PhD Profile: Ingrid Kvåle Faleide

Citizens tend to go wrong when judging support for inclusive politics. Why do people think that others are less inclusive than they are, and is this common mistake limited to politics of cultural and religious diversity? Through comparison of (perceptions of) public opinion in Norway, Germany, France, the UK, the Netherlands, and Sweden, this dissertation advances our knowledge of opportunities for disputed policies. It seeks to understand electoral behavior across nations concerning seemingly polarized issues. Both in academic literature and public debate actors and policies are often characterized as either pro-X or anti-X, and in this lies the risk of polarization traps. Through survey experiments designed to spotlight the limits on acceptance as well as the openings for minority inclusion and climate change mitigation policies, the aim of the thesis is to further the conceptual and empirical evidence of polarization traps.

A polarization trap is when majorities in favor of something exist, but they are misunderstood as majorities against because it is not recognized that support is conditional on the terms on which it is proposed. Through studying the variations discovered in two substantive issues, namely that of minority inclusion and climate change mitigation policy, the aim of this project is to clarify what implications polarization traps carry for our liberal democracies. Understanding how context influences political behavior is an important aspect of this research: When and why do citizens across six established European democracies correctly perceive the weight of public opinion, and when and why they are mistaken?