政客如何淡化受教育程度较低的公民的意见

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Julie Sevenans, Stefaan Walgrave
{"title":"政客如何淡化受教育程度较低的公民的意见","authors":"Julie Sevenans,&nbsp;Stefaan Walgrave","doi":"10.1111/lsq.12380","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>An important challenge facing political decision making today is inequality in representation. Political scientists have shown that the preferences of certain groups—especially those who have higher incomes or are better educated—systematically preponderate in political decision making. Trying to elucidate the mechanisms behind these findings, this research note explores one specific possible driver of representational inequality: that politicians downplay the opinions of disadvantaged groups, and here specifically, of the lower-educated. By means of a survey experiment with politicians, we test the idea that politicians have a hard-wired inclination to assume that the opinions of citizens who have received lower (i.e., vocational) education are less thoughtful than the opinions of citizens who followed a higher (i.e., general) education. The findings are somewhat ambiguous but the expectation is at least partly corroborated by the evidence. The findings illustrate the psychological foundations that may ultimately make politicians disregard the preferences of the lower-educated.</p>","PeriodicalId":47672,"journal":{"name":"Legislative Studies Quarterly","volume":"48 2","pages":"425-439"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Politicians Downplay Lower-Educated Citizens' Opinions\",\"authors\":\"Julie Sevenans,&nbsp;Stefaan Walgrave\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/lsq.12380\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>An important challenge facing political decision making today is inequality in representation. Political scientists have shown that the preferences of certain groups—especially those who have higher incomes or are better educated—systematically preponderate in political decision making. Trying to elucidate the mechanisms behind these findings, this research note explores one specific possible driver of representational inequality: that politicians downplay the opinions of disadvantaged groups, and here specifically, of the lower-educated. By means of a survey experiment with politicians, we test the idea that politicians have a hard-wired inclination to assume that the opinions of citizens who have received lower (i.e., vocational) education are less thoughtful than the opinions of citizens who followed a higher (i.e., general) education. The findings are somewhat ambiguous but the expectation is at least partly corroborated by the evidence. The findings illustrate the psychological foundations that may ultimately make politicians disregard the preferences of the lower-educated.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47672,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Legislative Studies Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"48 2\",\"pages\":\"425-439\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Legislative Studies Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lsq.12380\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legislative Studies Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lsq.12380","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

当今政治决策面临的一个重要挑战是代表权的不平等。政治学家已经证明,某些群体的偏好——尤其是那些收入较高或受教育程度较高的群体——在政治决策中系统性地占主导地位。为了阐明这些发现背后的机制,本研究报告探讨了代表性不平等的一个具体可能的驱动因素:政治家淡化弱势群体的意见,特别是受教育程度较低的群体的意见。通过对政治家的调查实验,我们测试了这样一种观点,即政治家有一种固有的倾向,即认为接受过较低教育(即职业教育)的公民的意见比接受过较高教育(即普通教育)的公民的意见更不周到。研究结果有些模棱两可,但这种预期至少在一定程度上得到了证据的证实。这些发现阐明了可能最终导致政客无视受教育程度较低人群偏好的心理基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Politicians Downplay Lower-Educated Citizens' Opinions

An important challenge facing political decision making today is inequality in representation. Political scientists have shown that the preferences of certain groups—especially those who have higher incomes or are better educated—systematically preponderate in political decision making. Trying to elucidate the mechanisms behind these findings, this research note explores one specific possible driver of representational inequality: that politicians downplay the opinions of disadvantaged groups, and here specifically, of the lower-educated. By means of a survey experiment with politicians, we test the idea that politicians have a hard-wired inclination to assume that the opinions of citizens who have received lower (i.e., vocational) education are less thoughtful than the opinions of citizens who followed a higher (i.e., general) education. The findings are somewhat ambiguous but the expectation is at least partly corroborated by the evidence. The findings illustrate the psychological foundations that may ultimately make politicians disregard the preferences of the lower-educated.

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
Legislative Studies Quarterly
Legislative Studies Quarterly POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The Legislative Studies Quarterly is an international journal devoted to the publication of research on representative assemblies. Its purpose is to disseminate scholarly work on parliaments and legislatures, their relations to other political institutions, their functions in the political system, and the activities of their members both within the institution and outside. Contributions are invited from scholars in all countries. The pages of the Quarterly are open to all research approaches consistent with the normal canons of scholarship, and to work on representative assemblies in all settings and all time periods. The aim of the journal is to contribute to the formulation and verification of general theories about legislative systems, processes, and behavior.
×
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