Search

How do citizens react to repeated losses in politics? This paper argues that experiencing accumulated losses creates strong incentives to externalize responsibility for these losses to the decision-making procedure, which can, in turn, erode legitimacy perceptions among the public. Using a survey experiment (N = 2,146) simulating accumulated losses in a series of direct votes among Irish citizens, we find that decision acceptance and the perceived legitimacy of the decision-making procedure diminish with every loss. Three accumulated losses depress the perceived legitimacy of the political system. These effects are mediated by procedural fairness perceptions, suggesting that even when democratic procedures are used, accumulated losses can induce a belief that the process and system are rigged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What drives public support for peace provisions? Based on intergroup attribution theory, we argue that public support for peace provisions depends on “who bears the burden of peace,” with people wanting to protect their ingroup while holding the outgroup accountable. To examine this claim, we conducted a series of question‐wording experiments with more than 1650 Azerbaijani participants shortly after a deadly resurgence of the Nagorno‐Karabakh war. Our initial findings confirm that support for war crime punishments and monetary reparations decreases when the ingroup stands trial or must pay. Conversely, support increases when these same burdens fall on the outgroup. A follow‐up study shows that these patterns persist for at least 6 months but also reveals a more nuanced perspective. Public support for peace provisions does not automatically decrease when the ingroup bears the cost or increase when the outgroup bears it; rather, it depends on the group‐based implications of the provision under consideration. Taken together, our results underscore the importance of crafting and communicating peace provisions in a tailored manner and the potential of emphasizing burden sharing as an effective strategy for addressing intergroup hostilities and fostering sustainable peace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Deliberative mini-publics are increasingly used to try to tackle public discontent with the functioning of democracy. However, the ability of mini-publics to increase perceptions of legitimate decision-making among citizens at large remains unclear, given especially that existing studies have not considered the potentially damaging effects of mini-public recommendations not being followed. We designed, pre-registered, and ran a survey experiment in Ireland to test the effects of mini-publics on legitimacy perceptions conditional on whether or not their non-binding policy recommendations are honored (N = 1309). We find that mini-publics increase legitimacy perceptions among the broader citizenry; however, these beneficial effects are largely limited to situations in which their recommendations are honored. Additional results suggest that it makes no difference whether mini-public recommendations are overturned by elected representatives or by citizens in a referendum. Finally, we find that the legitimacy-enhancing effects of participatory processes are driven by citizens with low political trust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As political polarization increases across many of the world's established democracies, many citizens are unwilling to appreciate and consider the viewpoints of those who disagree with them. Previous research shows that this lack of reflection can undermine democratic accountability. The purpose of this paper is to study whether empathy for the other can motivate people to reason reflectively about politics. Extant studies have largely studied trait‐level differences in the ability and inclination of individuals to engage in reflection. Most of these studies focus on observational moderators, which makes it difficult to make strong claims about the effects of being in a reflective state on political decision making. We extend this research by using a survey experiment with a large and heterogeneous sample of UK citizens (N = 2014) to investigate whether a simple empathy intervention can induce people to consider opposing viewpoints and incorporate those views in their opinion about a pressing political issue. We find that actively imagining the feelings and thoughts of someone one disagrees with prompts more reflection in the way that people reason about political issues as well as elicits empathic feelings of concern towards those with opposing viewpoints. We further examine whether empathy facilitates openness to attitude change in the counter‐attitudinal direction and find that exposure to an opposing perspective (without its empathy component) per se is enough to prompt attitude change. Our study paints a more nuanced picture of the relationship between empathy, reflection and policy attitudes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A healthy democracy needs citizens to make reflective political judgements. Sceptics argue that reflective opinions are either nonexistent or rare. Proponents of deliberative democracy suggest that democratic deliberation is capable of prompting reflective political reasoning among people. Yet, little is known about the mechanisms underlying this relationship. This article offers a bridge between psychology and political theory and proposes a theory of perspective-taking in deliberation. It argues that under the right conditions, deliberation induces more reflective judgements by eliciting the process of perspective-taking – actively imagining others ' experiences, perspectives and feelings – in citizen deliberators. Two institutional features of deliberative forums are emphasized: the presence of a diversity of viewpoints and the interplay of fact-based rational argumentation and storytelling. I test the plausibility of this theory using a case study – the Irish Citizens' Assembly – thereby, relying on qualitative in-depth interview data and quantitative survey data. I further substantiate my findings with a laboratory experiment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Does the level of public support for democracy promotion policies vary with the characteristics of potential autocratic targets? We conduct an experimental study with a conjoint design on a sample of 1,464 US citizens that manipulates several core characteristics of potential autocratic targets. We then compare citizens' preferences with the cross-national evidence testing the determinants of democracy promotion success. We find that respondents support the use of coercive measures (military action and sanctions) precisely in contexts where, according to comparative research, these instruments are unlikely to foster democratization: oil-rich, exclusionary, personalistic regimes with no elections, and with no ties to the United States. Conversely, the characteristics driving public support for the use of democracy aid are more consistent with those favoring effectiveness: autocratic regimes with multi-party elections and with links to the United States. These findings have important policy implications by contributing to understand the micro-foundations of target selection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigates how citizens perceive energy security challenges, by analysing an original survey data fielded in a quota sample of Spanish citizens (n=339). Findings demonstrate that energy security in general and the affordability of household electricity prices in particular is of extremely high concern for the citizens. Older citizens in our sample are more worried about the equitable access to energy services than the younger population. Citizens with more education are more aware of energy security risks. Creating closer ties between the public and policy makers, by raising awareness on energy matters and fostering a public debate around the issue of energy security could decrease the mismatch between the energy needs of energy-users and the energy policies, and eventually alleviate energy troubles of the most disadvantaged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The "oil curse thesis" links a country's oil largesse inter alia to the durability of its authoritarian regime. And it contends that abundant oil revenues enable autocrats to stymie democratic transition by obviating taxation from citizens, buying off their political acquiescence, bolstering the repressive apparatus and thwarting the formation of civil society. This paper revisits the relevant literature by qualitatively testing its predictions on an in-depth case study of the Algerian regime in the face of the political crisis and riots of 2011. Going beyond the deterministic argument on "oil wealth-authoritarianism", it carefully examines the strategic interaction between country-specific factors and oil wealth and studies how the confluence of these factors has shaped the survival of the authoritarian regime in Algeria since 2011. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]