Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trust in one's fellow citizens and in politicians are both conducive to well-functioning government. Beyond their separate importance, it is a long-standing notion that generalized social trust and political trust are connected in a mutually reinforcing relationship that further undergirds democratic governance. While it is well established that social trust and political trust are robustly positively associated at the individual level, there is much less compelling evidence regarding the causal nature of this relationship. Previous analyses have been unable to adequately rule out confounding and correct for reverse causality. This paper tackles these challenges through data and a research design close to ideally suited for addressing the causal status of the relationship. Using a 20-wave individual-level panel survey from Sweden analyzed using a dynamic panel model, we find evidence for a relatively strong positive causal effect of political trust on social trust, but little evidence for the reverse relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We study how Swedish citizens updated their institutional and interpersonal trust as the corona crisis evolved from an initial phase to an acute phase in the spring of 2020. The study is based on a large web‐survey panel with adult Swedes (n = 11,406) in which the same individuals were asked the same set of questions at two different time points during the coronavirus pandemic (t0 and t1). The sample was self‐selected but diverse (a smaller subsample, n = 1,464, was pre‐stratified to be representative of the Swedish population on key demographics). We find support for the view that the corona crisis led to higher levels of institutional and interpersonal trust. Moreover, reactions were largely homogeneous across those groups that could potentially relate distantly to government authorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the changing polling environment and the difficulties in correctly measuring public opinion, it is crucial to study the effects of polling practices. Elections provide an opportunity to examine how well polls measure support for political parties and how polling practices influence the accuracy of polls. Based on 110 pre-election polls conducted in Sweden, a multiparty system, we find that probability-based samples yield more accurate polls compared to opt-in Internet samples. Thus, our results point to a tradeoff between inexpensive online polls and accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Years of research show that left-leaning individuals are more supportive of environmental policies than right-leaning individuals. The explanation for the lower level of support among right-leaning individuals is their stronger preference for economic growth and lower acceptance of intervention in markets. However, recent cross-national studies have questioned whether the effect of ideology on environmental support is universal. A Swedish survey experiment shows that the effect of ideology varies greatly depending on how individuals think about the environment. Specifically, it demonstrates that if environmental support is contrasted with economic growth, then the effect of ideology is stronger as opposed to when environmental support is not juxtaposed with economic growth. Furthermore, among people who strongly perceive the environment as a left–right issue, there is a larger divide between left and right. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]