SemOpenAlex |

SemOpenAlex

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4300979322> ?p ?o ?g. }

Showing items 1 to 100 of ±108 with 100 items per page.

W4300979322 endingPage "912" @default.
W4300979322 startingPage "894" @default.
W4300979322 abstract "Surveillance policies aimed at combating terrorism and improving public security can also lead to constraints on civil liberties. In view of this trade-off between the potential benefits and risks of surveillance, it is particularly important to study how effectiveness considerations shape public support for surveillance. We argue that effectiveness perceptions enhance policy support, but that the manner in which citizens view policy effectiveness depends on their perceptions of threats related to terrorism and to violations of civil liberties. Using data from a factorial survey experiment in Germany, we show that policy effectiveness is the most relevant predictor of citizens' support for different surveillance measures. Moreover, we find evidence that depending on the scope of surveillance, respondents perceiving threats to their liberty rely much less heavily on policy effectiveness as a criterion for evaluating policies, compared to those whose threat perception is low. Awan, Imran. 2012.“‘I Am a Muslim Not an Extremist’: How the Prevent Strategy Has Constructed a ‘Suspect’ Community.” Politics & Policy 40(6): 1158–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00397.x. Doan, Alesha E., and Corinne Schwarz. 2020. “Father Knows Best: ‘Protecting’ Women through State Surveillance and Social Control in Anti-Abortion Policy.” Politics & Policy 48(1): 6–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12337. Jenkins-Smith, Hank C., and Kerry G. Herron. 2009. “Rock and a Hard Place: Public Willingness to Trade Civil Rights and Liberties for Greater Security.” Politics & Policy 37(5): 1095–129. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2009.00215.x/abstract. Las políticas de vigilancia destinadas a combatir el terrorismo y mejorar la seguridad pública también pueden conducir a restricciones en las libertades civiles. En vista de este compromiso entre los posibles beneficios y riesgos de la vigilancia, es particularmente importante estudiar cómo las consideraciones de efectividad dan forma al apoyo público a la vigilancia. Argumentamos que las percepciones de efectividad mejoran el apoyo a las políticas, pero que la forma en que los ciudadanos ven la efectividad de las políticas depende de sus percepciones de la amenaza relacionada con el terrorismo y las violaciones de las libertades civiles. Usando datos de un experimento de encuesta factorial en Alemania, mostramos que la efectividad de las políticas es el predictor más relevante del apoyo de los ciudadanos a diferentes medidas de vigilancia. Además, encontramos evidencia de que, según el alcance de la vigilancia, los encuestados que perciben amenazas a su libertad confían mucho menos en la eficacia de las políticas como criterio para evaluar las políticas, en comparación con aquellos cuya percepción de amenazas es baja. 旨在打击恐怖主义和改善公共安全的监控政策也可能导致公民自由受限。鉴于监控的潜在利益与风险之间的得失，尤为重要的是，研究有效性考量(effectiveness considerations)如何影响监控的公众支持。我们认为，有效性感知增强了政策支持，但公民看待政策有效性的方式取决于他们对与恐怖主义和侵犯公民自由相关的威胁的感知。通过使用来自德国的一项因素调查实验数据，我们表明，政策有效性是与不同监控措施的公民支持最相关的预测物。此外，我们证明，与威胁感知较低的受访者相比，认为其自由受到威胁的受访者不太依赖政策有效性作为评估政策的标准，这取决于监控范围。 Questions relating to public support for state surveillance are vital nowadays. New forms of surveillance have been introduced in many countries in the wake of terrorist incidents (see, e.g., Epifanio, 2011), and the technological possibilities for this have increased considerably in recent years. Surveillance measures are also used in various countries to combat the COVID-19 pandemic (French & Monahan, 2020). At the same time, surveillance policies aimed at combating terrorism and improving public security can infringe upon privacy rights and even reduce citizens' expression of opinion and their exchange of political views (Eck et al., 2021). Given that such policies may lead to constraints on civil liberties, there is a lot at stake. This trade-off between security and liberty makes it particularly important that citizens perceive the policies under consideration as being effective in support of such measures. Moreover, effectiveness in the context of counterterrorist surveillance measures is a complex matter. First, its relevance is far from being unambiguous, as preventive measures typically lead to hard-to-observe outcomes which may disguise policy effectiveness. Second, public and political discourses in the policy area of law and order are highly symbolic, which heightens the role of factors other than effectiveness for citizens' policy support (Wenzelburger & Staff, 2016). This study addresses this ambiguity and investigates how effectiveness considerations regarding counterterrorist surveillance policies affect citizens' policy support. Specifically, we argue that individual sensitivity to various threats critically conditions