Recent studies have shown that the most important factor explaining opinions on European Union issues is attitudes towards immigrants. Two arguments are given to explain this effect. We contend that these arguments are both built on the idea that people with anti-immigrant attitudes frame other Europeans as an out-group. We then test the validity of these arguments by measuring how respondents in a voter survey frame the issue of Turkish membership. We find that framing the issue in terms of out-groups indeed mediates the effect of anti-immigrant attitudes on support for Turkish membership. This finding offers new insights into why levels of public support vary over different EU issues, because opposition is likely to increase when an issue is more easily framed in terms of out-groups.
Anderson CJ and Reichert MS ( 1996) Economic benefits and support for membership in the EU: A cross-national analysis. Journal of Public Policy15(3): 231-249.
2.
Arnold H. ( 2008) Political arguments against the accession of Turkey to the European Union. In: Timmerman C, Rochtus D and Mels S (eds) European and Turkish Voices in Favour and Against Turkish Accession to the European Union. Brussels: Peter Lang, 109-126.
3.
Baron RM and Kenny DA ( 1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychology research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51(6): 1173-1182.
4.
Bishop GF ( 2005) The Illusion of Public Opinion. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
5.
Boomgaarden HG and Vliegenthart R. ( 2007) Explaining the rise of anti-immigrant parties: The role of news media content. Electoral Studies26: 404-417.
6.
Boomgaarden HG and Vliegenthart R.(2009) How news content influences anti-immigrant attitudes: Germany, 1993-2005 . European Journal of Political Research48: 516-542.
7.
Brewer MB ( 1999) The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues55(3): 429-444.
8.
Brown RJ ( 2000) Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology30(6): 745-778.
9.
Carey S. ( 2002) Undivided loyalties: Is national identity an obstacle to European integration?European Union Politics3(4): 387-413.
10.
Carrubba CJ ( 2001) The electoral connection in European Union politics . Journal of Politics63(1): 141-158.
11.
Chislett W. ( 2008) Socio-economic arguments for and against Turkey’s EU membership. In: Timmerman C, Rochtus D and Mels S (eds) European and Turkish Voices in Favour and Against Turkish Accession to the European Union. Brussels: Peter Lang, 73-82.
12.
Citrin J., Green DP, Muste C. and Wong C. ( 1997) Public opinion toward immigration reform: The role of economic motivations. Journal of Politics59(3): 858-881.
13.
Crum B. ( 2007) Party stances in the referendums on the EU Constitution: Causes and consequences of competition and collusion. European Union Politics8(1): 61-82.
14.
De Master S. and Le Roy MK ( 2000) Xenophobia and theEuropean Union. Comparative Politics32(4): 419-436.
15.
De Vreese CH and Boomgaarden HG ( 2005) Projecting EU referendums: Fear of immigration and support forEuropean integration. European Union Politics6(1): 59-82.
16.
De Vreese CH and Boomgaarden HG ( 2006) Media effects on public opinion about the enlargement of theEuropean Union. Journal of Common Market Studies44(2): 419-436.
17.
De Vreese CH, Boomgaarden HG and Semetko H. ( 2008) Hard and soft: Public support for Turkish membership in the EU. European Union Politics9(4): 537-556.
18.
Entman RM ( 1993) Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm . Journal of Communication43(4): 51-58.
19.
European Commission (2003) Enlargement of the European Union: An Historic Opportunity. Brussels : European Communities.
20.
Franklin M., Van der Eijk C. and Marsh M. ( 1995) Referendum outcome and trust in government: Public support for Europe in the wake of Maastricht. West European Politics18: 101-107.
21.
Funk CL ( 2000) The dual influence of self-interest and societal interest in public opinion. Political Research Quarterly53(1): 37-62.
22.
Gabel M. ( 1998) Public support for European integration: An empirical test of five theories. Journal of Politics60(2): 333-354.
23.
Gabel M. and Palmer H. ( 1995) Understanding variation in public support forEuropean integration. European Journal of Political Research27: 3-19.
24.
Gamson WA ( 1992) Talking Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Gangloff S. ( 2008) Turkey’s accession to the EU: The flexible reality underlying the debate. In: Timmerman C, Rochtus D and Mels S (eds) European and Turkish Voices in Favour and Against Turkish Accession to the European Union. Brussels: Peter Lang, 33-41.
26.
Grigoriadis IN ( 2006) Turkey’s accession to the European Union: Debating the most difficult enlargement ever. SAIS Review26(1): 147-160.
27.
Hix S. ( 2007) Euroscepticism as anti-centralization. European Union Politics8(1): 131-150.
28.
Hooghe L. and Marks G. ( 2004) Does identity or economic rationality drive public opinion on European integration?PS: Political Science and Politics37: 415-420.
29.
Hooghe L. and Marks G. ( 2005) Calculation, community and cues: Public opinion onEuropean integration. European Union Politics6(4): 419-443.
30.
Jones E. and Van der Bijl N. ( 2004) Public opinion and enlargement: A gravity approach . European Union Politics5(3): 331-351.
31.
Karlson I. ( 2008) Turkey’s historical, cultural and religious heritage: An asset to the European Union? In: Timmerman C, Rochtus D and Mels S (eds) European and Turkish Voices in Favour and Against Turkish Accession to the European Union. Brussels: Peter Lang, 99-106.
32.
Karp JA and Bowler S. ( 2006) Broadening and deepening or broadening versus deepening: The question of enlargement and Europe’s ‘Hesitant Europeans’ . European Journal of Politics45(3): 369-390.
33.
McLaren LM ( 2002) Public support for the European Union: Cost/benefit analysis or perceived cultural threat? Journal of Politics64(2): 551-566.
34.
McLaren LM ( 2007) Explaining opposition to Turkish membership of the EU . European Union Politics8(2): 251-278.
35.
Negrine R., Kejanlioglu B., Aissaoui R. and Papathanassopoulos S. ( 2008) Turkey and the European Union: An analysis of how the press in four countries covered Turkey’s bid for accession in 2004 . European Journal of Communication23(1): 47-68.
36.
Norris P. ( 1997) Representation and the democratic deficit. European Journal of Political Research32: 273-282.
37.
Preacher KJ and Hayes AF ( 2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods40: 879-891.
38.
Quillian L. ( 1995) Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review60: 586-611.
39.
Redmond J. ( 2007) Turkey and the European Union: Troubled Europeans or European trouble?International Affairs83(2): 305-317.
40.
Scheufele DA ( 1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication49(1): 103-122.
41.
Scheufele DA and Tewksbury D. ( 2007) Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effect models. Journal of Communication57: 9-20.
42.
Sniderman PM, Hagendoorn L. and Prior M. ( 2004) Predisposing factors and situational triggers: Exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities. American Political Science Review98(1): 35-49.
43.
Sniderman PM, Peri P., De Figueiredo RJP and Piazza T. ( 2000) The Outsider: Prejudice and Politics in Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
44.
Tajfel H. ( 1981) Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
Tajfel H. ( 1982) Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology33: 1-39.
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.
