Suchergebnisse

Previous studies have mainly tried to reduce overreporting to get as valid measures as possible. We take another approach and use items that increase, as well as items that decrease, reported participation to gauge the differences resulting from using different item constructions commonly applied in the major surveys. In this experiment, we test an experimental set-up that draws on and develops the designs used by Belli et al. (1999, 2006). We combine three forms of question introductions with two sets of response alternatives resulting in a full factorial design with six treatments in total. We test three different question introductions aiming at: (a) normalizing inactivity, (b) expressing social desirability, and, as a control, (c) give a neutral introduction to the question (neutral in the sense that it neither expresses that political participation is desirable nor aims to normalize inactivity). By comparing these three question introductions, we can test the effects of both trying to increase and decrease social desirability bias on political participation. We also test two different sets of response options: (a) only dichotomous response options (yes/no) and (b) dichotomous response options (yes/no) in combination with face-saving response options ("have done this before," "have not done this but would consider doing it in the future"). Adapted from the source document.

According to the 'law of dispersion', the level of inequality in political participation is higher when voter turnout is low. We empirically test this hypothesis by evaluating levels of voter turnout in the 2010 Swedish election to the Västra Götaland county council and in the 2011 re-election for the same county council. The re-election voter turnout was reduced by almost half, from 80.6 per cent to 44.1 per cent. Our results support the law of dispersion: the level of inequality in participation substantially increased between young and old, rich and poor, low and high educated and politically interested and uninterested.

Concepts such as risk aversion and anxiety have received renewed attention in various strands of gender and politics research. Most contemporary scholars suggest that gender gaps in this area are related to social norms and stem from social learning rather than from inherent gender traits. Very few, however, elaborate on the gender variable to reach a fuller understanding of the dynamics at work. In this study, we examined gender gaps in levels of anxiety, an area closely related to risk aversion, and we applied a combination of categorical measures of gender distinguishing between "woman, "man," and "other" and scales capturing grades of femininity and masculinity in individuals. We label this approachfuzzy gender, and we suggest that it can be used to advance research in our field. The key finding is an interaction effect between categorical measures of gender and fuzzy gender: The more female characteristics in women, the higher the levels of anxiety. Moreover, there is no difference in levels of anxiety between men and women with few female characteristics. The data used draw from a large-scale survey among Swedish citizens in 2013.

Across surveys and regardless of controls, women in many Western countries are consistently more politically left-leaning than men. More recently, however, innovative measures of non-binary gender identity suggest important heterogeneity in political attitudes within the categories of 'women' and 'men'. Building from this, we study the direct and conditional associations between sex and non-binary gender on two political attitude dimensions: (1) left–right ideology; and (2) green/alternative/liberal versus traditionalist/authoritarian/nationalist opinions. Using a Swedish population-based survey from 2013, we find no evidence that political attitudes vary by non-binary gender identity alone, and only weak evidence that political attitudes vary by sex. However, supporting our conditional hypotheses, we find that gender (non)conformity matters significantly. Specifically, men with many masculine traits and women with many feminine traits stand more to the right and show more traditionalist/authoritarian/nationalist opinions than men and women who are less gender conforming.

The rationale for this study is that self-categorising rating scales are becoming increasingly popular in large-scale survey research moving beyond binary ways of measuring gender. We are referring here to the use of rating scales that are similar to graded scales capturing left–right or liberal–conservative political ideology, that is, scales that do not include predefinitions of the core concepts (femininity/masculinity, as compared to left/right or liberal/conservative). Yet, previous studies including such non-binary gender measures have paid little attention to potential effects of survey designs. Using an experimental set-up, we are able to show that sequencing of gender measurements influences the answers received. Men were especially affected by our treatments and rated themselves as significantly 'less masculine' when prompted to reason about the meaning of gender prior to self-categorisation on scales measuring degrees of femininity and masculinity. Moreover, self-categorising seems to trigger more biological understandings of gender than anticipated in theory.