the extent to which policy effectiveness translates into policy support. In doing so, we focus on “security threat,” which refers to heightened alertness toward situations undermining personal and public safety (Schwartz, 1992). We know from previous research that perceptions of security threats can boost support for counterterrorism policies (see, e.g., Davis & Silver, 2004; Huddy et al., 2005; Merolla & Zechmeister, 2009). This can have far-reaching consequences for the balance between liberty and security in our societies, skewing the trade-off toward the latter (Stevens & Vaughan-Williams, 2016, p. 149). However, people might also feel threatened by extensive domestic security policies and perceive their personal freedoms to be at risk (i.e., “liberty threat”). As we know little about the consequences of perceived liberty threat (cf. Best et al., 2012; Trüdinger, 2019) for the support for different surveillance measures, we equally focus on this kind of threat. Moving beyond prior studies, we incorporate both security threat and liberty threat, as they potentially condition the magnitude of how effectiveness considerations translate into support for surveillance. The expectation that perceived threat might trigger the relevance of policy evaluations is rooted in studies on the political psychology of affective and cognitive responses to threat. Whether threat perceptions lead to an amplification or mitigation of the effects of performance-based considerations hinges on the underlying mechanism. Specifically, the theory of Affective Intelligence posits that a perceived threat induces people to seek information, which should, in turn, heighten the relevance of citizens' effectiveness considerations for policy support (Joslyn & Haider-Markel, 2018; Marcus et al., 2000; Merolla & Zechmeister, 2018). In contrast, works on motivating closed-mindedness suggest that threats reduce individuals' cognitive capacity, which should, in turn, make effectiveness considerations less relevant as a source of policy support (Davis, 2007; Thórisdóttir & Jost, 2011). To test these competing hypotheses, we use a factorial survey experiment embedded in an online survey conducted in Germany. The experiment portrays different conditions for the implementation of surveillance measures in order to prevent a terrorist attack. It allows us to examine the influence of perceived policy effectiveness on support for three different forms of state surveillance but also to study various further characteristics of the implementation context, such as the potential magnitude and the target of the attacks. Such an experimental design offers the opportunity to contrast the relative importance of effectiveness with these other factors that have been shown to impact support for counterterrorism policies in previous studies (see, e.g., Brooks & Manza, 2013). Varying the scope of the surveillance measures tells us something about whether or not the relevance of policy effectiveness and the moderating role of threat perceptions differ with regard to the extent to which surveillance measures encroach on civil liberties. We find that policy effectiveness is the strongest predictor of surveillance policy support that outperforms other relevant determinants. At the same time, perceived threat mitigates the predictive capacity of policy effectiveness when it comes to perceptions of threat to liberty and support for extensive monitoring activities. All-in-all, this study sheds light on relevant boundary conditions of citizens' support for publicly debated policy measures. It particularly advances research on policy support in highlighting the distinct effects of two kinds of perceived threats and the relevance of comparing support for different forms of surveillance measures. Before presenting the results of the study, we first provide a theoretical discussion of the influence of citizens' effectiveness considerations on support for surveillance and of the moderating role of two types of perceived threats. Domestic security measures, and surveillance policies in this domain, aim to achieve or maintain public order and security. State surveillance comprises any one-sided systematic, routine monitoring of individuals or groups for a given purpose (see, e.g., Lyon, 2014, p. 2). One can therefore argue that effectiveness considerations are particularly important for those being monitored, as the costs in terms of losses in privacy and personal freedom might be substantial (Trüdinger & Steckermeier, 2017). The provision of public security by governments, at the same time, represents a valence issue (Stokes, 1963). This means that, by and large, citizens agree on the specific policy goal, whereas the means to reach these goals are more highly contested. Public support for these specific policies may vary and depend upon a range of motives (Ziller & Helbling, 2021). Given the potential for infringements of civil liberties, individuals can be expected to assess the implementation of counterterrorist surveillance