We know that the costs of implementing various climate change mitigation policies are not uniformly distributed across individuals in society, but we do not know to what extent this unequal cost distribution influences public support for these various policies. This study shows that cost distribution is an important explanation for variations in public support for various climate policies. Using individual-level data on industry of employment and support for a range of climate policies, we find that those employed in the fossil fuel industry are less likely to support climate policies that are particularly costly to their industry, but are as likely as everybody else to support policies with lower costs to the industry. This finding challenges the traditional bifurcation between climate change "skeptics" and "acceptors." Furthermore, we find that opposition to renewable energy by large fossil fuel producers and consumers, identified in the political economy literature, is not uniformly found among these companies’ employees. The most important implication of this study for policy makers is that support for climate policies is sensitive to the compensation of exposed groups and stimulation of alternative avenues for employment.
This study combines insights from the framing and third-person perception literature by exploring whether the third-person perceptual gap are sensitive to frames people receive through the news. As we have limited knowledge regarding whether people perceive some news frames more influential than others, this study focus on the third-person effect regarding episodic and thematic news frames. Through an online representative survey experiment (N=1424), I investigate the effects of valance (negative/positive) and news framing (episodic/thematic) on citizens’ attitudes, as well as on which frames people perceive as most influential on themselves and others. The results show that people’s attitudes are indeed affected by news framing. Moreover, people tend to perceive thematic and episodic news as equally affective for their own attitudes, but episodic news frames as more influential on others. This third-person perceptual gap increases among those exposed to news articles with frames/valance (compared to the control group without stimulus material), but the differences between valance and news framing does not seem to matter.
Representation is at the core of the democratic process in contemporary democracies. Many scholars have consequently studied the link between citizens and their representatives, and well as between that between citizens’ preferences and policy outcomes. Scholars have aimed to identify the mechanisms under which representation works, i.e. when citizens are indeed reflected in the representative body, and their preferences in the policies that are implemented. However, we know less about what citizens want in terms of the organization of representation. In this paper, we aim to investigate the legitimacy of representation, and to identify the sources of the legitimacy of a public decision. In order to answer this question, we have designed a survey experiment for the Norwegian Citizen Panel in 2014 which allows us to isolate some of such likely sources. More specifically, we examine under which of three conditions citizens are more likely to accept decisions that are not taken by themselves directly, but which are relevant for all citizens. These three conditions are 1) the selection process of the representatives (randomly selected; popularly elected; appointed experts), 2) the composition of the representatives (mirroring the socio-economic characteristics of the population or not, i.e. descriptive representation or not), and 3) the outcome of the decision (according to the respondents preference or not). As such, we aim to contribute to our understanding of the legitimacy of the representative policy-making process. Moreover, we explore the popular evaluation of representation, which further adds to the more ‘objective’ evaluation of matching citizens to representatives, or citizens’ preferences to policy output.
This paper offers an analysis of how attitudes towards public sector organizations in Norway are shaped through a combination of a qualitative case study approach and quantitative survey analysis. We ask a) what is typical of media representations of public welfare organizations; b) how and to what extent such media representations contribute to influence citizens’ attitudes towards the Nordic welfare model; and c) to what extent this dynamic constitutes a challenge to the intangible assets of public sector organizations. The case study illustrates how journalism frames a severe case of state organizational neglect against an individual within the ‘individual against the system’ frame. Moreover, results from the survey reveal that media coverage and media representations is an important factor in fostering negative attitudes towards the welfare services, characterized by reverberating negative narratives and frames. We analyse and discuss these findings through the lens of journalism sociology and framing theory.
When people form their preferences on political issues, other people’s opinions matter to them. There is thus a potential self-reinforcing mechanism at play when individuals form their political preferences, where the aggregate level of support and opposition shaping public opinion. In this paper we present an experiment where we inform the treatment groups with a skewed distribution of opinions about a political issue, and then track the treatment effect over a sequence of polls with the aim of exploring the effect of the treatment over time. The research design of the presented experiment gauges to what extent knowledge of opinion polls as such have a lasting impact on people’s political preferences. Can polls themselves change the dynamics of public opinion formation among the citizens? To facilitate the implementation of the experimental design, we introduce a technical innovation which we label the Dynamic Response Feedback. This procedure automatically generates a pie chart with poll distributions from previous responses and uses it as information to respondents who are taking the survey in present time. By repeating this procedure several times a series of poll distributions are created within one survey wave. The survey experiment is conducted on 2500 respondents in The Norwegian Citizen Panel, which is a probability based web panel of Norwegian residents. The paper presents results from an experiment on the question of whether or not the respondents think that measles vaccination of children should be compulsory. We find that when respondents are presented with a poll that is slightly skewed in the sense that it displays a higher share of supporters for the issue than the true share (as found in the control group), the aggregate mean of the treated respondents also becomes higher. Moreover, the effect of the initial poll distribution has a diminishing effect over time which resembles a fading autoregressive (AR1) process becomes a factor of its own.
