Восприятие населением рестриктивной политики государства: проблемы измерения
Научная статья
Для цитирования
Бочарова А.П. Восприятие населением рестриктивной политики государства: проблемы измерения // Социология: методология, методы, математическое моделирование (Социология:4М). 2025. № 60. С. 183-215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/4m.2025.34.1.5 EDN: TYELZN
Аннотация
Статья посвящена разрешению концептуальных и методологических вопросов измерения политических установок граждан по отношению к рестриктивной государственной политике. В первой части исследования решается задача объединения разрозненных групп исследований политической поддержки и политических установок по отношению к тем или иным государственным мерам, носящим ограничительный характер по отношению к гражданам, в единую категорию измерения политических установок по отношению к рестриктивной политике. К этой же категории можно отнести за редким исключением и эмпирические исследования комплаенса, основанные на опросных методах и самоотчетах респондентов. Объединив данные группы исследований в одно направление изучения отношения граждан к рестриктивной политике, автор решает задачу контроля валидности в эмпирических исследованиях такого рода. Результаты статистического анализа опубликованных за последние десять лет исследований рестриктивной политики в базе данных Scopus показали, что подавляющее большинство авторов современных исследований рестриктивной политики продолжают опираться на формат опросных исследований, что поднимает ряд вопросов внутренней и внешней валидности таких работ в силу сенситивности задаваемых респондентам вопросов. Кроме того, ряд ошибок, связанных с формированием слишком узкой выборки, явным для респондента дизайном вопросов и сложностями обобщения результатов в работах с использованием фото- и видеоматериалов в качестве стимулов, остаются нерешенными в существующих исследованиях. Решением проблемы нарушения валидности является использование экспериментального дизайна, применяющегося в исследованиях рестриктивной политики значительно реже классических опросов, что включает в себя списочные эксперименты, эксперименты с поддержкой и факторные опросы. В статье также рассмотрены примеры корректного использования такого исследовательского дизайна на примере недавних работ.
Ключевые слова:
рестриктивная политика, опросные методы, политические установки, политическая поддержка, комплаенс, общественное восприятие, списочный эксперимент, факторный опрос, эксперимент с поддержкой
Литература
1. Guo D., Habich‐Sobiegalla S., Kostka G. Emotions, crisis, and institutions: Explaining compliance with COVID‐19 regulations // Regulation & Governance. 2023, vol. 18, № 1. P. 177–202. DOI: 10.1111/rego.12509.
2. Schmeisser Y., Renstrom E. A., Back H. Who follows the rules during a crisis? Personality traits and trust as predictors of compliance with containment recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic // Frontiers in Political Science. 2021, vol. 3. P. 1–13. DOI: 10.3389/fpos.2021.739616.
3. Shandler R., Kostyuk N., Oppenheimer H. Public opinion and cyberterrorism // Public Opinion Quarterly. 2023, vol. 87, № 1. P. 92–119. DOI: 10.1093/poq/nfad006.
4. Jäger F. Security vs. civil liberties: How citizens cope with threat, restriction, and ideology // Frontiers in Political Science. 2023, № 4. P.1–13. DOI: 10.3389/fpos.2022.1006711.
5. Fesenfeld L., Rudolph L., Bernauer T. Policy framing, design and feedback can increase public support for costly food waste regulation // Nature Food. 2022, vol. 3, № 3. P. 227–235. DOI: 10.1038/s43016-022-00460-8.
6. Gurinskaya A. Predicting citizens’ support for surveillance cameras. Does police legitimacy matter? // International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice. 2020, vol. 44. P. 63–83. DOI: 10.1080/01924036.2020.1744027.
7. Mužík M., Šerek J. What reduces support for civil liberties: Authoritarianism, national identity, and perceived threat // Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. 2021, vol. 21, № 1. P. 734–760. DOI: 10.1111/asap.12241.
8. Chmel K., Klimova A., Savin N. The effect of risk framing on support for restrictive government policy regarding the COVID-19 outbreak // PLoS ONE. 2021, vol. 10, № 16. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258132.
9. Murphy K., Williamson H., Sargeant E., McCarthy M. Why people comply with COVID-19 social distancing restrictions: Self-interest or duty? // Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 2020, vol. 53, № 4. P. 477–496. DOI: 10.1177/0004865820954484.
10. Shandler R., Gross M. L., Canetti D. A fragile public preference for cyber strikes: Evidence from survey experiments in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel // Contemporary Security Policy. 2021, vol. 42, № 2. P. 135–162. DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2020.1868836.
11. Easton D. A Re-assessment of the concept of political support // British Journal of Political Science. 1975, vol. 5, № 4. P. 435–457. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123400008309.
12. Kingsbury B. The concept of compliance as a function of competing conceptions of international law // Trilateral Perspectives on International Legal Issues: From Theory Into Practice. 1998. P. 9–33. DOI: 10.1163/9789004635807_005.
13. Daoust J. F. How can governments generate compliance in times of crisis? A review of the COVID-19 pandemic // French Politics. 2023, vol. 21, № 2. P. 179–194. DOI: 10.1057/s41253-023-00206-3.
14. Van Deth J. W. Compliance, trust and norms of citizenship // Handbook on political trust. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. 2017. P. 212–228. DOI: 10.4337/9781782545118.00024.
15. Norris P. The conceptual framework of political support // The Oxford handbook of social and political trust / Ed. by E. M. Uslaner. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2018. P. 19–32. DOI: 10.4337/9781782545118.00012.
16. Pak A., McBryde E. S., Adegboye O. A. Does high public trust amplify compliance with stringent COVID-19 government health guidelines? A multi-country analysis using data from 102,627 individuals // Risk Management and Healthcare Policy. 2021, vol. 14, № 1. P. 293–302. DOI: 10.2147/rmhp.s278774.
17. Lalot F., Heering M. S., Rullo M., Travaglino G.A., Abrams D. The dangers of distrustful complacency: Low concern and low political trust combine to undermine compliance with governmental restrictions in the emerging Covid-19 pandemic // Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2022, vol. 25, № 1. P. 106–121. DOI: 10.1177/1368430220967986.
18. Mutz D. C. Population-based survey experiments. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 2011. 177 p. DOI: 10.18352/bmgn-lchr.332.
19. Liu C. Who supports expanding surveillance? Exploring public opinion of Chinese social credit systems // International Sociology. 2021, vol. 37, № 3. P. 391–412. DOI: 10.1177/02685809221084446.
20. Седашов Е. А. Методы каузального анализа в современной политической науке // Политическая наука. 2021, №1. С. 98–115. DOI: 10.31249/poln/2021.01.04.
21. Imbens G. W., Rubin D. B. Causal inference in statistics, social, and biomedical sciences // Cambridge University Press, 2015. 625 p. ISBN: 9781139025751. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139025751.
22. Sekerdej M., Kossowska M. Motherland under attack! Nationalism, terrorist threat, and support for the restriction of civil liberties // Polish Psychological Bulletin. 2011, vol. 42, № 11. P. 11–19. DOI: 10.2478/v10059-011-0003-0.
23. Davis D. W., Silver B. D. Civil liberties vs. security: Public opinion in the context of the terrorist attacks on America // American journal of political science. 2004, vol. 48, № 1. P. 28–46. DOI: 10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00054.x.
24. Kostyuk N., Wayne C. The microfoundations of state cybersecurity: Cyber risk perceptions and the mass public // Journal of Global Security Studies. 2021, vol. 6, № 2. DOI: 10.1093/jogss/ogz077.
25. Iyengar S. Laboratory experiments in political science // Cambridge handbook of experimental political science / Ed. by J. N. Druckman, D. P. Greene, J. H. Kuklinski. Cambridge University Press. 2012. P. 137–167. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511921452.006.
26. Gaines B. J., Kuklinski J. H., Quirk P. J. The logic of the survey experiment reexamined // Political Analysis. 2007, vol. 15, № 1. P.1–20. DOI: 10.1093/pan/mpl008.
27. Hovland C. I. Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change // American Psychologist. 1959, vol. 14, № 1. P. 8–17. DOI: 10.1037/h0042210.
28. Renström E. A., Bäck H. Emotions during the Covid‐19 pandemic: Fear, anxiety, and anger as mediators between threats and policy support and political actions // Journal of applied social psychology. 2021, vol. 51, № 8. P. 861–877. DOI: 10.1111/jasp.12806.
29. Lodge M., Taber C., Verhulst B. Conscious and unconscious information processing with implications for experimental political science // Cambridge handbook of experimental political science / Ed. by J. N. Druckman, D. P. Greene, J. H. Kuklinski. Cambridge University Press, 2012. P. 291–321. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511921452.011.