measures while taking costs and benefits into account. The relevance of cost–benefit calculations for political support has been emphasized in early contributions on the importance of citizens' perceptions of the output and outcomes of a policy (see, e.g., Sears et al., 1980). Policies that are effective in solving problems are more likely to benefit citizens. Thus, we expect that support for a policy should be greater if it is perceived as solving the problems that it was designed to tackle—compared to if the policy is considered to be ineffective (Huber et al., 2020, p. 652). In other words, assessments as to whether government measures will achieve the envisaged objectives should be an important factor for citizens' policy support (although we stress below that individuals may view policy consequences from different angles and this, in turn, influences the emphasis they place on policy effectiveness). That said, expecting performance-based evaluations to be critical for the creation of citizens' policy support is only one side of the coin. Public and political discourse related to counterterrorist measures is highly symbolically charged (Garrett, 2020; Wenzelburger & Staff, 2016). This becomes apparent in cases where government officials implement law-and-order policies primarily to appease constituents, regardless of their actual effectiveness. Prominent examples in this regard are the Trump travel bans placing restrictions on travelers from several Muslim countries, or the construction of the U.S.-Mexico cross-border wall under the Trump administration (Clapton, 2021). In a related vein, works on policy feedback (Mettler & Soss, 2004; Pierson, 1993) stipulate that individuals' policy support is guided not only by rational cost–benefit calculations but also by interpretive or symbolic effects which refer to the perception that the government is responsive and cares about citizens' needs. Another stance challenging the assumption that counterterrorist surveillance measures (even effective ones) univocally lead to greater policy support stems from literature that critically examines unintended consequences of state surveillance (see, e.g., Lyon, 2007; Vlcek, 2007). This literature shows, for example, that racial profiling has intensified and may lead to discriminatory police behavior toward specific groups (Abbas, 2019; Selod, 2018). Although we agree that symbolic policies or unintended consequences may dampen how effectiveness translates into policy support for some individuals, we nevertheless formulate the following general hypothesis as a default expectation: Hypothesis 1.If a measure of state surveillance is considered effective (ineffective), it receives stronger (weaker) support on average than it does in the absence of such a positive assessment. Beyond the role of policy effectiveness, various other aspects of the implementation context of a counterterrorist policy (e.g., Is there a specific threat of a terrorist attack? Which group carries out the attack?) can be expected to impact policy support as well. We expect these factors to operate independently from effectiveness—which is the central focus of this study. In order to assess the role of policy effectiveness in relation to other factors, we include them in the survey experiment and in subsequent empirical analyses.1 Moving beyond general expectations, we focus on individual-level perceptions of threats that potentially trigger whether people base their policy support on effectiveness-led considerations rather than on symbolic grounds that are likely to be charged by people's feelings and identities. Previous work has shown that perceptions of threats from terrorism, immigration, etc.—and emotions such as anger and fear related to these threats2—can evoke strong reactions among citizens when it comes to political support and voting behavior (see, e.g., Merolla & Zechmeister, 2009; Stevens & Vaughan-Williams, 2016; Vasilopoulos et al., 2019). In particular, studies on the role of threat in times of terrorism demonstrate that a perceived threat to security can directly increase support for counterterrorist policies and restrictions on civil liberties (see, e.g., Davis & Silver, 2004; Dietrich & Crabtree, 2019; Huddy et al., 2005; Valentino et al., 2020). Moreover, there is empirical evidence from research on policy support during the COVID-19 pandemic that perceived threat (related to the pandemic) can foster acceptance of state surveillance (see, e.g., Wnuk et al., 2020). Perceptions of threat, however, also operate in conjunction with basic individual dispositions such as authoritarianism in their influence on policy support. Different kinds of interaction between perceived threat and authoritarianism are possible, depending on situational factors, triggered emotions, and the nature of the threat. While some researchers argue that authoritarians might adhere more closely to authoritarian policies in light of a threat, others posit that nonauthoritarians or liberals might be more