Salīdzināt metodes

	Political Cynicism Scale	Democratic Norms Support Measurement
Nozare	Politiskā psiholoģija	Politiskā psiholoģija
Saime	Latent structure	Process / pipeline
Izcelsmes gads	1961	2020
Autors	Robert Agger, Marshall Goldstein & Stanley Pearl	Matthew Graham & Milan Svolik; Christopher Claassen
Tips	Attitude scale for distrust of politics	Experimental and survey measurement of democratic commitment
Pirmavots	Agger, R. E., Goldstein, M. N., & Pearl, S. A. (1961). Political Cynicism: Measurement and Meaning. The Journal of Politics, 23(3), 477-506.	Graham, M. H., & Svolik, M. W. (2020). Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 392-409.
Citi nosaukumi	Political Distrust Scale, Agger-Goldstein-Pearl Cynicism Measure, Cynicism Toward Government Scale, Political Disaffection Scale	Support for Democracy Tradeoff Experiment, Democratic Backsliding Tolerance Measure, Graham-Svolik Democratic Norms Design, Commitment to Democratic Principles Measure
Saistītās	3	3
Kopsavilkums	The Political Cynicism Scale measures the disposition to hold politicians and politics in disrepute, viewing officeholders as dishonest, self-serving, and unresponsive. First operationalized by Agger, Goldstein, and Pearl in 1961, the construct captures a generalized distrust distinct from disagreement with particular leaders or policies. Cynicism scales sit alongside political trust and efficacy as core measures of citizens' orientation toward the political system, and they figure prominently in debates, sharpened by Jack Citrin, over whether low trust reflects deep alienation from the regime or merely dissatisfaction with current incumbents.	This approach measures how committed ordinary citizens are to democratic norms by observing the price they are willing to pay to uphold them. Rather than asking abstractly whether people value democracy, Matthew Graham and Milan Svolik's 2020 candidate-choice design confronts voters with a co-partisan candidate who violates a democratic principle and estimates how much electoral support that violation costs. Their finding that most Americans will tolerate undemocratic behavior by their own side when partisanship and policy stakes are high reframed the study of democratic backsliding around revealed, not professed, commitment. Christopher Claassen's parallel work links aggregate diffuse support for democracy to whether democracies survive.