新冠肺炎大流行期间对政治限制和社会两极分化的接受:奥地利和匈牙利的比较研究

IF 2 2区 社会学 Q2 SOCIOLOGY
Pál Susánszky, Bernhard Kittel, Á. Kopper
{"title":"新冠肺炎大流行期间对政治限制和社会两极分化的接受:奥地利和匈牙利的比较研究","authors":"Pál Susánszky, Bernhard Kittel, Á. Kopper","doi":"10.1177/00207152231187196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During the COVID-19 pandemic, some governments took measures to restrict political liberties, claiming that these restrictions were necessary to contain the spread of the virus. In this study, we scrutinize differences in citizens’ willingness to accept three types of political restrictions: restricting the media, banning protests, and introducing extensive state surveillance. We focus on two European countries: Austria and Hungary. While we find that perceived health threats, political values, ideological orientation, and political trust are important predictors of accepting political restrictions, we also find that citizens differ in their willingness to support the three types of restrictions depending on whether the given measure affects them directly. We also find differences between Austria and Hungary concerning the way political trust and political values affect the acceptance of restrictions, which may be rooted in the larger polarization of Hungarian society. Furthermore, we observe that perceived health threats, political values, ideological orientation, and political trust are important predictors of accepting political restrictions.","PeriodicalId":51601,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Sociology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Acceptance of political restrictions and societal polarization during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comparative study of Austria and Hungary\",\"authors\":\"Pál Susánszky, Bernhard Kittel, Á. Kopper\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00207152231187196\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"During the COVID-19 pandemic, some governments took measures to restrict political liberties, claiming that these restrictions were necessary to contain the spread of the virus. In this study, we scrutinize differences in citizens’ willingness to accept three types of political restrictions: restricting the media, banning protests, and introducing extensive state surveillance. We focus on two European countries: Austria and Hungary. While we find that perceived health threats, political values, ideological orientation, and political trust are important predictors of accepting political restrictions, we also find that citizens differ in their willingness to support the three types of restrictions depending on whether the given measure affects them directly. We also find differences between Austria and Hungary concerning the way political trust and political values affect the acceptance of restrictions, which may be rooted in the larger polarization of Hungarian society. Furthermore, we observe that perceived health threats, political values, ideological orientation, and political trust are important predictors of accepting political restrictions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51601,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Comparative Sociology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Comparative Sociology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00207152231187196\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Comparative Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00207152231187196","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在新冠肺炎大流行期间,一些政府采取了限制政治自由的措施,声称这些限制对于遏制病毒的传播是必要的。在这项研究中,我们仔细观察了公民接受三种类型的政治限制的意愿差异:限制媒体、禁止抗议和引入广泛的国家监控。我们关注两个欧洲国家:奥地利和匈牙利。虽然我们发现感知的健康威胁、政治价值观、意识形态取向和政治信任是接受政治限制的重要预测因素,但我们也发现,公民支持这三种限制的意愿不同,这取决于特定措施是否直接影响他们。我们还发现,奥地利和匈牙利在政治信任和政治价值观影响接受限制的方式方面存在差异,这可能源于匈牙利社会的两极分化。此外,我们观察到,感知的健康威胁、政治价值观、意识形态取向和政治信任是接受政治限制的重要预测因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Acceptance of political restrictions and societal polarization during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comparative study of Austria and Hungary
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some governments took measures to restrict political liberties, claiming that these restrictions were necessary to contain the spread of the virus. In this study, we scrutinize differences in citizens’ willingness to accept three types of political restrictions: restricting the media, banning protests, and introducing extensive state surveillance. We focus on two European countries: Austria and Hungary. While we find that perceived health threats, political values, ideological orientation, and political trust are important predictors of accepting political restrictions, we also find that citizens differ in their willingness to support the three types of restrictions depending on whether the given measure affects them directly. We also find differences between Austria and Hungary concerning the way political trust and political values affect the acceptance of restrictions, which may be rooted in the larger polarization of Hungarian society. Furthermore, we observe that perceived health threats, political values, ideological orientation, and political trust are important predictors of accepting political restrictions.
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
3.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Comparative Sociology was established in 1960 to publish the highest quality peer reviewed research that is both international in scope and comparative in method. The journal draws articles from sociologists worldwide and encourages competing perspectives. IJCS recognizes that many significant research questions are inherently interdisciplinary, and therefore welcomes work from scholars in related disciplines, including political science, geography, economics, anthropology, and business sciences. The journal is published six times a year, including special issues on topics of special interest to the international social science community.
×
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