Attitudes toward legalization of marijuana in the United States, 1986-2016: Changes in determinants of public opinion

Background: Based on recent research in political science, which has conceptualized political party affiliation as a form of social identity, the present study examined political ideology, party affiliation, and associated control measures as determinants of attitudes toward marijuana legalization....
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Denham, Bryan E. [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2019

Schlagwörter:	Legalization of marijuana Party affiliation Political ideology Public opinion

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: International journal of drug policy - Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1998, 71, Seite 78-90
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:71 ; pages:78-90

DOI / URN:	10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.06.007

Katalog-ID:	ELV003155498

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	ELV003155498
003	DE-627
005	20230524161342.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230430s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.06.007 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)ELV003155498
035			\|a (ELSEVIER)S0955-3959(19)30162-8
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rda
041			\|a eng
082	0	4	\|a 610 \|q DE-600
084			\|a 44.38 \|2 bkl
084			\|a 44.91 \|2 bkl
100	1		\|a Denham, Bryan E. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Attitudes toward legalization of marijuana in the United States, 1986-2016: Changes in determinants of public opinion
264		1	\|c 2019
336			\|a nicht spezifiziert \|b zzz \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Background: Based on recent research in political science, which has conceptualized political party affiliation as a form of social identity, the present study examined political ideology, party affiliation, and associated control measures as determinants of attitudes toward marijuana legalization. The research, which examined attitudes at 16 points in time across a 30-year period, anticipated an increasingly important role for party affiliation, given increased partisanship in the United States.Methods: Drawing on data gathered in the General Social Survey, the study used binary logistic regression analysis to test the explanatory effects of ideology, affiliation and control measures on support for marijuana legalization.Results: As anticipated, political ideology showed significance as an explanatory measure across the 30-year period, but party affiliation did not become a consistent, statistically controlled determinant until 2004, when Republicans began to express significantly less support than Democrats and Independents. In terms of demographic control measures, the study found males and younger respondents to express greater support for legalization. In recent periods of study, White and Black respondents expressed greater support than minorities apart from African Americans, while education level and region of the country showed sporadic explanatory significance.Conclusion: While political ideology, conceived as a form of personal identity, predicted attitudes toward marijuana legalization across 30 years of analysis, party affiliation, conceived as a form of group identity, became a consistently significant predictor in the 21st century. This finding suggests increases in partisanship and group identity, which in turn suggest potential increases in the politicization of drug policy. The article concludes with limitations and recommendations for future research.
650		4	\|a Legalization of marijuana
650		4	\|a Party affiliation
650		4	\|a Political ideology
650		4	\|a Public opinion
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t International journal of drug policy \|d Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1998 \|g 71, Seite 78-90 \|h Online-Ressource \|w (DE-627)320482693 \|w (DE-600)2010000-0 \|w (DE-576)259271349 \|x 1873-4758 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:71 \|g pages:78-90
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_U
912			\|a SYSFLAG_U
912			\|a GBV_ELV
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_32
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_90
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_100
912			\|a GBV_ILN_101
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_224
912			\|a GBV_ILN_370
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_702
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2001
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2004
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2006
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2008
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2015
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2020
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2021
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2025
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2026
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2027
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2034
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2038
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2044
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2048
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2049
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2050
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2056
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2059
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2061
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2064
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2065
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2068
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2088
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2113
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2118
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2122
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2129
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2143
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2147
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2148
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2152
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2153
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2190
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2232
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2336
