刻板印象和福利态度:丹麦“贫穷的Carina”和“懒惰的Robert”如何影响对社会援助的态度的小组调查

T. Hedegaard
{"title":"刻板印象和福利态度:丹麦“贫穷的Carina”和“懒惰的Robert”如何影响对社会援助的态度的小组调查","authors":"T. Hedegaard","doi":"10.7577/NJSR.2078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What is the impact of a predominantly negative debate about social assistance on public and individual support for the social benefit? Over the course of a year the public debate about social assistance flared up twice in Denmark. The debates drew on classic stereotypes of the social assistance recipients lacking both the financial incentives and the will to work. According to theories of the impact of media on welfare attitudes, this had the potential to undermine public support. A two-wave panel survey, however, showed only a small drop in public support for spending on social assistance, in a comparison of attitudes before and after the debates. The small overall impact on public opinion, however, hid a polarization of attitudes on the individual level. This shows that there was not a uniform reaction to welfare debates, but that people tend to seek out a version of reality that is consistent with their values and self-interest. The article thus shows that people when faced with public debates on welfare policies will seek to confirm their personal biases and this limits the possibility for overall changes in public support.","PeriodicalId":207067,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of Social Research","volume":"110 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stereotypes and Welfare Attitudes: A Panel Survey of How “Poor Carina” and “Lazy Robert” Affected Attitudes towards Social Assistance in Denmark\",\"authors\":\"T. Hedegaard\",\"doi\":\"10.7577/NJSR.2078\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"What is the impact of a predominantly negative debate about social assistance on public and individual support for the social benefit? Over the course of a year the public debate about social assistance flared up twice in Denmark. The debates drew on classic stereotypes of the social assistance recipients lacking both the financial incentives and the will to work. According to theories of the impact of media on welfare attitudes, this had the potential to undermine public support. A two-wave panel survey, however, showed only a small drop in public support for spending on social assistance, in a comparison of attitudes before and after the debates. The small overall impact on public opinion, however, hid a polarization of attitudes on the individual level. This shows that there was not a uniform reaction to welfare debates, but that people tend to seek out a version of reality that is consistent with their values and self-interest. The article thus shows that people when faced with public debates on welfare policies will seek to confirm their personal biases and this limits the possibility for overall changes in public support.\",\"PeriodicalId\":207067,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nordic Journal of Social Research\",\"volume\":\"110 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nordic Journal of Social Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7577/NJSR.2078\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Journal of Social Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7577/NJSR.2078","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

关于社会救助的主要负面辩论对公众和个人对社会福利的支持有什么影响?在一年的时间里,关于社会救助的公众辩论在丹麦爆发了两次。辩论利用了社会援助接受者既缺乏经济激励又缺乏工作意愿的典型刻板印象。根据媒体对福利态度影响的理论,这有可能削弱公众的支持。然而,一项两波的小组调查显示,在辩论前后的态度对比中,公众对社会救助支出的支持率只有小幅下降。然而,对公众舆论的总体影响很小,这掩盖了个人层面上态度的两极分化。这表明,人们对福利辩论的反应并不一致,而是倾向于寻找与他们的价值观和自身利益相一致的现实版本。因此,这篇文章表明,当人们面临关于福利政策的公开辩论时,他们会寻求证实自己的个人偏见,这限制了公众支持发生全面变化的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Stereotypes and Welfare Attitudes: A Panel Survey of How “Poor Carina” and “Lazy Robert” Affected Attitudes towards Social Assistance in Denmark
What is the impact of a predominantly negative debate about social assistance on public and individual support for the social benefit? Over the course of a year the public debate about social assistance flared up twice in Denmark. The debates drew on classic stereotypes of the social assistance recipients lacking both the financial incentives and the will to work. According to theories of the impact of media on welfare attitudes, this had the potential to undermine public support. A two-wave panel survey, however, showed only a small drop in public support for spending on social assistance, in a comparison of attitudes before and after the debates. The small overall impact on public opinion, however, hid a polarization of attitudes on the individual level. This shows that there was not a uniform reaction to welfare debates, but that people tend to seek out a version of reality that is consistent with their values and self-interest. The article thus shows that people when faced with public debates on welfare policies will seek to confirm their personal biases and this limits the possibility for overall changes in public support.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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