Suchergebnisse

Research on campaign strategies generally assumes that political parties avoid campaigning on issues that are internally divisive. However, this strategy might not always be viable, especially when parties attack each other in high-stake elections. This article provides novel evidence on the effects of campaigning on cross-cutting issues by focusing on the 2015 U.K. general election in Scotland. Results based on an experiment and a nationally representative survey show that the strategy to criticize the Scottish National Party (SNP) with regard to the cross-cutting issue of Scottish independence polarized voters along national identity lines. Among British voters, attack statements and perceived negativity increased support for some of the parties sponsoring the attacks, whereas among Scottish voters they actually increased support for the target of the attacks. In addition, experimental results indicate that attack statements affected mainly ideologically close parties (the Labour Party and the SNP). At the theoretical level, these findings indicate that the strategy to attack opposite parties on divisive issues can lead to both electoral gains and losses depending on voters' "identification" with such issues.

Defence date: 4 November 2016 ; Examining Board: Professor Diego Gambetta, European University Institute (Supervisor) ; Professor Alexander H. Trechsel, European University Institute (Co-supervisor) ; Professor John T. Jost, New York University ; Professor Rune Slothuus, Aarhus University ; This dissertation explores the effects of information on voting behaviour and political attitudes in three case studies, with a combination of original empirical data and secondary survey data. In Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, I explored how issue-based arguments influenced attitudes and voting behaviour in the cam-paign for the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. Data from a laboratory experiment, two follow-up surveys and additional survey data reveal that information led to different patterns of attitude polar-ization and depolarization, depending on the moderating elements of attitude relevance and decision about how to vote. With regard to voting intentions, campaign arguments increased the support for Scottish independence mainly through reducing the uncertainties related to this referendum option. In Chapter 4, the analysis of an online experiment, in combination with a representative panel survey, aims to identify how negative messages by party leaders affected support for parties in the 2015 British general election. Findings show that negative campaigning polarised the electorate along national iden-tity lines: among British voters, negativity increased support for some of the parties sponsoring the attacks, while among Scottish voters it actually increased support for the target of the attacks. Lastly, in Chapter 5, I examine how the recent introduction of digital television affected turnout and voting behaviour in a series of referendum and election consultations that took place between 2010 and 2013 in Italy. The method applied is a regression discontinuity design that exploits the heterogeneous diffusion of digital television in a quasi-experimental setting. The analysis of two extensive datasets with voting and socio-demographic data at the municipality level that I personally collected confirms that increasing the availability of entertainment channels reduced electoral participation in different referendum and electoral consultations. The studies presented in this thesis indicate that the effects of information on political behaviour might be subtler than early research generally conceived, due to the crucial role of different moderating vari-ables at the individual level. Nevertheless, in a complex political world, subtle effects can still contribute to winning elections. From a normative perspective, identifying how citizens make political decisions in response to information acquires substantial relevance not only for academic research, but also for improving democratic decisions. Without knowing the mechanisms of information processing and the consequences of these mechanisms on opinion formation, the idea that an informed society is a better society remains a vague ideal.

In a context of expanded media choice, understanding how voters select and interpret information to make voting decisions acquires substantial relevance. Drawing on former research in political psychology and political behaviour, the present study explores how provision of information affects voting intentions in the context of the Scottish independence referendum, by adopting a between-subjects experimental design. Results show that provision of information a) reduces indecision about how to vote, especially when voters are able to select the arguments to read; b) increases the likelihood to vote Yes, especially when voters are confronted with a balanced set of arguments; c) interacts with individual-level elements and increases the likelihood to vote Yes especially among those who are more politically active and more emotionally involved in the issue of independence. Provision of information also slightly increases the likelihood to vote No, but this occurs in general only when voters are able to select the arguments to read and in very few sub-groups. At the theoretical level, results provide further evidence supporting the mechanism of selective exposure and the occurrence of a 'prior attitude effect', but contradict the general tendency in the literature to interpret these mechanisms as unidirectional. The findings of the experiment reveal that effects of information are not linear since voters react differently to the provision of the same arguments, thus highlighting the need to take into account individual-level mediating factors, such as the level of indecision about how to vote.

Citizens in multiple crime-ridden countries strongly support the militarization of security—that is, placing the military in charge of traditional policing duties. Yet, we know little about the determinants of such support. Do people approve of militarization even in the face of human fatalities? We explore this question in the context of Mexico's "war on drugs." In three experimental studies, we manipulate the presence of human costs in a military operation against a drug lord and present arguments either justifying or condemning these costs. We consistently find that, even in successful operations, support for militarization decreases when military operations cause civilian casualties, but not when the victims are members of drug cartels. This finding holds for both respondents who have been victims of cartel-related violence and those who have not. Arguments that justify these costs as helping to achieve the end goal of eradicating organized crime increase support. These findings shed light on the public opinion side of the militarization of security debate, and have important implications for security policy reform and democratic politics.

Can the diffusion of broadband internet help explain the recent success of populist parties in Europe? Populists cultivate an anti‐elitist communication style, which, they claim, directly connects them with ordinary people. The internet therefore appears to be the perfect tool for populist leaders. This study shows that this notion holds up to rigorous empirical testing. Drawing on survey data from Italy and Germany, a positive correlation is found between use of the internet as a source of political information and voting for populist parties. By instrumenting internet use with broadband coverage at the municipality level, the study then demonstrates that this relationship is causal. The findings suggest that part of the rise of populism can be attributed to the effect of online tools and communication strategies made possible by the proliferation of broadband access.

Can the diffusion of broadband internet help explain the recent success of populist parties in Europe? Populists cultivate an anti-elitist communication style, which, they claim, directly connects them with ordinary people. The internet therefore appears to be the perfect tool for populist leaders. This study shows that this notion holds up to rigorous empirical testing. Drawing on survey data from Italy and Germany, a positive correlation is found between use of the internet as a source of political information and voting for populist parties. By instrumenting internet use with broadband coverage at the municipality level, the study then demonstrates that this relationship is causal. The findings suggest that part of the rise of populism can be attributed to the effect of online tools and communication strategies made possible by the proliferation of broadband access.

Voting decisions in high-stakes referendums can have crucial consequences for the fate of national governments and the implementation of major reforms. Prior studies have found that referendum campaigns can substantially influence their outcomes. Yet few have taken into account the fact that the effect of campaign arguments depends on a number of factors, including individual knowledge levels and the degree of uncertainty surrounding the alternatives on the ballot. In this study we investigate how political knowledge and campaign arguments stressing risks and opportunities influenced vote choice in Colombia's 2016 peace referendum. Drawing on a nationally representative survey (Study 1) and an original experiment (Study 2), we find that stressing the opportunities that the peace deal could bring to the country, rather than the risks associated with failing to conclude it, increased the probability that Colombians voted Yes in the referendum. While highly knowledgeable voters were more likely to support the deal than those with little knowledge, we find that pro-referendum opportunity arguments reduced the gap between these two groups by increasing the likelihood of a Yes vote among those with little knowledge. These findings contribute to research on voting behavior and campaign effects in direct democracies. Additionally, by exploring the crucial issue of attitudes towards peace, our findings also have important implications for countries trying to secure citizens' approval of high-stakes issues—such as negotiating the end of decades of war—through democratic instruments.

"Anxiety, Fear, and Political Decision Making" published on by Oxford University Press.

Can the diffusion of broadband internet help explain the recent success of populist parties in Europe? Populists cultivate an anti-elitist communication style, which, they claim, directly connects them with ordinary people. The internet therefore appears to be the perfect tool for populist leaders. This study shows that this notion holds up to rigorous empirical testing. Drawing on survey data from Italy and Germany, a positive correlation is found between use of the internet as a source of political information and voting for populist parties. By instrumenting internet use with broadband coverage at the municipality level, the study then demonstrates that this relationship is causal. The findings suggest that part of the rise of populism can be attributed to the effect of online tools and communication strategies made possible by the proliferation of broadband access.

Interpersonal discussion is considered to be one of the most influential sources of opinion formation and behaviour. Yet, an unresolved puzzle remains within the literature: while some studies show that discussion with not like-minded citizens depresses political participation, other studies, on the contrary, indicate that the same type of interpersonal discussion can foster political engagement. In this study, we address this unresolved democratic dilemma for the first time in a context of direct democracy, by focussing on the campaign leading to the 2016 Italian constitutional referendum. Specifically, we pay particular attention to the interaction between network diversity, ambivalence, and political knowledge. The findings show that frequent interactions with not like-minded citizens increase turnout. The results based on regression models and structural equation modelling indicate that this positive effect is channelled mainly through political learning, since network diversity increases factual knowledge about the constitutional reform, which in turn is associated with an increase in turnout. We do not find a significant effect of network diversity on ambivalence, as predicted by previous studies. These findings have important implications for deliberative theories and campaign strategies.