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2470
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2507
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2522
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4035
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4046
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4242
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4251
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4326
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4333
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4334
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4335
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4393
936	b	k	\|a 44.38 \|j Pharmakologie
936	b	k	\|a 44.91 \|j Psychiatrie \|j Psychopathologie
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 71 \|h 78-90

Indexfelder

author_variant	b e d be bed
matchkey_str	article:18734758:2019----::tiuetwrlglztoomrjaanhuiesae1821cagsn
hierarchy_sort_str	2019
bklnumber	44.38 44.91
publishDate	2019
allfields	10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.06.007 doi (DE-627)ELV003155498 (ELSEVIER)S0955-3959(19)30162-8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 44.38 bkl 44.91 bkl Denham, Bryan E. verfasserin aut Attitudes toward legalization of marijuana in the United States, 1986-2016: Changes in determinants of public opinion 2019 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Based on recent research in political science, which has conceptualized political party affiliation as a form of social identity, the present study examined political ideology, party affiliation, and associated control measures as determinants of attitudes toward marijuana legalization. The research, which examined attitudes at 16 points in time across a 30-year period, anticipated an increasingly important role for party affiliation, given increased partisanship in the United States.Methods: Drawing on data gathered in the General Social Survey, the study used binary logistic regression analysis to test the explanatory effects of ideology, affiliation and control measures on support for marijuana legalization.Results: As anticipated, political ideology showed significance as an explanatory measure across the 30-year period, but party affiliation did not become a consistent, statistically controlled determinant until 2004, when Republicans began to express significantly less support than Democrats and Independents. In terms of demographic control measures, the study found males and younger respondents to express greater support for legalization. In recent periods of study, White and Black respondents expressed greater support than minorities apart from African Americans, while education level and region of the country showed sporadic explanatory significance.Conclusion: While political ideology, conceived as a form of personal identity, predicted attitudes toward marijuana legalization across 30 years of analysis, party affiliation, conceived as a form of group identity, became a consistently significant predictor in the 21st century. This finding suggests increases in partisanship and group identity, which in turn suggest potential increases in the politicization of drug policy. The article concludes with limitations and recommendations for future research. Legalization of marijuana Party affiliation Political ideology Public opinion Enthalten in International journal of drug policy Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1998 71, Seite 78-90 Online-Ressource (DE-627)320482693 (DE-600)2010000-0 (DE-576)259271349 1873-4758 nnns volume:71 pages:78-90 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.38 Pharmakologie 44.91 Psychiatrie Psychopathologie AR 71 78-90
spelling	10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.06.007 doi (DE-627)ELV003155498 (ELSEVIER)S0955-3959(19)30162-8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 44.38 bkl 44.91 bkl Denham, Bryan E. verfasserin aut Attitudes toward legalization of marijuana in the United States, 1986-2016: Changes in determinants of public opinion 2019 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Based on recent research in political science, which has conceptualized political party affiliation as a form of social identity, the present study examined political ideology, party affiliation, and associated control measures as determinants of attitudes toward marijuana legalization. The research, which examined attitudes at 16 points in time across a 30-year period, anticipated an increasingly important role for party affiliation, given increased partisanship in the United States.Methods: Drawing on data gathered in the General Social Survey, the study used binary logistic regression analysis to test the explanatory effects of ideology, affiliation and control measures on support for marijuana legalization.Results: As anticipated, political ideology showed significance as an explanatory measure across the 30-year period, but party affiliation did not become a consistent, statistically controlled determinant until 2004, when Republicans began to express significantly less support than Democrats and Independents. In terms of demographic control measures, the study found males and younger respondents to express greater support for legalization. In recent periods of study, White and Black respondents expressed greater support than minorities apart from African Americans, while education level and region of the country showed sporadic explanatory significance.Conclusion: While political ideology, conceived as a form of personal identity, predicted attitudes toward marijuana legalization across 30 years of analysis, party affiliation, conceived as a form of group identity, became a consistently significant predictor in the 21st century. This finding suggests increases in partisanship and group identity, which in turn suggest potential increases in the politicization of drug policy. The article concludes with limitations and recommendations for future research. Legalization of marijuana Party affiliation Political ideology Public opinion Enthalten in International journal of drug policy Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1998 71, Seite 78-90 Online-Ressource (DE-627)320482693 (DE-600)2010000-0 (DE-576)259271349 1873-4758 nnns volume:71 pages:78-90 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.38 Pharmakologie 44.91 Psychiatrie Psychopathologie AR 71 78-90
