The Parroting the Pariah Effect: Individual-Level Evidence

Chapter
Part of the Political Campaigning and Communication book series (PCC)

Abstract

This is the second of two chapters in which we show empirical evidence in support of the Parroting the Pariah Effect. Based on experimental and non-experimental individual-level data we find that, on average, simultaneously imitating and isolating a challenger party reduces its electoral support. The votes that the party in that case loses are policy-driven ones.

References

  1. Akkerman, Tjitske, and Matthijs Rooduijn. 2015. Pariahs or Partners? Inclusion and Exclusion of the Radical Right and the Effects on Their Policy Positions. Political Studies 63 (5): 1140–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Duff, Brian, Michael J. Hanmer, Won-Ho Park, and Ismail K. White. 2007. Good Excuses: Understanding Who Votes With an Improved Turnout Question. Public Opinion Quarterly 71 (1): 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gentile, Pierre, and Hanspeter Kriesi. 1998. Contemporary Radical-Right Parties in Switzerland: History of a Divided Family. In The New Politics of the Right: Neo-populist Parties and Movements in Established Democracies, ed. H.-G. Betz, and S. Immerfall. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ivarsflaten, Elisabeth. 2008. What Unites Right-Wing Populists in Western Europe? Re-Examining Grievance Mobilization Models in Seven Successful Cases. Comparative Political Studies 41 (1): 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kriesi, Hanspeter, and Alexandre H. Trechsel. 2008. Politics in Switzerland: Continuity and Change in a Consensus Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lieberman, Evan S. 2005. Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research. American Political Science Review 99 (3): 435–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mayer, Nonna. 2007. Comment Nicolas Sarkozy a rétréci l’électorat Le Pen. Revue française de science politique 57 (3–4): 429–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Morton, Rebecca B., and Kenneth C. Williams. 2011. Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Pauwels, Teun. 2011. Explaining the Strange Decline of the Populist Radical Right Vlaams Belang in Belgium: The Impact of Permanent Opposition. Acta Politica 46 (1): 60–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Robinson, William S. 1950. Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Individuals. American Sociological Review 15: 351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Shields, Jim. 2010a. Support for Le Pen in France: Two Elections in Trompe l’œil. Politics 30 (1): 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shields, Jim. 2010b. The Far-Right Vote in France: From Consolidation to Collapse? French Politics, Culture and Society 28 (1): 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Van der Brug, Wouter, and Meindert Fennema. 2003. Protest or mainstream? How the European antiimmigrant parties developed into two separate groups by 1999. European Journal of Political Research 42 (1): 55–76.Google Scholar
  14. Van der Brug, Wouter, Meindert Fennema, and Jean Tillie. 2000. Anti-immigrant parties in Europe: Ideological or protest vote? European Journal of Political Research 37 (1): 77–102.Google Scholar
  15. Van der Eijk, Cees, and Mark N. Franklin. 1996. Choosing Europe?: The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  16. Van der Eijk, Cees, Wouter van der Brug, Kroh Martin, and Mark N. Franklin. 2006. Rethinking the Dependent Variable in Electoral Behavior—On the Measurement and Analysis of Utilities. Electoral Studies 25: 424–447.Google Scholar
  17. Volkens, Andrea, Pola Lehmann, Nicolas Merz, Sven Regel, and Annika Werner. 2014. The Manifesto Data Collection, Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Berlin: WZB.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations