Redes Sociales y Aplicaciones de Mensajería Instantánea en la Elección de Jair Bolsonaro como Presidente de Brasil en 2018

Mundim, Pedro Santos; Vasconcellos, Fábio; Okado, Lucas

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil
SciELO.org - Rede SciELO
Blog SciELO em Perspectiva

Abrir menu

Brasil

Español English

Dados

Submissão de manuscritos
Sobre o periódico
Corpo Editorial
Instruções aos autores
Contato

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Resumo (Inglês)
Resumo (Português)
Resumo (fr)
Resumo (Espanhol)

Texto (Inglês)

Download PDF (Inglês)

Compartilhe

Compartilhe
E-mail
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
LinkedIn
Reddit
StambleUpon
CiteULike
Mendeley

Sumário

Compartilhe
E-mail
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
LinkedIn
Reddit
StambleUpon
CiteULike
Mendeley

Resumo (Inglês)
Resumo (Português)
Resumo (fr)
Resumo (Espanhol)

Texto (Inglês)

Download PDF (Inglês)

ARTIGOS ORIGINAIS • Dados rev. ciênc. sociais 66 (2) • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/dados.2023.66.2.291 copiar

Redes Sociales y Aplicaciones de Mensajería Instantánea en la Elección de Jair Bolsonaro como Presidente de Brasil en 2018

Autoría SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

RESUMEN

Los estudios que utilizaron datos de encuestas para analizar los motivos de la elección de Jair Bolsonaro como presidente de Brasil en 2018 destacaron factores como la ideología conservadora, el antipetismo (resentimiento contra el Partido de los Trabajadores de Brasil) y el populismo. En todos ellos, las variables mediáticas son tratadas superficialmente, como si su papel en la política y las elecciones fuera simplemente “entregar el mensaje” a los votantes. Cuestionamos esta opinión de que los medios jugaron un papel secundario en las decisiones de los votantes al enfatizar los efectos de las redes sociales y las aplicaciones de mensajería instantánea. Con base en datos del Estudio Electoral Brasileño, mostramos que el uso de Facebook, WhatsApp y YouTube como fuentes de información política casi duplicó las posibilidades de votar por Bolsonaro. Esto los coloca en un nivel de importancia similar a otras variables, como el discurso antipluralista, los valores religiosos y la ideología de derecha.

redes sociales; aplicaciones de mensajería instantánea; elecciones presidenciales brasileñas; populismo; efectos de los medios

Autoría

Pedro Santos Mundim

Associate Professor at the Faculty of Social Sciences. Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG). Goiânia, GO, Brazil.E-mail: psmundim@ufg.br;Universidade Federal de GoiásBrazilGoiânia, GO, BrazilAssociate Professor at the Faculty of Social Sciences. Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG). Goiânia, GO, Brazil.E-mail: psmundim@ufg.br;

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7537-5152

Fábio Vasconcellos

Professor at the Faculty of Social Communication. Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ). Rio de Janeiro, RJ. Brazil.E-mail: fabio.vasconcellos10@gmail.com;Universidade do Estado do Rio de JaneiroBrazilRio de Janeiro, RJ, BrazilProfessor at the Faculty of Social Communication. Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ). Rio de Janeiro, RJ. Brazil.E-mail: fabio.vasconcellos10@gmail.com;

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1823-7789

Lucas Okado

Professor at the Institute of Philosophy and Human Sciences. Universidade Federal do Pará (UFPA). Belém, PA. Brazil.E-mail: lucas.okado@gmail.com;Universidade Federal do ParáBrazilBelém, PA, BrazilProfessor at the Institute of Philosophy and Human Sciences. Universidade Federal do Pará (UFPA). Belém, PA. Brazil.E-mail: lucas.okado@gmail.com;

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9677-7193

SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Figuras | Tablas

Figuras (5)
Tablas (5)

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Exploratory factor analysis results. Extraction of two-factor solutions with oblique rotation. Detailed results are provided in the methodological appendix.

Thumbnail

Figure 2
Odds of voting for Bolsonaro (First Round). R2 Tjur = 0.25. Sensitivity = 52.2%, Specificity = 84.2%. Misclassification rate = 27.1%. Detailed results are provided in the methodological ^appendix APPENDIX Table A Descriptive Statistics Var Mean SD Range Proportion Vote 1º Round - - 0 to 1 Bolsonaro - 33,4% Vote 2º Round - - 0 to 1 Bolsonaro - 40,8% Sex - - 0 to 1 Female - 52,5% Age 41,6 15,7 16 to 92 - Education - - 1 to 3 Low - 23,2% Average - 54,1% High - 22,7% Religion - - 1 to 3 Others - 17,8% Catholic - 50,4% Evangelical - 31,8% Bolsa Família Beneficiary - - 1 to 2 Yes - 31,4% Social Mobility Same - 73,7% Risen - 17,2% Fallen - 9,1% Ideology - - 1 to 4 Non-Ideological - 21,3% Left - 14,8% Center - 20,6% Right - 43,4% Country’s Economy Evaluation 0.27 0.29 0 to 1 - Government Performance Evaluation 0.18 0.26 0 to 1 - Antipetismo 0.63 0.39 0 to 1 Anti-Pluralism Discourse 0.49 0.28 0 to 1 - Anti-Political Discourse 0.79 0.28 0 to1 - Media Use - Newspapers - - 0 to 1 Yes - 8,9% Media Use - TV - - 0 to 1 Yes - 41,3% Media Use - Radio - - 0 to 1 Yes - 4,4% Media Use - WhatsApp - - 0 to 1 Yes - 14,2% Media Use - Facebook - - 0 to 1 Yes - 35,7% Media Use - YouTube - - 0 to 1 Yes - 8,5% Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018. Figure 1 Descriptive graphs Table B Factor Analysis Results Variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Commitment in politics means to bargain with principles 0.39 0.12 Most politicians don’t care about people 0.74 - 0.05 Most politicians are reliable 0.40 - 0.33 Politicians are Brazil’s main problem 0.63 0.17 Having a strong leader in government is good, even if he doesn’t follow the rules 0.01 0.51 The people, not the politicians, should make the most important decisions 0.35 0.19 Most politicians are concerned only with the rich and powerful 0.69 - 0.03 The will of the majority should prevail, even if it harms minorities - 0.01 0.52 When the Supreme Court interferes with the government, the President or Congress can ignore the Court - 0.03 0.34 Minorities should adapt to Brazilian customs and traditions 0.13 0.47 Cronbach’s alpha 0.60 0.45 KMO 0.72 Bartlett’s sphericity test K2=588.46; p < 0.001 Variance explained (2 factors) 29.6% Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018 Note: The Kaiser criterion was used to define the number of factors to be extracted and oblique rotation was applied. Table C Models Predictors 1º Round 2º Round Imputed Raw Imputed Raw Odds Ratios Odds Ratios Odds Ratios Odds Ratios (Intercept) 0.03 *** 0.04 *** 0.04 *** 0.04 *** (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) Sex [Female] 0.77 * 0.76 * 0.89 0.91 (0.08) (0.08) (0.09) (0.10) Age 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Religion [Catholic] 1.32 1.29 1.34 * 1.34 (0.19) (0.20) (0.19) (0.20) Religion [Evangelical] 1.83 *** 1.89 *** 1.73 *** 1.68 ** (0.28) (0.31) (0.25) (0.27) Bolsa