allfields_unstemmed	10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.06.007 doi (DE-627)ELV003155498 (ELSEVIER)S0955-3959(19)30162-8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 44.38 bkl 44.91 bkl Denham, Bryan E. verfasserin aut Attitudes toward legalization of marijuana in the United States, 1986-2016: Changes in determinants of public opinion 2019 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Based on recent research in political science, which has conceptualized political party affiliation as a form of social identity, the present study examined political ideology, party affiliation, and associated control measures as determinants of attitudes toward marijuana legalization. The research, which examined attitudes at 16 points in time across a 30-year period, anticipated an increasingly important role for party affiliation, given increased partisanship in the United States.Methods: Drawing on data gathered in the General Social Survey, the study used binary logistic regression analysis to test the explanatory effects of ideology, affiliation and control measures on support for marijuana legalization.Results: As anticipated, political ideology showed significance as an explanatory measure across the 30-year period, but party affiliation did not become a consistent, statistically controlled determinant until 2004, when Republicans began to express significantly less support than Democrats and Independents. In terms of demographic control measures, the study found males and younger respondents to express greater support for legalization. In recent periods of study, White and Black respondents expressed greater support than minorities apart from African Americans, while education level and region of the country showed sporadic explanatory significance.Conclusion: While political ideology, conceived as a form of personal identity, predicted attitudes toward marijuana legalization across 30 years of analysis, party affiliation, conceived as a form of group identity, became a consistently significant predictor in the 21st century. This finding suggests increases in partisanship and group identity, which in turn suggest potential increases in the politicization of drug policy. The article concludes with limitations and recommendations for future research. Legalization of marijuana Party affiliation Political ideology Public opinion Enthalten in International journal of drug policy Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1998 71, Seite 78-90 Online-Ressource (DE-627)320482693 (DE-600)2010000-0 (DE-576)259271349 1873-4758 nnns volume:71 pages:78-90 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.38 Pharmakologie 44.91 Psychiatrie Psychopathologie AR 71 78-90
allfieldsGer	10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.06.007 doi (DE-627)ELV003155498 (ELSEVIER)S0955-3959(19)30162-8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 44.38 bkl 44.91 bkl Denham, Bryan E. verfasserin aut Attitudes toward legalization of marijuana in the United States, 1986-2016: Changes in determinants of public opinion 2019 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Based on recent research in political science, which has conceptualized political party affiliation as a form of social identity, the present study examined political ideology, party affiliation, and associated control measures as determinants of attitudes toward marijuana legalization. The research, which examined attitudes at 16 points in time across a 30-year period, anticipated an increasingly important role for party affiliation, given increased partisanship in the United States.Methods: Drawing on data gathered in the General Social Survey, the study used binary logistic regression analysis to test the explanatory effects of ideology, affiliation and control measures on support for marijuana legalization.Results: As anticipated, political ideology showed significance as an explanatory measure across the 30-year period, but party affiliation did not become a consistent, statistically controlled determinant until 2004, when Republicans began to express significantly less support than Democrats and Independents. In terms of demographic control measures, the study found males and younger respondents to express greater support for legalization. In recent periods of study, White and Black respondents expressed greater support than minorities apart from African Americans, while education level and region of the country showed sporadic explanatory significance.Conclusion: While political ideology, conceived as a form of personal identity, predicted attitudes toward marijuana legalization across 30 years of analysis, party affiliation, conceived as a form of group identity, became a consistently significant predictor in the 21st century. This finding suggests increases in partisanship and group identity, which in turn suggest potential increases in the politicization of drug policy. The article concludes with limitations and recommendations for future research. Legalization of marijuana Party affiliation Political ideology Public opinion Enthalten in International journal of drug policy Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1998 71, Seite 78-90 Online-Ressource (DE-627)320482693 (DE-600)2010000-0 (DE-576)259271349 1873-4758 nnns volume:71 pages:78-90 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.38 Pharmakologie 44.91 Psychiatrie Psychopathologie AR 71 78-90
allfieldsSound	10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.06.007 doi (DE-627)ELV003155498 (ELSEVIER)S0955-3959(19)30162-8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 44.38 bkl 44.91 bkl Denham, Bryan E. verfasserin aut Attitudes toward legalization of marijuana in the United States, 1986-2016: Changes in determinants of public opinion 2019 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Based on recent research in political science, which has conceptualized political party affiliation as a form of social identity, the present study examined political ideology, party affiliation, and associated control measures as determinants of attitudes toward marijuana legalization. The research, which examined attitudes at 16 points in time across a 30-year period, anticipated an increasingly important role for party affiliation, given increased partisanship in the United States.Methods: Drawing on data gathered in the General Social Survey, the study used binary logistic regression analysis to test the explanatory effects of ideology, affiliation and control measures on support for marijuana legalization.Results: As anticipated, political ideology showed significance as an explanatory measure across the 30-year period, but party affiliation did not become a