Does Holding Beliefs with Conviction Prevent Policy Actors from Adopting a Compromising Attitude
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 6344283 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Éric Montpetit (0000-0003-3470-0657, Université de Montréal, autor de correspondencia) |
| Año | 2012 |
| Volumen | 60 |
| Número | 3 |
| Páginas | 621-642 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2012-10-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sí |
| Open Access | Sí |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | Political Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 0032-3217 • E-ISSN: 1467-9248 |
| Editorial | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00930.x |
| OpenAlex | W1515967280 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citas recibidas | 4 |
| Referencias citadas | 37 |
Much of the political science literature argues that commitment to beliefs renders the attitudes of policy actors inflexible. Belief commitment encourages alliances among actors who think alike and creates a distance with those whose beliefs differ. As it cuts the flow of information between disagreeing actors, belief commitment constrains the attitudes of actors to consistency across a variety of objects and over time, preventing policy compromises. This article examines the possibility that different beliefs have different effects on attitude. Specifically, it hypothesizes that actors holding purposive beliefs have more consistent attitudes than actors holding material beliefs. Thanks to a survey of North American and European biotechnology policy actors, conducted twice between 2006 and 2008, it is shown that a strong commitment to purposive beliefs encourages attitude consistency across objects and over time, while equal commitment to material beliefs enables more attitude flexibility. Implications for democracy and policy-making compromises are discussed
Belief system · Consistency (knowledge bases · Conviction · Democracy · Economics · Flexibility (engineering · Management · Political science · Politics · Public relations · Sociology · Variety (cybernetics · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Law · Political Influence and Corporate Strategies · Psychology · Religion and Society Interactions · Social Psychology
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
The Embryo Research Debate
Designs on Nature
Prospect Theory
Policy change and learning
The Disappearing Center
Hearing the Other Side
The Legitimation of Power
Expert‐Based Information and Policy Subsystems
Providing Information in Public Opinion Surveys
Distinguishing Red and Green Biotechnology
The Competition for Worldviews
U.S. Attitudes toward Genetic Testing, 1990-2000
Stakeholder attitudes toward GMOs in the Philippines, Mexico, and South Africa
The Participatory and Democratic Potential and Practice of Interest Groups
Policy networks and the GM crops issue
Expert knowledge use and deliberation in local policy making
Political Transfer and “Trading Up
Theories of the Policy Process
Understanding Interaction Models
Coalitions, Science, and Belief Change
Scientific Credibility, Disagreement, and Error Costs in 17 Biotechnology Policy Subsystems
The Mindsets of Political Compromise
Does Administrative Corporatism Promote Trust and Deliberation
Technological revolution meets policy and the market
Democratic competence in normative and positive theory
Politics as Usual or Bringing Religion Back In
Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals
Explaining Change in Policy Subsystems
Patterns of Disagreement in Democratic Politics
The Impact of Social Structure on Economic Outcomes
To Trust an Adversary
Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid
Is Government Too Political
| Obras citantes distintas | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citas por año | 0,31 |
| Intervalo de citas | 2013 - 2020 (8) |
| Velocidad de citación | historical |
| Altamente citado | No |
| Tipos de cita | Neutras: 4 |