Hva er det som får folk til å delta i frivillig arbeid, hva motiveres frivillige av – og hvorfor slutter de? I denne rapporten presenteres omfattende analyser av betingelser for frivillig innsats, basert på datamateriale samlet inn i perioden 1998-2015.
Resultatene viser for det første at det ikke finnes én universell forklaringsmodell på hvorfor folk driver med frivillig arbeid, men at ulike forklaringer snarere må anses som komplementære. Interesse, indre motivasjon, kostnad-/nyttevurderinger og primærsosialisering er blant faktorene som bidrar til å forklare hvorfor noen blir frivillige og andre ikke.
For det andre understreker resultatene betydningen av å studere frivillig arbeid som en dynamisk prosess. Sosiale nettverk er særlig viktig i rekrutteringsfasen. Motivasjonen for å begynne med frivillig arbeid er ikke nødvendigvis den samme som motivasjonen for å fortsette. Og når man slutter kan det skyldes helt andre grunner enn endret motivasjon – ofte er det livssituasjonen som avgjør.
For det tredje støtter resultatene opp om tidligere forskning som har antydet mer strukturelle endringer i frivilligheten i Norge. Individuelle motivasjonsforklaringer har generelt blitt viktigere over tid, samtidig som båndet mellom frivillige og enkeltorganisasjoner har blitt svakere. Denne tendensen peker i retning av en individualisering av frivilligheten, der betydningen av kollektiv tilhørighet svekkes.
Citizens’ opinions are crucial for action on climate change, but are, owing to the complexity of the issue, diverse and potentially unformed1. We contribute to the understanding of public views on climate change and to knowledge needed by decision-makers by using a new approach to analyse answers to the open survey question ‘what comes to mind when you hear the words ‘climate change’?’. We apply automated text analysis, specifically structural topic modelling2, which induces distinct topics based on the relative frequencies of the words used in 2,115 responses. From these data, originating from the new, nationally representative Norwegian Citizen Panel, four distinct topics emerge: Weather/Ice, Future/Impact, Money/Consumption and Attribution. We find that Norwegians emphasize societal aspects of climate change more than do respondents in previous US and UK studies3, 4, 5, 6. Furthermore, variables that explain variation in closed questions, such as gender and education, yield different and surprising results when employed to explain variation in what respondents emphasize. Finally, the sharp distinction between scepticism and acceptance of conventional climate science, often seen in previous studies, blurs in many textual responses as scepticism frequently turns into ambivalence.
In political science, it is held that a democratic regime is more legitimate than other types of regimes because it allows its citizens to take part in the policy decision-making process. Others argue that the policy output matters the most, and that citizen influence play a lesser role than recognized. This paper presents a survey experiment on the micro foundations of these two sources of political legitimacy. In a 2x2 factorial design experiment, respondents of the Norwegian Citizen Panel took part in a real decision on how to spend NOK 5000,-. The outcome of the decision and the respondents’ ability to influence the outcome were manipulated, and the respondents were asked to rate how acceptable they found the decision. It turned out that, in general, the respondents with an influence on the decision found the decision no more acceptable than those who had no influence. The only exception was those with high political interest: They tended to find the decision more acceptable if they had had the opportunity to influence the outcome than if they had not. What most respondents reacted to, however, was whether or not the outcome turned out as they had wanted it to. Those who saw the decision going against their preferences found the decision much less acceptable than the respondents whose decision was in accordance with their stated wishes. Though the robustness of these early findings must be tested, the results indicate that at the micro level, decision making influence is a less important source of political legitimacy than it is claimed to be at the macro level.
It is commonly held that democracies are more legitimate than other types of regimes because they allow the citizens to take part in the policy decision-making process. Others argue that the policy output matters the most, and that citizen influence play a lesser role than recognized. This paper presents a survey experiment on the micro foundations of these two sources of political legitimacy, thus contributing to an emerging literature that experimentally investigates the effects of democratic procedures. In a 2x2 factorial design experiment, respondents of the Norwegian Citizen Panel took part in a real decision on how to spend NOK 5000,-. The outcome of the decision and the respondents’ ability to influence the outcome were manipulated, and the respondents were asked to rate how acceptable they found the decision. What most respondents reacted to was whether or not the outcome turned out as they had wanted it to. Those who saw the decision going against their preferences found the decision much less acceptable than the respondents whose decision was in accordance with their stated wishes. Decision making influence, on the other hand, did in general not serve as a legitimizing factor among the respondents. An exception was those with high political interest, as they tended to find the decision more acceptable if they had had the opportunity to influence the outcome than if they had not. This treatment effect heterogeneity is elaborated on and discussed in the paper.
Even though metaphors in political rhetoric have been studied since Aristotle, the metaphor’s persuasive ability is still not fully understood. Decades of experimental studies have, however, contributed to increased knowledge, indicating that metaphors are slightly more effective than literal language. In this paper, I do not only investigate the effects of a political conceptual metaphor versus literal language, but also how political party preference may be associated to the increase or decrease in such effects. Through data culled from the Norwegian Citizen Panel (N = 821), I employ a survey experiment to examine whether a conceptual metaphor – prominent in conservative politician’s rhetoric – yields a stronger effect than a literal equivalent, regarding citizens’ attitudes, and whether citizens’ political party preference increases or decreases such an effect. The results contradict previous results, displaying that there is no significant difference between the use of metaphor and the literal language. In fact, the literal yields the strongest effect. Whether political party preference is effective remains unknown, as the results are inconclusive.
Denne rapporten gir en oversikt over den til nå mest omfattende kartleggingen av norske medborgeres holdninger til prioritering i helsesektoren. Det er også så langt vi vet den første studien i Norge som gjør bruk av spørreundersøkelseseksperimenter til å teste forskjeller i oppslutning om ulike prioriteringskriterier. Et overordnet resultat er at helse er viktig for norske medborgere og at dette er et felt hvor vi finner tydelige holdninger som ikke så lett påvirkes av små endringer i spørsmålsstilling. En årsak til dette kan være at svært mange medborgere har egen erfaring med helsevesenet. Hele 80% av respondentene rapporterer at de har vært i kontakt med lege eller sykehus det siste året. Dette til tross for at de aller fleste respondentene mener de har god helse. De fleste er villige til å bruke mye ressurser på helse og mange oppfatter at en ikke kan gjøre alle nyttige behandlinger med de tilgjengelige ressursene. Interessant nok, synes et flertall at det er greit at det tas kostnadshensyn ved valg av behandling i helsevesenet, i alle fall så fremt dette medfører at andre pasienter får behandling som ellers ikke ville fått det. I tråd med dette finner vi også at så lenge pasientene blir tilbudt en «nesten like god» behandling og frigjorte ressurser kommer andre pasienter til gode, er det et klart flertall som aksepterer avslag på foretrukket behandling. Undersøkelsen viser faktisk omtrent like stor aksept for avslag av slike årsaker som for rent medisinskfaglig begrunnede avslag. Et annet sentralt og viktig funn er at prosessen som følges og blir kommunisert har betydning for om avslag på foretrukket behandling aksepteres. Vi finner at flere respondenter aksepterer et avslag dersom det er forankret i nasjonale eksperterters enighet og etter involvering av pasientorganisasjoner enn dersom avslaget beror på legens vurdering alene. Et interessant funn i undersøkelsen er at en betydelig andel av respondentene selv har erfart ressursknapphet i helsevesenet. De fleste av disse har opplevd å få utsatt behandling (ca. 30 %), men en betydelig andel har også opplevd å ikke få den behandling som ville vært best for dem (ca. 12%). Det viser seg at de respondentene som har slik egen erfaring med ressursknapphet er mer kritisk til prioritering i helsesektoren enn de som ikke har slik erfaring. Undersøkelsen viser at det er god oppslutning om behovet for å prioritere mellom pasienter etter kjernekriteriene alvorlighet og nytte. Det er likevel markant større oppslutning om at pasienter med alvorlig sykdom blir prioritert enn det er for at pasienter med størst nytte av behandling blir prioritert. Undersøkelsen viser videre at det har signifikant betydning for medborgernes oppslutning om forebygging at flere liv kan reddes ved forebygging enn ved behandling. Oppslutningen om egenbetaling selv for behandling som har liten helseforbedring er, derimot, relativt lav.
This study examines whether a politically sponsored framing of health care issues – prominent in the news – affects how citizens evaluate the efficiency of the health care system, and whether or not these effects vary among subsets of voters, and whether or not the level of exposure to political news increases or decreases such effects.