30. Григорян Л. К., Горинова Е. В. Факторный опрос: преимущества, область применения, практические рекомендации // Социальная психология и общество. 2016, т. 7, № 2. С. 142–157. DOI: 10.17759/sps.2016070210.
31. Ziller C., Helbling M. Public support for state surveillance // European Journal of Political Research. 2021, vol. 60, № 4. P. 994–1006. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6765.12424.
32. Gomez M. A., Whyte C. Breaking the myth of cyber doom: Securitization and normalization of novel threats // International Studies Quarterly. 2021, vol. 65, № 4. P. 1137–1150. DOI: 10.1093/isq/sqab034.
33. Cohen G. L. Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003, vol. 85, № 5. P.808–822. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808.
34. Blair R. A., Curtice T., Dow D., Grossman G. Public trust, policing, and the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from an electoral authoritarian regime // Social Science & Medicine. 2022, vol. 305, № 3. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115045.
35. Becher M., Stegmueller D., Brouard S., Kerrouche E. Ideology and compliance with health guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comparative perspective // Social science quarterly. 2021, vol.102, № 5. P. 2106–2123. DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13035.
36. Sniderman P. M. The logic and design of the survey experiment: An autobiography of a methodological innovation // Cambridge handbook of experimental political science / Ed. by J. N. Druckman, D. P. Greene, J. H. Kuklinski. Cambridge University Press, 2012. P. 182–205. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511921452.008.
37. Margetts H., Stocker G. The experimental method: prospects for laboratory and field studies // Theory and methods in political science. 3rd edition / Ed. by D. Marsch, G. Stocker. Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. P. 308–324. DOI:10.1007/978-0-230-36664-0_16.
38. Daoust J. F., Nadeau R., Dassonneville R., Lachapelle E., Belanger E., Savoie J., van der Linden C. How to survey citizens’ compliance with COVID-19 public health measures: evidence from three survey experiments // Journal of Experimental Political Science. 2021, vol. 8, №. 3. P. 310–317. DOI: 10.1017/XPS.2020.25.
39. Faillo M., Ottone S., Sacconi L. Compliance by believing: An experimental exploration on social norms and impartial agreements // SSRN. 2008. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1151245.
40. Alm J., McKee M. Tax compliance as a coordination game // Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2004, vol. 54, № 3. P. 297–312. DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2003.02.003.
41. Auliya S. F., Wulandari N. The impact of mobility patterns on the spread of the COVID-19 in Indonesia // Journal of Information Systems Engineering and Business Intelligence. 2021, vol. 7, № 1. P. 31–41. DOI: 10.20473/jisebi.7.1.31-41.
42. Aguilar-Ruiz J. S., Ruiz R., Giráldez R. Advance monitoring of COVID-19 incidence based on taxi mobility: Еhe infection ratio measure // Healthcare. MDPI. 2024, vol. 12, № 5. P. 51–57. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12050517.
43. McDermott R. Experimental methods in political science //Annual Review of Political Science. 2002, vol. 5, № 1. P. 31–61. DOI:10.1146/annurev.polisci.5.091001.170657.
2. Schmeisser Y., Renstrom E. A., Back H. Who follows the rules during a crisis? Personality traits and trust as predictors of compliance with containment recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic // Frontiers in Political Science. 2021, vol. 3. P. 1–13. DOI: 10.3389/fpos.2021.739616.
3. Shandler R., Kostyuk N., Oppenheimer H. Public opinion and cyberterrorism // Public Opinion Quarterly. 2023, vol. 87, № 1. P. 92–119. DOI: 10.1093/poq/nfad006.
4. Jäger F. Security vs. civil liberties: How citizens cope with threat, restriction, and ideology // Frontiers in Political Science. 2023, № 4. P.1–13. DOI: 10.3389/fpos.2022.1006711.
5. Fesenfeld L., Rudolph L., Bernauer T. Policy framing, design and feedback can increase public support for costly food waste regulation // Nature Food. 2022, vol. 3, № 3. P. 227–235. DOI: 10.1038/s43016-022-00460-8.
6. Gurinskaya A. Predicting citizens’ support for surveillance cameras. Does police legitimacy matter? // International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice. 2020, vol. 44. P. 63–83. DOI: 10.1080/01924036.2020.1744027.
7. Mužík M., Šerek J. What reduces support for civil liberties: Authoritarianism, national identity, and perceived threat // Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. 2021, vol. 21, № 1. P. 734–760. DOI: 10.1111/asap.12241.
8. Chmel K., Klimova A., Savin N. The effect of risk framing on support for restrictive government policy regarding the COVID-19 outbreak // PLoS ONE. 2021, vol. 10, № 16. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258132.
9. Murphy K., Williamson H., Sargeant E., McCarthy M. Why people comply with COVID-19 social distancing restrictions: Self-interest or duty? // Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 2020, vol. 53, № 4. P. 477–496. DOI: 10.1177/0004865820954484.
10. Shandler R., Gross M. L., Canetti D. A fragile public preference for cyber strikes: Evidence from survey experiments in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel // Contemporary Security Policy. 2021, vol. 42, № 2. P. 135–162. DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2020.1868836.
11. Easton D. A Re-assessment of the concept of political support // British Journal of Political Science. 1975, vol. 5, № 4. P. 435–457. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123400008309.
12. Kingsbury B. The concept of compliance as a function of competing conceptions of international law // Trilateral Perspectives on International Legal Issues: From Theory Into Practice. 1998. P. 9–33. DOI: 10.1163/9789004635807_005.
13. Daoust J. F. How can governments generate compliance in times of crisis? A review of the COVID-19 pandemic // French Politics. 2023, vol. 21, № 2. P. 179–194. DOI: 10.1057/s41253-023-00206-3.
14. Van Deth J. W. Compliance, trust and norms of citizenship // Handbook on political trust. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. 2017. P. 212–228. DOI: 10.4337/9781782545118.00024.
15. Norris P. The conceptual framework of political support // The Oxford handbook of social and political trust / Ed. by E. M. Uslaner. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2018. P. 19–32. DOI: 10.4337/9781782545118.00012.
16. Pak A., McBryde E. S., Adegboye O. A. Does high public trust amplify compliance with stringent COVID-19 government health guidelines? A multi-country analysis using data from 102,627 individuals // Risk Management and Healthcare Policy. 2021, vol. 14, № 1. P. 293–302. DOI: 10.2147/rmhp.s278774.
17. Lalot F., Heering M. S., Rullo M., Travaglino G.A., Abrams D. The dangers of distrustful complacency: Low concern and low political trust combine to undermine compliance with governmental restrictions in the emerging Covid-19 pandemic // Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2022, vol. 25, № 1. P. 106–121. DOI: 10.1177/1368430220967986.
18. Mutz D. C. Population-based survey experiments. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 2011. 177 p. DOI: 10.18352/bmgn-lchr.332.
19. Liu C. Who supports expanding surveillance? Exploring public opinion of Chinese social credit systems // International Sociology. 2021, vol. 37, № 3. P. 391–412. DOI: 10.1177/02685809221084446.
20. Седашов Е. А. Методы каузального анализа в современной политической науке // Политическая наука. 2021, №1. С. 98–115. DOI: 10.31249/poln/2021.01.04.
21. Imbens G. W., Rubin D. B. Causal inference in statistics, social, and biomedical sciences // Cambridge University Press, 2015. 625 p. ISBN: 9781139025751. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139025751.
22. Sekerdej M., Kossowska M. Motherland under attack! Nationalism, terrorist threat, and support for the restriction of civil liberties // Polish Psychological Bulletin. 2011, vol. 42, № 11. P. 11–19. DOI: 10.2478/v10059-011-0003-0.
23. Davis D. W., Silver B. D. Civil liberties vs. security: Public opinion in the context of the terrorist attacks on America // American journal of political science. 2004, vol. 48, № 1. P. 28–46. DOI: 10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00054.x.
24. Kostyuk N., Wayne C. The microfoundations of state cybersecurity: Cyber risk perceptions and the mass public // Journal of Global Security Studies. 2021, vol. 6, № 2. DOI: 10.1093/jogss/ogz077.
25. Iyengar S. Laboratory experiments in political science // Cambridge handbook of experimental political science / Ed. by J. N. Druckman, D. P. Greene, J. H. Kuklinski. Cambridge University Press. 2012. P. 137–167. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511921452.006.
26. Gaines B. J., Kuklinski J. H., Quirk P. J. The logic of the survey experiment reexamined // Political Analysis. 2007, vol. 15, № 1. P.1–20. DOI: 10.1093/pan/mpl008.
