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
Autor*in: |
Denham, Bryan E. [verfasserIn] |
---|
Format: |
E-Artikel |
---|---|
Sprache: |
Englisch |
Erschienen: |
2019 |
---|
Schlagwörter: |
---|
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 |
---|
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 |
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 |