What are three factors that influence voters decisions?

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i5.1679

Published 2020-12-25

• Z Kuşağı, Oy Verme Davranışı, Sosyal Medya, Politik İlgilenim, Referans Grup
• Generation Z, Voting Behavior, Social Media, Political Involvement, Reference Group

1. LITERATURE

Voting Behavior is a complex and challenging process. Many rational or irrational factors can influence voters. There are three different voting approaches in the literature in this complex process. These are expressed as sociological, psychological and rational (economic) approach (Kalender, 2005). According to the sociological approach (also known as Columbia school), voters can be influenced by the behavior of the social groups. In addition to this, some factors such as residence, economic status and religion are also influential in elections. Secondly, according to the socio-psychological approach, also known as the Michigan school, the voter has a party's historical affection. According to the rational approach, the voter decides by considering his / her interests and making a cost-benefit analysis as in the purchasing decision.

The subject of this study is to determine some factors that may be effective in these three approaches. Since the generation z is the study sample, the effect of social media, reference group and political interest has been a subject of curiosity.

• Research Purpose and Importance

The study investigates the voting behaviour of generation Z, who expressed as children of the technology. Approximately 7 million young voters will vote in the general elections of 2023. Therefore, examining the factors that can affect young voters' voting decisions will be a guide for especially political parties.

• Contribution of the Article to the Literature

The study contributes to foreign and domestic literature by examining the relationship between social media, references group, political involvement and voting behaviour of young people.

1. DESIGN AND METHOD

The study was designed as a research article to analyze which factors would affect young voters' sociological, socio-psychological and rational voting behaviour.

Determining what factors affect the voting behaviour of young voters is a research problem of the study.

The universe of the study is the generation Z, born in and around 2000. The data were obtained from 182 participants using a web-based questionnaire. Participants were determined by convenience sampling method.

• Quantitative / Qualitative Analysis

Using a quantitative research method, the research model was tested with PLS (Partial Least Squares) based structural equation modelling. SPSS v 23 statistics program was also used for classification of data.

The research model designed within the aim of the study is summarized in Figure 1 as below. The hypotheses developed based on the research model are listed as follows:

H1: Social media is effective in socio-psychological voting behaviour.

H2: Social media is effective in rational voting behaviour.

H3: Social media is effective in sociological voting behaviour.

H4: The reference group effect is effective in socio-psychological voting behaviour.

H5: The reference group effect is effective in rational voting behaviour.

H6: The reference group effect is effective in sociological voting behaviour.

H7: Political involvement is effective on socio-psychological voting behaviour.

H8: Political involvement is effective in rational voting behaviour.

H9: Political involvement is effective in sociological voting behaviour.

Social Media

Socio-Psychological Voting

Reference Group Effect

Rational Voting

Political Involvement

Sociological Voting

SP

RO

RE

SO

SM

PI

Figure 1. The Research Model

The survey method was used to collect data in the study. One hundred eighty-two voters participated in the research questionnaire. 69.8% of the participants (127 people) were female, and 30.2% (55 people) were male. The sample's age group was the generation Z. Young voters in different 36 provinces participated in the survey.

According to findings obtained from the study using the SmartPLS measurement model, H1, H2 hypotheses were supported, but H3 hypothesis was not supported. While social media affects socio-psychological and rational voting behaviour, it does not affect sociological voting behaviour. Secondly, H4 and H6 hypotheses were supported, but H5 hypothesis was not supported. That is, reference group influence affects socio-psychological and sociological voting behaviour, but not on rational voting behaviour. Lastly, H7 hypothesis was supported, but H8, H9 hypotheses were not supported. In other words, It is seen that the political involvement of the voters only affect socio-psychological voting behaviour and not on rational voting and sociological voting behaviour.

1. CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION AND LIMITATIONS

When the results are examined in general, it is seen that the common side of all three independent variables is practical on socio-psychological voting behaviour. In the socio-psychological approach, an emotional commitment based on childhood is mentioned. Individuals are more easily affected by their families or peers at an early age because young voters may not know to make politically rational decisions. On the other hand, their political commitment in the sociological approach may not have fully developed and internalized what social values bring. For these reasons, it can be stated that the young Z generation tends to vote socio-psychologically.

This study can guide political parties and leaders on how to persuade and interact with young people. These young voters who will participate in democracy constitute an important voter group, especially in Turkey with a large young population. Therefore, political parties should not adopt a general approach but should take into account generational differences. Political parties should analyze the differences between generations well.

The research was conducted with a limited number of variables and samples. Different results may occur in studies with different generations, different demographic characteristics, or more participation. Especially in countries with a large young population, different variables that can be effective in voting behaviour may be studied as other research topics. We hope that this study will contribute to the people who want to work in this field and political parties.

