger reasons for vote choice over weaker, e.g., ideology over habit. Overall, the results suggest that election studies would benefit from measuring need for cognition.

In a panel study where one survey was conducted immediately after a terrorist attack in central Stockholm, with over 20,000 participants, we examine the possibility that first-hand experiences with terror increases effects compared to people located elsewhere in Sweden. We use matching and as-if random variation in our data to identify the effect of personal proximity. While we find that people close to the attack perceived themselves as more affected, attesting to the vividness of the experience, we find no evidence of stronger rally effects, greater outgroup dislike, preferences for security policies or emotional effects. The results challenge previous theories on public opinion change in the aftermath of vivid events. In line with prior research, however, the results indicate that public opinion among people across Sweden did change on a range of issues. These general effects occurred uniformly, regardless of geographic location in the country.

ObjectivesPreelectoral party coalitions are common in multiparty systems. We examine the proposition that individuals who choose between parties from competing coalitions think and behave differently compared to those who only consider voting for parties of the same coalition. Part of the reason, we suggest, is that coalition‐straddling voters play a key role in deciding who forms government.MethodsWe rely on data from a multiwave panel with thousands of participants collected during two election campaigns in Sweden. Statistical regression techniques are used to analyze the data.ResultsWe find that citizens who straddle opposing coalitions think that the vote decision is harder and rely more on voting advice applications. Moreover, the evidence suggests that their ultimate vote choice is more consequential in how they view parties.ConclusionCoalition‐straddling influences political behavior. The evidence is largely in line with the notion that coalition‐straddling individuals are aware of their importance.

Objectives Preelectoral party coalitions are common in multiparty systems. We examine the proposition that individuals who choose between parties from competing coalitions think and behave differently compared to those who only consider voting for parties of the same coalition. Part of the reason, we suggest, is that coalition‐straddling voters play a key role in deciding who forms government. Methods We rely on data from a multiwave panel with thousands of participants collected during two election campaigns in Sweden. Statistical regression techniques are used to analyze the data. Results We find that citizens who straddle opposing coalitions think that the vote decision is harder and rely more on voting advice applications. Moreover, the evidence suggests that their ultimate vote choice is more consequential in how they view parties. Conclusion Coalition‐straddling influences political behavior. The evidence is largely in line with the notion that coalition‐straddling individuals are aware of their importance.

Although polling accuracy increases throughout the election, polls are always at least a little wrong
on election day. In this article, we attempt to understand how characteristics of particular elections
may make them harder (or easier) to predict. In particular, we focus on estimating the impact of
voter turnout, electoral change, and vote buying on polling error. We find support for two of the
three hypotheses. There is little evidence that voter turnout affects polling error. However, polling
errors tend to be higher where there have been large changes in parties' vote share from the
previous election. We also find that higher prevalence of vote buying may be associated with
larger polling errors.

Refugees arriving in Western countries spend long periods, often over a year, as asylum seekers. We examine how the period affects asylum seekers' institutional and interpersonal trust. Drawing on theories of need gratification, we suggest that several needs are unfulfilled during this period of existential limbo. Still, some aspects in the new society are positive, especially in Sweden, the host country of this study. To study these combined forces, we rely on repeated interviews with the same asylum seekers as well as other quantitative approaches. Results show that both types of trust are reduced over time, suggesting that the negative aspects take precedence. We also present results based on a matching analysis, which indicate that interpersonal trust at the beginning of the asylum-seeking process is higher compared to similar refugees in Jordan and Lebanon. Overall, our results show that trust can be highly malleable in certain circumstances.

Immediately following dramatic events, news reporting must be both fast and accurate. In an attempt to reconcile the inherent conflict between these two ambitions, journalists often use disclaimers, for example, "unconfirmed" or "reports of." These disclaimers allow for the rapid publication of less than reliable content. The results from our survey experiment suggest that strong disclaimers, as intended, do lower the perceived reliability of stories among news consumers. Furthermore, the results indicate that the context influences the effectiveness of disclaimers. It appears that in a crisis environment, such as after a large terrorist attack, individuals are less sensitive to disclaimers.