Suchergebnisse

"El presente estudio es parte de un programa de investigaciones que el Proyecto de Opinión Pública de América Latina (LAPOP) viene llevando a cabo desde hace más de dos décadas. LAPOP es un consorcio de instituciones académicas y de investigación en las Américas, con sede central en Vanderbilt University, en Estados Unidos. En el proyecto LAPOP participan más de 30 instituciones de toda la región, cuyos esfuerzos tienen el propósito de producir estudios científicos, objetivos e independientes de opinión pública. Dichas investigaciones se enfocan principalmente en la medición de actitudes y comportamientos políticos relacionados con la democracia y la calidad de vida."–Contracarátula.

"El presente estudio es parte de un programa de investigaciones que el Proyecto de Opinión Pública de América Latina (LAPOP) viene llevando a cabo desde hace más de dos décadas. LAPOP es un consorcio de instituciones académicas y de investigación en las Américas, con sede central en Vanderbilt University, en Estados Unidos. En el proyecto LAPOP participan más de 30 instituciones de toda la región, cuyos esfuerzos tienen el propósito de producir estudios científicos, objetivos e independientes de opinión pública. Dichas investigaciones se enfocan principalmente en la medición de actitudes y comportamientos políticos relacionados con la democracia y la calidad de vida."–Contracarátula.

We argue that conditions of threat (compared to times of well-being) can induce individuals to place less value on democratic forms of governance. We test our argument in the context of Mexican politics and with respect to two types of threat that are arguably the most pressing issues today: crime and economic. Our data come from a national experiment implemented in the spring of 2009 and a national survey, the AmericasBarometer, conducted in 2010. The experimental evidence supports our contention that threats can cause democratic decay among the mass public; the survey evidence provides a window into the generalizability of our findings. Adapted from the source document.

ABSTRACTOnline surveys of public opinion are less expensive and faster to administer than other surveys. However, nonprobability online samples diverge from the gold standard of probabilistic sampling. Although scholars have examined the quality of nonprobability samples in the United States and Europe, we know little about how these samples perform in developing contexts. We use nine online surveys fielded in six Latin American countries to examine the bias in these samples. We also ask whether two common tools that researchers use to mitigate sample bias—post-stratification and sample matching—improve these online samples. We find that online samples in the region exhibit high levels of bias, even in countries where Internet access is widespread. We also find that post-stratification does little to improve sample quality; sample matching outperforms the provider's standard approach, but the gains are substantively small. This is partly because unequal Internet access and lack of investment in panel recruitment means that providers are unlikely to have enough panelists in lower socioeconomic categories to draw representative online samples, regardless of the sampling method. Researchers who want to draw conclusions about the attitudes or behaviors of the public as a whole in contexts like Latin America still need probability samples.

Terrorist attacks routinely produce rallies for incumbent men in the executive office. With scarce cases, there has been little consideration of terrorism's consequences for evaluations of sitting women executives. Fusing research on rallies with scholarship on women in politics, we derive a gender-revised framework wherein the public will be less inclined to rally around women when terrorists attack. A critical case is UK Prime Minister Theresa May, a right-leaning incumbent with security experience. Employing a natural experiment, we demonstrate that the public fails to rally after the 2017 Manchester Arena attack. Instead, evaluations of May decrease, with sharp declines among those holding negatives views about women. We further show May's party loses votes in areas closer to the attack. We then find support for the argument in a multinational test. We conclude that conventional theory on rally events requires revision: women leaders cannot count on rallies following major terrorist attacks.

ABSTRACTData quality in survey research remains a paramount concern for those studying mass political behavior. Because surveys are conducted in increasingly diverse contexts around the world, ensuring that best practices are followed becomes ever more important to the field of political science. Bringing together insights from surveys conducted in more than 80 countries worldwide, this article highlights common challenges faced in survey research and outlines steps that researchers can take to improve the quality of survey data. Importantly, the article demonstrates that with the investment of the necessary time and resources, it is possible to carry out high-quality survey research even in challenging environments in which survey research is not well established.

Research on evaluations of leaders has frequently found that female leaders receive lower ratings in times of national security crisis. However, less is known about countervailing factors. We contend that partisanship and leadership experience in relevant domains are two factors that can counteract the negative effects of terrorist threat on evaluations of female political leaders. To test this expectation, we implemented a national study in 2012 containing terrorist threat and non-threat conditions, and then asked participants to evaluate political leaders. The results show that Republican leaders, including women, are unaffected by terrorist threat; in contrast, Democratic leaders are punished during times of terrorist threat, but this negative effect is smaller for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton compared to Nancy Pelosi, who lacks similar experience. In short, Republican partisanship is a strong countervailing factor, while leadership experience in national security more modestly countervails.

How does the threat of terrorism affect evaluations of female (vs. male) political leaders, and do these effects vary by the politician's partisanship? Using two national surveys, we document a propensity for the U.S. public to prefer male Republican leadership the most in times of security threat, and female Democratic leadership the least. We theorize a causal process by which terrorist threat influences the effect of stereotypes on candidate evaluations conditional on politician partisanship. We test this framework with an original experiment:a nationally representative sample was presented with a mock election that varied the threat context and the gender and partisanship of the candidates. We find that masculine stereotypes have a negative influence on both male and female Democratic candidates in good times (thus reaffirming the primacy of party stereotypes), but only on the female Democratic candidate when terror threat is primed. Republican candidates—both male and female—are unaffected by masculine stereotypes, regardless of the threat environment.

Can natural disasters undermine democratic legitimacy? This article maps a causal pathway from natural disaster damage to shifts in opinion and behavioral tendencies in less established democracies. It theorizes citizens who suffer damage in such contexts will tend toward lower evaluations of democratic institutions, lower support for democratic values and practices, and stronger dispositions toward action. These expectations are tested with national survey data collected following Chile's 2010 earthquake and tsunami by analyzing intracountry differences in damage with matching techniques and regression analyses. Results are consistent with expectations, with important implications for Chile and other less established democracies. Adapted from the source document.