Deservingness versus values in public opinion on welfare: The automaticity of the deservingness heuristic

European Journal of Political Research

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 24-52

  Petersen, Michael Bang ^a   Slothuus, Rune ^a   Stubager, Rune ^a   Togeby, Lise ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649782386     PISSN: 03044130     EISSN: 14756765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2010.01923.x     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Alvarez, R.M. & Brehm, J. (2002). Hard choices, easy answers: Values, information and American public opinion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. Andress, H.-J. & Heien, T. (2001). Four worlds of welfare state attitudes? A comparison of Germany, Norway and the United States. European Sociological Review 17(4): 337-356.
3. Bargh, J.A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, efficiency, intention and control in social cognition. In R.S. Wyer & T.K. Srull (eds), Handbook of social cognition (2nd edn). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Bartels, L. (1996). Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science 40(1): 194-230.
5. Basinger, S.J. & Lavine, H. (2005). Ambivalence, information and electoral choice. American Political Science Review 99(2): 169-184.
6. Bassili, J. (1995). Response latency and the accessibility of voting intentions: What contributes to accessibility and how it affects vote choice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21(7): 686-695.
7. Blekesaune, M. & Quadagno, J. (2003). Public attitudes toward welfare state policies: A comparative analysis of 24 nations. European Sociological Review 19(5): 415-427.
8. Bullock, J.G., Green, D.P. & Ha, S.E. (forthcoming). Yes, but what's the mechanism? (Don't expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
9. Burdein, I., Lodge, M. & Taber, C. (2006). Experiments on the automaticity of political beliefs and attitudes. Political Psychology 27(3): 359-371.
10. Chong, D. & Druckman, J.N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science 10: 103-126.
11. Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmides & J. Tooby (eds), The adapted mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Druckman, J.N. & Nelson, K.R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens' conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science 47(4): 729-745.
13. Druckman, J.N., Kuklinski, J.H. & Sigelman, L. (2009). The unmet potential of interdisciplinary research: Political psychological approaches to voting and public opinion. Political Behavior 31(4): 485-510.
14. Feather, N.T. (2006). Deservingness and emotions: Applying the structural model of deservingness to the analysis of affective reactions to outcomes. European Review of Social Psychology 17: 38-73.
15. Feldman, S. (2003). Values, ideology and the structure of political attitudes. In D.O. Sears, L. Huddy & R. Jervis (eds), Oxford handbook of political psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
16. Feldman, S. & Steenbergen, M. (2001). The humanitarian foundation of public support for social welfare. American Journal of Political Science 45(3): 658-677.
17. Feldman, S. & Zaller, J. (1992). The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science 36(1): 268-307.
18. Fong, C., Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (2006). Strong reciprocity and the welfare state. In J. Mercier-Ythier, S. Kolm & L. André (eds), Handbook on the economics of giving, reciprocity and altruism. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
19. Gaines, B.J., Kuklinski, J.H. & Quirk, P.J. (2007). The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Analysis 15(1): 1-20.
20. Gilens, M. (1999). Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media and the politics of antipoverty policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21. Goren, P. (2004). Political sophistication and policy reasoning: A reconsideration. American Journal of Political Science 48(3): 462-478.
22. Goul Andersen, J. (2008). Public support for the Danish welfare state: Interests and values, institutions and performance. In E. Albæk et al. (eds), Crisis, miracles and beyond: Negotiated adaption of the Danish welfare state. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
23. Hauser, M. et al. (2003). Give unto others: Genetically unrelated Cotton-top Tamarin Monkeys preferentially give food to those who altruistically give food back. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences 270: 2363-2370.
24. Hobolt, S.B. (2007). Taking cues on Europe? Voter competence and party endorsements in referendums on European integration. European Journal of Political Research 46(2): 151-182.
25. Huckfeldt, R. et al. (1999). Accessibility and the political utility of partisan and ideological orientations. American Journal of Political Science 43(3): 888-991.
26. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
27. Jacoby, W.G. (2000). Issue framing and public opinion on government spending. American Journal of Political Science 44(4): 750-767.
28. Jerit, J. (2008). Issue framing and engagement: Rhetorical strategy in pubic policy debates. Political Behavior 30(1): 1-24.
29. Kam, C.D. & Franzese, R.J. (2007). Modeling and interpreting interactive hypotheses in regression analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press
30. Kuklinski, J.H. & Quirk, P.J. (2000). Reconsidering the rational public: Cognition, heuristics and mass opinion. In A. Lupia, M. McCubbins & S. Popkin (eds), Elements of reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Kumlin, S. (2007). The welfare state: Values, policy preferences and performance evaluations. In R.J. Dalton & H.D. Klingemann (eds), Oxford handbook of political behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32. Kunda, Z. & Sherman-Williams, B. (1993). Stereotypes and construal of individuating information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 19(1): 90-99.
33. Kunda, Z. & Thagard, P. (1996). Forming impressions from stereotypes, traits and behaviors: A parallel constraint satisfaction theory. Psychological Review 103(2): 284-308.
34. Larsen, C.A. (2006). The institutional logic of welfare attitudes. Aldershot: Ashgate.
35. Lau, R.R. & Redlawsk, D.P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing during election campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36. Loftager, J. (2004). Politisk offentlighed og demokrati i Danmark. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
37. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review 88(1): 63-76.
38. MacKinnon, D.P., Fairchild, A.J., Fritz, M.S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology 58: 593-614.
39. Nelson, T.E. & Oxley, Z.M. (1999). Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. Journal of Politics 61(4): 1040-1067.
40. Petersen, M.B. (2009). Public opinion and evolved heuristics: The role of category-based inference. Journal of Cognition and Culture 9(3): 367-389.
41. Petersen, M.B., Roepstorff, A. & Serritzlew, S. (2009). Social capital in the brain? In G.T. Svendsen & G.L.H. Svendsen (eds), Handbook of research on social capital. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
42. Popkin, S.L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
43. Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25: 1-65.
44. Shen, F. & Edwards, H.H. (2005). Economic individualism, humanitarianism and welfare reform: A value-based account of framing effects. Journal of Communication 55(4): 795-809.
45. Simon, A.F. & Jerit, J. (2007). Toward a theory relating political discourse, media and public opinion. Journal of Communication 57(2): 254-271.
46. Skitka, L.J. & Tetlock, P.E. (1992). Allocating scarce resources: A contingency model of distributive justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 28(6): 491-522.
47. Skitka, L.J. et al. (2002). Dispositions, ideological scripts or motivated correction? Understanding ideological differences in attributions for social problems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83(2): 470-487.
48. Slothuus, R. (2007). Framing deservingness to win support for welfare state retrenchment. Scandinavian Political Studies 30(3): 323-343.
49. Sniderman, P.M. (forthcoming). The logic of survey experiments. To appear in J.N. Druckman et al. (eds), Handbook of experimental political science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
50. Sniderman, P.M. & Grob, D.B. (1996). Innovations in experimental design in attitude surveys. Annual Review of Sociology 22: 377-399.
51. Sniderman, P.M., Brody, R.A. & Tetlock, P.E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
52. Van Oorschot, W. (2000). Who should get what, and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public. Policy & Politics 28(1): 33-48.
53. Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility. New York/London: Guilford Press.
54. Zak, P.J. (2007). The neuroeconomics of trust. In R. Frantz (ed.), Renaissance in behavioral economics. Florence, KY: Routledge.
55. Zaller, J.R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.