Subjective Freedom of Speech: Why Do Citizens Think They Cannot Speak Freely?

IF 1.3 4区社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Politische Vierteljahresschrift Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1007/s11615-022-00414-6

Jan Menzner, Richard Traunmüller

{"title":"Subjective Freedom of Speech: Why Do Citizens Think They Cannot Speak Freely?","authors":"Jan Menzner, Richard Traunmüller","doi":"10.1007/s11615-022-00414-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We provide the first systematic research into the origins of subjective freedom of speech in Germany. Relying on the GLES 2021 Cross-Section Pre-Election Survey, which includes a newly designed survey item on subjective freedom of speech, we evaluate a whole range of plausible candidate hypotheses. First, we contribute to cumulative research by testing the explanatory factors in Gibson (1993)-citizens' social class, their political involvement and political preferences, and their personality dispositions-for the German case. Second, we move beyond the state of the art and test three new hypotheses that reflect more recent political developments and arguments in the free speech debate: the role of social media, increasing political and social polarization, and the rise of populism. Importantly, all hypothesis tests reported in this paper have been preregistered prior to data collection. Our results reveal that three explanatory factors are significantly, consistently, and substantively related to subjective free speech in Germany: political preferences, populist attitudes, and identification with the Alternative for Germany party.Supplementary information: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11615-022-00414-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.","PeriodicalId":45529,"journal":{"name":"Politische Vierteljahresschrift","volume":"64 1","pages":"155-181"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9368691/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politische Vierteljahresschrift","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-022-00414-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Abstract

We provide the first systematic research into the origins of subjective freedom of speech in Germany. Relying on the GLES 2021 Cross-Section Pre-Election Survey, which includes a newly designed survey item on subjective freedom of speech, we evaluate a whole range of plausible candidate hypotheses. First, we contribute to cumulative research by testing the explanatory factors in Gibson (1993)-citizens' social class, their political involvement and political preferences, and their personality dispositions-for the German case. Second, we move beyond the state of the art and test three new hypotheses that reflect more recent political developments and arguments in the free speech debate: the role of social media, increasing political and social polarization, and the rise of populism. Importantly, all hypothesis tests reported in this paper have been preregistered prior to data collection. Our results reveal that three explanatory factors are significantly, consistently, and substantively related to subjective free speech in Germany: political preferences, populist attitudes, and identification with the Alternative for Germany party.

Supplementary information: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11615-022-00414-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

主观言论自由:为什么公民认为自己不能自由发言?

我们首次系统地研究了德国主观言论自由的起源。根据GLES 2021横截面选前调查，其中包括一个新设计的关于主观言论自由的调查项目，我们评估了一系列合理的候选人假设。首先，我们通过测试Gibson(1993)对德国案例的解释因素——公民的社会阶层、他们的政治参与和政治偏好，以及他们的人格倾向，为累积研究做出贡献。其次，我们超越了目前的技术水平，并测试了三个新的假设，这些假设反映了最近的政治发展和言论自由辩论中的论点:社交媒体的作用，日益加剧的政治和社会两极分化，以及民粹主义的兴起。重要的是，本文报告的所有假设检验在数据收集之前都进行了预登记。我们的研究结果显示，三个解释因素与德国的主观言论自由有显著、一致和实质性的关系:政治偏好、民粹主义态度和对德国新选择党(Alternative for Germany)的认同。补充信息:本文的在线版本(10.1007/s11615-022-00414-6)包含补充信息，授权用户可使用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Politische Vierteljahresschrift POLITICAL SCIENCE-

CiteScore

2.50

自引率

15.40%

发文量

期刊介绍： - Für die deutsche Version bitte nach unten scrollen - Politische Vierteljahresschrift (PVS) (“German Political Science Quarterly”, GPSQ) publishes the latest double-blind peer-reviewed research results from all sub-disciplines of political science. It thus includes original contributions from political theory and the history of ideas, from the analysis and comparison of political systems, from policy analysis, from the field of international relations and foreign policy, from empirical social research and methodology, from political sociology as well as political science pedagogy. The contributions published in PVS come from German or German-speaking political scientists as well as from international political scientists who refer to the German or German-speaking political science. Special Issues Special Issues provide opportunities to contribute to important thematic and/or theoretical developments in political science or its subfields. Regular Calls for Proposals are initiated by the Editors, but potential Guest Editors may also send offers for special issues at any time. Special issues include at least six contributions to be recruited by the Guest Editors, supplemented by an introduction. Most of these contributions are critical papers, but the integration of a literature review and/or one or two research notes is also possible. All contributions need to successfully pass the double-blind peer-review process before publication. The PVS is listed in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). ______ Die Politische Vierteljahresschrift (PVS) – German Political Science Quarterly bietet Raum für neueste Forschungsergebnisse aus allen Teildisziplinen der Politikwissenschaft. Sie beinhaltet doppelblind begutachtete Beiträge aus der Politischen Theorie und Ideengeschichte, aus dem Bereich Analyse und Vergleich politischer Systeme, aus der Policy-Analyse, aus dem Bereich der Internationalen Beziehungen und der Außenpolitik, aus der empirischen Sozialforschung und Methodenlehre, der Politischen Soziologie sowie der Didaktik der Politikwissenschaft. Die in der PVS veröffentlichten Beiträge stammen von deutschen bzw. deutschsprachigen Politikwissenschaftler*innen sowie von internationalen Politikwissenschaftler*innen, die sich mit der deutschen bzw. deutschsprachigen Politikwissenschaft auseinandersetzen. Special Issues Das Special Issue soll die Möglichkeit bieten, auf thematische und theoretische Entwicklungen im Fach insgesamt oder in einzelnen Teildisziplinen zu reagieren, denen eine fachallgemeine Bedeutung zugeschrieben werden kann. Die Redaktion akquiriert mögliche Schwerpunkte eigenständig über entsprechende Call for Proposals, ist aber für entsprechende Initiativen und Vorschläge offen. In Special Issues werden mindestens sechs von Gastherausgeber*innen einzuwerbende Beiträge zusammengefasst und durch eine inhaltliche Einleitung durch die Gastherausgeber*innen ergänzt. Die Beiträge sollen schwerpunktmäßig Abhandlungen sein; es sind aber auch die Integration einer Literaturübersicht und/oder einer bis zwei Research Notes möglich. Veröffentlicht werden ausschließlich Beiträge, die erfolgreich das anonymisierte Gutachter*innenverfahren durchlaufen haben und für eine Veröffentlichung empfohlen wurden. Die PVS wird im Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) erfasst.