Let's talk populist? A survey experiment on effects of (non‐) populist discourse on vote choice

IF 3.6 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Rebecca C. Kittel
{"title":"Let's talk populist? A survey experiment on effects of (non‐) populist discourse on vote choice","authors":"Rebecca C. Kittel","doi":"10.1111/1475-6765.12710","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Populism research has found much scholarly and public attention alike in recent years. Most research has focused on how populism can be defined, assessed or even measured. Even though there are emerging studies on populist messages, few of them have paid attention on causally identifying ways in which discourse can affect support for populist actors. This article positions itself within this gap and aims to answer which discursive elements make (non‐)populist messages appealing to varying groups of people. To answer this research question, I conducted a novel survey experiment on vote choice in Germany from December 2020 to January 2021 with N = 3325. Respondents were asked to choose between two candidate statements that displayed varying discursive elements. Thus, the experiment causally tested whether people‐centric rhetoric, blame attributive languages or populist style focusing on language complexity drive the populist vote. Results show that a neutral form of blame attribution, namely towards politicians, had the highest probability of driving vote choice, irrespective of respondents' underlying ideological preferences or populist attitudes. Simple language nearly always has a negative effect on vote choice, whereas people‐centrism adds a positive touch. These results show that there may be an increasing dissatisfaction with democracy that is voiced by blaming political elites for the malfunctioning of society.","PeriodicalId":48273,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Political Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12710","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Populism research has found much scholarly and public attention alike in recent years. Most research has focused on how populism can be defined, assessed or even measured. Even though there are emerging studies on populist messages, few of them have paid attention on causally identifying ways in which discourse can affect support for populist actors. This article positions itself within this gap and aims to answer which discursive elements make (non‐)populist messages appealing to varying groups of people. To answer this research question, I conducted a novel survey experiment on vote choice in Germany from December 2020 to January 2021 with N = 3325. Respondents were asked to choose between two candidate statements that displayed varying discursive elements. Thus, the experiment causally tested whether people‐centric rhetoric, blame attributive languages or populist style focusing on language complexity drive the populist vote. Results show that a neutral form of blame attribution, namely towards politicians, had the highest probability of driving vote choice, irrespective of respondents' underlying ideological preferences or populist attitudes. Simple language nearly always has a negative effect on vote choice, whereas people‐centrism adds a positive touch. These results show that there may be an increasing dissatisfaction with democracy that is voiced by blaming political elites for the malfunctioning of society.
让我们谈谈民粹主义?关于(非)民粹主义言论对投票选择影响的调查实验
近年来,民粹主义研究受到学术界和公众的广泛关注。大多数研究集中于如何定义、评估甚至衡量民粹主义。尽管关于民粹主义信息的研究不断涌现,但其中很少有研究关注从因果关系上确定话语如何影响对民粹主义行动者的支持。本文正是在这一空白中找到了自己的位置,旨在回答是哪些话语元素使(非)民粹主义信息吸引了不同的人群。为了回答这个研究问题,我于 2020 年 12 月至 2021 年 1 月在德国进行了一项新颖的投票选择调查实验,调查人数为 3325 人。受访者被要求在两份展示了不同话语元素的候选人声明中做出选择。因此,该实验从因果关系上检验了以人为本的修辞、归咎性语言或注重语言复杂性的民粹主义风格是否会推动民粹主义投票。结果显示,无论受访者的基本意识形态偏好或民粹主义态度如何,中性的归咎形式,即对政治家的归咎,最有可能推动投票选择。简单的语言几乎总是会对投票选择产生负面影响,而以人为本则会带来正面影响。这些结果表明,通过指责政治精英导致社会运转不良,人们对民主的不满情绪可能会日益高涨。
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
10.00
自引率
5.70%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: European Journal of Political Research specialises in articles articulating theoretical and comparative perspectives in political science, and welcomes both quantitative and qualitative approaches. EJPR also publishes short research notes outlining ongoing research in more specific areas of research. The Journal includes the Political Data Yearbook, published as a double issue at the end of each volume.
×
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