Sources of Opposition Toward Europe: Issue Saliency and Specific Support

  • Danilo Di Mauro
  • Vincenzo Memoli


Once the concept of support has been “unpacked” as diffuse and specific types, the analysis focuses on the origins of specific support to Europe. Among some sources of support and opposition toward EU policies, the authors test the effect of personal and social saliency on satisfaction with EU performance in different policy domains. Results show that people who consider an issue important tend to evaluate the EU policies related to that issue differently (mostly negatively).

Comparing those effects of saliency on national government and European policies, the analyses show identical directions. This indicates that the effect of saliency on European specific support is conditioned by proxies from national political contexts; people judge the policies of the European Union through a “domestic lens.” Negative evaluations are linked to requests for more EU action, while the effect of saliency is not significant for diffuse support toward Europe.


Euroscepticism Specific support Attitudes toward Europe Saliency Economic crisis EU integration EU policies Responsiveness 


  1. Anderson, C. J. (1998). When in doubt, use proxies: Attitudes toward domestic politics and support for European integration. Comparative Political Studies, 31(5), 569–601.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, C., & Zapryanova, G. (2012). Trust in the institutions of the European Union: A cross-country examination. In Laurie Beaudonnet and Danilo Di Mauro (Eds.), Beyond Euro-skepticism, understanding attitudes towards the EU. European Integration online Papers, special issue, 16(2).Google Scholar
  3. Beaudonnet, L. (2015). A threatening horizon: The impact of the welfare state on support for Europe. Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(3), 457–475.Google Scholar
  4. Beaudonnet, L., & Di Mauro, D. (2012). Support for Europe: Assessing the complexity of individual attitudes. In Laurie Beaudonnet and Danilo Di Mauro (Eds.), Beyond Euro-skepticism, understanding attitudes towards the EU. European Integration online Papers, special issue, 16(2).Google Scholar
  5. Beckfield, J. (2006). European integration and income inequality. American Sociological Review, 71(6), 964–985.Google Scholar
  6. Beetham, D., & Lord, C. (2001). Legitimizing the EU: Is there a “post-parliamentary basis” for its legitimation? Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(3), 443–462.Google Scholar
  7. Blais, A., Nadeau, R., Gidengil, E., & Nevitte, N. (2002). The impact of issues and the economy in the 1997 Canadian federal election. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 35(2), 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boomgaarden, H. G., Achuck, A. R. T., Elenbaas, M., & de Vreese, C. H. (2011). Mapping EU attitudes: Conceptual and empirical dimensions of euroscepticism and EU support. European Union Politics, 12(2): 241–266, first published online 26 April 2011.Google Scholar
  9. Brody, R. A., & Sniderman, P. M. (1977). From life space to polling place: The relevance of personal concerns for voting behavior. British Journal of Political Science, 7(3), 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Claggett, W. J. M., & Shafer, B. E. (2010). The American public mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Edwards, G. C. I., Mitchell, W., & Welch, R. (1995). Explaining presidential approval: The significance of issue salience. American Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 108–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eichenberg, R. C., & Dalton, R. J. (1993). Europeans and the European community: The dynamics of public support for European integration. International Organization, 47(4), 507–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Føllesdal, A., & Hix, S. (2006). Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU: A response to Majone and Moravcsik. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(3), 533–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fournier, P., Blais, A., Nadeau, R., Gidengil, E., & Nevitte, N. (2003). Issue importance and performance voting. Political Behavior, 25(1), 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Franklin, M. N., Mackie, T. T., & Valen, H. (1992). Electoral change: Responses to evolving social and attitudinal structures in Western democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Franklin, M. N., Marsh, M., & McLaren, L. (1994). The European question: Opposition to unification in the wake of Maastricht. Journal of Common Market Studies, 32, 455–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Franklin, M. N., van der Eijk, C., & Marsh, M. (1995). Referendum outcomes and trust in government: Public support for Europe in the wake of Maastricht. Western European Politics, 18(3), 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gabel, M. J. (1998). Public support for European integration: An empirical test of five theories. Journal of Politics, 60(2), 333–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gabel, M., & Palmer, H. (1995). Understanding variation in public support for European integration. European Journal of Political Research, 27, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hobolt, S. B., & Brouard, S. (2010). Contesting the European Union? Why the Dutch and the French rejected the European Constitution. Political Research Quarterly, 64(2), 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2004). Does identity or economic rationality drive public opinion on European integration? Political Science and Politics, 37(3), 415–420.Google Scholar
  23. Inglehart, R., Rabier, J., & Reif, K. (1991). The evolution of public attitudes toward European Integration: 1970–86. In K. Reif & R. Inglehart (Eds.), Eurobarometer: The dynamics of European public opinion, (pp. 111–131). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Janssen, J. I. H. (1991). Postmaterialism, cognitive mobilization and public support for European integration. British Journal of Political Science, 21(4), 443–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krosnick, J. A. (1988). The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: A study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluation, and voting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 196–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krosnick, J. A. (1990). Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue publics in contemporary America. Political Behavior, 12, 59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuhn, T., van Elsas, E., Hakhverdian, A., & van der Brug, W. (2014). An ever wider gap in an ever closer union: Rising inequalities and euroscepticism in 12 West European democracies, 1975–2009. Socio-Economic Review. First published online: December 9, 2014.Google Scholar
  28. Magnette, P. (2001). European governance and civic participation: Can the European Union be politicised? Jean Monnet Working Paper, 6/01.Google Scholar
  29. Marks, G., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2004). European integration and political conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance–performance analyses. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McLaren, L. M. (2002). Public support for the European Union: Cost/benefit analysis or perceived cultural threat? Journal of Politics, 64(2), 551–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McLaren, L. M. (2007). Explaining mass-level euroscepticism: Identity, interests, and institutional distrust. Acta Politica, 42, 233–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller, A. H., & Klobucar, T. F. (2003). The role of issues in the 2000 U.S. presidential election. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 33(1), 101–124.Google Scholar
  34. Nelson, T. E., & Oxley, Z. M. (1999). Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. Journal of Politics, 61(4), 1040–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reif, K.-H., & Schmitt, H. (1980). Nine second-order national elections. A conceptual framework for the analysis of European elections results. European Journal of Political Research, 8, 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schmitt, H., & Jacques, T. (1999). Political representation and legitimacy in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tuckel, P. S., & Tejera, F. (1983). Changing patterns in American voting behavior, 1914–1980. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(2), 230–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Ryzin, G. G., & Immerwahr, S. (2004). Derived importance-performance analysis of citizen survey data. Public Performance & Management Review, 27(4), 144–173.Google Scholar
  39. Wallace, W., & Smith, J. (1995). Democracy or technocracy? European integration and the problem of popular consent. West European Politics, 18(3), Special Issue: The Crisis of Representation in Europe.Google Scholar
  40. Weaver, D. (1991). Issue salience and public opinion: Are there consequences of agenda-setting? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 3(1), 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danilo Di Mauro
    • 1
    • 2
  • Vincenzo Memoli
    • 3
  1. 1.European University Institute (EUI) San Domenico di FiesoleFiesoleItaly
  2. 2.Unitelma Sapienza, University of RomeRomeItaly
  3. 3.Università degli Studi di CataniaCataniaItaly

Personalised recommendations