Família Beneficiary [Yes] 0.81 0.75 * 0.71 ** 0.70 ** (0.10) (0.10) (0.08) (0.09) Anti-Pluralism 0.73 0.67 0.75 0.65 * (0.15) (0.15) (0.15) (0.14) Anti-Political 1.72 ** 1.99 *** 1.94 *** 2.17 *** (0.31) (0.40) (0.35) (0.43) Country’s Economy Evaluation 1.09 1.24 1.29 1.55 * (0.20) (0.25) (0.23) (0.30) Government Performance Evaluation 1.27 1.24 1.42 1.41 (0.25) (0.28) (0.28) (0.31) Antipetismo 16.13 *** 17.28 *** 14.75 *** 17.67 *** (2.66) (3.13) (2.22) (2.98) Ideology [Non Ideological] 0.89 0.86 0.77 0.70 * (0.14) (0.15) (0.11) (0.12) Ideology [Left] 0.68 0.64 * 0.61 * 0.61 * (0.14) (0.14) (0.12) (0.13) Ideology [Right] 1.76 *** 1.87 *** 1.73 *** 1.90 *** (0.25) (0.28) (0.24) (0.28) Education [Average] 0.98 0.91 0.99 0.95 (0.14) (0.15) (0.14) (0.15) Education [High] 0.59 * 0.62 0.68 0.69 (0.13) (0.15) (0.14) (0.16) Media Use - Newspapers 1.19 1.16 1.26 1.09 (0.21) (0.23) (0.23) (0.21) Media Use - TV 0.89 0.86 1.01 0.88 (0.10) (0.10) (0.11) (0.10) Media Use - Radio 1.13 1.05 1.42 1.13 (0.27) (0.27) (0.33) (0.29) Media Use - Facebook 1.62 *** 1.67 *** 1.70 *** 1.70 *** (0.20) (0.22) (0.21) (0.22) Media Use - YouTube 1.39 1.44 1.91 *** 1.85 ** (0.27) (0.29) (0.36) (0.38) Media Use - WhatsApp 1.97 *** 2.00 *** 1.96 *** 1.99 *** (0.30) (0.33) (0.30) (0.33) Class Mobilization [Fallen] 1.21 1.16 1.17 1.05 (0.21) (0.21) (0.20) (0.19) Class Mobilization [Risen] 1.22 1.07 1.21 1.13 (0.17) (0.16) (0.16) (0.17) Ideology [Right] * Education [High] 1.98 ** 1.56 2.25 ** 1.80 * (0.50) (0.42) (0.57) (0.48) Ideology [High] * Education [Left] 0.74 0.55 0.61 0.56 (0.33) (0.27) (0.25) (0.24) Observations 2506 2110 2506 2110 R2 Tjur 0.251 0.267 0.281 0.301 * p<0.05 ** p<0.01 *** p<0.001 Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018. Model Diagnostics tests: Model diagnostics tests were conducted on a sample of 70% of respondents. This data was modeled using the same equations of Model 1 and Model 2. With these results, we classified the remaining respondents (30%). The sensitivity, sensibility and total misclassification error tests refer to this latter classification. Since this process ran on a random sample of original data, the results may slightly differ within additional simulations. Table D Sensitivity, Specificity and Misclassifications Error for Model 1. Predicted Not voting for Bolsonaro Voting for Bolsonaro Not voting for Bolsonaro 421 (55.7%) 122 (16.2%) Voting for Bolsonaro 70 (9.3%) 142 (18.8%) Sensitivity 53.8% Specificity 85.7% Misclassification Error 25.4% Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018. Table E Sensitivity, Specificity and Misclassifications Error for Model 2. Predicted Not voting for Bolsonaro Voting for Bolsonaro Not voting for Bolsonaro 351 (46.5%) 110 (14.5%) Voting for Bolsonaro 86 (11.4%) 208 (27.5%) Sensitivity 65.4% Specificity 80.3% Misclassification Error 25.9% Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018. .

Thumbnail

Figure 3
Odds of voting for Bolsonaro (Second Round). R2 Tjur = 0.28. Sensitivity = 68.3%, Specificity = 81%. Misclassification rate = 24.4%. Detailed results are provided in the methodological ^appendix APPENDIX Table A Descriptive Statistics Var Mean SD Range Proportion Vote 1º Round - - 0 to 1 Bolsonaro - 33,4% Vote 2º Round - - 0 to 1 Bolsonaro - 40,8% Sex - - 0 to 1 Female - 52,5% Age 41,6 15,7 16 to 92 - Education - - 1 to 3 Low - 23,2% Average - 54,1% High - 22,7% Religion - - 1 to 3 Others - 17,8% Catholic - 50,4% Evangelical - 31,8% Bolsa Família Beneficiary - - 1 to 2 Yes - 31,4% Social Mobility Same - 73,7% Risen - 17,2% Fallen - 9,1% Ideology - - 1 to 4 Non-Ideological - 21,3% Left - 14,8% Center - 20,6% Right - 43,4% Country’s Economy Evaluation 0.27 0.29 0 to 1 - Government Performance Evaluation 0.18 0.26 0 to 1 - Antipetismo 0.63 0.39 0 to 1 Anti-Pluralism Discourse 0.49 0.28 0 to 1 - Anti-Political Discourse 0.79 0.28 0 to1 - Media Use - Newspapers - - 0 to 1 Yes - 8,9% Media Use - TV - - 0 to 1 Yes - 41,3% Media Use - Radio - - 0 to 1 Yes - 4,4% Media Use - WhatsApp - - 0 to 1 Yes - 14,2% Media Use - Facebook - - 0 to 1 Yes - 35,7% Media Use - YouTube - - 0 to 1 Yes - 8,5% Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018. Figure 1 Descriptive graphs Table B Factor Analysis Results Variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Commitment in politics means to bargain with principles 0.39 0.12 Most politicians don’t care about people 0.74 - 0.05 Most politicians are reliable 0.40 - 0.33 Politicians are Brazil’s main problem 0.63 0.17 Having a strong leader in government is good, even if he doesn’t follow the rules 0.01 0.51 The people, not the politicians, should make the most important decisions 0.35 0.19 Most politicians are concerned only with the rich and powerful 0.69 - 0.03 The will of the majority should prevail, even if it harms minorities - 0.01 0.52 When the Supreme Court interferes with the government, the President or Congress can ignore the Court - 0.03 0.34 Minorities should adapt to Brazilian customs and traditions 0.13 0.47 Cronbach’s alpha 0.60 0.45 KMO 0.72 Bartlett’s sphericity test K2=588.46; p < 0.001 Variance explained (2 factors) 29.6% Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018 Note: The Kaiser criterion was used to define the number of factors to be extracted and oblique rotation was applied. Table C Models Predictors 1º Round 2º Round Imputed Raw Imputed Raw Odds Ratios Odds Ratios Odds Ratios Odds Ratios (Intercept) 0.03 *** 0.04 *** 0.04 *** 0.04 *** (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) Sex [Female] 0.77 * 0.76 * 0.89 0.91 (0.08) (0.08) (0.09) (0.10) Age 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Religion [Catholic] 1.32 1.29 1.34 * 1.34 (0.19) (0.20) (0.19) (0.20) Religion [Evangelical] 1.83 *** 1.89 *** 1.73 *** 1.68 ** (0.28) (0.31) (0.25) (0.27) Bolsa Família Beneficiary [Yes] 0.81 0.75 * 0.71 ** 0.70 ** (0.10) (0.10) (0.08) (0.09) Anti-Pluralism 0.73 0.67 0.75 0.65 * (0.15) (0.15) (0.15) (0.14) Anti-Political 1.72 ** 1.99 *** 1.94 *** 2.17 *** (0.31) (0.40) (0.35) (0.43) Country’s Economy Evaluation 1.09 1.24 1.29 1.55 * (0.20) (0.25) (0.23) (0.30) Government Performance Evaluation 1.27 1.24 1.42 1.41 (0.25) (0.28) (0.28) (0.31) Antipetismo 16.13 *** 17.28 *** 14.75 *** 17.67 *** (2.66) (3.13) (2.22) (2.98) Ideology [Non Ideological] 0.89 0.86 0.77 0.70 * (0.14) (0.15) (0.11) (0.12) Ideology [Left] 0.68 0.64 * 0.61 * 0.61 * (0.14) (0.14) (0.12) (0.13) Ideology [Right] 1.76 *** 1.87 *** 1.73 *** 1.90 *** (0.25) (0.28) (0.24) (0.28) Education [Average] 0.98 0.91 0.99 0.95 (0.14) (0.15) (0.14) (0.15) Education [High] 0.59 * 0.62 0.68 0.69 (0.13) (0.15) (0.14) (0.16) Media Use - Newspapers 1.19 1.16 1.26 1.09 (0.21) (0.23) (0.23) (0.21) Media Use - TV 0.89 0.86 1.01 0.88 (0.10) (0.10) (0.11) (0.10) Media Use - Radio 1.13 1.05 1.42 1.13 (0.27) (0.27) (0.33) (0.29) Media Use - Facebook 1.62 *** 1.67 *** 1.70 *** 1.70 *** (0.20) (0.22) (0.21) (0.22) Media Use - YouTube 1.39 1.44 1.91 *** 1.85 ** (0.27) (0.29) (0.36) (0.38) Media Use - WhatsApp 1.97 *** 2.00 *** 1.96 *** 1.99 *** (0.30) (0.33) (0.30) (0.33) Class Mobilization [Fallen] 1.21 1.16 1.17 1.05 (0.21) (0.21) (0.20) (0.19) Class Mobilization [Risen] 1.22 1.07 1.21 1.13 (0.17) (0.16) (0.16) (0.17) Ideology [Right] * Education [High] 1.98 ** 1.56 2.25 ** 1.80 * (0.50) (0.42) (0.57) (0.48) Ideology [High] * Education [Left] 0.74 0.55 0.61 0.56 (0.33) (0.27) (0.25) (0.24) Observations 2506 2110 2506 2110 R2 Tjur 0.251 0.267 0.281 0.301 * p<0.05 ** p<0.01 *** p<0.001 Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018. Model Diagnostics tests: Model diagnostics tests were conducted on a sample of 70% of respondents. This data was modeled using the same equations of Model 1 and Model 2. With these results, we classified the remaining respondents (30%). The sensitivity, sensibility and total misclassification error tests refer to this latter classification. Since this process ran on a random sample of original data, the results may slightly differ within additional simulations. Table D Sensitivity, Specificity and Misclassifications Error for Model 1. Predicted Not voting for Bolsonaro Voting for Bolsonaro Not voting for Bolsonaro 421 (55.7%) 122 (16.2%) Voting for Bolsonaro 70 (9.3%) 142 (18.8%) Sensitivity 53.8% Specificity 85.7% Misclassification Error 25.4% Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018. Table E Sensitivity, Specificity and Misclassifications Error for Model 2. Predicted Not voting for Bolsonaro Voting for Bolsonaro Not voting for Bolsonaro 351 (46.5%) 110 (14.5%) Voting for Bolsonaro 86 (11.4%) 208 (27.5%) Sensitivity 65.4% Specificity 80.3% Misclassification Error 25.9% Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018. .

