This article contributes to the literature on political heuristics by reporting two survey experiments conducted in Spain in 2014–2015 on party and ideology cues regarding preferences on a range of European Union and domestic issues in European and general elections. The findings reveal that party cues increase voters’ competence to take positions on European Union issues more than ideological ones. Cues increase competence in a similar fashion regardless of the nature of the topic, although the effect of cues that parties provide on European Union issues seems to be stronger than that of cues on domestic policies. Party cueing effects are also consistent across different electoral arenas (national vs. European), and for all types of parties regardless of their age or positions toward the European Union integration process.
Bakker R, Edwards E, Hooghe L, et al. (2015) 2014 Chapel Hill Expert Survey. Version 2015.1. Available at: www.chesdata.eu/ (accessed 10 June 2017).
2.
BartleJBellucciP (2009) Partisanship: Party Identification, Social Identities, and Political Experiences, London: Routledge ECPR.
3.
BauerPCBarberáPAckermannKet al.(2017) Is the left-right scale a valid measure of ideology? Individual-level variation in associations with “left” and “right” and left-right self-placement. Political Behavior39(3): 553–583.
4.
BelgurndFHolmbergSSchmittHet al.(2005) Party identification and party choice. In: ThomassenJ (ed.) The European Voter: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–123.
5.
BraderRATuckerJA (2012) Following the party’s lead: Party cues, policy opinion, and the power of partisanship in three multiparty systems. Comparative Politics44(4): 403–420.
6.
BraderTTuckerJADuellD (2012) Which parties can lead opinion? Experimental evidence on partisan cue taking in multiparty democracies. Comparative Political Studies46(11): 1485–1517.
7.
BradyHESnidermanPM (1985) Attitude attribution: A group basis for political reasoning. American Political Science Review79(4): 1061–1078.
8.
BullockJ (2011) Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review105(3): 496–515.
9.
CarminesEStimsonJA (1980) The two faces of issue voting. The American Political Science Review74: 78–91.
10.
ChenSChaikenS (1999) The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In: ChaikenSTropeY (eds) Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 73–96.
11.
CoanTGMerollaJLStephensonLBet al.(2008) It is not easy being Green: Minor party labels as heuristic aids. Political Psychology29(3): 389–405.
12.
CohenJ (2003) Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology85(5): 808–822.
13.
Conroy-KrutzJMoehlerDCAguilarR (2016) Partisan cues and vote choice in new multiparty systems. Comparative Political Studies49(1): 3–35.
14.
CorderoGMonteroJR (2015) Against bipartyism, towards dealignment? The 2014 European Election in Spain. South European Society and Politics20(3): 357–379.
15.
Delli CarpiniMKeeterS (1991) Stability and change in the United States public’s knowledge of politics. Public Opinion Quarterly55: 583–612.
16.
De SioLFranklinMNWeberT (2016) The risk and opportunities of Europe: How Issue Yield explains (non-)reactions to the financial crisis. Electoral Studies44: 483–491.
17.
De SioLPaparoATuckerJAet al.(2014) Do parties still orient voters in times of crisis? Experimental evidence of partisan cueing effects in 2013 Italy. In: BardiLKriesiHTrechslerAH (eds) Elections in the Times of Crisis, Fiesole: European University Institute, pp. 11–34. Available at: https://goo.gl/hsVtJq. (accessed 10 February 2016).
18.
de VriesCEHoboltSB (2012) When dimensions collide: The electoral success of issue entrepreneurs. European Union Politics13(2): 246–268.
19.
Döering H and Manow P (2016) Parliaments and Governments Database (ParlGov): Information on Parties, Elections and Cabinets in Modern Democracies. Development Version.
20.
DolezalM (2012) Restructuring the European political space: The supply side of European electoral politics. In: KriesiHGrandeEDolezalMet al.(eds) Political Conflict in Western Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 96–126.
21.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper and Row.
22.
DruckmanJN (2001) Using credible advice to overcome framing effects. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization17(1): 62–82.
European Social Survey (2014). ESS Round 7: European Social Survey Round 7 Data (2014). Data file edition 2.1. NSD – Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway – Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC.
25.
FirthD (1993) Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika80(1): 27–38.
26.
Green-PedersenC (2012) A giant fast asleep? Party incentives and the politicisation of European integration. Political Studies60(1): 115–130.
27.
HellströmJ (2008) Who leads, who follows? Re-examining the party-electorate linkages on European integration. Journal of European Public Policy15(8): 1127–1144.
28.
HernándezEKriesiH (2016) Turning your back on the EU. The role of Eurosceptic parties in the 2014 European Parliament elections. Electoral Studies44: 515–524.
29.
HoboltSB (2007) Taking cues on Europe? Voter competence and party endorsements in referendums on European integration. European Journal of Political Research46(2): 151–182.
30.
HoboltSBWratilC (2015) Public opinion and the crisis: The dynamics of support for the euro. Journal of European Public Policy22(2): 238–256.
31.
HoogheLMarksGWilsonCJ (2002) Does left/right structure party positions on European integration?Comparative Political Studies35(8): 965–989.
32.
HoogheLMarksG (2005) Community, calculation and cues. European Union Politics6(4): 421–445.
33.
HoogheLMarksG (2007) Sources of euroscepticism. Acta Politica42: 119–127.
34.
JohnstonR (2006) Party identification: unmoved mover or sum of preferences?Annual Review of Political Science9: 329–351.
35.
KamC (2005) Who toes the party line? Cues, values and individual differences. Political Behavior27(2): 163–182.
36.
KlarS (2013) The influence of competing identity primes on political preferences. Journal of Politics75(4): 1108–1124.
37.
KuklinskiJHQuirkPJ (2001) Conceptual foundations of citizenship competence. Political Behavior23(3): 285–311.
38.
LauRRRedlawskDP (2001) Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science45(4): 951–971.
39.
LevenduskyMS (2010) Clearer cues, more consistent voters: A benefit of elite polarization. Political Behavior32(1): 111–131.
40.
LupiaA (1994) Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review88(1): 63–76.
41.
MaholtraNKuoAG (2008) Attributing blame: The public’s response to hurricane Katrina. Journal of Politics70(1): 120–135.
42.
MerollaJLStephensonLBZechmeisterEJ (2016) Deciding correctly: Variance in the effective use of party cues. In: BlaisALaslierJ-FVan der StraetenK (eds) Voting Experiments, Cham: Springer, pp. 19–42.
43.
MullinixKJLeeperTJDruckmanJNet al.(2015) The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science2: 109–138.
44.
MuñozJTormosR (2015) Economic expectations and support for secession in Catalonia: Between causality and rationalization. European Political Science Review7(2): 315–341.
45.
OrriolsLCorderoG (2016) The breakdown of the Spanish two-party system: The upsurge of Podemos and Ciudadanos in the 2015 general election. South European Society and Politics21(4): 469–492.
46.
PannicoR (2017) Is the European Union too complicated? Citizens’ lack of information and party cue effectiveness. European Union Politics18(3): 424–446.
47.
PetrocikJRBenoitWLHansenG (2003) Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952–2000. Political Science Quarterly118(4): 599–626.
48.
PopkinSL (1991) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
49.
RayL (2003) When parties matter: The conditional influence of party positions on voter opinions about European integration. The Journal of Politics65(4): 978–994.
50.
ReifKSchmittH (1980) Nine second-order national elections: A conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results. European Journal of Political Research8(1): 3–44.
51.
SamuelsDZuccoC (2013) The power of partisanship in Brazil: Evidence from survey experiments. American Political Science Review58(1): 212–225.
52.
SandersDTokaG (2013) Is anyone listening? Mass and elite opinion cueing in the EU. Electoral Studies32: 13–25.
53.
SnidermanPM (2000) Taking sides: A fixed choice theory of political reasoning. In: LupiaAMcCubbinsMDPopkinSL (eds) Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67–84.
54.
SnidermanPMBrodyRATetlockPE (1991) Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55.
ThomassenJRosemaM (2009) Party identification revisited. In: BartleJBellucciP (eds) Political Parties and Partisanship: Social Identity and Individual Attitudes, London: Routledge/ECPR Series in European Political Science, pp. 49–52.
56.
Tomz M and Sniderman PM (2005) Brand name and the organization of mass belief systems. Stanford University Manuscript. Available at: https://goo.gl/BPCjcc (accessed 10 February 2016).
57.
TorcalM (2014) The decline of political trust in Spain and Portugal: Economic performance or political responsiveness?American Behavioral Scientist58: 1542–1567.
58.
Torcal M, Martini S and Serani D (2016) Crisis and challenges in Spain: Attitudes and political behavior during the economic and the political representation crisis (CIUPANEL). Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (CSO2013-47071-R, 2014–2016, PI: Mariano Torcal). Available at: www.upf.edu/web/survey/ciupanel (accessed 20 February 2018).
59.
Van der EijkCSchmittHBinderT (2005) Left-right orientations and party choice. In: ThomassenJ (ed.) The European Voter: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 167–191.
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.
