Previous research documents that citizens apply a “coalition heuristic” to infer that governing coalition partners share more similar policies and ideologies than are implied by the statements in their election manifestos. We propose even simpler government-related heuristics citizens can apply to infer party positions on European integration: the current government heuristic that currently governing parties are more pro-Europe than opposition parties, and the long-term opposition heuristic that opposition parties that have never governed are less pro-Europe than opposition parties with previous governing experience. We report theoretical and empirical analyses of survey data from 24 European Union member states, which substantiate that citizens apply these heuristics, which have consequences for citizens’ policy beliefs and their party support. We also find evidence that citizens respond to policy as measured through election manifestos and expert surveys.
AdamsJ.BernardiL.EzrowL.GordonO. B.LiuT. P.PhillipsM. C. (2019). A problem with empirical studies of party policy shifts: Alternative measures of party shifts are uncorrelated. European Journal of Political Research, 58, 1234–1244.
2.
AdamsJ.BernardiL.WlezienC. (2020). Social welfare policy outputs and governing parties’ left-right images: Do voters respond?Journal of Politics, 82(3), 1161–1165.
3.
AdamsJ.EzrowL.WlezienC. (2016). The company you keep: How citizens infer parties’ positions on Europe from governing coalition arrangements. American Journal of Political Science, 60(4), 811–823.
4.
BailerS.MattilaM.SchneiderG. (2015). Money makes the EU go round: The objective foundations of conflict in the council of ministers. Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(3), 437–456.
5.
BakkerR.de VriesC.EdwardsE.HoogheL.JollyS.MarksG.PolkJ.RovnyJ.SteenbergenM.VachudovaM. (2015). Measuring party positions in Europe: The chapel hill expert survey trend file, 1999-2010. Party Politics, 21(1), 143–152.
6.
BaleT. (2003). Cinderella and her ugly sisters: The mainstream and extreme right in Europe’s bipolarising party systems. West European Politics, 26(3), 67–90.
7.
BenoitK.MikhaylovS.LaverM. (2009). Treating words as data with error: Uncertainty in text statements of policy positions. American Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 495–513.
8.
BischofD.WagnerM. (2019). Do voters polarize when radical parties enter parliament?American Journal of Political Science, 63(4), 888–904.
9.
BoudreauC.MacKenzieS. A. (2014). Informing the electorate? How party cues and policy information affect public opinion about initiatives. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 48–62.
10.
BullockJ. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 496–515.
11.
ChaikenS.TropeY. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. Guilford.
12.
CiukD. J.YostB. A. (2016). The effects of issue salience, elite influence, and policy content on public opinion. Political Communication, 33(2), 328–345.
13.
CohenG. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808–822.
14.
ContiN.MemoliV. (2011). The multi-faceted nature of party-based euroscepticism. Acta Politica, 47(2), 91–112.
15.
D’AlimonteR. (2019). How the populists won in Italy. Journal of Democracy, 30(1), 114–127.
16.
DaltonR. J. (1985). Political Parties and Political Representation. Party Supporters and Party Elites in Nine Nations. Comparative Political Studies, 18(3), 267–299.
17.
DanceyL.GorenP. (2010). Party identification, issue attitudes, and the dynamics of political debate. American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 686–699.
18.
DanceyL.SheagleyG. (2013). Heuristics behaving badly: Party cues and voter knowledge. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 312–325.
19.
de LangeS. L. (2012). New alliances: Why mainstream parties govern with radical right-wing populist parties. Political Studies, 60, 899–918.
20.
De VriesC. E.HoboltS. B. (2012). When dimensions collide: The electoral success of issue entrepreneurs. European Union Politics, 13(2), 246–268.
21.
DöringH.ManowP. (2019). Parliaments and governments database (ParlGov): Information on parties, elections and cabinets in modern democracies. Development version.
22.
DuchR.MayJ.ArmstrongD. (2010). Coaliton-directed voting in multiparty democracies. American Political Science Review, 104(4), 698–719.
23.
FortunatoD.AdamsJ. (2015). How voters’ perceptions of junior coalition partners depend on the prime minister’s position. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 601–621.
24.
FortunatoD.StevensonR. (2013). Perceptions of partisan ideologies: The effects of coalition participation. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 459–477.
25.
GabelM. (1998). Public support for European integration: An empirical test of five theories. The Journal of Politics, 60(2), 333–354.
26.
HagemannS.BailerS.HerzogA. (2019). Signals to their parliaments? Governments’ use of votes and policy statements in the EU council. Journal of Common Market Studies, 57(3), 634–650.
27.
HagemannS.HoboltS. B.WratilC. (2017). Government responsiveness in the European Union: Evidence from council voting. Comparative Political Studies, 50(6), 850–876.
28.
HixS.NouryA. (2009). After enlargement: Voting patterns in the sixth European parliament. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 34(2), 159–174.
29.
HoboltS. B.De VriesC. E. (2015). Issue entrepreneurship and multiparty competition. Comparative Political Studies, 48(9), 1159–1185.
30.
HoboltS. B.De VriesC. E. (2020). Political entrepreneurs: The rise of challenger parties in Europe. Princeton University Press.
31.
HoboltS. B.KlemmensenR. (2008). Government responsiveness and political competition in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 41(3), 309–337.
