Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 684

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Public Support for the European Union: Cost/Benefit Analysis or Perceived Cultural Threat?

Open access
McLaren, Lauren M.·2002·The Journal of Politics

Abstract

This research note argues that much of the literature on support for European integration misses the heart of the nature of opposition to this process by ignoring the notion of perceived threat. Essentially, people are hostile toward the European project in great part because of their perceptions of threats posed by other cultures. I analyze this hypothesis by replicating a piece of research that previously appeared in this journal, adding measures of perceived threat to that model. The results support the main contention, which is that perceived cultural threat is an important factor that has been mistakenly ignored in explanations of hostility toward the European Union.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1468-2508.00139

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 684

Metadata

Authors
McLaren, L. M.
Venue
The Journal of Politics
Published
2002-05
Volume
64
Issue
2
Pages
551-566
ISSN
  • 0022-3816 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2508
OpenAlex
W2149364654
Cited by
684
References
0
FWCI
108.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Public Support for the European Union: Cost/Benefit Analysis or Perceived Cultural Threat? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1468-2508.00139
The paper
McLaren, L. M. (2002). Public Support for the European Union: Cost/Benefit Analysis or Perceived Cultural Threat? The Journal of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00139

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.