The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How the coronavirus crisis affects citizen trust in institutions and in unknown others: Evidence from ‘the Swedish experiment’
Open accessAbstract
We study how Swedish citizens updated their institutional and interpersonal trust as the corona crisis evolved from an initial phase to an acute phase in the spring of 2020. The study is based on a large web‐survey panel with adult Swedes (n = 11,406) in which the same individuals were asked the same set of questions at two different time points during the coronavirus pandemic ( t 0 and t 1 ). The sample was self‐selected but diverse (a smaller subsample, n = 1,464, was pre‐stratified to be representative of the Swedish population on key demographics). We find support for the view that the corona crisis led to higher levels of institutional and interpersonal trust. Moreover, reactions were largely homogeneous across those groups that could potentially relate distantly to government authorities.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Lakens, D. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863 · Cited by 10,303
Social psychology of intergroup relations
Tajfel, H. (1982) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245 · Cited by 7,949
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Zaller, J. R. (1992) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818691 · Cited by 7,785
Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.90.4.980 · Cited by 4,547
Political Trust and Trustworthiness
Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.475 · Cited by 2,190
Myopic Voters and Natural Disaster Policy
HEALY, A., & MALHOTRA, N. (2009) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055409990104 · Cited by 931
Threat and authoritarianism in the United States, 1978-1987
Doty, R. M., Peterson, B. E., & Winter, D. G. (1991) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.629 · Cited by 329 · cited 1×
“A second group of explanations focus more directly on the threat itself, where the rally effect is understood as a way to increase security in an unmoored situation (Doty et al. 1991).”
Background
Cited by
Ares, M., Bürgisser, R., & Häusermann, S. (2021) · Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties · doi:10.1080/17457289.2021.1924736 · Cited by 74
Woelfert, F. S., & Kunst, J. R. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.572966 · Cited by 66
GRAFFIGNA, G., PALAMENGHI, L., SAVARESE, M., CASTELLINI, G., & BARELLO, S. (2021) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12506 · Cited by 26
Testing Negative: The Non-Consequences of COVID-19 on Mass Ideology
Blumenau, J., Hicks, T., Jacobs, A., Matthews, S., & O'Grady, T. (2021) · doi:10.33774/apsa-2021-qpczc · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Esaiasson, P., Sohlberg, J., Ghersetti, M., & Johansson, B.
- Venue
- European Journal of Political Research
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2021-08
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 748-760
- ISSN
- 0304-4130 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-6765
- OpenAlex
- W3084061133
- Cited by
- 342
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 66.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
