Search

This research project investigates a previously overlooked question relating to social and political attitudes: What is the relationship between people’s beliefs about the reasons for inequality in society and people’s beliefs about how responsive the political system is to their needs (external political efficacy)? Using a question order experiment, this project aims to shed light on whether the two sets of attitudes are related and, if so, whether one affects the other to a greater degree than vice versa. This study is motivated by Osborne et al.‘s (2015) work on the drivers of political mobilization amongst Māori people in New Zealand. Osborne and colleagues found a positive relationship between appraisals of the political system (external political efficacy) and particular explanations for inequality (system-justifying beliefs). The authors speculated that the relationship was causal. In their view, the act of participating and being listened to ought to affect people’s beliefs about the way political decisions are taken, with implications for appraisals of society more broadly. In other words, the authors’ hypothesis was that external political efficacy (the belief that the government will respond to one's demands) drove explanations for inequality (perceptions of whether it is hard work and ambition, or things outside one’s control such as family background that cause inequality (Lind et al., 1990; Platow et al., 2006)). We, too, expect that there is a causal relationship, but argue that it might go in the opposite direction. Our reasoning draws on the idea of core, lower-order beliefs that are relatively static and slow to change, and which underpin higher-order beliefs about specific objects (Bem, 1970; Feldman 1988; Peffley and Hurwitz 1985). We posit that beliefs about the reasons for inequality are lower-order beliefs. In other words, we speculate that people’s perceptions of how society works, and what it is that makes some people get ahead in life – and others not – belong in this category of core beliefs that are acquired in childhood or adolescence, and that tend to accompany individuals over their lifetimes. Beliefs about the performance of the political system are different. Given that those beliefs vary with the performance of the political system we see them as higher-order beliefs. Assuming that beliefs about the reasons for inequality are lower-order beliefs, and that appraisals of the political system are higher-order beliefs, and further assuming that lower-order beliefs shape higher-order beliefs (Bem 1970), we hypothesize that explanations for inequality might drive appraisals of the political system. The proposed causal mechanism is illustrated in figure 1.

The purpose of this study is to assess public opinion, (false) beliefs, and behavioral intentions surrounding the coronavirus, COVID 19. Along with a more the exploratory approach described above, we also have included a few experiments in our survey to test the following questions: 1) Are there differences in public opinion, (false) beliefs, and behavioral intentions between the political left and right in the U.S.? 2) Do partisan (i.e. pro vs. anti-trump) primes increase these differences in public opinion, (false beliefs), and behavioral intentions? 3) Does asking questions about fears surrounding coronavirus prime increased likelihood to to comply with measures (i.e. behavioral intensions)? 4) Are people more willing to test a new vaccine for coronavirus (if it were to be invented) if it was developed by scientists vs. pharmaceutical companies? 5) Do response mode categories affect participants' estimates of infection rates? We hope to run this study at least one more time in the weeks to come in order to assess how changes in the political landscape and the impact of the pandemic change public opinion, (false) beliefs, and behavioral intentions.

Can informing people of public or expert (i.e. scientists) norms reduce support of misperceptions/false beliefs? Drawing on the literature of descriptive social norms and authority/expertise effects (Cialdini, 2007) we aim to reduce support for misperceptions in the domains of GMOs and vaccinations. Additionally, we measure which moderators can help boost or attenuate the effectiveness of these corrections. These moderators comprise of ideological, psychological and demographic measures.

The effect of group identities on political behaviour are well-researched. We know that even in minimal group settings; in-groups dislike and discriminate against out-group members (Tajfel 1971). The threshold to supporting violence (or even engaging in it) is low. A large body of research in the motivated reasoning tradition has shown that group dynamics also affect cognition: Individuals are motivated to defend their groups; and this motivation often leads to ‘fact polarization’ (Kahan 2016): Group divisions over matters of fact. Less is known about how to mitigate affective polarization and fact polarization. Building on findings from Ahler and Sood (2016) this project tests the effect of prompting individuals to think of the out-group as a more diverse group of individuals in which only a minority conform to stereotypes while most look and think like one’s own group. We hypothesize that this will reduce affective polarization and fact polarization. We test this hypothesis in the context of a conflict shaped by entrenched stereotypes, deep distrust, and regular outbreaks of hostility: the Catalonia conflict. We ask all respondents to estimate the share of out-group members who conform to certain stereotypes (either DEMOGRAPHIC stereotypes or stereotypes about EXTREME OPINIONS). We test the effect of three treatments: Respondents in the ASK treatment are asked to estimate the share of out-group members who conform to certain stereotypes (either DEMOGRAPHIC stereotypes or stereotypes about EXTREME OPINIONS). Respondents in the THINK treatment are asked the same questions but first see a prompt warning them not to go with the first answer that pops into their head but to think carefully. Respondents in the TELL treatment are also asked about their perceptions of the share of out-group members conforming to stereotypes but then see the actual statistics. Respondents in the CONTROL group skip the stereotypes at the beginning of the survey but see them later on, at the very end and after a set of buffer questions designed to distract them. We test the effect on two sets of outcome variables: i. support for hostility and ii. i. belief in false claims that affirm pro or anti-independence views. We expect our treatments to affect not only respondents’ own views but the perceived share of out-group members who hold those views, e.g. the share of out-group members who support violent behaviour toward one’s in-group. (We call these ‘second-order beliefs’). We investigate these hypotheses in a survey experiment fielded by YouGov to a representative sample of n=5000 Spanish respondents in late May/ early June 2020. Because we expect most of our respondents to oppose Catalonia’s independence, we focus on their views (and we only assigned any separatists to the CONTROL or the ASK group, in order to ensure statistical power for this comparison). If our hypotheses are correct, that is, if introducing nuances into a rigid idea of an out-group (in this case by learning about the individuals on the other side of a political conflict) mitigates hostility and/or fact polarization then those results would highlight two things: a) the danger of disassociating with those who have other opinions and b) the importance for teachers, journalists, and public broadcasters to report in a nuanced way and not only on group, but on individual characteristics. References Ahler, D. J., & Sood, G. (2018). The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. Journal of Politics, 80(3), 964–981. Kahan, D. M. (2016). The Politically Motivated Reasoning Paradigm. Emerging Trends in Social & Behavioral Sciences, 1–16. Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178.

This is a preregistration of the survey materials that we will field as part of the DEBUNKER project funded by the ERC grant on "The Problem of European Misperceptions in Politics, Health, and Science:Causes, Consequences, and the Search for Solutions" This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement No 682758).}

In late 2020, biopharmaceutical companies announced that they had successfully developed effective vaccinations against Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2). The vaccines may be the solution to the pandemic. However, in order for them to be affective at stopping the spread of Covid-19 the majority of the world's population must be vaccinated. Unfortunately, it seems that some people are hesitant to receive the vaccine. Our study aims to asses people's views about potential Covid-19 vaccines, specifically about which characteristics of the vaccine lead to higher acceptance levels than others. Using a conjoint design (also known as a discrete choice experiment), we ask participants to choose between two potential vaccines with randomized profiles. Using this data, we can test which characteristics within each profile lead to higher acceptance of the vaccine.

We test whether participant's estimates of population perceptions (especially regarding false beliefs) are dependent on the response modes provided to them.