Public misperceptions of European integration in the UK

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties Pub Date : 2021-07-12 DOI:10.1080/17457289.2021.1945612
Florian Stoeckel, Benjamin A. Lyons, Jason Reifler
{"title":"Public misperceptions of European integration in the UK","authors":"Florian Stoeckel, Benjamin A. Lyons, Jason Reifler","doi":"10.1080/17457289.2021.1945612","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We analyse public perceptions and misperceptions of European integration in the context of the Brexit referendum in the UK. Erroneous information about the EU was salient in the public domain before the referendum, but the prevalence of EU related misperceptions among voters has not yet been examined much. We use a population based survey that was conducted before the referendum to measure misperceptions in two domains: the role of the EU for the British economy and EU related costs. Hypotheses to explain misperceptions are derived from the public opinion literature and political psychology. Most voters hold misperceptions and this includes Euroskeptics as well as individuals who support the EU. Yet, misperceptions vary in systematic ways. Individuals with more education are less ill informed. In line with motivated reasoning, citizens’ perceptions are also biased by their predispositions: while many voters hold misperceptions, the magnitude of misperceptions that portray the EU negatively is greater among Euroskeptics.","PeriodicalId":46791,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties","volume":"44 1","pages":"623 - 643"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2021.1945612","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT We analyse public perceptions and misperceptions of European integration in the context of the Brexit referendum in the UK. Erroneous information about the EU was salient in the public domain before the referendum, but the prevalence of EU related misperceptions among voters has not yet been examined much. We use a population based survey that was conducted before the referendum to measure misperceptions in two domains: the role of the EU for the British economy and EU related costs. Hypotheses to explain misperceptions are derived from the public opinion literature and political psychology. Most voters hold misperceptions and this includes Euroskeptics as well as individuals who support the EU. Yet, misperceptions vary in systematic ways. Individuals with more education are less ill informed. In line with motivated reasoning, citizens’ perceptions are also biased by their predispositions: while many voters hold misperceptions, the magnitude of misperceptions that portray the EU negatively is greater among Euroskeptics.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英国公众对欧洲一体化的误解
我们分析了在英国脱欧公投背景下公众对欧洲一体化的看法和误解。在公投之前,关于欧盟的错误信息在公共领域很突出,但选民对欧盟相关误解的普遍程度尚未得到太多调查。我们使用公投前进行的一项基于人口的调查来衡量两个领域的误解:欧盟对英国经济的作用和欧盟相关成本。解释误解的假设来源于民意文学和政治心理学。大多数选民持有误解,这包括欧洲怀疑论者和支持欧盟的个人。然而,误解以系统的方式变化。受过更多教育的人不太了解情况。与动机推理一致,公民的看法也受到他们的倾向的影响:尽管许多选民持有误解,但在欧洲怀疑论者中,对欧盟持负面看法的误解程度更大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Have heads cooled? Changes in radical partisanship from 2020–2022 Only losers use excuses? Exploring the association between the winner-loser gap and referendum attitudes following a local referendum The effect of signing ballot petitions on turnout Determinants of swing voting in Africa: evidence from Ghana's elections Issue salience and affective polarization
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1