Thumbnail

Figure 4
Predicted probabilities of voting for Bolsonaro and the type of new media use.

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Descriptive graphs

Thumbnail

Table A
Descriptive Statistics

Thumbnail

Table B
Factor Analysis Results

Thumbnail

Table C
Models

Thumbnail

Table D
Sensitivity, Specificity and Misclassifications Error for Model 1.

Thumbnail

Table E
Sensitivity, Specificity and Misclassifications Error for Model 2.

Figure 1 Exploratory factor analysis results. Extraction of two-factor solutions with oblique rotation. Detailed results are provided in the methodological appendix.

Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018.

Figure 2 Odds of voting for Bolsonaro (First Round). R2 Tjur = 0.25. Sensitivity = 52.2%, Specificity = 84.2%. Misclassification rate = 27.1%. Detailed results are provided in the methodological ^appendix APPENDIX Table A Descriptive Statistics Var Mean SD Range Proportion Vote 1º Round - - 0 to 1 Bolsonaro - 33,4% Vote 2º Round - - 0 to 1 Bolsonaro - 40,8% Sex - - 0 to 1 Female - 52,5% Age 41,6 15,7 16 to 92 - Education - - 1 to 3 Low - 23,2% Average - 54,1% High - 22,7% Religion - - 1 to 3 Others - 17,8% Catholic - 50,4% Evangelical - 31,8% Bolsa Família Beneficiary - - 1 to 2 Yes - 31,4% Social Mobility Same - 73,7% Risen - 17,2% Fallen - 9,1% Ideology - - 1 to 4 Non-Ideological - 21,3% Left - 14,8% Center - 20,6% Right - 43,4% Country’s Economy Evaluation 0.27 0.29 0 to 1 - Government Performance Evaluation 0.18 0.26 0 to 1 - Antipetismo 0.63 0.39 0 to 1 Anti-Pluralism Discourse 0.49 0.28 0 to 1 - Anti-Political Discourse 0.79 0.28 0 to1 - Media Use - Newspapers - - 0 to 1 Yes - 8,9% Media Use - TV - - 0 to 1 Yes - 41,3% Media Use - Radio - - 0 to 1 Yes - 4,4% Media Use - WhatsApp - - 0 to 1 Yes - 14,2% Media Use - Facebook - - 0 to 1 Yes - 35,7% Media Use - YouTube - - 0 to 1 Yes - 8,5% Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018. Figure 1 Descriptive graphs Table B Factor Analysis Results Variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Commitment in politics means to bargain with principles 0.39 0.12 Most politicians don’t care about people 0.74 - 0.05 Most politicians are reliable 0.40 - 0.33 Politicians are Brazil’s main problem 0.63 0.17 Having a strong leader in government is good, even if he doesn’t follow the rules 0.01 0.51 The people, not the politicians, should make the most important decisions 0.35 0.19 Most politicians are concerned only with the rich and powerful 0.69 - 0.03 The will of the majority should prevail, even if it harms minorities - 0.01 0.52 When the Supreme Court interferes with the government, the President or Congress can ignore the Court - 0.03 0.34 Minorities should adapt to Brazilian customs and traditions 0.13 0.47 Cronbach’s alpha 0.60 0.45 KMO 0.72 Bartlett’s sphericity test K2=588.46; p < 0.001 Variance explained (2 factors) 29.6% Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018 Note: The Kaiser criterion was used to define the number of factors to be extracted and oblique rotation was applied. Table C Models Predictors 1º Round 2º Round Imputed Raw Imputed Raw Odds Ratios Odds Ratios Odds Ratios Odds Ratios (Intercept) 0.03 * 0.04 * 0.04 * 0.04 * (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) Sex [Female] 0.77 * 0.76 * 0.89 0.91 (0.08) (0.08) (0.09) (0.10) Age 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Religion [Catholic] 1.32 1.29 1.34 * 1.34 (0.19) (0.20) (0.19) (0.20) Religion [Evangelical] 1.83 * 1.89 * 1.73 * 1.68 (0.28) (0.31) (0.25) (0.27) Bolsa Família Beneficiary [Yes] 0.81 0.75 * 0.71 0.70 (0.10) (0.10) (0.08) (0.09) Anti-Pluralism 0.73 0.67 0.75 0.65 * (0.15) (0.15) (0.15) (0.14) Anti-Political 1.72 1.99 * 1.94 * 2.17 * (0.31) (0.40) (0.35) (0.43) Country’s Economy Evaluation 1.09 1.24 1.29 1.55 * (0.20) (0.25) (0.23) (0.30) Government Performance Evaluation 1.27 1.24 1.42 1.41 (0.25) (0.28) (0.28) (0.31) Antipetismo 16.13 * 17.28 * 14.75 * 17.67 * (2.66) (3.13) (2.22) (2.98) Ideology [Non Ideological] 0.89 0.86 0.77 0.70 * (0.14) (0.15) (0.11) (0.12) Ideology [Left] 0.68 0.64 * 0.61 * 0.61 * (0.14) (0.14) (0.12) (0.13) Ideology [Right] 1.76 * 1.87 * 1.73 * 1.90 * (0.25) (0.28) (0.24) (0.28) Education [Average] 0.98 0.91 0.99 0.95 (0.14) (0.15) (0.14) (0.15) Education [High] 0.59 * 0.62 0.68 0.69 (0.13) (0.15) (0.14) (0.16) Media Use - Newspapers 1.19 1.16 1.26 1.09 (0.21) (0.23) (0.23) (0.21) Media Use - TV 0.89 0.86 1.01 0.88 (0.10) (0.10) (0.11) (0.10) Media Use - Radio 1.13 1.05 1.42 1.13 (0.27) (0.27) (0.33) (0.29) Media Use - Facebook 1.62 * 1.67 * 1.70 * 1.70 * (0.20) (0.22) (0.21) (0.22) Media Use - YouTube 1.39 1.44 1.91 * 1.85 (0.27) (0.29) (0.36) (0.38) Media Use - WhatsApp 1.97 * 2.00 * 1.96 * 1.99 * (0.30) (0.33) (0.30) (0.33) Class Mobilization [Fallen] 1.21 1.16 1.17 1.05 (0.21) (0.21) (0.20) (0.19) Class Mobilization [Risen] 1.22 1.07 1.21 1.13 (0.17) (0.16) (0.16) (0.17) Ideology [Right] * Education [High] 1.98 1.56 2.25 1.80 * (0.50) (0.42) (0.57) (0.48) Ideology [High] * Education [Left] 0.74 0.55 0.61 0.56 (0.33) (0.27) (0.25) (0.24) Observations 2506 2110 2506 2110 R2 Tjur 0.251 0.267 0.281 0.301 * p<0.05 p<0.01 * p<0.001 Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018. Model Diagnostics tests: Model diagnostics tests were conducted on a sample of 70% of respondents. This data was modeled using the same equations of Model 1 and Model 2. With these results, we classified the remaining respondents (30%). The sensitivity, sensibility and total misclassification error tests refer to this latter classification. Since this process ran on a random sample of original data, the results may slightly differ within additional simulations. Table D Sensitivity, Specificity and Misclassifications Error for Model 1. Predicted Not voting for Bolsonaro Voting for Bolsonaro Not voting for Bolsonaro 421 (55.7%) 122 (16.2%) Voting for Bolsonaro 70 (9.3%) 142 (18.8%) Sensitivity 53.8% Specificity 85.7% Misclassification Error 25.4% Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018. Table E Sensitivity, Specificity and Misclassifications Error for Model 2. Predicted Not voting for Bolsonaro Voting for Bolsonaro Not voting for Bolsonaro 351 (46.5%) 110 (14.5%) Voting for Bolsonaro 86 (11.4%) 208 (27.5%) Sensitivity 65.4% Specificity 80.3% Misclassification Error 25.9% Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018. .

Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018.

Figure 3 Odds of voting for Bolsonaro (Second Round). R2 Tjur = 0.28. Sensitivity = 68.3%, Specificity = 81%. Misclassification rate = 24.4%. Detailed results are provided in the methodological ^appendix APPENDIX Table A Descriptive Statistics Var Mean SD Range Proportion Vote 1º Round - - 0 to 1 Bolsonaro - 33,4% Vote 2º Round - - 0 to 1 Bolsonaro - 40,8% Sex - - 0 to 1 Female - 52,5% Age 41,6 15,7 16 to 92 - Education - - 1 to 3 Low - 23,2% Average - 54,1% High - 22,7% Religion - - 1 to 3 Others - 17,8% Catholic - 50,4% Evangelical - 31,8% Bolsa Família Beneficiary - - 1 to 2 Yes - 31,4% Social Mobility Same - 73,7% Risen - 17,2% Fallen - 9,1% Ideology - - 1 to 4 Non-Ideological - 21,3% Left - 14,8% Center - 20,6% Right - 43,4% Country’s Economy Evaluation 0.27 0.29 0 to 1 - Government Performance Evaluation 0.18 0.26 0 to 1 - Antipetismo 0.63 0.39 0 to 1 Anti-Pluralism Discourse 0.49 0.28 0 to 1 - Anti-Political Discourse 0.79 0.28 0 to1 - Media Use - Newspapers - - 0 to 1 Yes - 8,9% Media Use - TV - - 0 to 1 Yes - 41,3% Media Use - Radio - - 0 to 1 Yes - 4,4% Media Use - WhatsApp - - 0 to 1 Yes - 14,2% Media Use - Facebook - - 0 to 1 Yes - 35,7% Media Use - YouTube - - 0 to 1 Yes - 8,5% Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018. Figure 1 Descriptive graphs Table B Factor Analysis Results Variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Commitment in politics means to bargain with principles 0.39 0.12 Most politicians don’t care about people 0.74 - 0.05 Most politicians are reliable 0.40 - 0.33 Politicians are Brazil’s main problem 0.63 0.17 Having a strong leader in government is good, even if he doesn’t follow the rules 0.01 0.51 The people, not the politicians, should make the most important decisions 0.35 0.19 Most politicians are concerned only with the rich and powerful 0.69 - 0.03 The will of the majority should prevail, even if it harms minorities - 0.01 0.52 When the Supreme Court interferes with the government, the President or Congress can ignore the Court - 0.03 0.34 Minorities should adapt to Brazilian customs and traditions 0.13 0.47 Cronbach’s alpha 0.60 0.45 KMO 0.72 Bartlett’s sphericity test K2=588.46; p < 0.001 Variance explained (2 factors) 29.6% Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018 Note: The Kaiser criterion was used to define the number of factors to be extracted and oblique rotation was applied. Table C Models Predictors 1º Round 2º Round Imputed Raw Imputed Raw Odds Ratios Odds Ratios Odds Ratios Odds Ratios (Intercept) 0.03 * 0.04 * 0.04 * 0.04 * (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) Sex [Female] 0.77 * 0.76 * 0.89 0.91 (0.08) (0.08) (0.09) (0.10) Age 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Religion [Catholic] 1.32 1.29 1.34 * 1.34 (0.19) (0.20) (0.19) (0.20) Religion [Evangelical] 1.83 * 1.89 * 1.73 * 1.68 (0.28) (0.31) (0.25) (0.27) Bolsa Família Beneficiary [Yes] 0.81 0.75 * 0.71 0.70 (0.10) (0.10) (0.08) (0.09) Anti-Pluralism 0.73 0.67 0.75 0.65 * (0.15) (0.15) (0.15) (0.14) Anti-Political 1.72 1.99 * 1.94 * 2.17 * (0.31) (0.40) (0.35) (0.43) Country’s Economy Evaluation 1.09 1.24 1.29 1.55 * (0.20) (0.25) (0.23) (0.30) Government Performance Evaluation 1.27 1.24 1.42 1.41 (0.25) (0.28) (0.28) (0.31) Antipetismo 16.13 * 17.28 * 14.75 * 17.67 * (2.66) (3.13) (2.22) (2.98) Ideology [Non Ideological] 0.89 0.86 0.77 0.70 * (0.14) (0.15) (0.11) (0.12) Ideology [Left] 0.68 