Acta Politica

, Volume 52, Issue 1, pp 110–132 | Cite as

Priming Europe: Media effects on loyalty, voice and exit in European Parliament elections

  • Heiko Giebler
  • Sylvia Kritzinger
  • Georgios Xezonakis
  • Susan Banducci
Original Article

Abstract

Parties in government face a decline in EP elections after experiencing a surge in votes to win the national election. This occurs because voters are more inclined to give voice to their dissatisfaction with current government performance by voting for the opposition or exiting because less is at stake in second‐order elections. These elections negatively affect the electoral fortunes of governing parties as voters opt to punish poorly performing national governments in EP elections. Meanwhile, greater reliance on the EU issue dimension in vote choice models is taken as evidence for the increasing Europeanisation of EP elections. We examine the role of the media in making the EU issue dimension salient in such a way that government parties may benefit electorally from this increased saliency. To examine whether visibility of government party actors in media coverage increases loyalty for the governing parties either directly or via priming the EU issues for voters, we combine survey data from the 2009 European Election Studies with data on news coverage of those elections that links the governing party to the EU issue. We show that where the government is visible in EU news coverage, EU issue voting tends to increase loyalty while decreasing the probability to vote for the opposition and thus improves the electoral prospects for governing parties. This is even more the case if the issue is primed by negative campaign coverage.

Keywords

news media EU coverage EU issue voting voting calculus governing party 

References

  1. Adams, J., Ezrow, L. and Somer‐Topcu, Z. (2011) Is anybody listening? Evidence that voters do not respond to European parties’ policy statements during elections. American Journal of Political Science 55(2): 370–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banducci, S., Giebler, H. and Kritzinger, S. (2015) Knowing left from right and more from less: Information environments and knowledge of party positions. British Journal of Political Science, doi:10.1017/S0007123415000204.Google Scholar
  3. Bawn, K. and Somer-Topcu, Z. (2012) Government versus opposition at the polls: How governing status affects the impact of policy positions. American Journal of Political Science 56(2): 433–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boomgaarden, H.G., Johann, D. and Kritzinger, S. (2016) Voting at National versus European elections: An individual level test of the second order paradigm. Politics and Governance 4(1): 130–144, doi:10.17645/pag.v4i1.472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, A. (1960) Surge and decline: A study of electoral change. Public Opinion Quarterly 24: 397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dassonneville, R. and Hooghe, M. (2016) The noise of the vote recall question: The validity of the vote recall question in panel studies in Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, doi:10.1093/ijpor/edv051.Google Scholar
  7. De Vreese, C., Banducci, S.A., Semetko, H. and Boomgarden, H. (2006) The news coverage of the 2004 European parliamentary election campaign in 25 countries. European Union Politics 7(4): 479–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Vries, C. (2007) Sleeping giant: Fact or fairytale? How European integration affects national elections. European Union Politics 8(3): 363–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Vries, C.E., Van der Brug, W., Van Egmond, M.H. and Van der Eijk, C. (2011) Individual and contextual variation in EU issue voting: The role of political information. Electoral Studies 30(1): 16–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delli Carpini, M.X. (2004) Mediating democratic engagement: the positive and negative impact of mass media on citizens’ engagement in political and civic life. In: L.L. Kaid (ed.) The Handbook of Political Communication Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, pp. 395–434.Google Scholar
  11. Evans, G. (1998) Euroscepticism and conservative electoral support: How an asset became a liability. British Journal of Political Science 28(4): 573–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans, G. (2002) European integration, party politics and voting in the 2001 election. In: L. Bennie, C. Rallings, J. Tonge and P. Webb (eds.) British Elections and Parties Review. London: Frank Cass, pp. 95–110.Google Scholar
  13. Ferrara, F. and Weishaupt, J.T. (2004) Get your act together: Party performance in European Parliament elections. European Union Politics 5(3): 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fiske, S.T. (1980) Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38(6): 889–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gabel, M. (2000) European integration, voters and national politics. West European Politics 23(4): 52–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gelman, A. (2008) Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Statistics in Medicine 27: 2865–2873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giebler, H. (2014) Contextualizing turnout and party choice: Electoral behaviour on different political levels. In: B. Weßels, H. Rattinger, S. Roßteutscher and R. Schmitt-Beck (eds.) Voters on the Run or on the Move? Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 116–138.Google Scholar
  18. Giebler, H. and Wagner, A. (2015) Contrasting first- and second-order electoral behaviour: Determinants of individual party choice in european and German federal elections. German Politics 24(1): 46–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Green-Pedersen, C. (2012) A giant fast asleep? Party incentives and the politicisation of European integration. Political Studies 60(1): 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hirschman, A.O. (1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Response to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hix, S. and Marsh, M. (2007) Punishment or protest? Understanding European parliament elections. Journal of Politics 69(2): 495–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hix, S. and Marsh, M. (2011) Second-order effects plus Pan-European political swings: An analysis of European Parliament elections across time. Electoral Studies 30(1): 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hobolt, S.B., Spoon, J.J. and Tilley, J. (2009) A vote against Europe? Explaining defection at the 1999 and 2004 European Parliament elections. British Journal of Political Science 39(1): 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2009) A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: From permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science 39(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hopmann, D.N., Elmelund-Præstekær, C., Albæk, E., Vliegenthart, R. and De Vreese, C.H., 2012. Party media agenda-setting How parties influence election news coverage. Party Politics 18(2): 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Iyengar, S. (1990) Shortcuts to political knowledge: Selective attention and the accessibility bias. In: J. Ferejohn and J. Kuklinski (eds.) Information and Democratic Processes. Champaign: University of Illinois Press, pp. 160–185.Google Scholar
  27. Iyengar, S. and Kinder, D.R. (1987) News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S. and Frey, T. (2006) Globalization and the transformation of the national political space: Six European countries compared’. European Journal of Political Research 45(6): 921–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S. and Frey, T. (2008) West European Politics in the Age of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krouwel, A. (2004) All Politics is National, but Policy is Supra-national: A Decisive Discrepancy. Working Paper of the International Policy Analysis Unit, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.Google Scholar
  31. Lenz, G.S. (2009) Learning and opinion change, not priming: Reconsidering the priming hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science 53(4): 821–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lenz, G.S. (2013) Follow the Leader?: How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mair, P. (2000) The limited impact of Europe on national party systems. West European Politics 23(4): 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marcus, G.E., Neuman, W.R. and Mackuen, M. (2000) Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Marsh, M. (1998) Testing the second-order election model after four European elections. British Journal of Political Science 28(4): 591–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller, J. and Krosnick, J. (2000) News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science 44(2): 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mutz, D.C. (1998) Impersonal Influence: How Perceptions of Mass Collectives Affect Political Attitudes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Norpoth, H. (1992) Confidence Regained: Economics, Mrs. Thatcher and the British Voter. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Page B.I. and Shapiro R.Y. (1992). The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Price V. and Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. Progress in Communication Sciences 13: 172–211.Google Scholar
  41. Reif, K. and Schmitt, H. (1980) Nine second-order national elections: A conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results. European Journal of Political Research 8(1): 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rohrschneider, R. and Clark, N. (2008) Second-order elections versus first-order thinking: How voters perceive the representation process in a multi-layered system of governance. In: C. van der Eijk and H. Schmitt (eds.) The Multilevel Electoral System of the EU. Mannheim: Connex, pp. 137–162.Google Scholar
  43. Scheve, K. (1999) European Economic Integration and Electoral Politics in France and Great Britain. Working Paper, Department of Political Science, Yale University.Google Scholar
  44. Schoenbach, K. and Semetko, H. (1992) Agenda-setting, agenda-reinforcing or agenda-deflating: A study of the 1990 German national election. Journalism Quarterly 69(4): 837–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schuck, A., Xezonakis, G., Banducci, S. and de Vreese, C.H. (2010) EES (2009) Media Study Data Advance Release Documentation, www.piredeu.eu, accessed 31 March 2010.
  46. Schuck, A.R., Xezonakis, G., Elenbaas, M., Banducci, S.A. and De Vreese, C.H. (2011) Party contestation and Europe on the news agenda: The 2009 European Parliamentary Elections. Electoral Studies 30(1): 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Semetko, H.A. and de Vreese, C.H. (2004) Political Campaigning in Referendums: Framing the Referendum Issue. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Sheafer, T. (2007) How to evaluate it: The role of story-evaluative tone in agenda setting and priming. Journal of Communication 57(1): 21–39.Google Scholar
  49. Soroka, S.N. (2006) Good news and bad news: Asymmetric responses to economic information. Journal of Politics 68(2): 372–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tesler, M. (2014) Priming predispositions and changing policy positions: An account of when mass opinion is primed or changed. American Journal of Political Science 59(4): 806–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tillman, E.R. (2004) The European Union at the ballot box? European integration and voting behavior in the new member states. Comparative Political Studies 37(5): 590–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van der Eijk, C. and Franklin, M.N. (eds.) (1996) Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of the Union. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  53. van der Eijk, C. and Franklin, M.N. (2004) Potential for contestation on European matters at national elections in Europe. In: G. Marks and M.R. Steenbergen (eds.) European Integration and Political Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33–50.Google Scholar
  54. van der Eijk, C. and Niemöller, B. (2008) Recall accuracy and its determinants. In: K. Arzheimer and J. Evans (eds.) Electoral Behavior. Debates and Methodology, vol 4. Los Angeles: Sage, pp. 232–280.Google Scholar
  55. van Egmond, M.H., Sapir, E.V., van der Brug, W., Hobolt, S.B., Franklin, M.N. (2010) EES 2009 Voter Study Advance Release Notes. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  56. Waldahl, R. and Aardal, B. (2000) The accuracy of recalled previous voting: Evidence from the Norwegian election study. Scandinavian Political Studies 23(4): 373–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weber, T. (2011) Exit, voice, and cyclicality: A micrologic of midterm effects in European Parliament elections. American Journal of Political Science 55(4): 906–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heiko Giebler
    • 1
  • Sylvia Kritzinger
    • 2
  • Georgios Xezonakis
    • 3
  • Susan Banducci
    • 4
  1. 1.Research Unit ‘Democracy and Democratization’WZB Berlin Social Science CenterBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of GovernmentUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.Department of Political Science, Quality of Government InstituteUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  4. 4.Department of Politics, College of Social Science and International StudiesUniversity of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations