对新冠肺炎和环境政策的两极分化。在德语国家,社交媒体的使用和个人关注的作用。

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIOLOGY
Beate Klösch, Markus Hadler, Markus Reiter-Haas, E. Lex
{"title":"对新冠肺炎和环境政策的两极分化。在德语国家,社交媒体的使用和个人关注的作用。","authors":"Beate Klösch, Markus Hadler, Markus Reiter-Haas, E. Lex","doi":"10.1080/13511610.2023.2201877","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic and the climate crisis are polarizing people's opinions worldwide, particularly with regard to restrictive policy measures. We examine the effects of social media use and personal concerns on opinions toward selected COVID-19 and environmental measures, and whether public opinion toward the two crises shows similar polarization patterns. The data is derived from an online survey conducted in German-speaking countries in the summer of 2020. Our analyses show that opinions toward COVID-19 measures are more polarized than toward environmental measures, and that personal concerns play a far greater role than social media use in shaping opinions toward policy measures for both crises. Only few platforms show significant and divergent effects, which we attribute to their different characteristics and potentials for the emergence of filter bubbles and echo chambers. We also observe a generational effect, suggesting that older individuals are more likely to support COVID-19 measures, while younger generations tend to do so for environmental measures. Furthermore, we find an unexpectedly high number of people who are completely opposed to all policy measures for both crises, again mainly due to personal concerns and attitudes. The results are discussed in the context of the time period in which the survey was conducted, as well as in relation to current developments, and from the perspective of the free-rider problem as a possible explanation for the one-sided polarization observed. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)","PeriodicalId":46877,"journal":{"name":"Innovation-The European Journal of Social Science Research","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Polarized opinions on Covid-19 and environmental policy measures. The role of social media use and personal concerns in German-speaking countries.\",\"authors\":\"Beate Klösch, Markus Hadler, Markus Reiter-Haas, E. Lex\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13511610.2023.2201877\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The COVID-19 pandemic and the climate crisis are polarizing people's opinions worldwide, particularly with regard to restrictive policy measures. We examine the effects of social media use and personal concerns on opinions toward selected COVID-19 and environmental measures, and whether public opinion toward the two crises shows similar polarization patterns. The data is derived from an online survey conducted in German-speaking countries in the summer of 2020. Our analyses show that opinions toward COVID-19 measures are more polarized than toward environmental measures, and that personal concerns play a far greater role than social media use in shaping opinions toward policy measures for both crises. Only few platforms show significant and divergent effects, which we attribute to their different characteristics and potentials for the emergence of filter bubbles and echo chambers. We also observe a generational effect, suggesting that older individuals are more likely to support COVID-19 measures, while younger generations tend to do so for environmental measures. Furthermore, we find an unexpectedly high number of people who are completely opposed to all policy measures for both crises, again mainly due to personal concerns and attitudes. The results are discussed in the context of the time period in which the survey was conducted, as well as in relation to current developments, and from the perspective of the free-rider problem as a possible explanation for the one-sided polarization observed. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)\",\"PeriodicalId\":46877,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Innovation-The European Journal of Social Science Research\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Innovation-The European Journal of Social Science Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2023.2201877\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"Innovation-The European Journal of Social Science Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2023.2201877","RegionNum":3,"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

2019冠状病毒病大流行和气候危机使全世界人民的意见两极分化,特别是在限制性政策措施方面。我们研究了社交媒体的使用和个人关注对选定的COVID-19和环境措施的意见的影响,以及公众对这两个危机的意见是否表现出类似的两极分化模式。这些数据来自2020年夏天在德语国家进行的一项在线调查。我们的分析表明,对COVID-19措施的意见比对环境措施的意见更为两极分化,在形成对两种危机的政策措施的意见方面,个人担忧比社交媒体的使用发挥的作用要大得多。只有少数平台表现出显著的不同效果,我们将其归因于它们不同的特征和出现过滤气泡和回声室的潜力。我们还观察到代际效应,表明老年人更有可能支持COVID-19措施,而年轻一代则倾向于支持环境措施。此外,我们发现,出乎意料的是,很多人完全反对针对这两个危机的所有政策措施,这同样主要是出于个人的担忧和态度。这些结果将在进行调查的时间段以及与当前发展有关的情况下进行讨论,并从搭便车问题的角度作为观察到的片面两极分化的可能解释。《欧洲社会科学杂志》版权归劳特利奇所有,未经版权所有者明确书面许可,其内容不得复制或通过电子邮件发送到多个网站或发布到listserv。但是,用户可以打印、下载或通过电子邮件发送文章供个人使用。这可以删节。对副本的准确性不作任何保证。用户应参阅原始出版版本的材料的完整。(版权适用于所有人。)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Polarized opinions on Covid-19 and environmental policy measures. The role of social media use and personal concerns in German-speaking countries.
The COVID-19 pandemic and the climate crisis are polarizing people's opinions worldwide, particularly with regard to restrictive policy measures. We examine the effects of social media use and personal concerns on opinions toward selected COVID-19 and environmental measures, and whether public opinion toward the two crises shows similar polarization patterns. The data is derived from an online survey conducted in German-speaking countries in the summer of 2020. Our analyses show that opinions toward COVID-19 measures are more polarized than toward environmental measures, and that personal concerns play a far greater role than social media use in shaping opinions toward policy measures for both crises. Only few platforms show significant and divergent effects, which we attribute to their different characteristics and potentials for the emergence of filter bubbles and echo chambers. We also observe a generational effect, suggesting that older individuals are more likely to support COVID-19 measures, while younger generations tend to do so for environmental measures. Furthermore, we find an unexpectedly high number of people who are completely opposed to all policy measures for both crises, again mainly due to personal concerns and attitudes. The results are discussed in the context of the time period in which the survey was conducted, as well as in relation to current developments, and from the perspective of the free-rider problem as a possible explanation for the one-sided polarization observed. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)
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
4.50
自引率
15.00%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: European integration and enlargement pose fundamental challenges for policy, politics, citizenship, culture and democracy. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research provides a unique forum for discussing these processes. It welcomes articles on all aspects of European developments that contribute to the improvement of social science knowledge and to the setting of a policy-focused European research agenda. Examples of typical subject areas covered include •Policy-Making and Agenda-Setting •Multilevel Governance •The Role of Institutions •Democracy and Civil Society •Social Structures and Integration •Sustainability and Ecological Modernisation •Science, Research, Technology and Society
×
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