A Matter of Life or Death: A Survey Experiment on the Perceived Legitimacy of Political Decision-Making on Euthanasia

Henrik Serup Christensen, Staffan Himmelroos, Maija Setälä

    Forskningsoutput: TidskriftsbidragArtikelVetenskapligPeer review

    12 Citeringar (Scopus)
    92 Nedladdningar (Pure)

    Sammanfattning

    Most representative democracies seem to experience dwindling levels of legitimacy in the eyes of citizens. Nevertheless, it remains unclear what people want from parliamentary decision-making. In this study, we test the impact of outcome favourability, actor involvement and justifications on the perceived legitimacy of a parliamentary decision-making process on euthanasia in Finland. We do so with the help of a survey experiment (n = 1243), where respondents were exposed to a vignette where the treatments varied randomly. The results suggest that outcome favourability is of primary importance, but the involvement of experts and citizens also boost legitimacy in the eyes of citizens. Justifications, or presenting arguments for the decisions, does not enhance legitimacy and may even cause a backfire mechanism where the difference between getting and not getting the preferred outcome is amplified.

    OriginalspråkEngelska
    Sidor (från-till)627–650
    TidskriftParliamentary Affairs
    Volym73
    Nummer3
    DOI
    StatusPublicerad - 1 juli 2020
    MoE-publikationstypA1 Tidskriftsartikel-refererad

    Fingeravtryck

    Fördjupa i forskningsämnen för ”A Matter of Life or Death: A Survey Experiment on the Perceived Legitimacy of Political Decision-Making on Euthanasia”. Tillsammans bildar de ett unikt fingeravtryck.

    Citera det här