Abstract The perception that political trust is in a deep crisis, driven by structurally declining trends, seems intrinsically tied to democracy. For decades, scholars responded by studying actual trends. Yet, actual trends can only partially explain the prevalence of the trust crisis narrative. Therefore, this study shifts the focus to perceived trends by comparing the actual longitudinal changes in political trust with citizens’ retrospective perceptions of these changes. We rely on observational and novel experimental data (n = 1882) from the Dutch LISS panel to investigate these incongruencies between actual trends and perceptions over a 16-year period (2008–2024). We find evidence for a bias in public opinion as past levels of trust are generally overestimated. By probing explanations from political science, sociology, and psychology, we find that this bias is primarily political rather than personal: how people remember their trust depends on whether their party governed, and reminding them who did corrects that memory.
Abstract Fear of isolation (FOI) is a central concept in the spiral of silence theory, and prior research has conceptualized and measured it in varied ways. This study examined how relatively stable individual orientations (dispositional FOI and argumentativeness) and context-specific evaluative responses (situational FOI and debate success expectancy) relate to willingness to express opinions. In an online scenario-based experiment in South Korea, opinion climate was manipulated as either favorable or unfavorable to participants’ political preferences in an imagined workplace discussion (N = 480). Participants in the favorable condition reported lower situational FOI and higher debate success expectancy than those in the unfavorable condition. In the structural model, situational FOI was negatively associated with willingness to express opinions, whereas debate success expectancy and argumentativeness were positively associated; contrary to expectations, dispositional FOI also showed a positive association. These findings highlight the importance of distinguishing dispositional from situational FOI and considering expectations of discussion success alongside concerns about isolation when studying opinion expression.
Abstract While a number of studies have elucidated how people infer public opinion from user comments and conform to it (i.e., the consensus heuristic), some questions remain about this mechanism. This study attempted to further validate the suggested framework by comparing the effect of argumentative comments to non-argumentative comments. A two-wave online experiment in South Korea (N = 600) using two issues found that user comments affected personal opinion through perceived public opinion for both kinds of comments. However, argumentative comments exerted a greater influence on personal opinion than non-argumentative comments for one of the two issues, although this effect only materialized when participants saw majority-opposing comments. We also found that an alternative model, in which opinion change served as the mediator, fit the data, although we were unable to distinguish which of the two models fit the data best.
The lack of coordination among accountability institutions is widely recognized as a driver of elite impunity in democratic systems. At the same time, enhanced coordination among prosecutors, judges, and enforcement agencies can raise concerns about due process and judicial impartiality. This article examines how political polarization shapes citizens' evaluations of institutional coordination in anti-corruption efforts. Using Brazil's Lava Jato operation as an empirically salient and ideologically charged context, we field a web-based survey experiment that assesses public support for a hypothetical legislative reform designed to increase coordination among accountability institutions while explicitly acknowledging its potential legal trade-offs. We show that citizens broadly support coordination even when informed of possible risks to defendants' rights. However, when coordination is explicitly associated with Lava Jato, ideological polarization structures these evaluations: right-wing respondents become more supportive of coordination, while left-wing respondents become more skeptical. We argue that polarization shifts the object of legitimacy from judicial outcomes to institutional design, transforming coordination itself into a contested political object. The findings identify a mechanism through which polarization constrains the public legitimacy-and, thus, the political feasibility-of institutional reforms aimed at combating corruption.
Why do some states sustain democratic governance while others fail? Research points to citizens' attitudes, yet measuring support is difficult, especially in Asia, where endorsement of democracy coexists with the acceptance of authoritarian practices. Chu and Huang (2010) propose a framework classifying citizens into four clusters based on democratic legitimacy and liberal values using Asia Barometer Survey data. This study argues that economic change, digital media expansion, and generational shifts have fragmented political attitudes in postmodern societies like Taiwan and South Korea, fostering "modular" identities with cross-cutting views. Using latent class analysis (LCA), it uncovers hidden groupings and shows LCA captures nuances missed by conventional typologies, offering a more flexible tool for assessing democratic support and resilience.
