Affective attachment to the EU: Questioning the importance of childhood socialization
| Author | Zuzana Ringlerova |
| Published date | 01 December 2020 |
| Date | 01 December 2020 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1465116520950833 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
European Union Politics
Affective attachment
2020, Vol. 21(4) 545–568
! The Author(s) 2020
to the EU: Questioning
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1465116520950833
the importance of
journals.sagepub.com/home/eup
childhood socialization
Zuzana Ringlerova
Department of International Relations and European Studies,
Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia
Abstract
In a time of rising Euroscepticism across Europe, diffuse support for the European Union
(EU) is an especially important concept as it provides a source of stability for the EU. How
important is childhood political socialization for the development of diffuse support? The
extant literature emphasizes the role of childhood socialization. However, these studies are
based on analyses that cannot fully distinguish between the cohort effect and the life-cycle
effect. This study overcomes this limitation by looking at a more suitable case (the
European Union) and by using a novel technique that effectively distinguishes the cohort
effect from the life-cycle effect. The findings show that individuals who experienced early
life political socialization in the EU have equal levels of diffuse support as individuals who
grew up outside the EU. I thus argue that diffuse support develops through experience in
adult life, and childhood political socialization is not essential for its development.
Keywords
Age-Period-Cohort analysis, childhood socialization, Euroscepticism, political socializa-
tion, political support
Introduction
Euroscepticism among European citizens is one of the most serious challenges
facing the European Union (EU). The Brexit referendum, as well as a strong
Corresponding author:
Zuzana Ringlerova, Department of International Relations and European Studies, Masaryk University, Jostova
10, Brno 60200, Czechia.
Email: ringler@fss.muni.cz
546
European Union Politics 21(4)
showing of populist Eurosceptic candidates in Dutch, French and Austrian elec-
tions, are just a few examples of this Eurosceptic wave. These developments sug-
gest that large numbers of citizens in EU member states feel dissatisfied with the
EU. This lack of support has potentially serious consequences for the stability of
the EU as a political system. If a political system experiences an economic or other
crisis, citizens’ support is an important resource the system can draw upon in order
to weather the crisis. Given the current wave of rising Euroscepticism, understand-
ing why individuals support the political system of the EU becomes especially
important.
In assessing the stability of political systems, one type of mass public political
support – diffuse support – is particularly important. Diffuse support is an affec-
tive attachment to the political system. Thanks to this quality, diffuse support
provides the political system with a source of resilience in times of crisis
(Dalton, 2004; Easton, 1965; Norris, 1999). Although there is a fairly good accu-
mulation of knowledge about the existence of diffuse support for political systems
(Beaudonnet and Franklin, 2014; Dalton, 2004; Down and Wilson, 2017; Hooghe
and Marks, 2004; Norris, 1999; Serricchio et al., 2013), it is not very clear how this
source of political systems’ stability comes about. The dominant line of the existing
research emphasizes early life political socialization as the key factor in the devel-
opment of diffuse support (Down and Wilson, 2013; Lutz et al., 2006; Mishler and
Rose, 2007; Sapiro, 2004). Other works, however, suggest that later life experience
is the key determinant of diffuse support in adulthood (Bruter, 2009; Mishler and
Rose, 2007). How important, then, is early life political socialization for the devel-
opment of diffuse support? The goal of this article is to answer this question and
improve our understanding of the sources of diffuse support for the EU as well as
our understanding of diffuse support as a general concept.
I examine the relationship between early life political socialization and diffuse
support by using a novel technique that allows me to overcome a problem that is
endemic to all studies of early life socialization’s effects on later life attitudes.
Studies of childhood socialization’s effects struggle to identify whether the
observed differences between generations are a result of experience during one’s
childhood or whether these differences are a result of attitude changes as individ-
uals go through the life cycle. The specificities of the historical development of the
EU allow me to overcome this problem and employ an innovative methodology
that effectively distinguishes the cohort effect from the life-cycle effect (Dinas and
Stoker, 2014). By exploiting the fact that different countries joined European inte-
gration at different points in time, this methodology is able to focus directly on the
impact of early life political socialization while controlling for the effect of age.
Using data from the Eurobarometer studies, I find that early life political social-
ization into the European supranational political system does not influence the
level of diffuse support for the EU in adulthood. In contrast to the prevailing view
in the existing literature, I argue that early life political socialization into the
political system of the EU does not determine diffuse support in later life and
that diffuse support for the EU develops as a result of later life experience.
Ringlerova
547
These findings have several practical implications for the EU. First, the findings
imply that relying on early life political socialization as a generator of citizens’
lasting affective support for the EU is not enough. The EU needs to provide
positive experiences for adult citizens in order to maintain and reinforce citizens’
diffuse support. Second, the results of this study imply that gaining a new popu-
lation either through immigration or through the accession of new EU member
states does not necessarily constitute a weak spot in terms of public support for the
political system of the EU. Given that early life political socialization is not essen-
tial for the development of an affective attachment to the EU, the new members of
the population can learn to support their new political system as effectively as if
they had grown up in it.
Literature review and hypothesis
Diffuse political support is a category within a broader concept of mass public
political support. There are two types of political support: specific and diffuse.
Specific support is a ‘running-tally’ type of attitude that fluctuates according to the
current performance of the political system. If citizens are satisfied with the polit-
ical system’s performance, specific support is high. If they are not satisfied, specific
support decreases. In contrast, diffuse support is an affective attitude. It is inde-
pendent of the current performance of the political system. Diffuse support persists
even in times when citizens become dissatisfied with the regime’s policies (Easton,
1965; Harteveld et al., 2013; Norris, 1999). Although diffuse support is resistant to
momentary changes in performance, from a long-term perspective, regime perfor-
mance may affect diffuse support as well. Similarly, a long period of good regime
performance helps generate diffuse support (Mishler and Rose, 2007).
Together, specific and diffuse support make up the overall political support that
an individual has for a given political object. In other words, overall political
support is a mix of these two types of support. In the case of some political objects
(such as incumbent politicians), the specific type of support prevails in the mix.
In cases of other political objects (such as the political nation), diffuse support is
the prevailing type of support (Norris, 2011). Given these empirical findings, it
may be tempting to equate diffuse support to support for the political system. This
would be misleading, however. The quality of support (diffuse or specific) is con-
ceptually different from the object towards which support is directed. Keeping this
theoretical distinction allows us to study whether a political system enjoys an
affective (diffuse) or performance-based (specific) political support. Each of
these types of political support provides the system with a different level of stability
in times of crisis. Since people tend to view the performance of a political system
more negatively during a crisis, a political system enjoying diffuse support has
more resilience in times of crisis than a political system that draws its political
support on a good performance.
Empirical studies of attitudes towards the EU show that there is both diffuse
and specific support for the EU (Beaudonnet and Franklin, 2014; Down and
548
European Union Politics 21(4)
Wilson, 2017; Eichenberg and Dalton, 2007; Gabel and Palmer, 1995; Gabel, 1998;
Hobolt and de Vries, 2016; Hooghe and Marks, 2004; Ringlerova, 2015b;
Serricchio et al., 2013; Torcal et al., 2012a, 2012b). Since specific support and
diffuse support are two distinct attitudes, they develop in different types of pro-
cesses. Specific support is an up-to-date barometer reflecting the individual’s cur-
rent satisfaction with how well the political system works. Diffuse support, on the
other hand, is not easily swayed by momentary changes in individuals’ assessment
of the political system’s performance. How, then, does affective support for the
political system develop?
The existing literature on the origins of diffuse support distinguishes between
two views. According to one view,...
To continue reading
Request your trial