European Integration, and the Media

Given the present economic situations in Ireland, Greece, and a handful of other European countries, the idea of an integrated Europe is under some stress.  In that vein, here's a study (abstract only, sorry) that examines the role of media use and integration.  Or, as the abstract puts it: "The comparatively low level of Europeanization in the news media is said to promote euroscepticism or at least hinder further integration."

Using data from several countries and the smoke-and-mirrors of structural equation modeling (no, I'm not a fan), "we can demonstrate that domestic media use has a positive but small effect on knowledge, attachment to Europe and support for the European Union."  In other words, media use increases -- not decreases -- support for an integrated Europe.

While we're stuck with only the abstract, apparently cognitive mobilization plays a part in the study. I mention this for a couple of reasons.  First, it's one of the more popular search terms that allows people to find this blog.  Second, it's one of my first ever areas of research interest.  And third, I just like the way it sounds, as if a bunch of smart people are getting mobilized. 

So to keep with the cognitive mobilization theme, I point to this study which takes that concept to examine why informed citizens may be skeptical of referenda.  Political knowledge -- the measure of being "informed" -- plays an obvious role in the research.  Five factual questions about Canadian politics (yes, it's a study from Canada) are used as a measure of political knowledge and they seem straightforward. 

But what I really like is the measure of public incompetence -- essentially tapping into the belief that people suck when it comes to politics.  Below are their two questions:

• “The problem with democracy is that most people don't really know what's best for them.”
• “Most people have enough sense to tell whether the government is doing a good job.”

This is a neat idea, a global measure not of internal efficacy, which is whether or not you are capable of participating or understanding politics, but rather a measure of public competence.  I like it.  A lot.  There are some interesting theoretical possibilities here and it smacks of the third-person effect.  Note that I'm not getting into the guts of what they found in this study because, frankly, I'm less interested in that than this concept.  I will point out that political knowledge is negatively associated with support for referenda, which probably has to do with really smart people not trusting other people to vote on stuff.  But ... hold on, say the authors.

Building from this initial statement, the central objective of the paper has been to uncover explanations for this information effect in support for the use of referenda. To do so we identified three possible explanations with firm grounding in the literature: 1) the incompetent public explanation, 2) the confidence in government explanation, and 3) the support for minority rights explanation. Our analyses provide support for the last two explanations, but not the first.

So much for the incompetent public concept, I suppose.  And I had such high hopes for it.

What's Up With Cognitive Mobilization?

Scholarly research has its fads, just like music or fashion.  Often, research chases the money -- grant money, that is.  Other times it chases the new hot thing, like Twitter or The Daily Show.  But I'm baffled by my blog statistics that consistently show people searching for cognitive mobilization.

Yes, I've written about it here and here, and yes, my first ever published piece was on cognitive mobilization (in a forgettable academic journal that doesn't really exist any more, called Mass Comm Review.  But now it seems the topic has, if not exploded on the scene, at least generated some new interest.

There are recent pieces in:

• Electoral Studies (link here)
• Communication Research (link here)
• Political Science Review (link here)
• The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (link here)
• The International Journal of Public Opinion Research (link here)

And those are just the first ones from 2009 I happened to find in a quick-and-dirty search.  I'm sure I could have kept going with cute little dots and journal titles and links that may or may not be helpful, but you get the point.  Cognitive mobilization is one of the theories designed to explain partisan dealignment, the detachment of political party affiliations.  It's tied to changing values.  As information costs decline, so goes the theory, people will be less likely to follow simple rules of thumb, like party identification, and consider messages and politicians more carefully.

So goes the theory.

It's an odd increase -- or seemingly an increase -- given people at least in the U.S. seem be growing ever more partisan, dragged kicking and screaming by a fragmented partisan cable news environment, but we can't forget that a whole bunch of other people have grown apolitical.  This group doesn't fit the the theory.  They're not carefully considering messages and dealigning themselves, they're simply opting out of the political process.  So I'm a bit baffled by this, at least from a U.S. perspective, but it's nice to see as well since that old Mass Comm Review article of mine from 1991 or so looks prescient now.

Cognitive Mobilization

My first ever academic publication (accepted while still a grad student) was on cognitive mobilization.  I've also blogged about recent research on the topic.  Now there's a review of the literature, which I'm happy to see.  Like visiting an old friend, the idea of partisan dealignment in advanced democracies.

As the authors note:

The theory of a cognitively mobilized electorate argues that citizens are likely to abandon habitual voting for a single party as they become better informed about politics and gain exposure to mass media. The data examined in this paper, however, are not consistent with the theory's predictions.

As much as I like the concept, I'm not terribly surprised by the finding above.  The thesis apparently unravels at individual level analysis, according to the authors.  They present three questions cognitive mobilization advocates must answer in order to salvage the hypothesis. 

Oh, and one major problem with this review -- it fails to cite my work in an obscure (but at the time to me, important) academic journal.  Damn them!!!

Cite of my original paper: Hollander, B. A. (1993). Mass communication and cognitive mobilization: Changes in the U.S. from 1952-1984. Mass Comm Review, 19, 29-33, 48. Complete list of published stuff here if you're truly bored.

Cognitive Mobilization and Party ID

The theory is straightforward. The more cognitively mobilized the electorate (more knowledgeable, better educated, more exposure to news media), the more likely citizens will abandon habitual party voting. In other words, less party identification or voting a straight party ticket.

At least that's the theory.

In a new study, the theory falls apart. The telling graph comes near the end:

The data examined in this paper, however, are not consistent with the theory's predictions. CM clearly increases the probability that a respondent expresses an attachment to a specific party, and this positive relationship does not change across cohorts. In fact, there is some evidence that the positive effect of CM on party attachments is growing even stronger over time. In sum, neither the micro- nor the macro-level components of the theory are corroborated by the data.

Data yet again get in the way of theory.