skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


  • NSF Public Access
  • Search Results
  • Support for Vladimir Putin in Russia's neighbors: Survey evidence from an endorsement experiment in six post-Soviet countries
Title: Support for Vladimir Putin in Russia's neighbors: Survey evidence from an endorsement experiment in six post-Soviet countries
The Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022 has again drawn attention to the geopolitical aims of President Vladimir Putin in the states of the former Soviet Union, the ‘Near Abroad’. While Putin's actions have been widely condemned in the West, the reaction among the former Soviet states has been more mixed. Using representative national surveys from late 2019 - early 2020, the article reports the results of an endorsement experiment to gage the support that Putin had in six countries of the former Soviet space (Ukraine, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Georgia and Armenia). Direct questioning about Putin revealed that half of the 8420 respondents said that they had ‘no trust at all’ though views varied a lot by country. Given the sensitivity around perceptions of Putin, an endorsement experiment elicits more accurate results. Five expectations of who supports Putin are tested in models with socio-demographic controls. Respondents with more close-minded personalities show significantly more support for Vladimir Putin, our key test. People who are skeptical of scientific expertise and those with traditional views (measured by a question about patriarchal dominance in marriages) are also more likely to support Putin. In contrast, support for Putin is not significantly greater by those who subscribe to conspiracy theories, and by those with little interest in politics. Country level results are generally in line with the results of the overall model, but demonstrate some interesting variation. Vladimir Putin overall has higher trust and support in Belarus, Armenia, and Kazakhstan than in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova but the respondents in all countries behave in a manner consistent with their personal traits in endorsing or opposing Putin's positions.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1759645
PAR ID:
10497788
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ;
Publisher / Repository:
Elsevier
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Political Geography
Volume:
108
Issue:
C
ISSN:
0962-6298
Page Range / eLocation ID:
103014
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; (, Problems of Post-Communism)
    Research shows that people’s perceptions of historical violence shape many present-day outcomes. Yet it is also plausible that people emphasize or downplay certain events of the past based on how these resonate with their beliefs and identities today. With a population of diverse orientations involving Russia and Europe, Ukraine in 2019 was an important case for exploring how people’s present geopolitical orientations shaped perceptions of victimization in World War II. Drawing on a survey experiment, we find evidence for “motivated reasoning” among Western-oriented respondents, who emphasized their family’s suffering in World War II when faced with information that attributed blame to the Soviet regime. We find no evidence for motivated reasoning among the Russian-oriented respondents 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al (, Nature Human Behaviour)
    The spread of misinformation online is a global problem that requires global solutions. To that end, we conducted an experiment in 16 countries across 6 continents (N = 34,286; 676,605 observations) to investigate predictors of susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19, and interventions to combat the spread of this misinformation. In every country, participants with a more analytic cognitive style and stronger accuracy-related motivations were better at discerning truth from falsehood; valuing democracy was also associated with greater truth discernment, whereas endorsement of individual responsibility over government support was negatively associated with truth discernment in most countries. Subtly prompting people to think about accuracy had a generally positive effect on the veracity of news that people were willing to share across countries, as did minimal digital literacy tips. Finally, aggregating the ratings of our non-expert participants was able to differentiate true from false headlines with high accuracy in all countries via the ‘wisdom of crowds’. The consistent patterns we observe suggest that the psychological factors underlying the misinformation challenge are similar across different regional settings, and that similar solutions may be broadly effective. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, Energy Research & Social Science)