32.
HoboltS. B.TilleyJ. (2014). Blaming Europe? Responsibility without accountability in the European Union. Oxford University Press.
33.
HoogheL.BakkerR.BrigevichA.de VriesC. E.EdwardsE. E.MarksG.RovnyJ.SteenbergenM. R. (2010). Reliability and validity of measuring party positions: The chapel hill expert surveys of 2002 and 2006. European Journal of Political Research, 49(5), 687–703.
34.
HoogheL.MarksG. (2018). Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the transnational cleavage. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(1), 109–135.
35.
HoogheL.MarksG.WilsonC. J. (2002). Does left/right structure party positions on European integration?Comparative Political Studies, 35(8), 965−989.
36.
KriesiH. (2007). The role of European integration in national election campaigns. European Union Politics, 8(1), 83–108.
37.
MarksG.WilsonC. J. (2000). The past in the present: A cleavage theory of party response to European integration. British Journal of Political Science, 30(3), 433–459.
38.
MilazzoC.AdamsJ.GreenJ. (2012). Are voter decision rules endogenous to party policy strategies?Journal of Politics, 74(1), 262–276.
39.
MuddeC. (2013). The 2012 Stein Rokkan lecture. Three decades of populist radical right parties in Western Europe: So what?European Journal of Political Research, 52, 1–19.
40.
MühlböckM.TosunJ. (2018). Responsiveness to different national interests: Voting behaviour on genetically modified organisms in the council of the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(2), 385–402.
41.
PolkJ.RovnyJ.BakkerR.EdwardsE.HoogheL.JollyS.KoedamJ.KostelkaF.MarksG.SchumacherG.SteenbergenM.VachudovaM.ZilovicM. (2017). Explaining the salience of anti-elitism and reducing political corruption for political parties in Europe with the 2014 chapel hill expert survey data. Research & Politics (January-March): 1–9.
42.
PopkinS. L. (1991). The reasoning voter. University of Chicago Press.
43.
RahnW. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472–496.
44.
RayL. (2003a). Reconsidering the link between incumbent support and pro-EU opinion. European Union Politics, 4(3), 259–279.
45.
RayL. (2003b). When parties matter: The conditional influence of party positions of voter opinions about European integration. The Journal of Politics, 65(4), 978–994.
46.
RayL. (2007). Mainstream euroskepticism: Trend or oxymoron?Acta Politica, 42(1), 153–172.
47.
SagarzazuI.KlüverH. (2017). Coalition governments and party competition: Political communications strategies of coalition parties. Political Science Research and Methods, 5(2), 333–349.
48.
SartoriG. (1976). Parties and party systems: A framework for analysis. Cambridge University Press.
49.
SchmittH.BartoliniS.van der BrugW.van der EijkC.FranklinM.FuchsD.TokaG.MarshM.ThomassenJ. (2009). European election study 2004 (2nd ed.). GESIS Data Archive. ZA4566 data file version 2.0.0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4232/1.10086.
50.
SchmittH.BraunD.PopaS. A.MikhaylovS.DwingerF. (2018). European parliament election study 1979-2014, euromanifesto study. GESIS Data Archive. ZA5102 data file Version 2.0.0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4232/1.12830.
51.
SchmittH.PopaS. A.DevingerF. (2015). European parliament election study 2014, voter study, supplementary study. GESIS Data Archive. ZA5161 data file version 1.0.0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4232/1.5161.
52.
SitterN. (2001). The politics of opposition and European integration in Scandinavia: Is euro-scepticism a government-opposition dynamic?West European Politics, 24(4), 22–39.
53.
StathamP.KoopmansR.TreschA.FirmstoneJ. (2010). Political party contestation. Emerging euroscepticism or a normalization of eurocriticism? In KoopmansR.StathamP. (Eds.), The making of a European public sphere. Media discourse and political contention. Cambridge University Press, pp.245–274.
54.
SteenbergenM. R.EdwardsE. E.de VriesC. E. (2007). Who’s Cueing Whom?: Mass-Elite Linkages and the Future of European Integration. European Union Politics, 8(1), 13–35.
55.
TaggartP. (1998). A touchstone of dissent: Euroscepticism in contemporary Western European party systems. European Journal of Political Research, 33, 363–388.
56.
van de WardtM.De VriesC. E.HoboltS. B. (2014). Exploiting the cracks: Wedge issues in multiparty competition. The Journal of Politics, 76(4), 986–999.
57.
van der EijkC.FranklinM.SchoenbachK.SchmittH.SemetkoH., with:, van der BrugW.HolmbergS.MannheimerR.MarshM.ThomassenJ.WesselsB., International Research Group “European Election Studies”, IPSOS, Hamburg, Germany (primary investigator) (1999): European election study – 1999. DANS. http://dx.doi.org/10.17026/dans-z9j-vy6m
58.
van EgmondM.van der BrugW.HoboltS.FranklinM.SapirE. V. (2013). European parliament election study 2009, voter study. GESIS Data Archive. ZA5055 data file version 1.1.0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4232/1.11760.
59.
VasilopoulouS. (2011). European integration and the radical right: Three patterns of opposition. Government and Opposition, 46(2), 223–244.
60.
ZallerJ. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
