Public Attitudes Toward Social Spending in the United States: The Differences Between Direct Spending and Tax Expenditures

2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Faricy ◽  
Christopher Ellis
Author(s):  
Anastasia Kozyreva ◽  
Philipp Lorenz-Spreen ◽  
Ralph Hertwig ◽  
Stephan Lewandowsky ◽  
Stefan M. Herzog

AbstractPeople rely on data-driven AI technologies nearly every time they go online, whether they are shopping, scrolling through news feeds, or looking for entertainment. Yet despite their ubiquity, personalization algorithms and the associated large-scale collection of personal data have largely escaped public scrutiny. Policy makers who wish to introduce regulations that respect people’s attitudes towards privacy and algorithmic personalization on the Internet would greatly benefit from knowing how people perceive personalization and personal data collection. To contribute to an empirical foundation for this knowledge, we surveyed public attitudes towards key aspects of algorithmic personalization and people’s data privacy concerns and behavior using representative online samples in Germany (N = 1065), Great Britain (N = 1092), and the United States (N = 1059). Our findings show that people object to the collection and use of sensitive personal information and to the personalization of political campaigning and, in Germany and Great Britain, to the personalization of news sources. Encouragingly, attitudes are independent of political preferences: People across the political spectrum share the same concerns about their data privacy and show similar levels of acceptance regarding personalized digital services and the use of private data for personalization. We also found an acceptability gap: People are more accepting of personalized services than of the collection of personal data and information required for these services. A large majority of respondents rated, on average, personalized services as more acceptable than the collection of personal information or data. The acceptability gap can be observed at both the aggregate and the individual level. Across countries, between 64% and 75% of respondents showed an acceptability gap. Our findings suggest a need for transparent algorithmic personalization that minimizes use of personal data, respects people’s preferences on personalization, is easy to adjust, and does not extend to political advertising.


2008 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dietram A. Scheufele ◽  
Elizabeth A. Corley ◽  
Tsung-jen Shih ◽  
Kajsa E. Dalrymple ◽  
Shirley S. Ho

Author(s):  
Gary R. Hicks

The public’s perception of, beliefs about, and interest in LGBT individuals and the issues impacting them has long had great significance to the community’s social, political, and legal progress. The last decade has seen monumental changes in public attitudes about LGBT people and the laws that affect them in the United States and around the world. Much of this change has been positive, including the landmark Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage. In some parts of the world—even those that have witnessed great strides for LGBT equality—there have also been signs of a backlash against the community’s newfound rights and visibility in society. Stereotypes of LGBT individuals, mostly negative, have been responsible for much of this reaction, as well as their historically negative view in by the public. In the 20th and 21st centuries, the mass media has played a major role in creating and perpetuating these stereotypes.


2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 260-262
Author(s):  
Gallya Lahav

Joel Fetzer is to be congratulated for a serious attempt to bring a public opinion approach to comparative immigration politics. His book represents an ambitious step toward bridging the gap between policy input and output in the immigration equation of advanced industrialized democracies. Its occasional choppy organization and underdeveloped data analysis tend to distract from the import of the work and leave the reader yearning for a deeper and more substantive discussion.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 114-122
Author(s):  
Laura Washburn ◽  
Nhu Thao Nguyen Galván ◽  
Priyanka Moolchandani ◽  
Matthew B. Price ◽  
Smruti Rath ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-182
Author(s):  
MOSHIK TEMKIN

AbstractThis article analyses the historical conditions for, and implications of, the attitudes and conduct of a number of prominent or influential public intellectuals in the United States during the Great War. It argues that many intellectuals, particularly those who supported American entry to the war, shared a general lack of concern with the realities of full-scale warfare. Their response to the war had little to do with the war itself – its political and economic causes, brutal and industrial character, and human and material costs. Rather, their positions were often based on their views of culture and philosophy, or on their visions of the post-war world. As a result, relatively few of these intellectuals fully considered the political, social, and economic context in which the catastrophe occurred. The war, to many of them, was primarily a clash of civilizations, a battle of good versus evil, civilized democracy versus barbaric savagery, progress versus backwardness, culture versus kultur. The article describes several manifestations of American intellectual approaches to the war, discusses the correlation between intellectual and general public attitudes, and concludes with some implications for thinking about the relationship between intellectuals and war in more recent American history.


2004 ◽  
Vol 3 (8) ◽  
pp. 496-496 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Gaskell ◽  
Toby Ten Eyck ◽  
Jonathan Jackson ◽  
Giuseppe Veltri

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document