What about Ambivalence and Indifference? Rethinking the Effects of European Attitudes on Voter Turnout in European Parliament Elections

Abstract

Previous studies of turnout in European Parliament elections have focused on how positive and negative attitudes towards the EU affect voter turnout while ignoring other EU related attitudes. To fill this gap, this article compares the impact of ambivalence and indifference on turnout with that of positive and negative attitudes. Using multilevel logit regression, it demonstrates that ambivalence increased the odds of turnout in the 2004 and 2009 European Parliament elections compared to both negative and indifferent attitudes. However, ambivalence only increases the possibility of turnout if the number of positive thoughts about the EU is equal to or higher than the number of negative thoughts. Having a greater number of negative thoughts, in contrast, does not discourage turnout. The paper concludes that one-dimensional measures of EU attitudes are over-simplistic and fail to provide a complete description of European voting behaviour.

Indifferent and Eurosceptic: The motivations of EU-only abstainers in the 2019 European Parliament election

“…As European integration has become an increasingly important issue in EP elections (Braun et al, 2016; De Vries et al, 2011; Hobolt, 2015), arena-specific European considerations matter for citizens in their decision whether or not to vote in present-day European elections and whom to vote for (Hernández and Kriesi, 2016; Hobolt and Spoon, 2012; Schäfer and Debus, 2018). In particular, positive attitudes towards European integration and the EU affect the likelihood of taking part in EP elections (Blondel et al, 1998; Hernández and Kriesi, 2016; Hobolt and Spoon, 2012; Kentmen-Cin, 2017). 7 Adding to these findings, Schäfer (2017, 2019) shows that distrust in the European Parliament is a strong predictor of EU-only abstention in EP elections.…”

Does party ambivalence decrease voter turnout? A global analysis

“…Previous studies show the importance of controlling for indifference when investigating the influence of ambivalence on political behaviour (Davis, 2015; Kentmen-Cin, 2017; Thornton, 2011; Yoo, 2010). In contrast to ambivalence, indifference is described as a non-attitude (Yoo, 2010) or simply lack of preference (Kentmen-Cin, 2017; Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller, 2012) that does not lead to an internal conflict because an indifferent citizen is apolitical (Yoo, 2010) and has no affective connection to a party (Davis, 2015).…”

“…Previous studies show the importance of controlling for indifference when investigating the influence of ambivalence on political behaviour (Davis, 2015; Kentmen-Cin, 2017; Thornton, 2011; Yoo, 2010). In contrast to ambivalence, indifference is described as a non-attitude (Yoo, 2010) or simply lack of preference (Kentmen-Cin, 2017; Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller, 2012) that does not lead to an internal conflict because an indifferent citizen is apolitical (Yoo, 2010) and has no affective connection to a party (Davis, 2015). 8 On the other hand, ambivalence leads to an internal conflict because an ambivalent citizen has strong but contradictory emotional involvement with both of the parties (Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller, 2012), whereas an indifferent person simply lacks a motivation to cast a ballot.…”

“…8.While some studies use indifference to describe lack of positive feelings for at least one political party or being apolitical (Davis, 2015; Kentmen-Cin, 2017; Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller, 2012; Thornton, 2011; Yoo, 2010), some others make use of the term alienation for the same purpose (Brody and Page, 1973; Callander and Wilson, 2007; Dassonneville and Hooghe, 2016). While I acknowledge the existence of both terms, the objective of this paper is not to establish which term should be used, but to control for it in order to better isolate the impact of ambivalence on voter turnout.…”

Fostering turnout?: Assessing party leaders' capacity to mobilize voters

“…This is puzzling given the importance early attributed by Campbell and his colleagues (Campbell et al, 1960) to the general role of attitudes on voting behaviour and the specific consideration of attitudes towards candidates in their research. Furthermore, within the framework of these psychological models, attitudinal elements have often been demonstrated to be associated with turnout, as is the case with attitudes towards the EU (Kentmen-Cin, 2017) and voting and elections (Blais, 2014). Therefore, attitudes towards party leaders, as increasingly relevant actors in contemporary politics, could also play a role in citizens' turnout decisions.…”