数字、趋势还是规范:是什么改变了人们对援助的支持?

Terence Wood
{"title":"数字、趋势还是规范:是什么改变了人们对援助的支持?","authors":"Terence Wood","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2885536","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A growing body of literature exists studying public support for foreign aid in donor countries. To-date, however, most of this work has focused on publics’ views as they currently stand. In this paper I report on the outcomes of three separate survey experiments undertaken to see whether different information can change existing views about aid volumes. Each of these experiments was undertaken using online samples of approximately 1,000 Australian survey participants who were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups. In all three experiments the control group was asked a very basic question about whether they wanted Australian government aid increased or decreased. Each treatment group was asked the same question but with some additional information. In the first experiment treated participants were given information on how little aid the Australian government gives. In the second experiment treated participants were shown how Australian aid has declined as a share of Gross National Income over time. In the third experiment treated participants were given information comparing recent aid cuts in Australia to increases in aid in the United Kingdom. Of these three treatments, the first had no effect and the second had only a very marginal effect. The third treatment, however, had an effect that was both statistically and substantively significant, raising support for aid increases and decreasing support for aid cuts. As I discuss these findings, I discuss the psychological processes that likely explain them. I highlight how motivated reasoning probably explains the broad absence of findings in the first two experiments and I contend that a desire to conform to international norms is the most likely explanation of the third treatment.","PeriodicalId":412977,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Other Primary Taxonomy (Sub-Topic)","volume":"12 12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Numbers, Trends or Norms: What Changes People's Support for Aid?\",\"authors\":\"Terence Wood\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2885536\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A growing body of literature exists studying public support for foreign aid in donor countries. To-date, however, most of this work has focused on publics’ views as they currently stand. In this paper I report on the outcomes of three separate survey experiments undertaken to see whether different information can change existing views about aid volumes. Each of these experiments was undertaken using online samples of approximately 1,000 Australian survey participants who were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups. In all three experiments the control group was asked a very basic question about whether they wanted Australian government aid increased or decreased. Each treatment group was asked the same question but with some additional information. In the first experiment treated participants were given information on how little aid the Australian government gives. In the second experiment treated participants were shown how Australian aid has declined as a share of Gross National Income over time. In the third experiment treated participants were given information comparing recent aid cuts in Australia to increases in aid in the United Kingdom. Of these three treatments, the first had no effect and the second had only a very marginal effect. The third treatment, however, had an effect that was both statistically and substantively significant, raising support for aid increases and decreasing support for aid cuts. As I discuss these findings, I discuss the psychological processes that likely explain them. I highlight how motivated reasoning probably explains the broad absence of findings in the first two experiments and I contend that a desire to conform to international norms is the most likely explanation of the third treatment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":412977,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Other Primary Taxonomy (Sub-Topic)\",\"volume\":\"12 12 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Other Primary Taxonomy (Sub-Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2885536\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Other Primary Taxonomy (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2885536","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

越来越多的文献研究捐助国公众对外援的支持。然而,到目前为止,大部分工作都集中在公众目前的观点上。在本文中,我报告了三个独立的调查实验的结果,以了解不同的信息是否可以改变对援助数量的现有看法。每项实验都是使用大约1000名澳大利亚调查参与者的在线样本进行的,他们被随机分配到实验组和对照组。在所有三个实验中,控制组都被问及一个非常基本的问题,即他们是否希望澳大利亚政府的援助增加或减少。每个治疗组都被问及同样的问题,但有一些额外的信息。在第一个实验中,参与者被告知澳大利亚政府提供的援助有多少。在第二个实验中,研究人员向参与者展示了澳大利亚援助在国民总收入中所占比例是如何随着时间的推移而下降的。在第三个实验中,受试者被告知澳大利亚最近削减援助与英国增加援助的比较信息。在这三种治疗方法中,第一种没有效果,第二种只有非常微弱的效果。然而,第三种处理方法的效果在统计上和实质上都很显著,提高了对增加援助的支持,减少了对减少援助的支持。在讨论这些发现的同时,我也讨论了可能解释这些发现的心理过程。我强调了动机推理如何可能解释前两个实验中广泛缺乏发现的原因,我认为符合国际规范的愿望是第三种处理方法最有可能的解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Numbers, Trends or Norms: What Changes People's Support for Aid?
A growing body of literature exists studying public support for foreign aid in donor countries. To-date, however, most of this work has focused on publics’ views as they currently stand. In this paper I report on the outcomes of three separate survey experiments undertaken to see whether different information can change existing views about aid volumes. Each of these experiments was undertaken using online samples of approximately 1,000 Australian survey participants who were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups. In all three experiments the control group was asked a very basic question about whether they wanted Australian government aid increased or decreased. Each treatment group was asked the same question but with some additional information. In the first experiment treated participants were given information on how little aid the Australian government gives. In the second experiment treated participants were shown how Australian aid has declined as a share of Gross National Income over time. In the third experiment treated participants were given information comparing recent aid cuts in Australia to increases in aid in the United Kingdom. Of these three treatments, the first had no effect and the second had only a very marginal effect. The third treatment, however, had an effect that was both statistically and substantively significant, raising support for aid increases and decreasing support for aid cuts. As I discuss these findings, I discuss the psychological processes that likely explain them. I highlight how motivated reasoning probably explains the broad absence of findings in the first two experiments and I contend that a desire to conform to international norms is the most likely explanation of the third treatment.
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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信