1. Akgün, B. (2002), Türkiye'de Seçmen Davranışı, Partiler Sistemi ve Siyasal Güven. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara.
2. Aydın, K. & Özbek, V. (2004), Ailenin Seçmen Davranışları Üzerindeki Etkisi. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8, 144-167.
3. Bagozzi, R.P. & Yi, Y. (1988), On The Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (1), 74-94.
4. Bayraktutan, G., Binark, M., Çomu, T., Doğu, B., İslamoğlu, G. & Aydemir, A. (2012), Sosyal Medyada 2011 Genel Seçimleri: Nicel-Nitel Arayüz İncelemesi. Selçuk İletişim, 7 (3), 5-29.
5. Bearden, W.O. & Etzel, M.J. (1982), Reference Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (2), 183-194.
6. Biswas, A., Ingle, N. & Roy, M. (2014), Influence of Social Media on Voting Behavior. Journal of Power, Politics & Governance, 2 (2), 127-155.
7. Bond, R.M., Fariss, C.F., Jones, J.J., Kramer, A.D.I., Marlow, C., Settle, J.E. & Fowler, J.H. (2012), A 61-Million-Person Experiement in Social Influence and Political Mobilization. Nature, 489, 295-298.
8. Brogan, J.V. (1996), A Mirror of Enlightenment: The Rational Choice Debate. The Review of Politics, 58 (4), 793-806.
9. Cwalina, W., Falkowski, A., Newman, B.I. (2011), Political marketing: Theoretical and strategic foundations. Routledge, New York.
10. Çağlar, N. & Asığbulmuş, H. (2017), X ve Y Kuşaklarının Siyasal Davranışında Sosyal Medyanın Etkisi: Gaziosmanpaşa İlçesinde Bir Araştrma. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4 (29), 85-112.
11. Çaylak, P. & Tolon, M. (2013), Ağızdan ağza pazarlama ve tüketicilerin ağızdan ağza pazarlamayı kullanımları üzerine bir araştırma. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 15 (3), 1-30.
12. Çildan C., Ertemiz, M., Küçük, E., Tumuçin, H.K. & Albayrak, D. (2012), Sosyal Medyanın Politik Katılım ve Hareketlerdeki Rolü. Akademik Bilişim 2012 Konferansı. https://ab.org.tr/ab12/bildiri/205.pdf
13. Çinko, L. (2006), Seçmen Davranışları ile Ekonomik Performans Arasındaki İlişkilerin Teorik Temelleri ve Türkiye Üzerine Genel Bir Değerlendirme. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 61 (1), 104-116.
14. Dean, D. & Croft, R. (2009), Reason and Choice: A Conceptual Study of Consumer Decision Making and Electoral Behavior. Journal of Political Marketing, 8 (2), 130-146.
15. Dölarslan, E. Ş. (2015), Tüketicilerin Ürün İlgilenim ve Bilgi Düzeyinin Marka Sadakatine Etkisinin Fikir Liderliği Kapsamında Değerlendirilmesi. Pazarlama ve Pazarlama Araştırmaları Dergisi, 15, 23-48.
16. Dursunoğlu, İ. (2017), Sosyal Medya ve Siyasal Davranış İlişkisi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 22, 1579-1585.
17. Duygu, N.İ. (2017), Politik Pazarlama Sürecine İlişkin Kavramsal Bir Model: 3P Modeli. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
18. Ercins, G. (2007), Türkiye’de Sosyo-Ekonomik Faktörlere Bağlı Olarak Değişen Seçmen Davranışı. C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 8 (2), 25-40.
19. Erdinç, İ. E. (2012), Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Oy Verme Davranışlarında Etkili Olan Faktörlere Yönelik Bir Araştırma. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi İletişim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2 (1), 55-70.
20. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating Structural Models With Unobservables Variables And Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39-50.
21. Gürbüz, G. (2014), Sosyal Medya ve Demokrasi İlişkisi: Türkiye’de Sosyal Medyanın Katılımcı Demokrasiye Etkisi Üzerine Bir Alan Araştırması. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Erzurum.
22. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. & Mena, J.A., (2012), An Assessment of The Use of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling in Marketing Research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (3), 414-433.
23. Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. & Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer On Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (Pls-Sem). Sage Publications.
24. Heywood, A. (2006), Siyaset, Çev. Bekir Berat Özipek, Bican Şahin, Mete Yildiz, Zeynep Kopuzlu, Bahattin Seçilmişoğlu, Atilla Yayla, Ed. Buğra Kalkan. (Liberte Yayinlari, Ankara).
25. Hulland, J. (1999), Use Of Partial Least Squares (PLS) In Strategic Management Research: A Review Of Four Recent Studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20 (2), 195-204.
26. Iyer, P., Yazdanparast, A. & Strutton, D. (2017), Examining The Effectiveness of WOM/E-WOM Communications Across Age-Based Cohorts: Implications For Political Marketers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 34 (7), 646-663.
27. Kalender, A. (2005), Siyasal İletişim, Seçmenler ve İkna Stratejileri. Çizgi Kitabevi, Konya.
28. Kavak, B. & Dinçer, E. (2020), Tüketicilerin Referans Gruplardan Etkilenme Biçimleri Duygusal Zeka ile Açıklanabilir mi? Tüketici ve Tüketim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12 (1), 187-216.
