IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v35y2018i5p717-732.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mutual and Self Perceptions of Opposing Advocacy Coalitions: Devil Shift and Angel Shift in a German Policy Subsystem

Author

Listed:
  • Colette S. Vogeler
  • Nils C. Bandelow

Abstract

In political conflicts, actors tend to assume that opponents behave maliciously. This phenomena is part of the “devil shift,” which was introduced in advocacy coalition framework research. We present a multivariate analysis of the perceptions of motives and actions of opposing coalitions in a political conflict and thereby analyze a major dimension of the “devil shift” and of its antonym “angel shift.” The conflict concerning the German infrastructure project Stuttgart 21 serves as a case study. We show that the radicalness of policy‐specific beliefs is the most important predictor for the intensity of mutual misperception in the researched conflict. The results further point to a more systematic inclusion of an actor's deep normative core beliefs in future analyses of distorted perception. Another central finding relates to the importance of the personal environment: actors in the subsystem share the same policy core beliefs with the majority of people in their personal environment. 针对对立倡议联盟的双向感知和自我感知—德国政策子系统中的 “魔鬼转变” 和 “天使转变” 政治冲突中行为者时常认为对手的表现是恶意的。此现象是倡议联盟框架研究中“魔鬼转变”(devil shift)概念的部分内容。本文采用多变量分析法, 研究了政治冲突中对立联盟的动机和行动感知, 从而分析了“魔鬼转变”和其反义词“天使转变”的重要方面。本文将德国基建设施和斯图加特 21(Stuttgart 21)火车站之间的冲突作为案例研究。数据显示, 政策特定信仰的激进程度是目前针对该冲突中双方误解程度最重要的预测物。研究结果进一步指出, 未来在研究这种被扭曲的误解时应当将行为者的规范核心信仰纳入考量, 这样研究才会更系统化。本文的另一主要发现则与个人环境的重要性相关。研究表明, 政策子系统中几乎所有行动者在处于个人环境时和大多数人拥有相同的政策核心信仰。 Autopercepciones y percepciones mutuas de las coaliciones opositoras de defensa – el cambio diabólico y cambio angelical en un subsistema político alemán En conflictos políticos los actores tienden a asumir que los opositores se comportan de forma maliciosa. Estos fenómenos son parte de lo que se llama “cambio diabólico” que fue incluido en la investigación ACF. Este documento presenta un análisis multivariativo de las percepciones de los motivos y acciones de coaliciones opositoras en un conflicto político, y por ende analiza una mayor dimensión del “cambio diabólico” y de su antónimo, el “cambio angelical.” El conflicto que tiene que ver con la infraestructura alemana y la estación Stuttgart 21 sirve de estudio de caso. Los datos muestran que lo radical de las creencias de políticas específicas es de lejos el predictor más importante para la intensidad de la falsa percepción en el conflicto investigado. Los resultados apuntan adicionalmente a una inclusión más sistemática de las creencias principales normativas profundas de un actor en análisis futuros de la percepción distorsionada. Otro hallazgo central está relacionado con la importancia del ambiente personal. Muestra que casi todos los actores en el subsistema comparten las mismas creencias políticas con la mayoría de la gente en su ambiente personal.

Suggested Citation

  • Colette S. Vogeler & Nils C. Bandelow, 2018. "Mutual and Self Perceptions of Opposing Advocacy Coalitions: Devil Shift and Angel Shift in a German Policy Subsystem," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 35(5), pages 717-732, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:35:y:2018:i:5:p:717-732
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12299
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12299
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12299?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hannes R. Stephan, 2020. "Shaping the Scope of Conflict in Scotland’s Fracking Debate: Conflict Management and the Narrative Policy Framework," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(1), pages 64-91, January.
    2. Johanna Hornung & Nils C. Bandelow & Colette S. Vogeler, 2019. "Social identities in the policy process," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(2), pages 211-231, June.
    3. Andrew Pattison & William Cipolli & Jose Marichal, 2022. "The devil we know and the angel that did not fly: An examination of devil/angel shift in twitter fracking “debates” in NY 2008–2018," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(1), pages 51-72, January.
    4. Malte Möck, 2021. "Patterns of Policy Networks at the Local Level in Germany," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(4), pages 454-477, July.
    5. Nils C. Bandelow & Johanna Hornung & Ilana Schröder & Colette S. Vogeler, 2022. "Advancing theories of public policy for the analysis of environmental challenges across countries," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(1), pages 6-7, January.
    6. Aerang Nam & Christopher M. Weible & Kyudong Park, 2022. "Polarization and frames of advocacy coalitions in South Korea's nuclear energy policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 387-410, July.
    7. Simon Fink & Eva Ruffing & Tobias Burst & Sara Katharina Chinnow, 2023. "Emotional citizens, detached interest groups? The use of emotional language in public policy consultations," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(3), pages 469-497, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:35:y:2018:i:5:p:717-732. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.