27. Hovland C. I. Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change // American Psychologist. 1959, vol. 14, № 1. P. 8–17. DOI: 10.1037/h0042210.
28. Renström E. A., Bäck H. Emotions during the Covid‐19 pandemic: Fear, anxiety, and anger as mediators between threats and policy support and political actions // Journal of applied social psychology. 2021, vol. 51, № 8. P. 861–877. DOI: 10.1111/jasp.12806.
29. Lodge M., Taber C., Verhulst B. Conscious and unconscious information processing with implications for experimental political science // Cambridge handbook of experimental political science / Ed. by J. N. Druckman, D. P. Greene, J. H. Kuklinski. Cambridge University Press, 2012. P. 291–321. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511921452.011.
30. Григорян Л. К., Горинова Е. В. Факторный опрос: преимущества, область применения, практические рекомендации // Социальная психология и общество. 2016, т. 7, № 2. С. 142–157. DOI: 10.17759/sps.2016070210.
31. Ziller C., Helbling M. Public support for state surveillance // European Journal of Political Research. 2021, vol. 60, № 4. P. 994–1006. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6765.12424.
32. Gomez M. A., Whyte C. Breaking the myth of cyber doom: Securitization and normalization of novel threats // International Studies Quarterly. 2021, vol. 65, № 4. P. 1137–1150. DOI: 10.1093/isq/sqab034.
33. Cohen G. L. Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003, vol. 85, № 5. P.808–822. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808.
34. Blair R. A., Curtice T., Dow D., Grossman G. Public trust, policing, and the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from an electoral authoritarian regime // Social Science & Medicine. 2022, vol. 305, № 3. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115045.
35. Becher M., Stegmueller D., Brouard S., Kerrouche E. Ideology and compliance with health guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comparative perspective // Social science quarterly. 2021, vol.102, № 5. P. 2106–2123. DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13035.
36. Sniderman P. M. The logic and design of the survey experiment: An autobiography of a methodological innovation // Cambridge handbook of experimental political science / Ed. by J. N. Druckman, D. P. Greene, J. H. Kuklinski. Cambridge University Press, 2012. P. 182–205. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511921452.008.
37. Margetts H., Stocker G. The experimental method: prospects for laboratory and field studies // Theory and methods in political science. 3rd edition / Ed. by D. Marsch, G. Stocker. Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. P. 308–324. DOI:10.1007/978-0-230-36664-0_16.
38. Daoust J. F., Nadeau R., Dassonneville R., Lachapelle E., Belanger E., Savoie J., van der Linden C. How to survey citizens’ compliance with COVID-19 public health measures: evidence from three survey experiments // Journal of Experimental Political Science. 2021, vol. 8, №. 3. P. 310–317. DOI: 10.1017/XPS.2020.25.
39. Faillo M., Ottone S., Sacconi L. Compliance by believing: An experimental exploration on social norms and impartial agreements // SSRN. 2008. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1151245.
40. Alm J., McKee M. Tax compliance as a coordination game // Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2004, vol. 54, № 3. P. 297–312. DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2003.02.003.
41. Auliya S. F., Wulandari N. The impact of mobility patterns on the spread of the COVID-19 in Indonesia // Journal of Information Systems Engineering and Business Intelligence. 2021, vol. 7, № 1. P. 31–41. DOI: 10.20473/jisebi.7.1.31-41.
42. Aguilar-Ruiz J. S., Ruiz R., Giráldez R. Advance monitoring of COVID-19 incidence based on taxi mobility: Еhe infection ratio measure // Healthcare. MDPI. 2024, vol. 12, № 5. P. 51–57. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12050517.
43. McDermott R. Experimental methods in political science //Annual Review of Political Science. 2002, vol. 5, № 1. P. 31–61. DOI:10.1146/annurev.polisci.5.091001.170657.
Статья
Поступила: 14.02.2024
Опубликована: 20.08.2025
Форматы цитирования
Другие форматы цитирования:
APA
Бочарова, А. П. (2025). Восприятие населением рестриктивной политики государства: проблемы измерения. Социология: методология, методы, математическое моделирование (Социология:4М), (60), 183-215. https://doi.org/10.19181/4m.2025.34.1.5
Выпуск
Раздел
ИЗМЕРЕНИЯ В СОЦИОЛОГИИ
