On the Immoral Campaign Trail: Conceptualization, Underlying Affective Processes, and Democratic Outcomes of Perceived Dirty Campaigning

IF 2.3 2区 文学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Franz Reiter, Jörg Matthes
{"title":"On the Immoral Campaign Trail: Conceptualization, Underlying Affective Processes, and Democratic Outcomes of Perceived Dirty Campaigning","authors":"Franz Reiter, Jörg Matthes","doi":"10.1177/00027642241240335","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dirty campaigning, which is understood as actions between elite politicians that violate social norms and democratic principles, is becoming an increasingly relevant phenomenon across the globe. Despite this development, we know little about which forms constitute dirty campaigning, how citizens perceive dirty campaigning, and how perceived dirty campaigning is associated with affective responses and political trust. We argue that the techniques and actions that constitute dirty campaigning go beyond uncivil campaigning and deceitful campaign techniques, as dirty campaigning also involves disinformation campaigning. Using data from a two-wave panel study ( N = 524) during the 2020 Viennese state election campaign, we examined the perceived structure of the dirty campaigning construct using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. We show that perceived dirty campaigning forms a hierarchical construct with three latent variables. Furthermore, we tested the associations of perceived dirty campaigning with negative emotions toward campaigns as well as outcomes related to political trust. Using structural equation modeling with longitudinal measurement invariance and controlling for autoregressive associations, we found that perceived dirty campaigning increases anger, frustration, and disgust toward campaigns, as well as increases distrust in politicians over time. We also observed that frustration toward campaigns decreases trust in democracy and that disgust toward campaigns increases distrust in politicians over time. We contribute to previous research by developing a framework for investigating perceived dirty campaigning as a hierarchical construct and demonstrating how perceived dirty campaigning can impair democratic outcomes.","PeriodicalId":48360,"journal":{"name":"American Behavioral Scientist","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Behavioral Scientist","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241240335","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Dirty campaigning, which is understood as actions between elite politicians that violate social norms and democratic principles, is becoming an increasingly relevant phenomenon across the globe. Despite this development, we know little about which forms constitute dirty campaigning, how citizens perceive dirty campaigning, and how perceived dirty campaigning is associated with affective responses and political trust. We argue that the techniques and actions that constitute dirty campaigning go beyond uncivil campaigning and deceitful campaign techniques, as dirty campaigning also involves disinformation campaigning. Using data from a two-wave panel study ( N = 524) during the 2020 Viennese state election campaign, we examined the perceived structure of the dirty campaigning construct using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. We show that perceived dirty campaigning forms a hierarchical construct with three latent variables. Furthermore, we tested the associations of perceived dirty campaigning with negative emotions toward campaigns as well as outcomes related to political trust. Using structural equation modeling with longitudinal measurement invariance and controlling for autoregressive associations, we found that perceived dirty campaigning increases anger, frustration, and disgust toward campaigns, as well as increases distrust in politicians over time. We also observed that frustration toward campaigns decreases trust in democracy and that disgust toward campaigns increases distrust in politicians over time. We contribute to previous research by developing a framework for investigating perceived dirty campaigning as a hierarchical construct and demonstrating how perceived dirty campaigning can impair democratic outcomes.
不道德的竞选之路:感知到的不道德竞选活动的概念化、基本情感过程和民主结果
肮脏竞选被理解为精英政客之间违反社会规范和民主原则的行为,在全球范围内正日益成为一种相关现象。尽管如此,我们对哪些形式构成了肮脏竞选、公民如何看待肮脏竞选以及所认为的肮脏竞选如何与情感反应和政治信任相关联却知之甚少。我们认为,构成肮脏竞选的技术和行为不仅仅是不文明的竞选和欺骗性的竞选技术,因为肮脏竞选还涉及虚假宣传。利用 2020 年维也纳州竞选期间的两波面板研究数据(N = 524),我们使用探索性和确认性因素分析法对肮脏竞选的感知结构进行了研究。我们发现,感知到的肮脏竞选活动形成了一个包含三个潜变量的层次结构。此外,我们还检验了感知到的肮脏竞选活动与对竞选活动的负面情绪以及与政治信任相关的结果之间的关联。通过使用具有纵向测量不变量的结构方程模型并控制自回归关联,我们发现,随着时间的推移,感知到的肮脏竞选活动会增加对竞选活动的愤怒、沮丧和厌恶,并增加对政治家的不信任。我们还观察到,随着时间的推移,对竞选活动的挫败感会降低对民主的信任,而对竞选活动的反感会增加对政治家的不信任。我们建立了一个框架,将感知到的肮脏竞选活动作为一个等级结构进行调查,并证明了感知到的肮脏竞选活动如何损害民主结果,从而为以往的研究做出了贡献。
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
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
3.10%
发文量
190
期刊介绍: American Behavioral Scientist has been a valuable source of information for scholars, researchers, professionals, and students, providing in-depth perspectives on intriguing contemporary topics throughout the social and behavioral sciences. Each issue offers comprehensive analysis of a single topic, examining such important and diverse arenas as sociology, international and U.S. politics, behavioral sciences, communication and media, economics, education, ethnic and racial studies, terrorism, and public service. The journal"s interdisciplinary approach stimulates creativity and occasionally, controversy within the emerging frontiers of the social sciences, exploring the critical issues that affect our world and challenge our thinking.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信