29. Kavalcı, K. & Ünal, S. (2016), Y ve Z Kuşaklarının Öğrenme Stilleri ve Tüketici Karar Verme Tarzları Açısından Karşılaştırılması. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20 (3), 1033-1050.
30. Koç, F. (2020), Politik Pazarlama Kapsamında Seçmenlerin İlgilenim Düzeylerinin İncelenmesi. arcobar, 1 (1), 41-49.
31. Kushin, M.J. & Yamamoto, M. (2010), Did Social Media Really Matter? College Students' Use of Online Media and Political Decision Making in the 2008 Election. Mass Communication and Society, 13 (5), 608-630.
32. Lyons, B. & Henderson, K. (2005, Opinion leadership in a Computer-Mediated Environment. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 4 (5), 319-329.
33. Munir, S. (2018), Social Media and Shaping Voting Behavior of Youth: The Scottish Referendum 2014 Case. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 7 (1), 253-279.
34. Nagy, S. (2017), The Impact of Country of Origin In Mobile Phone Choice of Generation Y and Z. Journal of Management and Training for Industries, 4 (2), 16-29.
35. O'cass A. & Nataraajan, R. (2003), At The Polls. Journal of Political Marketing, 2 (2), 67-81.
36. O'Cass, A. & Pecotich, A. (2005), The Dynamics of Voter Behavior and Influence Processes in Electoral Markets: A Consumer Behavior Perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58, 406-413.
37. O'Cass, A. (2000), An assessment of consumers product, purchase decision, advertising and consumption involvement in fashion clothing. Journal of Economic Psychology, 21, 545-576.
38. O'Cass, A. (2002), Political advertising believability and information source value during elections. Journal of Advertising, 31 (1), 63-74.
39. Özbek, V. (2003), Ailenin Seçmen Davranışları Üzerindeki Etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Kocaeli.
40. Öztürk, R. (2017), Siyasal Pazarlamanın Seçmen Davranışlarına Etkisinde Ağızdan Ağıza İletişimin Aracılık Rolü: Konya İli Örneği. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
41. Priporas, C.V., Stylos, N & Fotiadis, A.K. (2017), Generation Z Consumers' Expectations of Interactions in Smart Retailing: A Future Agenda. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 374-381.
42. Podoshen, J.S. (2008), The African American consumer revisited: brand loyalty, word of mouth and the effects of the black experience. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25 (4), 211–222.
43. Şahin, Ö.E. & Ergen, A. (2016), Kitle İletişim Araçları Kullanım Amaçlarının Siyasi İlgilenim Üzerine Etkisi. Uluslararası Hakemli İletişim ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13, 1-19.
44. Tehci, A. & Yıldız, S. (2020), Siyasal Pazarlama Sürecinde Sosyal Medya ve Elektronik Ağızdan Ağıza İletişime Yönelik Yapısal bir Model Önerisi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 15 (1), 95-118.
45. Temizel, M. (2012), Türkiye’de Seçmen Davranışlarında Sosyopsikolojik, Kültürel ve Dinsel Faktörlerin Rolü: Kuramsal ve Ampirik Bir Çalışma. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Konya.
46. Teyyare, E. & Avcı, M. (2016), Yerel Seçimlerde Seçmen Davranışları: 2014 Yerel Seçimleri ve Zonguldak İli Örneği. Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4 (1), 51-76.
47. Thomas, M.R., Kavya, V. & Monica, M. (2018), Online Website Cues Influencing the Purchase Intention of Generation Z Meidated By Trust. Indian Journal of Commerce & Management Studies, 9 (1), 13-23.
48. Toklu, İ.T. & Tuygun Toklu, A. (2015), Zeytinyağının İçsel ve Dışsal İşaretlerine Tüketicilerin Tepkisi: Nicel Bir Araştırma. International Review of Economics and Management, 3 (1), 61-84.
49. TÜİK (2020), İstatistiklerle Gençlik 2019. https://tuikweb.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=33731
50. Tuygun Toklu, A. (2019), Çevresel Bilinç Yeşil Davranışı Etkiler mi? Türkiye’nin Doğu Karadeniz Bölgesinde Bir Araştırma. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11 (4), 2799-2811.
51. Tuygun Toklu, A. (2020), Genç Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Girişimcilik Niyeti üzerinde Planlı Davranış Teorisi ile birlikte Fırsatları Görme ve Teşvik Desteğinin Etkisi. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8 (3), 753-762.
52. Ventura, R. (2001), Family Political Socialization in Multiparty Systems. Comparative Political Studies, 34 (6), 666-691.
53. Yılmaz, E. (2011), Sağlık hizmetlerinde ağızdan ağıza pazarlama. Marmara Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1, 1-19
54. Yoon, K., Pinkleton, B.E. & Ko, W. (2005), Effects of Negative Political Advertising on Voting Intention: An Exploration of the Roles of Involvement and Source Credibility in the Development of Voter Cynicism. Journal of Marketing Communications, 11 (2), 95-112.
55. Williams, K.C. & Page, R.A. (2011), Marketing to the Generations. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 3 (1), 1-17.
56. Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985), Measuring the Involvement Construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (3), 341-352.