consistent, statistically controlled determinant until 2004, when Republicans began to express significantly less support than Democrats and Independents. In terms of demographic control measures, the study found males and younger respondents to express greater support for legalization. In recent periods of study, White and Black respondents expressed greater support than minorities apart from African Americans, while education level and region of the country showed sporadic explanatory significance.Conclusion: While political ideology, conceived as a form of personal identity, predicted attitudes toward marijuana legalization across 30 years of analysis, party affiliation, conceived as a form of group identity, became a consistently significant predictor in the 21st century. This finding suggests increases in partisanship and group identity, which in turn suggest potential increases in the politicization of drug policy. The article concludes with limitations and recommendations for future research. Legalization of marijuana Party affiliation Political ideology Public opinion Enthalten in International journal of drug policy Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1998 71, Seite 78-90 Online-Ressource (DE-627)320482693 (DE-600)2010000-0 (DE-576)259271349 1873-4758 nnns volume:71 pages:78-90 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.38 Pharmakologie 44.91 Psychiatrie Psychopathologie AR 71 78-90
language	English
source	Enthalten in International journal of drug policy 71, Seite 78-90 volume:71 pages:78-90
sourceStr	Enthalten in International journal of drug policy 71, Seite 78-90 volume:71 pages:78-90
format_phy_str_mv	Article
bklname	Pharmakologie Psychiatrie Psychopathologie
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Legalization of marijuana Party affiliation Political ideology Public opinion
dewey-raw	610
isfreeaccess_bool	false
container_title	International journal of drug policy
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Denham, Bryan E. @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2019-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	320482693
dewey-sort	3610
id	ELV003155498
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV003155498</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230524161342.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230430s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.06.007</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV003155498</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0955-3959(19)30162-8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.38</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.91</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Denham, Bryan E.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Attitudes toward legalization of marijuana in the United States, 1986-2016: Changes in determinants of public opinion</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: Based on recent research in political science, which has conceptualized political party affiliation as a form of social identity, the present study examined political ideology, party affiliation, and associated control measures as determinants of attitudes toward marijuana legalization. The research, which examined attitudes at 16 points in time across a 30-year period, anticipated an increasingly important role for party affiliation, given increased partisanship in the United States.Methods: Drawing on data gathered in the General Social Survey, the study used binary logistic regression analysis to test the explanatory effects of ideology, affiliation and control measures on support for marijuana legalization.Results: As anticipated, political ideology showed significance as an explanatory measure across the 30-year period, but party affiliation did not become a consistent, statistically controlled determinant until 2004, when Republicans began to express significantly less support than Democrats and Independents. In terms of demographic control measures, the study found males and younger respondents to express greater support for legalization. In recent periods of study, White and Black respondents expressed greater support than minorities apart from African Americans, while education level and region of the country showed sporadic explanatory significance.Conclusion: While political ideology, conceived as a form of personal identity, predicted attitudes toward marijuana legalization across 30 years of analysis, party affiliation, conceived as a form of group identity, became a consistently significant predictor in the 21st century. This finding suggests increases in partisanship and group identity, which in turn suggest potential increases in the politicization of drug policy. The article concludes with limitations and recommendations for future research.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Legalization of marijuana</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Party affiliation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Political ideology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Public opinion</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">International journal of drug policy</subfield><subfield code="d">Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1998</subfield><subfield code="g">71, Seite 78-90</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)320482693</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2010000-0</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)259271349</subfield><subfield code="x">1873-4758</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:71</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:78-90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2065</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2232</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4393</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.38</subfield><subfield code="j">Pharmakologie</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.91</subfield><subfield code="j">Psychiatrie</subfield><subfield code="j">Psychopathologie</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">71</subfield><subfield code="h">78-90</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Denham, Bryan E.
spellingShingle	Denham, Bryan E. ddc 610 bkl 44.38 bkl 44.91 misc Legalization of marijuana misc Party affiliation misc Political ideology misc Public opinion Attitudes toward legalization of marijuana in the United States, 1986-2016: Changes in determinants of public opinion
authorStr	Denham, Bryan E.