    Utilizing a random sample of Oklahoma, USA residents, this paper examines the factors that are 1) associated with concern for the current state of the electrical grid in Oklahoma, and 2) associated with willingness-to-pay (WTP) for electrical grid improvements in the state. We develop a conceptual model using a risk perception framework and based on previous literature to hypothesize which variables should be related to our dependent variables (concern for the electrical grid, and WTP for improvements to the grid). We then test our conceptual model using a structural equation model (SEM). The results suggest that respondents who hold higher perceptions of weather-related risks and perceive more risks from electrical outages had greater concern for electricity infrastructure. Additionally, respondents who expressed less trust in those charged with electrical grid maintenance reported more concern for electricity infrastructure. The results for our second research question suggest that lower cost, respondents who were more politically liberal, non-white, trust grid maintenance, perceived risks of electrical outages and have concerns for the electrical grid infrastructure were all related to WTP for electrical grid improvements. We conclude the paper with implications of our findings and some brief recommendations for electrical grid concern and WTP for modernization. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; (, Journal of Communication in Healthcare)
    Background: Distrust and partisan identity are theorized to undermine health communications. We examined the role of these factors on the efficacy of discussion groups intended to promote vaccine uptake. Method: W e analyzed survey data from unvaccinated Facebook users (N = 371) living in the US between January and April 2022. Participants were randomly assigned to Facebook discussion groups (intervention) or referred to Facebook ’s COVID-19 Information Center (control). We used Analysis of Covariance to test if the intervention was more effective at changing vaccination intentions and beliefs compared to the control in subgroups based on participants ’ p artisan identity, political views, and information trust views. Results: W e found a significant interaction between the intervention and trust in public health institutions (PHIs) for improving intentions to vaccinate (P = .04), intentions to encourage others to vaccinate ( P = .03), and vaccine confidence beliefs ( P = .01). Among participants who trusted PHIs, those in the intervention had higher posttest intentions to vaccinate ( P = .008) and intentions to encourage others to vaccinate ( P = .002) compared to the control. Among non-conservatives, participants in the intervention had higher posttest intentions to vaccinate ( P = .048). The intervention was more effective at improving intentions to encourage others to vaccinate within the subgroups of Republicans ( P = .03), conservatives (P = .02), and participants who distrusted government ( P = .02). Conclusions: Facebook discussion groups were more effective for people who trusted PHIs and non-conservatives. Health communicators may need to segment health messaging and develop strategies around trust views. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, JAMA Health Forum)
    ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic has been notable for the widespread dissemination of misinformation regarding the virus and appropriate treatment. ObjectiveTo quantify the prevalence of non–evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 in the US and the association between such treatment and endorsement of misinformation as well as lack of trust in physicians and scientists. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis single-wave, population-based, nonprobability internet survey study was conducted between December 22, 2022, and January 16, 2023, in US residents 18 years or older who reported prior COVID-19 infection. Main Outcome and MeasureSelf-reported use of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, endorsing false statements related to COVID-19 vaccination, self-reported trust in various institutions, conspiratorial thinking measured by the American Conspiracy Thinking Scale, and news sources. ResultsA total of 13 438 individuals (mean [SD] age, 42.7 [16.1] years; 9150 [68.1%] female and 4288 [31.9%] male) who reported prior COVID-19 infection were included in this study. In this cohort, 799 (5.9%) reported prior use of hydroxychloroquine (527 [3.9%]) or ivermectin (440 [3.3%]). In regression models including sociodemographic features as well as political affiliation, those who endorsed at least 1 item of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation were more likely to receive non–evidence-based medication (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.86; 95% CI, 2.28-3.58). Those reporting trust in physicians and hospitals (adjusted OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.98) and in scientists (adjusted OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.79) were less likely to receive non–evidence-based medication. Respondents reporting trust in social media (adjusted OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.00-2.87) and in Donald Trump (adjusted OR, 2.97; 95% CI, 2.34-3.78) were more likely to have taken non–evidence-based medication. Individuals with greater scores on the American Conspiracy Thinking Scale were more likely to have received non–evidence-based medications (unadjusted OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11; adjusted OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.13). Conclusions and RelevanceIn this survey study of US adults, endorsement of misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic, lack of trust in physicians or scientists, conspiracy-mindedness, and the nature of news sources were associated with receiving non–evidence-based treatment for COVID-19. These results suggest that the potential harms of misinformation may extend to the use of ineffective and potentially toxic treatments in addition to avoidance of health-promoting behaviors. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email