Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Individual Theories and the Role of Context

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Citizens and Democracy in Europe

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology ((PSEPS))

  • 347 Accesses

Abstract

A comprehensive study of political support should consider individual-level factors. Democratic satisfaction and political trust are often considered the result of a rational assessment based on expectations and utility perceived from the working of the system and its representative institutions. However, such economic rationality is not sustained by the evidence. On the contrary, to reduce the cost of seeking and processing information people use heuristics based on their social and political experiences. This chapter illustrates how education, employment and electoral status create gaps in democratic satisfaction and trust and explores the potential effects of input and output factors in influencing these gaps, anticipating the conditions under which convergence, divergence or parallelism in support between different groups may occur.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aarts, K., van Ham, C., & Thomassen, J. (2017). Modernization, globalization, and satisfaction with democracy. In C. van Ham, J. Thomassen, K. Aarts, & R. Andeweg (Eds.), Myth and Reality of the Legitimacy Crisis: Explaining Trends and Cross-National Differences in Established Democracies (pp. 37–58). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. J., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Listhaug, O. (2005). Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. J., & Guillory, C. A. (1997). Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: A cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 66–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. J., & Singer, M. M. (2008). The sensitive left and the impervious right: Multilevel models and the politics of inequality, ideology, and legitimacy in Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 564–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. J., & Tverdova, Y. V. (2003). Corruption, political allegiances, and attitudes toward government in contemporary democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anduiza, E., Gallego, A., & Muñoz, J. (2014). Turning a blind eye: Experimental evidence of partisan bias in attitudes toward corruption. Comparative Political Studies, 46, 1664–1692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banducci, S. A., Donovan, T. M., & Karp, J. A. (1999). Proportional representation and attitudes about politics: Results from New Zealand. Electoral Studies, 18(4), 533–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L. M. (2008). Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, P. C. (2018). Unemployment, trust in government, and satisfaction with democracy: An empirical investigation. Socious: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 4, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (Ed.). (1975). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research Human Behavior and Social Institutions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernauer, J., Giger, N., & Rosset, J. (2015). Mind the gap: Do proportional electoral systems foster a more equal representation of women and men, poor and rich? International Political Science Review, 36(1), 78–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernauer, J., & Vatter, A. (2012). Can’t get no satisfaction with the Westminster model? Winners, losers and the effects of consensual and direct democratic institutions on satisfaction with democracy. European Journal of Political Research, 51(4), 435–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blais, A., & Gélineau, F. (2007). Winning, losing and satisfaction with democracy. Political Studies, 55, 425–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, A., Shelley, G., Mazur, A., Tharp, G., & Kittok, R. (1989). Testosterone, and winning and losing in human competition. Hormones and Behavior, 53(3), 367–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2007). Reasoning about institutional change: Winners, losers and support for electoral reforms. British Journal of Political Science, 37(3), 455–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, H. E., & Sniderman, P. M. (1985). Attitude attribution: A group basis for political reasoning. American Political Science Review, 79(4), 1061–1078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brand, J. E. (2015). The far-reaching impact of job loss and unemployment. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 359–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. D., & Dutton, K. A. (1995). The thrill of victory, the complexity of defeat: Self-esteem and people’s emotional reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 712–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullock, J. G. (2009). Partisan bias and the Bayesian ideal in the study of public opinion. Journal of Politics, 71(3), 1109–1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American Voter. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canache, D., & Allison, M. E. (2005). Perceptions of political corruption in Latin American democracies. Latin American Politics and Society, 47(3), 91–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantú, F., & García-Ponce, O. (2015). Partisan losers’ effects: Perceptions of electoral integrity in Mexico. Electoral Studies, 39, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catterberg, G., & Moreno, A. (2006). The individual bases of political trust: Trends in new and established democracies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(1), 31–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, E., Chu, Y.-H., & Wu, W.-C. (2014). Consenting to lose or expecting to win? Inter-temporal changes in voters’ winner–loser status and satisfaction with democracy. In J. Thomassen (Ed.), Elections and Democracy: Representation and Accountability (pp. 233–252). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Citrin, J., & Green, D. (1986). Presidential leadership and the resurgence of trust in government. British Journal of Political Science, 16, 431–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conover, P. J., Feldman, S., & Knight, K. (1986). Judging inflation and unemployment: The origins of retrospective evaluations. Journal of Politics, 48(3), 565–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Criado, H., & Herreros, F. (2007). Political support: Taking into account the institutional context. Comparative Political Studies, 40(12), 1511–1532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curini, L., & Jou, W. (2016). The conditional impact of winner/loser status and ideological proximity on citizen participation. European Journal of Political Research, 55(4), 767–788.