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)320482693
format	electronic Article
dewey-ones	610 - Medicine & health
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut
collection	elsevier
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1873-4758
topic_title	610 DE-600 44.38 bkl 44.91 bkl Attitudes toward legalization of marijuana in the United States, 1986-2016: Changes in determinants of public opinion Legalization of marijuana Party affiliation Political ideology Public opinion
topic	ddc 610 bkl 44.38 bkl 44.91 misc Legalization of marijuana misc Party affiliation misc Political ideology misc Public opinion
topic_unstemmed	ddc 610 bkl 44.38 bkl 44.91 misc Legalization of marijuana misc Party affiliation misc Political ideology misc Public opinion
topic_browse	ddc 610 bkl 44.38 bkl 44.91 misc Legalization of marijuana misc Party affiliation misc Political ideology misc Public opinion
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	International journal of drug policy
hierarchy_parent_id	320482693
dewey-tens	610 - Medicine & health
hierarchy_top_title	International journal of drug policy
isfreeaccess_txt	false
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)320482693 (DE-600)2010000-0 (DE-576)259271349
title	Attitudes toward legalization of marijuana in the United States, 1986-2016: Changes in determinants of public opinion
ctrlnum	(DE-627)ELV003155498 (ELSEVIER)S0955-3959(19)30162-8
title_full	Attitudes toward legalization of marijuana in the United States, 1986-2016: Changes in determinants of public opinion
author_sort	Denham, Bryan E.
journal	International journal of drug policy
journalStr	International journal of drug policy
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	false
dewey-hundreds	600 - Technology
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2019
contenttype_str_mv	zzz
container_start_page	78
author_browse	Denham, Bryan E.
container_volume	71
class	610 DE-600 44.38 bkl 44.91 bkl
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Denham, Bryan E.
doi_str_mv	10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.06.007
dewey-full	610
title_sort	attitudes toward legalization of marijuana in the united states, 1986-2016: changes in determinants of public opinion
title_auth	Attitudes toward legalization of marijuana in the United States, 1986-2016: Changes in determinants of public opinion
abstract	Background: Based on recent research in political science, which has conceptualized political party affiliation as a form of social identity, the present study examined political ideology, party affiliation, and associated control measures as determinants of attitudes toward marijuana legalization. The research, which examined attitudes at 16 points in time across a 30-year period, anticipated an increasingly important role for party affiliation, given increased partisanship in the United States.Methods: Drawing on data gathered in the General Social Survey, the study used binary logistic regression analysis to test the explanatory effects of ideology, affiliation and control measures on support for marijuana legalization.Results: As anticipated, political ideology showed significance as an explanatory measure across the 30-year period, but party affiliation did not become a consistent, statistically controlled determinant until 2004, when Republicans began to express significantly less support than Democrats and Independents. In terms of demographic control measures, the study found males and younger respondents to express greater support for legalization. In recent periods of study, White and Black respondents expressed greater support than minorities apart from African Americans, while education level and region of the country showed sporadic explanatory significance.Conclusion: While political ideology, conceived as a form of personal identity, predicted attitudes toward marijuana legalization across 30 years of analysis, party affiliation, conceived as a form of group identity, became a consistently significant predictor in the 21st century. This finding suggests increases in partisanship and group identity, which in turn suggest potential increases in the politicization of drug policy. The article concludes with limitations and recommendations for future research.
abstractGer	Background: Based on recent research in political science, which has conceptualized political party affiliation as a form of social identity, the present study examined political ideology, party affiliation, and associated control measures as determinants of attitudes toward marijuana legalization. The research, which examined attitudes at 16 points in time across a 30-year period, anticipated an increasingly important role for party affiliation, given increased partisanship in the United States.Methods: Drawing on data gathered in the General Social Survey, the study used binary logistic regression analysis to test the explanatory effects of ideology, affiliation and control measures on support for marijuana legalization.Results: As anticipated, political ideology showed significance as an explanatory measure across the 30-year period, but party affiliation did not become a consistent, statistically controlled determinant until 2004, when Republicans began to express significantly less support than Democrats and Independents. In terms of demographic control measures, the study found males and younger respondents to express greater support for legalization. In recent periods of study, White and Black respondents expressed greater support than minorities apart from African Americans, while education level and region of the country showed sporadic explanatory significance.Conclusion: While political ideology, conceived as a form of personal identity, predicted attitudes toward marijuana legalization across 30 years of analysis, party affiliation, conceived as a form of group identity, became a consistently significant predictor in the 21st century. This finding suggests increases in partisanship and group identity, which in turn suggest potential increases in the politicization of drug policy. The article concludes with limitations and recommendations for future research.
