Advertisement

Acta Politica

, Volume 53, Issue 4, pp 569–589 | Cite as

Partial priming: how issue news shapes issue saliency, which shapes turnout but not the vote

  • Jan Kleinnijenhuis
  • Wouter van Atteveldt
  • Vera Dekkers
Original Article

Abstract

Issues are not neutral. This study about the Dutch 2016 referendum on the EU–Ukraine association treaty asks which issues dominated the news media in the campaign, how the news about these issues influenced the saliency of benefits and disadvantages of the treaty, and how the latter in turn influenced turnout and the vote. A content analysis of newspapers and television news shows that trade and democracy were much more prominent in the news than EU support for Ukraine against Russia. Linking the content analysis to a long-term panel survey reveals that issue news in self-selected media influenced the saliency of benefits and disadvantages of the treaty. The latter motivated voters to cast a vote, but priming was only partial since the voters’ “Yes” or “No” was primarily driven by prior dissatisfaction with the EU and the national government.

Keywords

Referenda Media effects Priming Issue voting Euroscepticism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude for the detailed comments from the anonymous reviewers, the editor of the special issue Kristof Jacobs, and the editor of Acta Politica, Rens Vliegenthart.

Supplementary material

41269_2018_104_MOESM1_ESM.zip (278 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (ZIP 279 kb)

References

  1. Adam, S., E.-M. Antl-Wittenberg, B. Eugster, et al. 2017. Strategies of pro-EU parties in the face of a Euroskeptic challenge. European Union Politics 18: 260–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett, W.L. 1990. Toward a theory of press-state relations in the United States. Journal of Communication 40: 103–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boomgaarden, H.G., A.R.T. Schuck, M. Elenbaas, et al. 2011. Mapping EU attitudes: Conceptual and empirical dimensions of Euroscepticism and EU support. European Union Politics 12: 241–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bovens, M., and A. Wille. 2010. The education gap in participation and its political consequences. Acta Politica 45: 393–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Budge, I., and D.J. Farlie. 1983. Explaining and predicting elections: Issues effects and party strategies in twenty-three democracies. London: George, Allen and Urwin.Google Scholar
  6. Chong, D., and J.N. Druckman. 2007a. Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review 101: 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chong, D., and J.N. Druckman. 2007b. Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science 10: 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Converse, P.E. 1964. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Ideology and discontent, ed. D.E. Apter, 202–261. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  9. de Vreese, C.H., Azrout, R., and H.G. Boomgaarden. 2018. One size fits all? Testing the dimensional structure of EU attitudes in 21 countries. International Journal of Public Opinion Research: edy003.Google Scholar
  10. Donsbach, W. 1991. Medienwirkung trotz Selektion: Einflussfaktoren auf die Zuwendung zu Zeitungsinhalten. Köln/Weimar/Wien: Böhlau.Google Scholar
  11. Druckman, J.N. 2004. Priming the vote: Campaign effects in a U.S. Senate Election. Political Psychology 25: 577–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Druckman, J.N., L.R. Jacobs, and E. Ostermeier. 2004. Candidate strategies to prime issues and image. Journal of Politics 66: 1180–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erbring, L., E.N. Goldenberg, and A.H. Miller. 1980. Front-page news and real-world cues: A new look at agenda-setting by the media. American Journal of Political Science 24: 16–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garry, J., M. Marsh, and R. Sinnott. 2005. ‘Second-order’ versus ‘Issue-voting’ Effects in EU Referendums. European Union Politics 6: 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hakhverdian, A., W. van der Brug, and C. de Vries. 2012. The emergence of a ‘diploma democracy’: The political education gap in the Netherlands, 1971–2010. Acta Politica 47: 229–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harteveld, E., J. Schaper, S.L. De Lange, et al. 2018. Blaming Brussels? The impact of (news about) the refugee crisis on attitudes towards the EU and National Politics. Journal of Common Market Studies 56: 157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hendriks, F., K. van der Krieken, and C. Wagenaar. 2017. Democratische zegen of vloek?: aantekeningen bij het referendum. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hix, S., and M. Marsh. 2011. Second-order effects plus pan-European political swings: An analysis of European Parliament elections across time. Electoral Studies 30: 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hobolt, S.B. 2006. How parties affect vote choice in European integration referendums. Party politics 12: 623–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hobolt, S.B. 2009. Europe in question: Referendums on European integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hobolt, S.B., and S. Brouard. 2011. Contesting the European Union? Why the Dutch and the French rejected the European constitution. Political Research Quarterly 64: 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hobolt, S.B., J.-J. Spoon, and J. Tilley. 2009. A vote against Europe? Explaining defection at the 1999 and 2004 European parliament elections. British Journal of Political Science 39: 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Iyengar, S., and D.R. Kinder. 1987, 2010. News that matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jacobs, K., van Klingeren, M., van der Kolk, H., et al. 2016. Het Oekraine-referendum: nationaal referendumonderzoek 2016. https://kennisopenbaarbestuur.nl/rapporten-publicaties/het-oekra%C3%AFne-referendum-nationaal-referendum-onderzoek-2016/.
  25. Kleinnijenhuis, J., and W. van Atteveldt. 2016. The impact of the explosion of EU news on voter choice in the 2014 EU Elections. Politics & Governance 4: 104–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kleinnijenhuis, J., and W. Van Atteveldt. 2018. Dataverse with Partial priming: How issue news shapes issue saliency, which shapes turnout but not the vote (Publication no. hdl/10411/QVPJRM). DataverseNL. https://hdl.handle.net/10411/QVPJRM.
  27. Kleinnijenhuis, J., J. Takens, and W. van Atteveldt. 2006. Toen Europa de dagbladen ging vullen. In Nederlanders en Europa: het referendum over de Europese Grondwet, ed. H. van der Kolk and K. Aarts, 123–144. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.Google Scholar
  28. Knobloch-Westerwick, S. 2012. Selective exposure and reinforcement of attitudes and partisanship before a presidential election. Journal of Communication 62: 628–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kriesi, H., E. Grande, R. Lachat, et al. 2006. Globalization and the transformation of the national political space: Six European countries compared. European Journal of Political Research 45: 921–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kriesi, H., E. Grande, R. Lachat, et al. 2008. West European politics in the age of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCombs, M.E., and D.L. Shaw. 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36: 176–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nelson, T.E., and Z.M. Oxley. 1999. Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. The Journal of Politics 61: 1040–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reif, K., and H. Schmitt. 1980. Nine second-order national elections: A conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results. European Journal of Political Research 8: 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scharkow, M., and M. Bachl. 2017. How measurement error in content analysis and self-reported media use leads to minimal media effect findings in linkage analyses: A simulation study. Political Communication 34: 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schuck, A.R.T., and C.H. De Vreese. 2008. The Dutch No to the EU constitution: Assessing the role of EU skepticism and the campaign. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 18: 101–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sheafer, T., and G. Weimann. 2005. Agenda building, agenda setting, priming, individual voting intentions, and the aggregate results: An analysis of four Israeli elections. Journal of Communication 55: 347–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sniderman, P.M., and S.M. Theriault. 2004. The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change, ed. W.E. Saris and P.M. Sniderman, 133–165. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Soroka, S. 2006. Good news and bad news: Asymmetric responses to economic information. Journal of Politics 68: 372–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van Atteveldt, W. 2008. Semantic network analysis: Techniques for extracting, representing and querying media content. Charleston, SC: BookSurge Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Van Dalen, A., C.H. De Vreese, and E. Albæk. 2012. Different roles, different content? A four-country comparison of the role conceptions and reporting style of political journalists. Journalism 13: 903–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van de Wardt, M., C.E. De Vries, and S.B. Hobolt. 2014. Exploiting the cracks: Wedge issues in multiparty competition. The Journal of Politics 76: 986–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van der Eijk, C., and M.N. Franklin. 1996. Choosing Europe? The European electorate and national politics in the face of union. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Gorp, B. 2005. Where is the frame? Victims and intruders in the Belgian press coverage of the asylum issue. European Journal of Communication 20: 484–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Klingeren, M., H.G. Boomgaarden, R. Vliegenthart, et al. 2015. Real world is not enough: The media as an additional source of negative attitudes toward immigration, comparing Denmark and the Netherlands. European Sociological Review 31: 268–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Noije, L., J.A. Kleinnijenhuis, and D. Oegema. 2008. Loss of parliamentary control due to mediatization and Europeanization: A longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of agenda building in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. British Journal of Political Science 38: 455–478.Google Scholar
  46. van Spanje, J., and C. De Vreese. 2014. Europhile media and eurosceptic voting: Effects of news media coverage on eurosceptic voting in the 2009 European parliamentary elections. Political Communication 31: 325–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vliegenthart, R., A.R.T. Schuck, H.G. Boomgaarden, et al. 2008. News coverage and support for European integration, 1990–2006. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 20: 415–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Walgrave, S., and P. van Aelst. 2006. The contingency of the mass media’s political agenda setting power: Towards a preliminary theory. Journal of Communication 56: 88–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wirth, W., J. Matthes, C. Schemer, et al. 2010. Agenda building and setting in a referendum campaign: Investigating the flow of arguments among campaigners, the media, and the public. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 87: 328–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wolfsfeld, G. 2011. Making sense of media and politics: Five principles in political communication. New York: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zaller, J.R. 1992. The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Kleinnijenhuis
    • 1
  • Wouter van Atteveldt
    • 1
  • Vera Dekkers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Communication ScienceVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations