社会信任与输赢差距

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
{"title":"社会信任与输赢差距","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102869","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The electoral winner-loser gap literature has shown sharp differences between citizens who vote for winning and losing options in key indicators of political support. In this article, we claim that the influence of election results can extend beyond the political domain and reach citizens’ level of social trust. Indeed, elections can reveal to citizens who voted for the winning option that their preferences are aligned with the majority opinion of society, while it signals the opposite to electoral losers. We hypothesize that this contrast will trigger a gap in the level of social trust between winners and losers, and that this gap will be larger among politically engaged voters relative to those more disinterested in political affairs. To contrast our hypotheses, we conducted two online panel surveys with a pre-post electoral design during two recent elections in Chile. Estimates from Two-way Fixed Effects regression models support our main theoretical expectations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48188,"journal":{"name":"Electoral Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social trust and the winner-loser gap\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102869\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The electoral winner-loser gap literature has shown sharp differences between citizens who vote for winning and losing options in key indicators of political support. In this article, we claim that the influence of election results can extend beyond the political domain and reach citizens’ level of social trust. Indeed, elections can reveal to citizens who voted for the winning option that their preferences are aligned with the majority opinion of society, while it signals the opposite to electoral losers. We hypothesize that this contrast will trigger a gap in the level of social trust between winners and losers, and that this gap will be larger among politically engaged voters relative to those more disinterested in political affairs. To contrast our hypotheses, we conducted two online panel surveys with a pre-post electoral design during two recent elections in Chile. Estimates from Two-way Fixed Effects regression models support our main theoretical expectations.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48188,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Electoral Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Electoral Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424001276\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424001276","RegionNum":2,"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

摘要

选举输赢差距的文献显示,投票支持获胜和失败选项的公民在政治支持的关键指标上存在巨大差异。在本文中,我们认为选举结果的影响可以超越政治领域,达到公民的社会信任水平。事实上,选举会向投票支持获胜方案的公民表明,他们的偏好与社会大多数人的意见是一致的,而对选举失败者来说,则是相反的信号。我们假设,这种反差会引发胜选者和落选者之间社会信任水平的差距,而且这种差距在参与政治的选民中会比那些对政治事务不感兴趣的选民更大。为了对比我们的假设,我们在智利最近的两次选举中进行了两次在线小组调查,采用了选举前-选举后的设计。双向固定效应回归模型的估计结果支持我们的主要理论预期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Social trust and the winner-loser gap
The electoral winner-loser gap literature has shown sharp differences between citizens who vote for winning and losing options in key indicators of political support. In this article, we claim that the influence of election results can extend beyond the political domain and reach citizens’ level of social trust. Indeed, elections can reveal to citizens who voted for the winning option that their preferences are aligned with the majority opinion of society, while it signals the opposite to electoral losers. We hypothesize that this contrast will trigger a gap in the level of social trust between winners and losers, and that this gap will be larger among politically engaged voters relative to those more disinterested in political affairs. To contrast our hypotheses, we conducted two online panel surveys with a pre-post electoral design during two recent elections in Chile. Estimates from Two-way Fixed Effects regression models support our main theoretical expectations.
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
Electoral Studies
Electoral Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: Electoral Studies is an international journal covering all aspects of voting, the central act in the democratic process. Political scientists, economists, sociologists, game theorists, geographers, contemporary historians and lawyers have common, and overlapping, interests in what causes voters to act as they do, and the consequences. Electoral Studies provides a forum for these diverse approaches. It publishes fully refereed papers, both theoretical and empirical, on such topics as relationships between votes and seats, and between election outcomes and politicians reactions; historical, sociological, or geographical correlates of voting behaviour; rational choice analysis of political acts, and critiques of such analyses.
×
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