abstract_unstemmed	Background: Based on recent research in political science, which has conceptualized political party affiliation as a form of social identity, the present study examined political ideology, party affiliation, and associated control measures as determinants of attitudes toward marijuana legalization. The research, which examined attitudes at 16 points in time across a 30-year period, anticipated an increasingly important role for party affiliation, given increased partisanship in the United States.Methods: Drawing on data gathered in the General Social Survey, the study used binary logistic regression analysis to test the explanatory effects of ideology, affiliation and control measures on support for marijuana legalization.Results: As anticipated, political ideology showed significance as an explanatory measure across the 30-year period, but party affiliation did not become a consistent, statistically controlled determinant until 2004, when Republicans began to express significantly less support than Democrats and Independents. In terms of demographic control measures, the study found males and younger respondents to express greater support for legalization. In recent periods of study, White and Black respondents expressed greater support than minorities apart from African Americans, while education level and region of the country showed sporadic explanatory significance.Conclusion: While political ideology, conceived as a form of personal identity, predicted attitudes toward marijuana legalization across 30 years of analysis, party affiliation, conceived as a form of group identity, became a consistently significant predictor in the 21st century. This finding suggests increases in partisanship and group identity, which in turn suggest potential increases in the politicization of drug policy. The article concludes with limitations and recommendations for future research.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393
title_short	Attitudes toward legalization of marijuana in the United States, 1986-2016: Changes in determinants of public opinion
remote_bool	true
ppnlink	320482693
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	false
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.06.007
up_date	2024-07-06T18:40:49.586Z
_version_	1803856117327986688
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV003155498</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230524161342.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230430s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.06.007</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV003155498</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0955-3959(19)30162-8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.38</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.91</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Denham, Bryan E.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Attitudes toward legalization of marijuana in the United States, 1986-2016: Changes in determinants of public opinion</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: Based on recent research in political science, which has conceptualized political party affiliation as a form of social identity, the present study examined political ideology, party affiliation, and associated control measures as determinants of attitudes toward marijuana legalization. The research, which examined attitudes at 16 points in time across a 30-year period, anticipated an increasingly important role for party affiliation, given increased partisanship in the United States.Methods: Drawing on data gathered in the General Social Survey, the study used binary logistic regression analysis to test the explanatory effects of ideology, affiliation and control measures on support for marijuana legalization.Results: As anticipated, political ideology showed significance as an explanatory measure across the 30-year period, but party affiliation did not become a consistent, statistically controlled determinant until 2004, when Republicans began to express significantly less support than Democrats and Independents. In terms of demographic control measures, the study found males and younger respondents to express greater support for legalization. In recent periods of study, White and Black respondents expressed greater support than minorities apart from African Americans, while education level and region of the country showed sporadic explanatory significance.Conclusion: While political ideology, conceived as a form of personal identity, predicted attitudes toward marijuana legalization across 30 years of analysis, party affiliation, conceived as a form of group identity, became a consistently significant predictor in the 21st century. This finding suggests increases in partisanship and group identity, which in turn suggest potential increases in the politicization of drug policy. The article concludes with limitations and recommendations for future research.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Legalization of marijuana</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Party affiliation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Political ideology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Public opinion</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">International journal of drug policy</subfield><subfield code="d">Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1998</subfield><subfield code="g">71, Seite 78-90</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)320482693</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2010000-0</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)259271349</subfield><subfield code="x">1873-4758</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:71</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:78-90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2065</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2232</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4393</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.38</subfield><subfield code="j">Pharmakologie</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.91</subfield><subfield code="j">Psychiatrie</subfield><subfield code="j">Psychopathologie</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">71</subfield><subfield code="h">78-90</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.398425

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Attitudes toward legalization of marijuana in the United States, 1986-2016: Changes in determinants of public opinion

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?