Explaining the educational divide in electoral behaviour: testing direct and indirect effects from British elections and referendums 2016–2019

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties Pub Date : 2021-12-17 DOI:10.1080/17457289.2021.2013247
E. Simon
{"title":"Explaining the educational divide in electoral behaviour: testing direct and indirect effects from British elections and referendums 2016–2019","authors":"E. Simon","doi":"10.1080/17457289.2021.2013247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT An educational divide has become apparent in Western democratic politics. Our understanding of why this divide has emerged remains limited as existing studies have not utilized mediation methodologies, which allow detailed examination of how education’s shaping effect on electoral behaviour is transmitted. This study addresses this gap in knowledge – providing a more complete picture of why modern British politics divide along educational lines. It applies the Karlson–Holm–Breen method to British Election Study data to explore firstly, what proportion of education’s total effect on vote choices, cast in the 2016 referendum, 2017 and 2019 General Elections, was transmitted indirectly, and secondly, the relative contribution of economic orientations, cultural attitudes and political cue-taking behaviours as drivers of this divide. Findings show 67–91% of education’s total effect on vote choices was transmitted indirectly and crucially, that vote choices divided along educational lines largely because educational groups exhibited divergent economic orientations, cultural attitudes and cue-taking behaviours. Results also highlight that educational division(s) in the referendum and General Election voting were driven by different mechanisms.","PeriodicalId":46791,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties","volume":"35 1","pages":"980 - 1000"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2021.2013247","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

ABSTRACT An educational divide has become apparent in Western democratic politics. Our understanding of why this divide has emerged remains limited as existing studies have not utilized mediation methodologies, which allow detailed examination of how education’s shaping effect on electoral behaviour is transmitted. This study addresses this gap in knowledge – providing a more complete picture of why modern British politics divide along educational lines. It applies the Karlson–Holm–Breen method to British Election Study data to explore firstly, what proportion of education’s total effect on vote choices, cast in the 2016 referendum, 2017 and 2019 General Elections, was transmitted indirectly, and secondly, the relative contribution of economic orientations, cultural attitudes and political cue-taking behaviours as drivers of this divide. Findings show 67–91% of education’s total effect on vote choices was transmitted indirectly and crucially, that vote choices divided along educational lines largely because educational groups exhibited divergent economic orientations, cultural attitudes and cue-taking behaviours. Results also highlight that educational division(s) in the referendum and General Election voting were driven by different mechanisms.
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
解释选举行为中的教育差异:测试2016-2019年英国选举和公投的直接和间接影响
在西方民主政治中,教育鸿沟已经变得很明显。我们对为什么出现这种分歧的理解仍然有限,因为现有的研究没有使用调解方法,这些方法可以详细检查教育对选举行为的塑造作用是如何传递的。这项研究解决了这一知识鸿沟——提供了一个更完整的画面,说明为什么现代英国政治沿着教育路线分裂。本文将卡尔森-霍尔姆-布林方法应用于英国选举研究数据,首先探讨在2016年公投、2017年和2019年大选中,教育对投票选择的总影响中有多大比例是间接传递的,其次,经济取向、文化态度和政治暗示行为作为这种鸿沟的驱动因素的相对贡献。研究结果显示,教育对投票选择的总影响中有67-91%是间接传播的,而且至关重要的是,投票选择在很大程度上是因为教育群体表现出不同的经济取向、文化态度和暗示行为。结果还强调,全民公决和大选投票中的教育分工是由不同的机制驱动的。
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
4.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Have heads cooled? Changes in radical partisanship from 2020–2022 Only losers use excuses? Exploring the association between the winner-loser gap and referendum attitudes following a local referendum The effect of signing ballot petitions on turnout Determinants of swing voting in Africa: evidence from Ghana's elections Issue salience and affective polarization
×
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:604180095
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