Suppr超能文献

一个关于应得福利感知的重塑框架。

A Recast Framework for Welfare Deservingness Perceptions.

作者信息

Knotz Carlo Michael, Gandenberger Mia Katharina, Fossati Flavia, Bonoli Giuliano

机构信息

Department of Media and Social Sciences (IMS), University of Stavanger, Elise Ottesen-Jensens Hus, Kjell Arholms Gate 37, 4021 Stavanger, Norway.

Swiss Graduate School of Public Administration (IDHEAP), University of Lausanne & NCCR - on the move, Quartier UNIL-Mouline, Bâtiment IDHEAP, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.

出版信息

Soc Indic Res. 2022;159(3):927-943. doi: 10.1007/s11205-021-02774-9. Epub 2021 Aug 20.

Abstract

UNLABELLED

Many important societal debates revolve around questions of deservingness, especially when it comes to debates related to inequality and social protection. It is therefore unsurprising that a growing body of research spanning the social and political sciences is concerned with the determinants of deservingness perceptions. In this contribution, we engage with the currently central theoretical framework used in deservingness research and point out an important weakness: Partly ambiguous definitions of the framework's central concepts, the criteria for perceived deservingness. We also highlight the negative consequences this has for empirical research, including notably varying and overlapping operationalizations and thereby a lacking comparability of results across studies. Our main contribution is a redefinition of the criteria for perceived deservingness and a demonstration of the empirical implications of using this new set of criteria via original vignette survey experiments conducted in Germany and the United States in 2019. Our results provide a clearer image of which criteria drive deservingness perceptions.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11205-021-02774-9.

摘要

未标注

许多重要的社会辩论都围绕着应得性问题展开,尤其是在涉及不平等和社会保护的辩论中。因此,社会科学和政治科学领域越来越多的研究关注应得性认知的决定因素也就不足为奇了。在本论文中,我们探讨了应得性研究中当前核心的理论框架,并指出了一个重要缺陷:该框架核心概念(即感知应得性的标准)的定义部分模糊。我们还强调了这对实证研究产生的负面影响,包括显著不同且相互重叠的操作化定义,从而导致各研究结果缺乏可比性。我们的主要贡献是重新定义了感知应得性的标准,并通过2019年在德国和美国进行的原始 vignette 调查实验展示了使用这套新标准的实证意义。我们的研究结果更清晰地呈现了哪些标准驱动了应得性认知。

补充信息

在线版本包含补充材料,可在10.1007/s11205-021-02774-9获取。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b2b1/8378786/dba4e895c7d4/11205_2021_2774_Fig1_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
A Recast Framework for Welfare Deservingness Perceptions.
Soc Indic Res. 2022;159(3):927-943. doi: 10.1007/s11205-021-02774-9. Epub 2021 Aug 20.
2
Welfare deservingness opinions from heuristic to measurable concept: The CARIN deservingness principles scale.
Soc Sci Res. 2020 Jan;85:102352. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.102352. Epub 2019 Sep 3.
5
Getting what you deserve: How notions of deservingness feature in the experiences of employees with cancer.
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Sep;237:112447. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112447. Epub 2019 Jul 25.
6
Popular Criteria for the Welfare Deservingness of Disability Pensioners: The Influence of Structural and Cultural Factors.
Soc Indic Res. 2013 Feb;110(3):1103-1117. doi: 10.1007/s11205-011-9974-7. Epub 2011 Dec 4.
7
How is health-related "deservingness" reckoned? Perspectives from unauthorized im/migrants in Tel Aviv.
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Mar;74(6):812-21. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.033. Epub 2011 Jul 20.
8
Disabled but not deserving? The perceived deservingness of disability welfare benefit claimants.
J Eur Soc Policy. 2021 Jul;31(3):337-351. doi: 10.1177/0958928721996652. Epub 2021 Mar 22.
9
Social welfare as small-scale help: evolutionary psychology and the deservingness heuristic.
Am J Pol Sci. 2012;56(1):1-16. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00545.x.
10
Judgments of deservingness: studies in the psychology of justice and achievement.
Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 1999;3(2):86-107. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0302_1.

引用本文的文献

1
After the "honeymoon", what is next? COVID-19 policies in Europe beyond the first wave.
Eur Policy Anal. 2022 Summer;8(3):254-260. doi: 10.1002/epa2.1156. Epub 2022 Sep 5.
2
The Menu Served in Canadian Penitentiaries: A Nutritional Analysis.
Nutrients. 2022 Aug 18;14(16):3400. doi: 10.3390/nu14163400.
3
The citizen preferences-positive externality trade-off: A survey study of COVID-19 vaccine deployment in Japan.
SSM Popul Health. 2022 Sep;19:101191. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2022.101191. Epub 2022 Aug 17.
5
Socialism Order of Worth and Analytical Adequacy Axiom.
Hum Stud. 2022;45(2):283-308. doi: 10.1007/s10746-022-09629-3. Epub 2022 Jun 15.

本文引用的文献

1
Public attitudes toward contemporary issues in liver allocation.
Am J Transplant. 2019 Apr;19(4):1212-1217. doi: 10.1111/ajt.15227. Epub 2019 Jan 22.
2
Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Feb 24;112(8):2395-400. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1416587112. Epub 2015 Feb 2.
3
Who Deserves Help? Evolutionary Psychology, Social Emotions, and Public Opinion about Welfare.
Polit Psychol. 2012 Jun 1;33(3):395-418. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00883.x. Epub 2012 May 28.
4
Social welfare as small-scale help: evolutionary psychology and the deservingness heuristic.
Am J Pol Sci. 2012;56(1):1-16. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00545.x.
5
Colloquium paper: adaptive specializations, social exchange, and the evolution of human intelligence.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 May 11;107 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):9007-14. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0914623107. Epub 2010 May 5.
6
Allocation of transplantable organs: do people want to punish patients for causing their illness?
Liver Transpl. 2001 Jul;7(7):600-7. doi: 10.1053/jlts.2001.25361.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验