0.64 * 0.61 * 0.61 * (0.14) (0.14) (0.12) (0.13) Ideology [Right] 1.76 * 1.87 * 1.73 * 1.90 * (0.25) (0.28) (0.24) (0.28) Education [Average] 0.98 0.91 0.99 0.95 (0.14) (0.15) (0.14) (0.15) Education [High] 0.59 * 0.62 0.68 0.69 (0.13) (0.15) (0.14) (0.16) Media Use - Newspapers 1.19 1.16 1.26 1.09 (0.21) (0.23) (0.23) (0.21) Media Use - TV 0.89 0.86 1.01 0.88 (0.10) (0.10) (0.11) (0.10) Media Use - Radio 1.13 1.05 1.42 1.13 (0.27) (0.27) (0.33) (0.29) Media Use - Facebook 1.62 * 1.67 * 1.70 * 1.70 * (0.20) (0.22) (0.21) (0.22) Media Use - YouTube 1.39 1.44 1.91 * 1.85 (0.27) (0.29) (0.36) (0.38) Media Use - WhatsApp 1.97 * 2.00 * 1.96 * 1.99 * (0.30) (0.33) (0.30) (0.33) Class Mobilization [Fallen] 1.21 1.16 1.17 1.05 (0.21) (0.21) (0.20) (0.19) Class Mobilization [Risen] 1.22 1.07 1.21 1.13 (0.17) (0.16) (0.16) (0.17) Ideology [Right] * Education [High] 1.98 1.56 2.25 1.80 * (0.50) (0.42) (0.57) (0.48) Ideology [High] * Education [Left] 0.74 0.55 0.61 0.56 (0.33) (0.27) (0.25) (0.24) Observations 2506 2110 2506 2110 R2 Tjur 0.251 0.267 0.281 0.301 * p<0.05 p<0.01 * p<0.001 Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018. Model Diagnostics tests: Model diagnostics tests were conducted on a sample of 70% of respondents. This data was modeled using the same equations of Model 1 and Model 2. With these results, we classified the remaining respondents (30%). The sensitivity, sensibility and total misclassification error tests refer to this latter classification. Since this process ran on a random sample of original data, the results may slightly differ within additional simulations. Table D Sensitivity, Specificity and Misclassifications Error for Model 1. Predicted Not voting for Bolsonaro Voting for Bolsonaro Not voting for Bolsonaro 421 (55.7%) 122 (16.2%) Voting for Bolsonaro 70 (9.3%) 142 (18.8%) Sensitivity 53.8% Specificity 85.7% Misclassification Error 25.4% Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018. Table E Sensitivity, Specificity and Misclassifications Error for Model 2. Predicted Not voting for Bolsonaro Voting for Bolsonaro Not voting for Bolsonaro 351 (46.5%) 110 (14.5%) Voting for Bolsonaro 86 (11.4%) 208 (27.5%) Sensitivity 65.4% Specificity 80.3% Misclassification Error 25.9% Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018. .

Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018.

Figure 4 Predicted probabilities of voting for Bolsonaro and the type of new media use.

Source: Brazilian Electoral Study, 2018.

Figure 1 Descriptive graphs

Como citar

copiar

Instituto de Estudos Sociais e Políticos (IESP) da Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ) R. da Matriz, 82, Botafogo, 22260-100 Rio de Janeiro RJ Brazil, Tel. (55 21) 2266-8300, Fax: (55 21) 2266-8345 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil
E-mail: dados@iesp.uerj.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

Versão para download de PDF

PDF

Inglês

Versões e tradução automática

Versão original do texto

English

Tradução automática

Google Translator
Microsoft Translator

Como citar

RIS

BIBTEX

Outros formatos de citação e exportação:

SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online
Rua Dr. Diogo de Faria, 1087 – 9º andar – Vila Clementino 04037-003 São Paulo/SP - Brasil
E-mail: scielo@scielo.org

Leia a Declaração de Acesso Aberto

Métricas

Redes Sociales y Aplicaciones de Mensajería Instantánea en la Elección de Jair Bolsonaro como Presidente de Brasil en 2018

PlumX