16 research outputs found

    Disentangling How Populism and Radical Host Ideologies Shape Citizens' Conceptions of Democratic Decision-Making

    Get PDF
    In this article, we aim to disentangle the extent to which citizens’ conceptions of democratic decision-making are shaped by populist attitudes or rather by radical left and right host ideologies. Following recent work by Landwehr and Steiner (2017), we distinguish four modes of decision-making embedded in different conceptions of democracy: trusteeship democracy, anti-pluralism, deliberative proceduralism, and majoritarianism. Drawing on data from Austria and Germany, we show that populism and radical host ideologies tap into different dimensions of democracy. While populism is primarily directed against representative forms of democratic decision-making, preferences for deliberative procedures and majority decisions appear entirely shaped by radical left and right host ideologies. Populism thus views decision-making based on the general will of the people as the only legitimate democratic procedure, whereas radical left and right host ideologies aim at involving the relevant group(s) of citizens. Further analyses of the interactions between populist attitudes and radical host ideologies confirm that the effects of populism remain robust and thus independent of the specific manifestations of radical host ideologies. These findings help to disentangle the causes of democratic discontent and to develop possible responses through democratic reforms that specifically and separately aim to mitigate populism and radical host ideologies

    What drives citizens' evaluation of democratic performance? The interaction of citizens' democratic knowledge and institutional level of democracy

    Get PDF
    Alongside citizens’ belief in the legitimacy of democracy, public support for the political regime is crucial to the survival of (democratic) political systems. Yet, we know fairly little about the relationship between citizens’ democratic knowledge and their evaluation of democratic performance from a global comparative perspective. In this article, we argue that the cognitive ability of citizens to distinguish between democratic and authoritarian characteristics constitutes the individual yardstick for assessing democracy in practice. Furthermore, we expect that the effect of citizens’ democratic knowledge on their evaluation of democratic performance is moderated by the institutional level of democracy. We test these assumptions by combining data from the sixth and seventh wave of the World Values Survey and the third pre-release of the European Values Study 2017, resulting in 114 representative samples from 80 countries with 128,127 respondents. Applying multilevel regression modeling, we find that the higher a country’s level of democracy, the more positive the effect of democratic knowledge on citizens’ assessment of democratic performance. In contrast, we find that the lower the level of democracy in a country, the more negative the effect of citizens’ democratic knowledge on their evaluation of democracy. Thus, this study shows that citizens who are more knowledgeable about democracy are most cognitively able to assess the level of democracy in line with country-level measures of democracy. These results open up new theoretical and empirical perspectives for related research on support for and satisfaction with democracy as well as research on democratization.Die zentralen Werte und Normen, die das Überleben eines (demokratischen) politischen Systems sichern, sind neben dem Glauben der BĂŒrgerinnen und BĂŒrger an die LegitimitĂ€t der Demokratie ihre öffentliche UnterstĂŒtzung fĂŒr das politische Regime. Allerdings wissen wir aus einer vergleichenden globalen Perspektive noch recht wenig ĂŒber die Beziehung zwischen dem demokratischen Wissen der BĂŒrgerinnen und BĂŒrger und ihrer EinschĂ€tzung der demokratischen Performanz. In diesem Artikel argumentieren wir, dass die kognitive FĂ€higkeit der BĂŒrgerinnen und BĂŒrger, zwischen demokratischen und autoritĂ€ren Merkmalen zu unterscheiden, den individuellen Maßstab fĂŒr die Beurteilung der Demokratie in der Praxis darstellt. Wir erwarten zudem, dass der Effekt des demokratischen Wissens der BĂŒrgerinnen und BĂŒrger hinsichtlich ihrer Bewertung der demokratischen Performanz durch das institutionelle Niveau der Demokratie moderiert wird. Wir testen diese Annahmen unter Verwendung von Individualdaten aus der sechsten und siebten Welle des World Values Survey und des dritten pre-release der European Values Study 2017, woraus 114 reprĂ€sentative Stichproben aus 80 LĂ€ndern mit insgesamt 128.127 Befragten resultieren. Basierend auf der Anwendung von Mehrebenenmodellen kommen wir zu dem Ergebnis, dass der Einfluss des demokratischen Wissens auf die Bewertung der demokratischen Performanz durch die BĂŒrgerinnen und BĂŒrger umso positiver ist, je höher das Niveau der Demokratie eines Landes ist. Im Gegensatz dazu stellen wir fest, dass sich das demokratische Wissen der BĂŒrgerinnen und BĂŒrger umso negativer auf ihre EinschĂ€tzung der Demokratie auswirkt, je niedriger das Niveau der Demokratie in einem Land ist. Mit dieser Studie zeigen wir folglich, dass BĂŒrgerinnen und BĂŒrger, die ĂŒber mehr Wissen ĂŒber die Demokratie verfĂŒgen, kognitiv am ehesten in der Lage sind, das Niveau der Demokratie in Übereinstimmung mit Bewertungen der Demokratie auf der LĂ€nderebene zu beurteilen. Die Ergebnisse eröffnen darĂŒber hinaus neue theoretische und empirische Perspektiven fĂŒr die verwandte Forschung zur UnterstĂŒtzung und Zufriedenheit mit der Demokratie sowie zur Demokratisierung

    Explaining Populist Attitudes: The Impact of Policy Discontent and Representation

    Get PDF
    Recently, scholars of populism have increasingly started to theorise and capture susceptibility to populism at the individual level. Most of these studies, however, focus on the consequences of populist attitudes on political behaviour. Less attention has been paid to the question of which citizens have high levels of populist attitudes and why. While some scholars argue that populist attitudes more resemble an unchangeable personality trait, meaning that individuals may be more or less populist, others argue that it is a response to outside grievances or discontent. The latter suggests that levels of populist attitudes are dynamic and may change if grievances are addressed (or remain unaddressed). We contribute to this literature by asking how discontent fuelled by unfulfilled policy preferences affects the level of populist attitudes. Following the conception of populism as a thin-centred ideology, we argue that high levels of populist attitudes are not connected with certain issues per se. Rather, our argument is that people are more populist when they feel poorly represented on policy issues that they care strongly about. This argument provides an explanation for the observation that even voters of non-populist parties sometimes show high levels of populist attitudes. We test the impact of policy discontent on populist attitudes using data from the GLES 2021 Pre-Election Cross Section survey by combining information on citizens’ issue specific discontent with the perceived salience of respective issues. The results are in line with our expectations: Individuals with higher policy discontent are more populist

    study protocol for a randomized-controlled trial

    Get PDF
    Background Functional abdominal pain (FAP) is not only a highly prevalent disease but also poses a considerable burden on children and their families. Untreated, FAP is highly persistent until adulthood, also leading to an increased risk of psychiatric disorders. Intervention studies underscore the efficacy of cognitive behavioral treatment approaches but are limited in terms of sample size, long-term follow-up data, controls and inclusion of psychosocial outcome data. Methods/Design In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, 112 children aged 7 to 12 years who fulfill the Rome III criteria for FAP will be allocated to an established cognitive behavioral training program for children with FAP (n = 56) or to an active control group (focusing on age-appropriate information delivery; n = 56). Randomization occurs centrally, blockwise and is stratified by center. This study is performed in five pediatric gastroenterology outpatient departments. Observer- blind assessments of outcome variables take place four times: pre-, post-, 3- and 12-months post-treatment. Primary outcome is the course of pain intensity and frequency. Secondary endpoints are health-related quality of life, pain- related coping and cognitions, as well as selfefficacy. Discussion This confirmatory randomized controlled clinical trial evaluates the efficacy of a cognitive behavioral intervention for children with FAP. By applying an active control group, time and attention processes can be controlled, and long-term follow-up data over the course of one year can be explored

    Special issue conclusion : The GLES Open Science Challenge 2021 in hindsight: experiences gained and lessons learned

    Get PDF
    Die GLES Open Science Challenge 2021 ist ein Pilotprojekt, das zeigt, dass Registered Reports ein geeignetes und gewinnbringendes Publikationsformat in der quantitativen Politikwissenschaft sind, die dazu beitragen können, die Transparenz und Replizierbarkeit im Forschungsprozess zu erhöhen und somit substanzielle und relevante BeitrĂ€ge fĂŒr unsere Disziplin zu liefern. Das Ergebnis ist die Veröffentlichung dieses Sonderheftes mit sieben Registered Reports, die auf Daten der German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES) basieren, die im Rahmen der Bundestagswahl 2021 erhoben wurden. Dieser abschließende Artikel des Sonderheftes bringt die Perspektiven von Autor*innen, Gutachter*innen, Organisator*innen und Herausgeber*innen zusammen, um eine Bilanz der verschiedenen Erfahrungen und Lehren zu ziehen, die im Laufe dieses Projektes gewonnen wurden

    Do Children With Functional Abdominal Pain Benefit More From a Pain-Specific Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention Than From an Unspecific Attention Control Intervention? Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

    Full text link
    Introduction: We aimed to compare the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) among children with functional abdominal pain with an attention control (AC), hypothesizing the superiority of CBT group intervention regarding pain intensity (primary outcome), pain duration and frequency (further primary outcomes), functional disability, and quality of life and coping strategies (key secondary outcomes). Methods: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled efficacy trial (RCT) with 4 time points (before intervention, after intervention, 3-month follow-up, and 12-month follow-up). One hundred twenty-seven children aged 7-12 years were randomized to either the CBT (n = 63; 55.6% girls) or the AC (n = 64; 57.8% girls). Results: Primary endpoint analysis of the logarithmized area under the pain intensity curve showed no significant difference between groups (mean reduction = 49.04%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -19.98%-78.36%). Treatment success rates were comparable (adjusted odds ratio = 0.53, 95% CI 0.21-1.34, number needed to treat = 16). However, time trend analyses over the course of 1 year revealed a significantly greater reduction in pain intensity (40.9%, 95% CI 2.7%-64.1%) and pain duration (43.6%, 95% CI 6.2%-66.1%) in the CBT compared with the AC, but not in pain frequency per day (1.2, 95% CI -2.7 to 5.2). In the long term, children in the CBT benefitted slightly more than those in the AC with respect to functional disability, quality of life, and coping strategies. Discussion: Both interventions were effective, which underlines the role of time and attention for treatment efficacy. However, in the longer term, CBT yielded more favorable results. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02030392

    PCI Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: In patients who have acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock, early revascularization of the culprit artery by means of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves outcomes. However, the majority of patients with cardiogenic shock have multivessel disease, and whether PCI should be performed immediately for stenoses in nonculprit arteries is controversial. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 706 patients who had multivessel disease, acute myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock to one of two initial revascularization strategies: either PCI of the culprit lesion only, with the option of staged revascularization of nonculprit lesions, or immediate multivessel PCI. The primary end point was a composite of death or severe renal failure leading to renal-replacement therapy within 30 days after randomization. Safety end points included bleeding and stroke. RESULTS: At 30 days, the composite primary end point of death or renal-replacement therapy had occurred in 158 of the 344 patients (45.9%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group and in 189 of the 341 patients (55.4%) in the multivessel PCI group (relative risk, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01). The relative risk of death in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group as compared with the multivessel PCI group was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.98; P=0.03), and the relative risk of renal-replacement therapy was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.49 to 1.03; P=0.07). The time to hemodynamic stabilization, the risk of catecholamine therapy and the duration of such therapy, the levels of troponin T and creatine kinase, and the rates of bleeding and stroke did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who had multivessel coronary artery disease and acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock, the 30-day risk of a composite of death or severe renal failure leading to renal-replacement therapy was lower among those who initially underwent PCI of the culprit lesion only than among those who underwent immediate multivessel PCI. (Funded by the European Union 7th Framework Program and others; CULPRIT-SHOCK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927549 .)

    PCI strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock

    Get PDF
    In patients who have acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock, early revascularization of the culprit artery by means of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves outcomes. However, the majority of patients with cardiogenic shock have multivessel disease, and whether PCI should be performed immediately for stenoses in nonculprit arteries is controversial. In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 706 patients who had multivessel disease, acute myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock to one of two initial revascularization strategies: either PCI of the culprit lesion only, with the option of staged revascularization of nonculprit lesions, or immediate multivessel PCI. The primary end point was a composite of death or severe renal failure leading to renal-replacement therapy within 30 days after randomization. Safety end points included bleeding and stroke. At 30 days, the composite primary end point of death or renal-replacement therapy had occurred in 158 of the 344 patients (45.9%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group and in 189 of the 341 patients (55.4%) in the multivessel PCI group (relative risk, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01). The relative risk of death in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group as compared with the multivessel PCI group was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.98; P=0.03), and the relative risk of renal-replacement therapy was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.49 to 1.03; P=0.07). The time to hemodynamic stabilization, the risk of catecholamine therapy and the duration of such therapy, the levels of troponin T and creatine kinase, and the rates of bleeding and stroke did not differ significantly between the two groups. Among patients who had multivessel coronary artery disease and acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock, the 30-day risk of a composite of death or severe renal failure leading to renal-replacement therapy was lower among those who initially underwent PCI of the culprit lesion only than among those who underwent immediate multivessel PCI. (Funded by the European Union 7th Framework Program and others; CULPRIT-SHOCK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927549 .
    corecore