2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2007.02.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The parliamentary election in the Netherlands, 22 November 2006

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
6
1
Order By: Relevance
“…According to Marschall (2005), in Germany, only 6% of voters using a VAA were directly affected in their electoral decision, and in Belgium, VAAs had an impact only on a small percentage of their users (Walgrave et al, 2008). Research results for the Netherlands show higher values (Aarts and van der Kolk, 2007), but at 15%, there is still a significant difference from the 67% we found for Switzerland. We will return to this aspect later.…”
Section: First Analyses: Direct Impact Measurementmentioning
confidence: 66%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…According to Marschall (2005), in Germany, only 6% of voters using a VAA were directly affected in their electoral decision, and in Belgium, VAAs had an impact only on a small percentage of their users (Walgrave et al, 2008). Research results for the Netherlands show higher values (Aarts and van der Kolk, 2007), but at 15%, there is still a significant difference from the 67% we found for Switzerland. We will return to this aspect later.…”
Section: First Analyses: Direct Impact Measurementmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…The resulting figures vary strongly depending on the country. In the Netherlands, between 10% (Kleinnijenhuis et al, 2008) and 15% of users (Aarts and van der Kolk, 2007) claimed to have adjusted their electoral decisions due to the recommendations received. For Germany, this figure is 6% (Marschall, 2005), and for Finland, it is as low as 3% (Mykkänen and Moring, 2006).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In other countries with party-based VAAs the self-reported effect is more moderate. In the Netherlands, between 10 per cent (Kleinnijenhuis et al, 2007) and 15 per cent (Aarts & Van der Kolk, 2007) of users indicate that they were affected whereas in Germany and Finland these percentages are about 6 per cent (Marschall, 2005) and 3 per cent (Mykkänen & Moring, 2006), respectively. Taken together it shows that VAAs have a substantial impact on vote choice, but, as was also the case for political knowledge, the exact size of the effect varies substantially between studies.…”
Section: The Effect Of Vaa Use On Vote Choicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In terms of methodology, previous studies investigating the effects of VAAs on vote choice have employed post-election surveys of users (sometimes as part of larger surveys which also include non-users), where respondents provided their own subjective evaluations of whether their vote choice was influenced by their visit to a VAA site (Aarts and van der Kolk, 2007;Carlson and Strandberg, 2005;Ladner et al, 2010;Marschall and Schmidt, 2010;Walgrave et al, 2008). These surveys have varied dramatically in their estimates of the importance attributed by users to VAA sites.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%