Voting behavior as social action: Habits, norms, values, and rationality in electoral participation

IF 1.3 4区 社会学 Q3 SOCIOLOGY Rationality and Society Pub Date : 2022-11-26 DOI:10.1177/10434631221142733
R. Becker
{"title":"Voting behavior as social action: Habits, norms, values, and rationality in electoral participation","authors":"R. Becker","doi":"10.1177/10434631221142733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of the study is to contribute, theoretically and empirically, to an improved understanding of the social processes and mechanisms generating a citizen’s decisions regarding electoral participation. It seeks to contribute to a solution for the legendary paradox of electoral participation based on formalized social-psychological dual process theories by integrating the Weberian typology of rationalities and related social action into a comprehensive explanation of voter turnout. The empirical analysis, based on two German surveys carried out in 1998 and 2017, reveals that the instrumentally rational voting (purposively rational action) emphasized in the classic rational choice theories used in economic electoral research is rather a special case among modal types of action such as habitual voting (traditional action), norm-related voting (norm-guided action), and voting due to value rationality (value-rational action). Most voters vote out of habit and based on norms and values, while purely purposive-rational voting is more of a special case.","PeriodicalId":47079,"journal":{"name":"Rationality and Society","volume":"35 1","pages":"81 - 109"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rationality and Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10434631221142733","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The aim of the study is to contribute, theoretically and empirically, to an improved understanding of the social processes and mechanisms generating a citizen’s decisions regarding electoral participation. It seeks to contribute to a solution for the legendary paradox of electoral participation based on formalized social-psychological dual process theories by integrating the Weberian typology of rationalities and related social action into a comprehensive explanation of voter turnout. The empirical analysis, based on two German surveys carried out in 1998 and 2017, reveals that the instrumentally rational voting (purposively rational action) emphasized in the classic rational choice theories used in economic electoral research is rather a special case among modal types of action such as habitual voting (traditional action), norm-related voting (norm-guided action), and voting due to value rationality (value-rational action). Most voters vote out of habit and based on norms and values, while purely purposive-rational voting is more of a special case.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
作为社会行动的投票行为:选举参与的习惯、规范、价值与理性
这项研究的目的是在理论上和经验上促进更好地了解产生公民关于选举参与的决定的社会过程和机制。它试图通过将韦伯的理性类型学和相关的社会行动整合到选民投票率的综合解释中,为基于形式化的社会心理双重过程理论的选举参与的传奇悖论提供解决方案。基于1998年和2017年两次德国调查的实证分析表明,经济选举研究中使用的经典理性选择理论所强调的工具性理性投票(目的性理性行为)在习惯性投票(传统行为)、规范相关投票(规范引导行为)和价值理性投票(价值理性行为)等模态行为类型中只是一个特例。大多数选民投票是出于习惯和基于规范和价值观,而纯粹的目的理性投票则更多是一种特例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Rationality & Society focuses on the growing contributions of rational-action based theory, and the questions and controversies surrounding this growth. Why Choose Rationality and Society? The trend toward ever-greater specialization in many areas of intellectual life has lead to fragmentation that deprives scholars of the ability to communicate even in closely adjoining fields. The emergence of the rational action paradigm as the inter-lingua of the social sciences is a remarkable exception to this trend. It is the one paradigm that offers the promise of bringing greater theoretical unity across disciplines such as economics, sociology, political science, cognitive psychology, moral philosophy and law.
期刊最新文献
Does improved upward social mobility foster frustration and conflict? A large-scale online experiment testing Boudon’s model Effectiveness of technology for braille literacy education for children: a systematic review. Refined tastes, coarse tastes: Solving the stratification-of-goods enigma Explaining mobilization for revolts by private interests and kinship relations Graduated sanctioning, endogenous institutions and sustainable cooperation in common-pool resources: An experimental test
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1