Jennifer Fitzgerald, Ph.D.
jennifer.fitzgerald@colorado.edu
University of Colorado at Boulder
Phone: 3034926235
Address: 333 UCB
City: Boulder, Colorado - 80309
Country: United States
Research Interests
European Politics
Political Psychology
Elections, Election Administration, and Voting Behavior
Immigration & Citizenship
Networks And Politics
Public Opinion
Comparative Poltical Behavior
Radical Right Parties
Family Political Influence
Countries of Interest
France
Switzerland
Sweden
Germany
United Kingdom
Publications:
Journal Articles:
How do regular people define the term “political”? This original study gives Americans and Canadians an opportunity to express their interpretations of the concept. It identifies a great deal of inter-personal variation in terms of how many and what kinds of topics people perceive as the stuff of politics. And this variation comes in predictable patterns: the findings reveal correlations between socio-political attributes (such as gender, nationality and ideology) and the boundaries people draw around the political domain. The study also provides insight into the ways people distinguish the political from the non-political in their minds. And importantly, individuals’ interpretations of the term “politics” relate systematically to other measures of self-reported political behavior including political interest and frequency of political discussion. These results can be used to refine survey analysis and to broaden knowledge of day-to-day citizen politics.
In this article the authors investigate the relationship between concerns about crime and concerns about immigration. Panel survey data from Germany allow the authors to examine people’s views about immigration as they develop over time, showing that consternation about crime is a significant predictor of anxiety over immigration. Moreover, it has a greater substantive impact than other explanatory factors, such as concerns about the economy and objective measures of crime and immigration at the regional level. The authors also demonstrate an interactive effect: The connection between these two issues is especially strong among those interested in politics. A confirmatory step using the European Social Survey reveals that the moderating effect of political engagement is generalizable to the rest of Western Europe. These findings establish that crime is a critical issue for the formation of immigration attitudes. They also highlight individual-level characteristics that drive the bundling of political issues in people’s minds.
What happens to a person’s level of political engagement when he is surrounded by partisan disagreement? Previous work offers a mixed picture; in certain circumstances political discord promotes engagement while in others it has the opposite effect. This analysis tests existing theories by looking at the implications of disagreement within the family. We leverage panel data to trace effects over time, and we examine this dynamic across political units. Household data from Britain, Germany, and Switzerland reveal that those whose parents are divided politically tend to become more, not less, engaged in politics. Comparatively, these effects appear stronger in some countries than in others, but the three-country analysis only suggests reasons why. Therefore, we take advantage of Swiss subnational political variation to further investigate the conditioning role of institutions. This step confirms that proportional representation elections moderate the relationship between parental disagreement and interest in politics.
Do family members steer each other toward new and rising political parties? This article shows that the family—traditionally viewed as a bulwark for electoral stability over time—is an important locus for dynamic interpersonal persuasion. Swiss household panel data are used to unpack influence among mothers, fathers, and children with respect to support for radical right and green parties. Parents urge their offspring to support these rising parties, spouses influence each other, and—importantly—young people convince their parents. Comparing intrafamily influence for rising parties with parallel dynamics for their main electoral rivals reveals patterns that distinguish rising from stagnant parties. Most notably, direct influence between young people and their fathers exists for rising parties but not for stable or declining ones. Finally, interpersonal persuasion can be enhanced when family members’ interest in politics is high, when family members live together, and during election years.
Books Written:
Who votes for radical right parties and why? This book argues that the increasing popularity of the radical right in Europe originates in community bonds: strong ties to one's locality motivate support for the radical right. These parties use nostalgic themes and symbolic politicking to idealize community, defend local autonomy, and ultimately draw local identity into the electoral realm. While other explanations of the radical right's popularity typify supporters as victims of macro-economic shifts and strains, the author's account explores people's day-to-day experiences that link local connections to political decisions. The analysis also raises questions about the political implications of different formal authority structures such as the level and nature of power devolved to local units. The localist model of radical right support illuminates the psychological, social, and institutional conditions and processes that render people's feelings about their cities, towns, and villages relevant for politics.