Suchergebnisse

We study the personalization of voting behaviour in European Parliament elections. We argue that information from the media is crucial for providing linkages between candidates and voters. Moreover, we contend that candidates can serve as information short-cuts given the complexity of European Union politics. We use a four-wave Dutch panel survey and a media study that enable us to link evaluations of lead candidates, party preferences, and vote choice to exposure to news about these candidates. We show, firstly, that exposure to candidate news is a strong explanatory factor for candidate recognition. Secondly, we find that candidate evaluations positively affect party choice, albeit mainly for those voters who tend to be politically aware. Our research has implications for debates about the European Union's accountability deficit.

We study the personalization of voting behaviour in European Parliament elections. We argue that information from the media is crucial for providing linkages between candidates and voters. Moreover, we contend that candidates can serve as information short-cuts given the complexity of European Union politics. We use a four-wave Dutch panel survey and a media study that enable us to link evaluations of lead candidates, party preferences, and vote choice to exposure to news about these candidates. We show, firstly, that exposure to candidate news is a strong explanatory factor for candidate recognition. Secondly, we find that candidate evaluations positively affect party choice, albeit mainly for those voters who tend to be politically aware. Our research has implications for debates about the European Union's accountability deficit.

Hate speech prosecution of politicians is a common phenomenon in established democracies. Examples of politicians tried for hate speech include Nick Griffin in Britain and Jean-Marie Le Pen in France. Does hate speech prosecution of politicians affect the electoral support for their party? This is an important question, as the parties involved typically are controversial, often accused of stirring up political cynicism or political violence. The relevant literature has largely ignored this question, however. In this article, we use data from a representative sample of Dutch voters interviewed before and re-interviewed after the unexpected court decision to prosecute MP Geert Wilders. We demonstrate empirically that the decision substantially enhanced his party's appeal. This resulted in an immediate increase in support for the party by one to five percentage points among those who are moderately in favour of the assimilation of ethnic minorities into Dutch culture. In addition, the evidence suggests that the decision contributed to the party's subsequent electoral lift-off. Our findings call for investigations into the electoral effects of legal proceedings against political actors in democratic systems worldwide. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Ltd., copyright holder.]

Hate speech prosecution of politicians is a common phenomenon in established democracies. Examples of politicians tried for hate speech include Nick Griffin in Britain and Jean-Marie Le Pen in France. Does hate speech prosecution of politicians affect the electoral support for their party? This is an important question, as the parties involved typically are controversial, often accused of stirring up political cynicism or political violence. The relevant literature has largely ignored this question, however. In this article, we use data from a representative sample of Dutch voters interviewed before and re-interviewed after the unexpected court decision to prosecute MP Geert Wilders. We demonstrate empirically that the decision substantially enhanced his party's appeal. This resulted in an immediate increase in support for the party by one to five percentage points among those who are moderately in favour of the assimilation of ethnic minorities into Dutch culture. In addition, the evidence suggests that the decision contributed to the party's subsequent electoral lift-off. Our findings call for investigations into the electoral effects of legal proceedings against political actors in democratic systems worldwide.

Based on a "classic" framing experiment ( N = 1,324), this study empirically mimics the dynamic nature of framing effects over time. We integrate (a) multiple frame exposures as well as (b) various tests for duration of framing effects into our study design. Our results show that exposure to repetitive frames does not systematically strengthen effects on opinion formation. However, effects can get stronger when the delay between two exposures is short. Competitive news framing is characterized by recency effects; that is, the latest frame has the strongest impact on opinion formation. Political knowledge functions as a moderator for both effect mechanisms. Participants with higher levels of political knowledge are less prone to recency effects, but show stronger signs of a cumulative framing effect. The results of this study have important methodological and substantive ramifications for framing effects research, as well as for our understanding of the real-life impact of framed media messages on opinions.

There is no satisfactory account of the psychological processes that mediate a news framing effect. Based on an experimental study ( N = 1,537), this article presents a mediation analysis of a news framing effect on opinion, testing for two important mediation processes: belief importance and belief content change. Results show that framing is mediated by both belief importance and belief content, with belief content being the more prominent variable. The extent to which each process takes effect depends on a person's level of political knowledge. Knowledgeable individuals are affected to a greater extent via both belief content and belief importance change.