likely to react to a threatening stimulus by shifting their preferences to more restrictive or more aggressive policies (see, e.g., Stevens & Banducci, 2022; Vasilopoulos et al., 2018, with more information on this theoretical and empirical puzzle). In addition to authoritarian dispositions, there is evidence of an interaction between political trust and perceived threats when it comes to support for restrictions on civil liberties in the context of terrorism (Davis & Silver, 2004), and pandemic threats when citizens experience fear related to COVID-19 (Vasilopoulos et al., 2022). In sum, this literature shows that perceived threat can strongly affect the way people reason about particular policies. Apart from its interaction with authoritarianism or political trust, we know little about how threat operates as a boundary condition for how policy features, and their evaluations by the public, impact policy support.3 In particular, the role of other threats such as perceived threats to individual liberties has rarely been studied so far. This is surprising, as previous work on surveillance has shown that people are highly likely to feel concerned about government surveillance and that defending liberty against an intrusive government is relevant to many citizens when evaluating counterterrorism policies (Best et al., 2012, p. 610). In other words: Perceived threats regarding privacy can reduce the acceptance of surveillance measures (Dinev et al., 2008). Moving beyond that, we argue that the impact of citizens' effectiveness considerations is moderated by perceptions of threat to security and to liberty. In doing so, we focus not only on security threats but also on liberty threats related to potential violations of individual rights (e.g., fears of infringements on privacy), and to what extent it operates as a boundary condition for how policy effectiveness translates into surveillance policy support. To specify underlying mechanisms, we discuss the effects of threats and perceived effectiveness on support for surveillance policies in a broader theoretical framework of information processing, considering the moderating role of perceptions of threat to security and to liberty. We argue that the presence of threat influences individual information seeking and decision making (see, e.g., Wagner & Morisi, 2019). According to the theory of affective intelligence (AIT; Marcus et al., 2000), emotions—be they positive (e.g., enthusiasm) or negative (e.g., anger)—are critical for guiding individuals' information processing. While positive emotions trigger the disposition system and amplify existing habits, negative emotions activate the so-called surveillance system, which fosters individuals to rely less heavily on existing behaviors and to be more alert to new information. Perceptions of threat fall into the category of reactions that may stimulate individual information processing and shift people's attention toward new information (Joslyn & Haider-Markel, 2018; Marcus et al., 2000; Merolla & Zechmeister, 2018). The underlying rationale here is that individuals aim to use new information to deal with the source of the threat. This may mean that, in the face of a terrorist threat, effectiveness considerations should become more important for policy support. From this perspective, high perceptions of threat (whether this refers to security or liberty) should—according to the AIT framework—additionally trigger people's alertness to policy effectiveness as crucial additional information when assessing a policy. On the other hand, it can be argued that threat (similar to cognitive overload) diminishes individuals' cognitive processing capacity. A reduction in information seeking under stress and cognitive load has been demonstrated for situational factors (e.g., loud noises), negative feedback on tasks, as well as emotional factors such as fear (Kruglanski, 2004; Roets et al., 2008). Apart from this, avoidance of new information may also constitute a motivated strategy to regain a subjective sense of control and certainty when facing a threat. This argument is also central to works on motivated closed-mindedness according to which perceptions of threat reduce individuals' cognitive capacity and motivation to seek out new information (see e.g., Thórisdóttir & Jost, 2011). Thus, in case of threats, individuals do not consider the full range of options available on an issue or shift their attention toward information that appears to increase certainty and control (Gadarian & Albertson, 2014). In other words, threats can create a mental state of emergency among individuals, where the search for a way out of the threat overrides other considerations and impairs the cognitive processing of new information. Following these arguments, we expect considerations of the effectiveness of security policies to become less important when it comes to support for surveillance in situations where people perceive threats to their security or to their liberties. We put forward the following competing hypotheses, based on the perspectives of affective intelligence versus motivated closed-mindedness: Hypothesis 2a.The positive effect of policy effectiveness on policy support is amplified under perceptions of threat (whether related to terrorism or to encroachment on civil liberties). Hypothesis 2b.The positive effect of policy effectiveness on policy support is mitigated under perceptions of threat (whether related to terrorism or to encroachment on civil liberties). To test these hypotheses, we conducted a factorial survey experiment that was embedded in an online survey about attitudes toward civil liberties. The survey was designed in the context of a research project entitled “Conditional support for civil liberties and preferences for domestic security policies among citizens in Germany.” The project was directed by the first author of this study and funded by the German Research Foundation. The survey was managed by forsa and was fielded in Germany from May 2 to June 5, 2016. This period was marked by the aftermath of the 2015 terrorist attacks by radical Islamists in Paris and in other cities, and the risk of further attacks in Europe was considered high. The threat of right-wing extremism was also salient among citizens through reports from the years-long trial of members of the terrorist group NSU. State surveillance had equally become a topic of public discussion shortly before the survey was fielded: The Federal Constitutional Court found many parts of the German Federal Criminal Police Office Act (Bundeskriminalamtgesetz) of 2009 (containing new provisions on surveillance) to be unconstitutional. The Court established strict conditions for state surveillance in order to ensure the protection of privacy. The sample for this survey was drawn from an online panel actively recruited by telephone (Link Internet Panel) and was representative of persons aged 14–69 who use the Internet for private purposes at least once a week. The panel was stratified by age, gender, and region, and a random sample of adult target persons was drawn from it. Potential respondents were incentivized with vouchers in order to increase their willingness to participate. The following analyses are based on answers from 774 respondents. Three outcome measures were used to map support for different forms of government surveillance based on the following question wording (descriptive information and the exact question wording for the variables used in this study can be found in Tables A1 and A2 in the Appendix): “To what extent would you agree to the following measures: Monitoring of telephone calls and online activities of (a) suspects with a warrant, (b) suspects without a warrant, and (c) as many citizens as possible without a warrant.” Responses were recorded on an 11-point scale ranging from “completely disagree” to “completely agree.” These three measures differ in the extent to which existing laws and civil liberties are violated by political authorities (the second proposal might be in accordance with the law, but the third is not). We thus consider that surveillance measures can vary in their severity. These differences might also affect people's attitudes toward surveillance, and the reasons why people support or reject these measures. And indeed, the mean support for surveillance of suspects with a warrant is high (8.59 on a scale from 0 to 10), while surveillance of suspects without a warrant receives much less support (5.15), and surveillance of as many citizens as possible is strongly rejected (2.0). We use a factorial survey to experimentally vary several dimensions of a scenario in which respondents evaluate the surveillance measures illustrated above. This method is used to provide individuals with information on the context in which government surveillance is evaluated. This is important because the relevance of context in decisions about civil liberties and domestic security has been shown repeatedly (see, e.g., Davis, 2007; Sniderman et al., 1996). This design also allows us to study the relevance of policy effectiveness relative to other dimensions of the implementation context (e.g., the magnitude or the target of the attack). The various vignettes that describe a hypothetical situation can therefore include different dimensions, reflecting theoretically relevant factors for supporting surveillance. In our case, six dimensions were varied within the vignettes in a 3 × 3 × 3 × 3 × 2 × 2 design. Table 1 gives an overview of the dimensions and levels of the vignette module. Our attention focuses on the vignette dimension concerning the effectiveness of the proposed surveillance measures in preventing attacks. We argue that this perceived effectiveness is a key criterion for evaluating the policy in question, given that reducing or eliminating terrorism and crime are major goals of domestic security policies. Further vignette dimensions include conditions that might also affect individual evaluations of surveillance measures: We control for different groups of terrorists, as representations of threat can differ between groups, and these representations have been shown to affect individual support for antiterrorism measures (see, e.g., Christensen & Aars, 2021). We also include the time frame of a potential attack, as reasoning on surveillance might depend on whether there is an imminent danger or if there is time to consider alternative avenues for averting danger. The nature and effects of potential incidents are equally considered: If an attack has serious consequences, individuals are supposed to be more likely to support measures to counter such an attack (see, e.g., Garcia & Geva, 2016), even if it is not certain that such measures can prevent an attack. Finally, we include various targets of a potential attack, as there is evidence that citizens are more responsive to terrorist attacks when the latter are directed against civilians than when they target other groups (see, e.g., Balcells & Torrats-Espinosa, 2018). Evidence suggests that terrorists from the extreme right are planning to carry out armed raids against citizens in the coming months. This could result in injuries. To what extent would you agree to the following measures, provided that it is relatively certain that they will prevent the attacks? Individuals' perceptions of threats of terrorism and of violations of personal liberties were measured using answers to the question of whether respondents feared several kinds of threats (see Tables A1 and A2 in the Appendix for descriptive information and question wording of the variables employed in this study). The measure of terrorism-related security threat is based on the following two questions: Are you afraid of becoming a victim of a terrorist attack? Are you afraid of terrorist attacks happening in Germany? Responses measured on a 7-point scale from “not afraid at all” to “extremely afraid” were combined to form an additive index of threat to security (Cronbach's α = .89). To measure one's perceptions of threat to liberty, an additive index was used combining survey participants' answers to the following questions: Are you afraid of your freedom being restricted by security laws? Are you afraid of your privacy being infringed by government surveillance? The responses were again measured on a 7-point scale ranging from “not afraid at all” to “extremely afraid” (Cronbach's α = .91). The two indices of threat are virtually uncorrelated (Pearson's r = −.01). We also control for sociodemographic factors in our models, namely age, gender, education, and East Germany. Regarding age, evidence favors an expectation that older people are more likely to support various antiterrorism measures (see, e.g., Davis, 2007). While recent evidence is mixed, earlier studies state that women are less committed to civil liberties than men are (see, e.g., Nunn et al., 1978). These studies, therefore, suggest that women are more supportive of strict surveillance measures. Previous studies point to a negative relationship between education and policies challenging civil liberties (see, e.g., Mondak & Hurwitz, 2012, p. 208), but education might also influence individual reasoning on surveillance. Some East German citizens experienced extensive surveillance practices in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). They might therefore be more sensitive to threats to liberty (see, e.g., Svenonius & Björklund, 2018). In the first step, we examine the role of policy effectiveness along with further vignette dimensions. The corresponding multilevel regression results are presented in Figure 1 and show standardized coefficient estimates. Priming high policy effectiveness (compared to low policy effectiveness) increases support for state surveillance by .31, up to .64 standard deviations—depending on which outcome is considered. Compared to surveillance of suspects with a warrant, high policy effectiveness appears to be particularly relevant for forms of surveillance without a warrant. The effect size of this vignette dimension is substantial and is highest compared with the other vignette dimensions. With reference to the terrorist group, respondents approve of surveillance measures to a higher degree if right-wing extremists or Islamists (rather than left-wing extremists) are the groups under consideration. This effect is statistically significant for targeted surveillance as an outcome and confirms existing findings on the role of group-related threats in support of counterterrorism policies (see, e.g., Christensen & Aars, 2021). Support for state surveillance is further increased if multiple deaths can be expected to result from the terrorist attack (compared with injured victims) and if citizens (as opposed to politicians) are the targets of the attack. In contrast, the mode of the attack, as well as the time frame of an attack, has no systematic impact on citizens' policy support across outcomes. These causal effects from the survey experiment do not differ if one includes pretr" @default.
W4300979322 created "2022-10-04" @default.
W4300979322 creator A5070781087 @default.
W4300979322 creator A5084178625 @default.
W4300979322 date "2022-10-01" @default.
W4300979322 modified "2023-09-29" @default.
W4300979322 title "Considered effective? How policy evaluations and threat perceptions affect support for surveillance in the context of terrorism" @default.
W4300979322 cites W1751775926 @default.
W4300979322 cites W1971291806 @default.
W4300979322 cites W1993937927 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2017184608 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2019054550 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2038176688 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2042436776 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2057447351 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2059015584 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2068895077 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2099274242 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2114190538 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2138016069 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2144865809 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2147766752 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2340275630 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2624764865 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2748840219 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2792700704 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2805241776 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2889340058 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2895065616 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2896902574 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2923445891 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2941184503 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2952063852 @default.
W4300979322 cites W2992214085 @default.
W4300979322 cites W3011351708 @default.
W4300979322 cites W3012190559 @default.
W4300979322 cites W3014380920 @default.
W4300979322 cites W3080847046 @default.
W4300979322 cites W3084493912 @default.
W4300979322 cites W3115369096 @default.
W4300979322 cites W3138183132 @default.
W4300979322 cites W3158436683 @default.
W4300979322 cites W3169368773 @default.
W4300979322 cites W4213134282 @default.
W4300979322 cites W4232344503 @default.
W4300979322 cites W4239844415 @default.
W4300979322 cites W4249718351 @default.
W4300979322 cites W4253274161 @default.
W4300979322 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12498" @default.
W4300979322 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
W4300979322 type Work @default.
W4300979322 citedByCount "1" @default.
W4300979322 countsByYear W43009793222022 @default.
W4300979322 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
W4300979322 hasAuthorship W4300979322A5070781087 @default.
W4300979322 hasAuthorship W4300979322A5084178625 @default.
W4300979322 hasBestOaLocation W43009793221 @default.
W4300979322 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
W4300979322 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
W4300979322 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
W4300979322 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
W4300979322 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
W4300979322 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
W4300979322 hasConcept C203133693 @default.
W4300979322 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
W4300979322 hasConcept C26760741 @default.
W4300979322 hasConcept C2776035688 @default.
W4300979322 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
W4300979322 hasConcept C38652104 @default.
W4300979322 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
W4300979322 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
W4300979322 hasConcept C46312422 @default.
W4300979322 hasConceptScore W4300979322C144133560 @default.
W4300979322 hasConceptScore W4300979322C15744967 @default.
W4300979322 hasConceptScore W4300979322C166957645 @default.
W4300979322 hasConceptScore W4300979322C169760540 @default.
W4300979322 hasConceptScore W4300979322C17744445 @default.
W4300979322 hasConceptScore W4300979322C199539241 @default.
W4300979322 hasConceptScore W4300979322C203133693 @default.
W4300979322 hasConceptScore W4300979322C205649164 @default.
W4300979322 hasConceptScore W4300979322C26760741 @default.
W4300979322 hasConceptScore W4300979322C2776035688 @default.
W4300979322 hasConceptScore W4300979322C2779343474 @default.
W4300979322 hasConceptScore W4300979322C38652104 @default.
W4300979322 hasConceptScore W4300979322C39549134 @default.
W4300979322 hasConceptScore W4300979322C41008148 @default.
W4300979322 hasConceptScore W4300979322C46312422 @default.
W4300979322 hasFunder F4320320879 @default.
W4300979322 hasIssue "5" @default.
W4300979322 hasLocation W43009793221 @default.
W4300979322 hasOpenAccess W4300979322 @default.
W4300979322 hasPrimaryLocation W43009793221 @default.
W4300979322 hasRelatedWork W2026237042 @default.
W4300979322 hasRelatedWork W2043067898 @default.
W4300979322 hasRelatedWork W2043914659 @default.
W4300979322 hasRelatedWork W2132333037 @default.
W4300979322 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
W4300979322 hasRelatedWork W2763187446 @default.