scholarly journals Economic anxiety among contingent survey workers

Author(s):  
Meghan Condon ◽  
Amber Wichowsky
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vita Widyasari ◽  
Karisma Trinanda Putra ◽  
Jiun-Yi Wang

BACKGROUND The volume of search keywords on Google can be used as a reference to an ongoing online trend during COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE This study was aimed to estimate the responsiveness and public awareness in early days of the COVID-19 outbreak in Indonesia using Google Trends relative search volumes (RSV). METHODS Sixty terms or keywords forming six topics included in the analysis were basic information, prevention, government policy, socio-economic, anxiety, and other issues related to COVID-19. All these keywords were checked for surveillance purposes between January 1 and May 4, 2020. The Python programming language was used for data mining from Google Trends databases. Correlation analysis was conducted to examine the correlations between the incidence of COVID-19 and the search terms. RESULTS Community response and awareness in the six topics were associated with the number of COVID-19 cases (r range between 0.570-0.825, P-value<.005). Before the first case announced in Indonesian, the prominent topics were basic information and other issues. One month after the first case, all topics experienced an increase in RSV. In the phase of outbreak, socio-economic and anxiety got much more attentions. CONCLUSIONS The government should consider to optimize the internet as a media for timely delivering most relevant information and dynamically respond massive queries, and improve health communications to increase public awareness and intention to prevent the disease.


2021 ◽  
pp. 106591292110067
Author(s):  
Stephen C. Nemeth ◽  
Holley E. Hansen

While many previous studies on U.S. right-wing violence center on factors such as racial threat and economic anxiety, we draw from comparative politics research linking electoral dynamics to anti-minority violence. Furthermore, we argue that the causes of right-wing terrorism do not solely rest on political, economic, or social changes individually, but on their interaction. Using a geocoded, U.S. county-level analysis of right-wing terrorist incidents from 1970 to 2016, we find no evidence that poorer or more diverse counties are targets of right-wing terrorism. Rather, right-wing violence is more common in areas where “playing the ethnic card” makes strategic sense for elites looking to shift electoral outcomes: counties that are in electorally competitive areas and that are predominantly white.


2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorrie Frasure-Yokley

AbstractThis paper examines the extent to which ambivalent sexism toward women influenced vote choice among American women during the 2016 Presidential election. I examine how this varied between white women and women of color. The 2016 American National Election Study (ANES) features several measures from the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI)—a scale developed by Glick and Fiske (1996) to assess sexist attitudes toward women. An index of these measures is used to examine the extent to which ambivalent sexist attitudes influenced women's vote choice for Donald Trump, controlling for racial resentment, partisanship, attitudes toward immigrants, economic anxiety, and socio-demographics. On the one hand, my findings indicate that ambivalent sexism was a powerful influence on women's Presidential vote choice in 2016, controlling for other factors. However, this finding, based on a model ofall women votersis misleading, once an intersectional approach is undertaken. Once the data are disaggregated by gender and race, white women's political behavior proves very different than women of color. Among white women, ambivalent sexist views positively and significantly predicts vote choice for Trump, controlling for all other factors. However, for women of color, this relationship was negative and posed no statistical significant relationship to voting for Trump. Scholarship in gender and politics that does not account for group differences in race/ethnicity may present misleading results, which are either underestimated or overestimated.


The Forum ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Dickinson

Abstract More than a year after his surprise victory, scholars continue to debate why Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election. Two explanations – economic anxiety and racial resentment – are commonly cited. Drawing on open-ended interviews with Trump supporters and observations at multiple Trump campaign rallies, we find that both explanations, as commonly presented, do not fully capture the dynamics underlying Trump’s support. Rather than racial animosity or concern over their personal economic status, we believe that Trump’s supporters were primarily focused on what they saw as an increasingly biased political and economic system that no longer rewarded hard work and playing by the rules.


2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (13) ◽  
pp. 1667-1693 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cas Mudde ◽  
Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser

Academics are increasingly using the concept of populism to make sense of current events such as the Brexit referendum and the Trump presidency. This is certainly a welcome development, but two shortcomings can be observed in the contemporary debate. On one hand, new populism scholars often start from scratch and do not build upon the existing research. On the other hand, those who have been doing comparative research on populism stay in their comfort zone and thus do not try to link their work to other academic fields. In this article, we address these two shortcomings by discussing some of the advantages of the so-called ideational approach to the comparative study of populism and by pointing out four avenues of future research, which are closely related to some of the contributions of this special issue, namely, (a) economic anxiety, (b) cultural backlash, (c) the tension between responsiveness and responsibility, and (d) (negative) partisanship and polarization.


2020 ◽  
Vol 167 ◽  
pp. 110233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank D. Mann ◽  
Robert F. Krueger ◽  
Kathleen D. Vohs
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexa J Singer ◽  
Cecilia Chouhy ◽  
Peter S Lehmann ◽  
Jessica N Stevens ◽  
Marc Gertz

Using data from the 2012 AmericasBarometer survey collected in nine Latin American countries ( n =  14,705), this study examines two theoretically relevant potential sources of punitiveness: economic anxiety and fear of crime. Focusing on these two sources, we explore whether the public opinion dynamics often highlighted by punitiveness scholars also apply to the Latin American context and can thus be of value to explain recent movements towards punitive policies in that region. Generalized Structural Equation Modeling (GSEM) and bootstrapping are used to assess the direct effects of perceived national and personal economic insecurity on punitive sentiments as well as the indirect effects of these attitudes on punitiveness through fear of crime during a time of reduced economic growth, increased economic inequality, and harsh criminal justice policies. Results show that economic anxieties are positively associated with fear of crime, though their effects on support for increased punishments are mixed. Additionally, the effects of economic insecurity on punitiveness are partially mediated by fear of crime, supporting theoretical notions that insecurity produces fear of crime and subsequently influences punitiveness.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick S. Forscher ◽  
Nour S. Kteily

The 2016 U.S. presidential election coincided with the rise of the “alternative right,” or alt-right. Alt-right associates have wielded considerable influence on the current administration and on social discourse, but the movement’s loose organizational structure has led to disparate portrayals of its members’ psychology and made it difficult to decipher its aims and reach. To systematically explore the alt-right’s psychology, we recruited two U.S. samples: An exploratory sample through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk ( N = 827, alt-right n = 447) and a larger, nationally representative sample through the National Opinion Research Center’s Amerispeak panel ( N = 1,283, alt-right n = 71–160, depending on the definition). We estimate that 6% of the U.S. population and 10% of Trump voters identify as alt-right. Alt-right adherents reported a psychological profile more reflective of the desire for group-based dominance than economic anxiety. Although both the alt-right and non-alt-right Trump voters differed substantially from non-alt-right, non-Trump voters, the alt-right and Trump voters were quite similar, differing mainly in the alt-right’s especially high enthusiasm for Trump, suspicion of mainstream media, trust in alternative media, and desire for collective action on behalf of Whites. We argue for renewed consideration of overt forms of bias in contemporary intergroup research.


2019 ◽  
Vol 100 (8) ◽  
pp. 4-4
Author(s):  
Rafael Heller
Keyword(s):  

The March 2019 Varsity Blues scandal brought to light how wealthy parents have cheated to get their children into top colleges. But even without cheating, affluent students receive many advantages in education. As economic anxiety continues to bubble up, the question of how schools can provide more equitable opportunities for children becomes even more important, argues Rafael Heller.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document