Regulating migration is currently one of the most salient issues in Europe. So far, research has overlooked how this politicisation affects attitudes towards migration regimes. This article links the literatures on public opinion and framing effects from a comparative European perspective and presents original data from representative EU-wide vignette experiments conducted in mid-December 2017 (N = 10.827). I show that framing Schengen as a threat to public security or national identity weakens support for the status quo inside Schengen and reaffirms it amongst Schengen outsiders. Regarding Freedom of Movement only negative frames, particularly those referring to labour market risks, have a significant impact. Given the weak public support in several EU member states, these findings have important implications for the future of European migration regimes.
AzroutRvan SpanjeJde VreeseC (2012)
When news matters: Media effects on public support for European Union enlargement in 21 countries.Journal of Common Market Studies50(5): 691–708.
4.
BearceDHTuxhornK-L (2015)
When are monetary policy preferences egocentric? Evidence from American surveys and an experiment.American Journal of Political Science61(1): 178–193.
5.
BechtelMMHainmuellerJMargalitY (2014)
Preferences for international redistribution: The divide over the Eurozone bailouts.American Journal of Political Science58(4): 835–856.
6.
BosL, et al. (2016)
It’s the frame that matters: Immigrant integration and media framing effects in the Netherlands.International Journal of Intercultural Relations55: 97–108.
7.
BruterM. (2008)
Legitimacy, Euroscepticism & identity in the European Union – Problems of measurement, modelling & paradoxical patterns of influence. Journal of Contemporary European Research4(4): 273–285.
8.
CaviedesA (2015)
An emerging ‘European’ news portrayal of immigration?Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies41(6): 897–917.
9.
ChalmersAWDellmuthLM (2015)
Fiscal redistribution and public support for European integration.European Union Politics16(3): 386–407.
10.
ChongD (2013) Degrees of rationality in politics. In: Huddy L, Sears DO and Levy JS (eds) Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 96–129.
11.
ChongDDruckmanJN (2007a)
Framing public opinion in competitive democracies.American Political Science Review101(4): 636–655.
12.
ChongDDruckmanJN (2007b)
Framing theory.Annual Review of Political Science10(1): 103–126.
13.
CramL (2012)
Does the EU need a navel? Implicit and explicit identification with the European Union.Journal of Common Market Studies50(1): 71–86.
14.
De VreeseCHBoomgaardenHG (2005)
Projecting EU referendums: Fear of immigration and support for European integration.European Union Politics6(1): 59–82.
15.
De VriesC (2018) Euroscepticism and the Future of European Integration.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
16.
De VriesCHoffmannI (2016) Keep Calm and Carry On: What Europeans think about a possible Brexit. Technical Report.
Gütersloh:
Bertelsmann Foundation, pp. 1–20.
17.
De Vries C and Hoffmann I (2019) Je t’aime. Moi non plus. Gütersloh.
DruckmanJN (2001)
On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame?Journal of Politics63(4): 1041–1066.
21.
EberlJ-M, et al. (2018)
The European media discourse on immigration and its effects: A literature review.Annals of the International Communication Association42(3): 1–17.
22.
EllisPD (2010) The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes: Statistical Power, Meta Analysis, and the Interpretation of Research Results.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
EntmanRM (1993)
Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm.Journal of Communication43(4): 51–58.
25.
European Commission (2016) Commission recommends extending temporary internal border controls for a limited period of three months. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release-16-3501 (accessed 11 January 2019).
26.
European Commission (2017) Speech by Michel Barnier at the 7th State of the Union Conference. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release (18 September 2018).
GabelM (1998)
Economic integration and mass politics: Market liberalization and public attitudes in the European Union.American Journal of Political Science42(3): 936–953.
29.
GoodwinMHixSPickupM (2018)
For and against Brexit: A survey experiment of the impact of campaign effects on public attitudes toward EU Membership. British Journal of Political Science. Epub ahead of print 5 February 2018. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123417000667
30.
GoodwinMMilazzoC (2017)
Taking back control? Investigating the role of immigration in the 2016 vote for Brexit.British Journal of Politics and International Relations19(3): 450–464.
31.
GrandeEHutterS (2016)
Beyond authority transfer: explaining the politicisation of Europe.West European Politics39(1): 23–43.
32.
GrandeESchwarzbözlTFatkeM (2019)
Politicizing immigration in Western Europe.Journal of European Public Policy 26(10): 1444--1463.
33.
GrigorieffARothCUbfalD (2016) Does information change attitudes towards immigrants? Representative evidence from survey experiments. Technical Report, pp. 1–59.
34.
HameleersMBosLde VreeseCH (2017)
“They did it”: The effects of emotionalized blame attribution in populist communication.Communication Research44(6): 870–900.
35.
HarteveldE, et al. (2018)
Blaming Brussels? The impact of (news about) the refugee crisis on attitudes towards the EU and national politics.Journal of Common Market Studies56(1): 157–177.
36.
HelblingMHoeglingerDWüestB (2010)
How political parties frame European integration.European Journal of Political Research49(4): 495–521.
37.
HellwigTSinnoA (2017)
Different groups, different threats: Public attitudes towards immigrants.Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies43(3): 339–358.
38.
HoboltSB, et al. (2011)
Religious intolerance and Euroscepticism.European Union Politics12(3): 359–379.
HuddyL (2001)
From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory.Political Psychology22(1): 127–156.
41.
JacobsLMeeusenCD’HaenensL (2016)
News coverage and attitudes on immigration: Public and commercial television news compared.European Journal of Communication31(6): 642–660.
KuhnT (2015) Experiencing European Integration: Transnational Lives and European Identity.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
44.
KuhnTSolazHvan ElsasEJ (2018)
Practising what you preach: How cosmopolitanism promotes willingness to redistribute across the European Union.Journal of European Public Policy25(12): 1759–1778.
45.
LubbersMScheepersP (2007)
Explanations of political Euro-Scepticism at the individual, regional and national levels.European Societies9(4): 643–669.
46.
LuedtkeA (2005)
European integration, public opinion and immigration: Testing the impact of national identity. In:European Union Politics6(1): 83–112.
47.
McLarenL (2002)
Public support for the European Union: Cost/benefit analysis or perceived cultural threat?The Journal of Politics64(2): 551–566.
48.
McLarenLBoomgaardenHVliegenthartR (2018)
News coverage and public concern about immigration in Britain.International Journal of Public Opinion Research30(2): 173–193.
49.
MitchellK (2014)
Does European identification increase support for further economic integration?Journal of European Integration36(6): 601–618.
50.
NelsonTClawsonROxleyZ (1997)
Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance.American Political Science Review91(3): 567–583.
51.
OwenEWalterS (2017)
Open economy politics and Brexit: Insights, puzzles, and ways forward.Review of International Political Economy24(2): 179–202.
52.
RolfeH, et al. (2018) Post-Brexit Immigration Policy: Reconciling Public Perceptions with Economic Evidence. London: National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
53.
RyanC (1991) Prime Time Activism: Media Strategies for Grassroots Organizing.
Boston:
South End Press, p. 295.
SchemerC (2012)
The influence of news media on stereotypic attitudes toward immigrants in a political campaign.Journal of Communication62(5): 739–757.
56.
SchlueterEDavidovE (2013)
Contextual sources of perceived group threat: Negative immigration-related news reports, immigrant group size and their interaction, Spain 1996-2007.European Sociological Review29(2): 179–191.
57.
SchmuckDMatthesJ (2017)
Effects of economic and symbolic threat appeals in right-wing populist advertising on anti-immigrant attitudes: The impact of textual and visual appeals.Political Communication34(4): 607–626.
58.
SidesJCitrinJ (2007)
European opinion about immigration: The role of identities, interests and information.United Nations Population Division, Replacement Migration Developments in Western European Politics37(2): 477–504.
59.
SnidermanPHagendoornLPriorM (2004)
Predisposing factors and situational triggers.American Political Science Review98(1): 35–49.
Van der BrugW, et al. (2015) Cross-country comparisons and conclusions. In: Van der Brug W et al. (ed.) The Politicisation of Migration. New York: Routledge, pp. 179–196.
68.
VasilopoulouSTalvingL (2019)
Opportunity or threat? Public attitudes towards EU freedom of movement.Journal of European Public Policy 26(6): 805--823.
69.
VliegenthartRRoggebandC (2007)
Framing immigration and integration: Relationships between press and parliament in the Netherlands.International Communication Gazette69(3): 295–319.
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.