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curini, L., Jou, W., & Memoli, V. (2011). Satisfaction with democracy and the winner/loser debate: The role of policy preferences and past experience. British Journal of Political Science, 42(2), 241–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, S., & Linde, J. (2016). Losing happily? The mitigating effect of democracy and quality of government on the winner–loser gap in political support. International Journal of Public Administration, 39(9), 652–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R. J. (2004). Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R. (2005). The social transformation of trust in government. International Review of Sociology, 15(1), 133–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denters, B., Gabriel, O., & Torcal, M. (2007). Norms of good citizenship. In J. W. van Deth, J. R. Montero, & A. Westholm (Eds.), Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies: A Comparative Analysis (pp. 88–108). London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L., & Plattner, M. F. (Eds.). (2008). How People View Democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dotti Sani, G. M., & Magistro, B. (2016). Increasingly unequal? The economic crisis, social inequalities and trust in the European Parliament in 20 European countries. European Journal of Political Research, 55(2), 246–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duch, R. M., Palmer, H. D., & Anderson, C. J. (2000). Heterogeneity in perceptions of national economic conditions. American Journal of Political Science, 44(4), 635–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duch, R. M., & Stevenson, R. T. (2000). The Economic Vote. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enns, P. K., & McAvoy, G. E. (2012). The role of partisanship in aggregate opinion. Political Behavior, 34, 627–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S. (2008). Happiness: A Revolution in Economics. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A., & Green, D. (1999). Misperceptions about perceptual bias. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 189–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., & Washington, E. (2010). Party affiliation, partisanship, and political beliefs: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 104(4), 720–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilens, M. (2005). Inequality and democratic responsiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(5), 778–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez, B. T., & Wilson, J. M. (2001). Political sophistication and economic voting in the American electorate: A theory of heterogeneous attribution. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 899–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schicker, E. (2002). Partisan Hearts and Minds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakhverdian, A., & Mayne, Q. (2012). Institutional trust, education, and corruption: A micro-macro interactive approach. Journal of Politics, 74, 739–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, A., & Malhotra, N. (2013). Retrospective voting reconsidered. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 285–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchison, M. L., & Johnson, K. (2011). Capacity to trust? Institutional capacity, conflict, and political trust in Africa, 2000–2005. Journal of Peace Research, 48(6), 737–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iversen, T., & Soskice, D. (2006). Electoral institutions and the politics of coalitions: Why some democracies redistribute more than others. American Political Science Review, 100(2), 165–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerit, J., & Barabas, J. (2012). Partisan perceptual bias and the information environment. The Journal of Politics, 74(3), 672–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. D. (1999). Bounded rationality. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 297–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Wakker, P. P., & Sarin, R. (1997). Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 375–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karp, J., & Bowler, S. (2001). Coalition government and satisfaction with democracy: An analysis of New Zealand’s reaction to proportional representation. European Journal of Political Research, 40(1), 57–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriesi, H., Grander, E., Lachat, R., Dolenzal, M., Bornschier, S., & Frei, T. (2008). West European Politics in the Age of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A. (1990). Americans’ perception of presidential candidates: A test of the projection hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues, 46(2), 159–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurence, J. (2015). (Dis)placing trust: The long-term effects of job displacement on generalised trust over the adult lifecourse. Social Science Research, 50, 46–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. W., Sandifer, R., & Stein, S. (1985). Effects of unemployment on mental and physical health. American Journal of Public Health, 75(5), 502–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Listhaug, O. (1995). The dynamics of trust in politicians. In H.-D. Klingemann & D. Fuchs (Eds.), Citizens and the State (pp. 261–297). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, M., & Taber, C. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality (pp. 183–213). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lühiste, K. (2006). Explaining trust in political institutions: Some illustrations from the Baltic states. Communist and Post-communist Studies, 39(4), 475–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupia, A., McCubbins, M. D., & Popkin, S. L. (2000). Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Martini, S., & Quaranta, M. (2015). Finding out the hard way: Uncovering the structural foundations of political dissatisfaction in Italy, 1973–2013. West European Politics, 38(1), 28–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martini, S., & Quaranta, M. (2019). Political support among winners and losers: Within- and between-country effects of structure, process and performance in Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 58(1), 341–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martini, S., & Torcal, M. (2019). Trust across political conflicts: Evidence from a survey experiment in divided societies. Party Politics, 25(2), 126–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayne, Q., & Hakhverdian, A. (2017). Education, socialization and political trust. In S. Zmerli & T. W. G. van der Meer (Eds.), Handbook on Political Trust (pp. 176–196). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, I. (1999). The economic performance of governments. In P. Norris (Ed.), Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government (pp. 188–204). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McCaul, K., Gladue, B. A., & Joppa, M. (1992). Winning, losing, mood, and testosterone. Hormones and Behavior, 26(4), 486–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melgar, N., Rossi, M., & Smith, T. W. (2010). The perception of corruption. International Journal of Public Opinion, 22(1), 120–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondak, J. J. (1993). Public opinion and heuristic processing of source cues. Political Behavior, 15(2), 167–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadeau, R., & Blais, A. (1993). Accepting the election outcome: The effect of participation on losers’ consent. British Journal of Political Science, 23, 553–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuberg, S. L., & Fiske, S. T. (1987). Motivational influences on impression formation: Dependency, accuracy-driven attention, and individuating information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 431–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, K. (1999). Social and political trust in established democracies. In P. Norris (Ed.), Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government (pp. 169–187). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. (1999). Institutional explanations of political support. In P. Norris (Ed.), Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government (pp. 217–235). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Quaranta, M., & Martini, S. (2016). Does the economy really matter for satisfaction with democracy? Longitudinal and cross-country evidence from the European Union. Electoral Studies, 42, 164–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1995). Rationality in political behavior. Political Psychology, 16, 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, M. M. (2011). Who says ‘it is the economy’? Cross-national and cross- individual variation in the salience of economic performance. Comparative Political Studies, 44, 284–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, S. (2014). Not all election winners are equal: Satisfaction with democracy and the nature of the vote. European Journal of Political Research, 53(2), 308–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, S., Lago, I., & Blais, A. (2011). Winning and competitiveness as determinants of political support. Social Science Quarterly, 92(3), 695–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stroud, N. J. (2014). Selective exposure theories. In K. Kenski & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication (pp. 531–549). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torcal, M., Martini, S., & Orriols, L. (2018). Deciding about the unknown: The effect of party and ideological cues on forming opinions about the European Union. European Union Politics. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116518769754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Brug, W., van der Eijk, C., & Franklin, M. (2007). The Economy and the Vote: Economic Conditions and Elections in Fifteen Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van der Meer, T. W. G. (2010). In what we trust? A multi-level study into trust in parliament as an evaluation of state characteristics. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76(3), 517–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Meer, T. W. G., & Hakhverdian, A. (2017). Political trust as the evaluation of process and performance: A cross-national study of forty-two European democracies. Political Studies, 65(1), 81–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Elsas, E. (2015). Political trust as a rational attitude: A comparison of the nature of political trust across different levels of education. Political Studies, 63, 1158–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Erkel, P. E., & van der Meer, T. W. G. (2016). Macroeconomic performance, political trust and the great recession: A multilevel analysis of the effects of within-country fluctuations in macroeconomic performance on political trust in 15 EU countries, 1999–2011. European Journal of Political Research, 55(1), 177–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weakliem, D. L. (2002). The effects of education on political opinions: An international study. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14(2), 141–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaller, J. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zmerli, S., & Newton, K. (2011). Winners, losers and three types of trust. In M. Hooghe & S. Zmerli (Eds.), Political Trust: Why Context Matters (pp. 67–94). Essex: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zmerli, S., Newton, K., & Montero, J. R. (2007). Trust in people, confidence in political institutions, and satisfaction with democracy. In J. W. van Deth, J. R. Montero, & A. Westholm (Eds.), Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies: A Comparative Analysis (pp. 35–65). London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social, Political and Cognitive Sciences, Università di Siena, Siena, Italy

    Sergio Martini

  2. Department of Sociology and Social Research, Università di Trento, Trento, Italy

    Mario Quaranta

Authors
  1. Sergio Martini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mario Quaranta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Quaranta .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Martini, S., Quaranta, M. (2020). Individual Theories and the Role of Context. In: Citizens and Democracy in Europe. Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21633-7_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation