Atle Hennum Haugsgjerd

• Haugsgjerd, Atle; Hesstvedt, Stine & Karlsen, Rune (2021). Increased media choice and political knowledge gaps: A comparative longitudinal study of 18 established democracies 1995-2015. Political Communication. 38(6), p. 731–750. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2020.1868633. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  We investigate the often-stated, but disputed claim in the political science and political communication literature that increasing media choice widens inequalities in political knowledge. The assumption is that in a high-choice media environment, the politically interested will consume more news while the uninterested will avoid such content, leading, in turn, to widening differences in political knowledge. Although previous studies show that high media choice increases political knowledge gaps in the United States, comparative longitudinal evidence is currently lacking. To fill this gap, we draw on data from four rounds of the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. Overall, we do not find general support for the high-choice knowledge gap thesis. In most countries, there is no indication that inequality in political knowledge has increased over time. Building on recent insights from political communication research, we question key assumptions of the high choice knowledge gap thesis.

View all works in Cristin

• Winsvold, Marte Slagsvold; Haugsgjerd, Atle; Saglie, Jo & Segaard, Signe Bock (2022). What makes people trust or distrust politicians? A qualitative approach using open-ended survey questions. Show summary

  Research on political trust typically uses closed-ended survey questions that ask citizens how much they trust political actors, without defining the concept of trust. However, to say something about the consequences of political (dis)trust, we need to know what trust and distrust actually mean to people. Inspired by Van der Meer’s classification of judgement bases for political trust—competence, intrinsic and extrinsic commitment, and predictability—we analysed the responses to two open-ended survey questions about political trust and distrust. We found that Van der Meer’s trust criteria are relevant, but not exhaustive. We suggest a new category—responsiveness—to be added to the typology. Moreover, we found that citizens use different judgement bases to describe trust and distrust, suggesting that the two concepts are not pure negations of each other. While predictability is the basis most frequently reported for trusting politicians, lack of intrinsic commitment is the most frequently reported basis for distrusting politicians.

• Haugsgjerd, Atle (2021). En europeisk vänstersväng? Om det norska valet.
• de Blok, Lisanne & Haugsgjerd, Atle (2021). Take a Chance on Me: Experienced Risk and Political Trust.
• Finseraas, Henning; Haugsgjerd, Atle & Kumlin, Staffan (2021). Immigration Cues and Perceived Welfare State Sustainability: Understanding Variability in Political Reactions to Fiscally Costly Immigration.
• Haugsgjerd, Atle; Karlsen, Rune; Steen-Johnsen, Kari & Beyer, Audun (2021). Misinformed or uninformed? A panel-study of how the use of social media as a news source influences political knowledge .
• Haugsgjerd, Atle & Linde, Jonas (2021). Vehicles of democratic dissatisfaction? Populist radical right electoral success and satisfaction with democracy in Europe 1976-2019.
• Haugsgjerd, Atle & Thorbjørnsrud, Kjersti (2021). Innspill til debatten om strukturell rasisme: potensial, utfordringer og kritikk. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning. 62(1), p. 78–79. doi: 10.18261/issn.1504-291X-2021-01-04.
• Winsvold, Marte; Haugsgjerd, Atle; Saglie, Jo & Segaard, Signe Bock (2020). Trust by default. What is political trust - and what is political distrust?
• Haugsgjerd, Atle; Midtbøen, Arnfinn Haagensen & Thorbjørnsrud, Kjersti (2020). Ulikhet og ideologi: Hva kan norsk samfunnsforskning lære av Piketty? Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning. 61(4). doi: 10.18261/issn.1504-291X-2020-04-04. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Med utgivelsen av Capital in the Twenty-First Century i 2013, satte Thomas Piketty ulikhet på dagsordenen med en kraft som er få akademiske utgivelser forunt. Forskere, allment samfunnsinteresserte så vel som politikere, lærte om hvordan den økonomiske ulikheten i mange land har skutt i været de siste 30–40 årene til fordel for en svært liten minoritet av superrike. I sin siste bokutgivelse – Capital and Ideology fra 2019 – tar Piketty opp igjen tråden fra 2013-utgivelsen. Denne gangen utvider han perspektivet til de politiske og ideologiske strukturene som skaper og reproduserer ulikhet.Pikettys flerfaglige tilnærming til studiet av ulikhet – i kombinasjon med hans betydning for det akademiske og offentlige ordskiftet – gjør det naturlig for oss i TfS-redaksjonen å invitere til et symposium om hans siste bokutgivelse. I dette nummeret har vi derfor invitert tre nestorer innenfor norsk samfunnsforskning, statsviteren Øyvind Østerud, sosiologen Marianne Norli Hansen og samfunnsøkonomen Kalle Moene, til å reflektere rundt hva deres fag kan lære av Pikettys siste bok.

View all works in Cristin