IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/sscijp/v19y2016i1p59-69..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Option-Splitting Effects in Poll Regarding Japan’s Right to Exercise Collective Self-Defense

Author

Listed:
  • Ayumi YAMADA
  • Ji Young KIM

Abstract

Against the backdrop of heated debates within and outside Japan regarding Japan’s push for the right to exercise collective self-defense (CSD), the Japanese mass media have reported a series of polls on Japan’s exercise of its right to CSD, with significantly disparate results. In this article, we present one natural experiment and one controlled experiment that show that the disparate outcomes are due to the different ways the options are segmented. We conducted a comparative analysis of two questionnaires, one presenting two options of ‘approve’ and ‘disapprove’ and the other with three options, splitting the option of ‘approve’ into two answers presenting different means of approving the use of the right to CSD. As a result, more respondents chose ‘approve’ when the option was split into two. The result shows that option-splitting expands the respondents’ range of perception and psychological availability, which in turn raises the selection rate. This research implies that inducing the poll results through option-splitting is possible, which might eventually affect the policy-making process in democratic societies where public opinion polls affect policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Ayumi YAMADA & Ji Young KIM, 2016. "Option-Splitting Effects in Poll Regarding Japan’s Right to Exercise Collective Self-Defense," Social Science Japan Journal, University of Tokyo and Oxford University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 59-69.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:sscijp:v:19:y:2016:i:1:p:59-69.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ssjj/jyv034
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:oup:sscijp:v:19:y:2016:i:1:p:59-69.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ssjj .

    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.