The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Deservingness versus values in public opinion on welfare: The automaticity of the deservingness heuristic
Abstract
Public attitudes towards welfare policy are often explained by political values and perceptions of deservingness of welfare recipients. This article addresses how the impact of values and perceptions varies depending on the contextual information that citizens have available when forming welfare opinions. It is argued that whenever citizens face deservingness‐relevant cues in public debate or the media, a psychological ‘deservingness heuristic’ is triggered prompting individuals spontaneously to think about welfare policy in terms of who deserves help. This is an automatic process, equally influential among the least and the most politically sophisticated. Moreover, when clear deservingness cues are present, the impact of values on opinions vanishes. These arguments are supported by data from two novel experimental studies embedded in separate nationwide opinion surveys. The findings revise conventional wisdom of how values and heuristics influence public opinion and have major implications for understanding dynamics in aggregate welfare opinion and attempts from political elites to manipulate public opinion.
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
Schwartz, S. H. (1992) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6 · Cited by 14,619
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Zaller, J. R. (1992) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818691 · Cited by 7,785 · cited 8×
“For example, egalitarian and humanitarian values and left-wing ideology have been found to be associated with more support for welfare state policies, while the values of individualism and right-wing ideology are associated with less favourable welfare opinions (Andress & Heien © 2010 The Author(s) Journal compilation…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialMacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542 · Cited by 5,688
Lupia, A. (1994) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2944882 · Cited by 1,850 · cited 1×
“For example, a voter can choose how to vote in an election based on endorsements by interest groups or political parties rather than by carefully processing the alternatives (Hobolt 2007; Lupia 1994).”
BackgroundYes, but what’s the mechanism? (don’t expect an easy answer).
Bullock, J. G., Green, D. P., & Ha, S. E. (2010) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0018933 · Cited by 1,063
The Institutional Logic of Welfare Attitudes: How Welfare Regimes Influence Public Support
Larsen, C. A. (2008) · Comparative Political Studies · doi:10.1177/0010414006295234 · Cited by 419
Allocating scarce resources: A contingency model of distributive justice
Skitka, L. J., & Tetlock, P. E. (1992) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-1031(92)90043-j · Cited by 265
Cited by
Which Clients are Deserving of Help? A Theoretical Model and Experimental Test
Jilke, S., & Tummers, L. (2018) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muy002 · Cited by 336
Aarøe, L., & Petersen, M. B. (2014) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1017/s002238161400019x · Cited by 254
Self-citationvon Schenk, A., Klockmann, V., & Köbis, N. (2025) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231194949 · Cited by 30
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
- Petersen, M. B., Slothuus, R., Stubager, R., & Togeby, L.
- Venue
- European Journal of Political Research
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2011-01
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 24-52
- ISSN
- 0304-4130 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-6765
- OpenAlex
- W2109002523
- Cited by
- 311
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 37.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
