A Matter of Life or Death: A Survey Experiment on the Perceived Legitimacy of Political Decision-Making on Euthanasia

Henrik Serup Christensen, Staffan Himmelroos, Maija Setälä

Tutkimustuotos: ArtikkelijulkaisuArtikkeliTieteellinenvertaisarvioitu

Kuvaus

Most representative democracies seem to experience dwindling levels of legitimacy in the eyes of citizens. Nevertheless, it remains unclear what people want from parliamentary decision-making. In this study, we test the impact of outcome favourability, actor involvement and justifications on the perceived legitimacy of a parliamentary decision-making process on euthanasia in Finland. We do so with the help of a survey experiment (n = 1243), where respondents were exposed to a vignette where the treatments varied randomly. The results suggest that outcome favourability is of primary importance, but the involvement of experts and citizens also boost legitimacy in the eyes of citizens. Justifications, or presenting arguments for the decisions, does not enhance legitimacy and may even cause a backfire mechanism where the difference between getting and not getting the preferred outcome is amplified.
Alkuperäiskielienglanti
LehtiParliamentary Affairs
ISSN0031-2290
DOI - pysyväislinkit
TilaE-pub ahead of print - 2019
OKM-julkaisutyyppiA1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä, vertaisarvioitu

Tieteenalat

  • 517 Valtio-oppi, hallintotiede

Lainaa tätä

@article{4e63e5b9afe94552a231443599055510,
title = "A Matter of Life or Death: A Survey Experiment on the Perceived Legitimacy of Political Decision-Making on Euthanasia",
abstract = "Most representative democracies seem to experience dwindling levels of legitimacy in the eyes of citizens. Nevertheless, it remains unclear what people want from parliamentary decision-making. In this study, we test the impact of outcome favourability, actor involvement and justifications on the perceived legitimacy of a parliamentary decision-making process on euthanasia in Finland. We do so with the help of a survey experiment (n = 1243), where respondents were exposed to a vignette where the treatments varied randomly. The results suggest that outcome favourability is of primary importance, but the involvement of experts and citizens also boost legitimacy in the eyes of citizens. Justifications, or presenting arguments for the decisions, does not enhance legitimacy and may even cause a backfire mechanism where the difference between getting and not getting the preferred outcome is amplified.",
keywords = "517 Political science",
author = "Christensen, {Henrik Serup} and Staffan Himmelroos and Maija Set{\"a}l{\"a}",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1093/pa/gsz014",
language = "English",
journal = "Parliamentary Affairs",
issn = "0031-2290",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",

}

A Matter of Life or Death : A Survey Experiment on the Perceived Legitimacy of Political Decision-Making on Euthanasia. / Christensen, Henrik Serup; Himmelroos, Staffan; Setälä, Maija.

julkaisussa: Parliamentary Affairs, 2019.

Tutkimustuotos: ArtikkelijulkaisuArtikkeliTieteellinenvertaisarvioitu

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Matter of Life or Death

T2 - A Survey Experiment on the Perceived Legitimacy of Political Decision-Making on Euthanasia

AU - Christensen, Henrik Serup

AU - Himmelroos, Staffan

AU - Setälä, Maija

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - Most representative democracies seem to experience dwindling levels of legitimacy in the eyes of citizens. Nevertheless, it remains unclear what people want from parliamentary decision-making. In this study, we test the impact of outcome favourability, actor involvement and justifications on the perceived legitimacy of a parliamentary decision-making process on euthanasia in Finland. We do so with the help of a survey experiment (n = 1243), where respondents were exposed to a vignette where the treatments varied randomly. The results suggest that outcome favourability is of primary importance, but the involvement of experts and citizens also boost legitimacy in the eyes of citizens. Justifications, or presenting arguments for the decisions, does not enhance legitimacy and may even cause a backfire mechanism where the difference between getting and not getting the preferred outcome is amplified.

AB - Most representative democracies seem to experience dwindling levels of legitimacy in the eyes of citizens. Nevertheless, it remains unclear what people want from parliamentary decision-making. In this study, we test the impact of outcome favourability, actor involvement and justifications on the perceived legitimacy of a parliamentary decision-making process on euthanasia in Finland. We do so with the help of a survey experiment (n = 1243), where respondents were exposed to a vignette where the treatments varied randomly. The results suggest that outcome favourability is of primary importance, but the involvement of experts and citizens also boost legitimacy in the eyes of citizens. Justifications, or presenting arguments for the decisions, does not enhance legitimacy and may even cause a backfire mechanism where the difference between getting and not getting the preferred outcome is amplified.

KW - 517 Political science

U2 - 10.1093/pa/gsz014

DO - 10.1093/pa/gsz014

M3 - Article

JO - Parliamentary Affairs

JF - Parliamentary Affairs

SN - 0031-2290

ER -