Does the messenger matter? A comparison of the effects of Eurosceptic messages communicated by mainstream and radical right-wing parties on citizens’ EU attitudes

References

• Appelman, A., and S. S. Sundar. 2015. “Measuring Message Credibility: Construction and Validation of an Exclusive Scale.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 93 (1): 59–79. doi: 10.1177/1077699015606057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arceneaux, K. 2008. “Can Partisan Cues Diminish Democratic Accountability?” Political Behavior 30 (2): 139–160. doi: 10.1007/s11109-007-9044-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armingeon, K., and B. Ceka. 2014. “The Loss of Trust in the European Union during the Great Recession since 2007: The Role of Heuristics from the National Political System.” European Union Politics 15 (1): 82–107. doi: 10.1177/1465116513495595
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker, R., E. Edwards, L. Hooghe, and M. Zilovic. 2015. 1999–2014 Chapel Hill Expert Survey Trend File. Version 2015.1. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. chesdata.eu.
   Google Scholar
• Brader, T., and J. A. Tucker. 2012. “Following the Party’s Lead. Party Cues, Policy Opinion, and the Power of Partisanship in Three Multiparty Systems.” Comparative Politics 44 (4): 403–420. doi: 10.5129/001041512801283004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brader, T., J. A. Tucker, and D. Duell. 2012. “Which Parties Can Lead Opinion? Experimental Evidence on Partisan Cue Taking in Multiparty Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 46 (11): 1185–1517.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullock, J. G. 2011. “Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate.” American Political Science Review 105 (3): 496–515. doi: 10.1017/S0003055411000165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, A., P. E. Converse, W. E. Miller, and D. E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S. 1980. “Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (5): 752–766. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S., and D. Maheswaran. 1994. “Heuristic Processing Can Bias Systematic Processing: Effects of Source Credibility, Argument Ambiguity, and Task Importance on Attitude Judgment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66 (3): 460–473. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coan, T. G., J. L. Merolla, L. B. Stephenson, and E. J. Zechmeister. 2008. “It’s Not Easy Being Green: Minor Party Labels as Heuristic Aids.” Political Psychology 29 (3): 389–405. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00636.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, G. L. 2003. “Party Over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 (5): 808–822. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crum, B. 2007. “Party Stances in the Referendums on the EU Constitution: Causes and Consequences of Competition and Collusion.” European Union Politics 8 (1): 61–82. doi: 10.1177/1465116507073286
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dancey, L., and G. Sheagley. 2013. “Heuristics Behaving Badly: Party Cues and Voter Knowledge.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (2): 312–325. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00621.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Vries, C. E., and E. E. Edwards. 2009. “Taking Europe to its Extremes. Extremist Parties and Public Euroscepticism.” Party Politics 15 (1): 5–28. doi: 10.1177/1354068808097889
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N. 2001. “Using Credible Advice to Overcome Framing Effects.” The Journal of Law, Economics & Organizations 17 (1): 62–82. doi: 10.1093/jleo/17.1.62
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eurobarometer. 2013. National Report Germany no. 79.5. Accessed June 28, 2016. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/eurobarometre/2013/election/EB79.5%20EP%20EUROBAROMETER%20DE%20(DE).pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. 2015. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Hobolt, S. B., and C. E. De Vries. 2011. Issue Entrepreneurship & Multiparty Competition. Working paper.
   Google Scholar
• Hobolt, S. B., and C. Wratil. 2015. “Public Opinion and the Crisis: The Dynamics of Support for the Euro.” Journal of European Public Policy 22 (2): 238–256. doi:10.1080.13501763.2014.994022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hooghe, L., and G. Marks. 2005. “Calculation, Community and Cues: Public Opinion on European Integration.” European Union Politics 6 (4): 419–443. doi: 10.1177/1465116505057816
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hovland, C. I. 1954. “Effects of the Mass Media Communication.” In Handbook of Social Psychology: Special Fields and Applications, edited by G. Lindzey, 1062–1103. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Hovland, C. I., and W. Weiss. 1951. “The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness.” Public Opinion Quarterly 15 (4): 635–650. doi: 10.1086/266350
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackob, N. 2008. “Credibility Effects.” In The International Encyclopedia of Communication, edited by W. Donsbach. Blackwell. Blackwell Reference Online. Status as of 16 February 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Kam, C. D. 2005. “Who Toes the Party Line? Cues, Values, and Individual Differences.” Political Behavior 27 (2): 163–182. doi: 10.1007/s11109-005-1764-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kareklas, I., D. D. Muehling, and T. J. Weber. 2015. “Reexamining Health Messages in the Digital Age: A Fresh Look at Source Credibility Effects.” Journal of Advertising 44 (2): 88–104. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2015.1018461
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelman, H. C., and C. I. Hovland. 1953. “‘Reinstatement’ of the Communicator in Delayed Measurement of Opinion Change.” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 48 (3): 327–335. doi: 10.1037/h0061861
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohring, M., and J. Matthes. 2007. “Trust in News Media. Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Scale.” Communication Research 34 (2): 231–252. doi: 10.1177/0093650206298071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumkale, G. T., D. Albarracín, and P. J. Seignourel. 2010. “The Effects of Source Credibility in the Presence or Absence of Prior Attitudes: Implications for the Design of Persuasive Communication Campaigns.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 40 (6): 1325–1356. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00620.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau, R. R., and D. P. Redlawsk. 2001. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (4): 951–971. doi: 10.2307/2669334
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindberg, L., and S. Scheingold. 1970. Europe’s Would-Be Polity: Patterns of Change in the European Community. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lupia, A., and M. D. McCubbins. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Really Need to Know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maier, M., S. Adam, and J. Maier. 2012. “The Impact of Identity and Economic Cues on Citizens’ EU Support: An Experimental Study on the Effects of Party Communication in the Run-up to the 2009 European Parliament Elections.” European Union Politics 13: 580–603. doi: 10.1177/1465116512453957
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier, J., and B. Rittberger. 2008. “Shifting Europe’s Boundaries. Mass Media, Public Opinion, and the Enlargement of the EU.” European Union Politics 9: 243–267. doi: 10.1177/1465116508089087
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merolla, J. L., L. B. Stephenson, and E. J. Zechmeister. 2008. “Can Canadians Take a Hint? The (In)Effectiveness of Party Labels as Information Shortcuts in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 673–696. doi: 10.1017/S0008423908080797
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzger, M. J., A. J. Flanagin, K. Eyal, D. Lemus, and R. McCann. 2003. “Credibility for the 21st Century: Integrating Perspectives on Source, Message, and Media Credibility in the Contemporary Media Environment.” Communication Yearbook 27: 293–335. doi: 10.1207/s15567419cy2701_10
   Google Scholar
• Miller, J. M., and J. A. Krosnick. 2000. “News Media Impact on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Politically Knowledgeable Citizens are Guided by a Trusted Source.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (2): 301–315. doi: 10.2307/2669312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondak, J. J. 1993. “Public Opinion and Heuristic Processing of Source Cues.” Political Behavior 15 (2): 167–192. doi: 10.1007/BF00993852
   Google Scholar
• O’keefe, Daniel J. 2015. Persuasion: Theory and Research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Perloff, R. M. 2010. The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the Twenty-first Century, 4th Edition. Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1996. Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Boulder: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pornpitakpan, C. 2004. “The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades’ Evidence.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34 (2): 243–281. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahn, W. M. 1993. “The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (2): 472–496. doi: 10.2307/2111381
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ray, L. 2003. “When Parties Matter: The Conditional Influence of Party Positions on Voter Opinion about European Integration.” Journal of Politics 65 (4): 978–994. doi: 10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouner, Donna. 2008. “Credibility of Content.” In The International Encyclopedia of Communication, edited by W. Donsbach. Blackwell Reference Online. Status as of 16 February 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Schenk, Michael. 2008. “Sleeper Effect.” In The International Encyclopedia of Communication, edited by W. Donsbach. Status as of 16 February 2016. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Slothuus, R., and C. H. De Vreese. 2010. “Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Issue Framing Effects.” The Journal of Politics 72 (3): 630–645. doi: 10.1017/S002238161000006X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sniderman, P. 2000. “Taking Sides: A Fixed Choice Theory of Political Reasoning.” In Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality, edited by A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, and S. L. Popkin, 67–84. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Steenbergen, M. R., and C. E. De Vries. 2012. “Variable Opinions: The Predictability of Support for Unification in European Mass Publics.” Journal of Political Marketing 12 (1): 121–141.
   Google Scholar
• Steenbergen, M. R., E. E. Edwards, and C. E. De Vries. 2007. “Who’s Cueing Whom? Mass-Elite Linkages and the Future of European Integration.” European Union Politics 8 (13): 13–35. doi: 10.1177/1465116507073284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taggart, P., and A. Szczerbiak. 2004. “Contemporary Euroskepticism in the Party Systems of the European Union Candidate States of Central and Eastern Europe.” European Journal of Political Research 43 (1): 1–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2004.00143.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H., M. G. Billig, R. P. Bundy, and C. Flament. 1971. “Social Categorization and Intergroup Behavior.” European Journal of Social Psychology 1 (2): 149–178. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaller, J. 1992. The Nature and Origin of Public Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar