GROUP IDENTIFICATION and VOTING

This paper develops and defends the notion that group identification increases the likelihood that an individual will decide to vote (as opposed to deciding not to vote) in any given election. The notion is developed and defended on both theoretical and empirical grounds.

The paper itself can be divided into three sections. The first section offers a brief delineation of the Rational Choice and Collective Action models of political/voting behavior, justifying their use in the development of the group identification/decision-to-vote relationship on the grounds that they have been frequently used as explanative frameworks for voting behavior.

The second section of the paper defines group identification and reviews several studies of the effects of group identification on voting decisions. The third and final section of the paper delineates a rational choice model of how group identification motivates individuals to participate rather than refrain from casting a ballot.

Group Identification and Voting Behavior: Theoretical Foundations

As noted by Parsons (1954), theory is central to an understanding of most any sociological phenomena in that it provides clarity and context to the phenomena of interest. Over the last several decades, there have been two theoretical models that are consistently cited in the sociological literature exploring group identification and voting behavio

. . .
e's socioeconomic group or one's surrounding community or geographic location can exert effects on voting behavior. This fact can be seen in a study conducted by Abrams and Emler (1992) who explored for the effects of regional social identity on the voting patterns of two cohorts of young people (total N = 4,591), drawn randomly from state school registers of people who had been ages 1518 in 1987 and 1985, respectively. The findings of the study showed that individuals tended to strongly identify with their local community, with those having the strongest identification being most likely to vote in line with how the community as a whole voted. Identification with groups can vary depending upon the nature of the groups themselves. For example, Eshleman, Cashion and Basirico (1988) report that social groups vary in terms of: a) interaction among members; b) degree of shared interests, values, norms, and goals; c) structure; and d) one's sense of belongingness. Regarding membership in a given socioeconomic or even regional collective, it seems reasonable to state that due to factors such as the huge size of such collectives, these are more properly statistical parameters than they are social groups. As such, any given ind
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Johnson Burton, Choice Model, Cashion Basirico, According Tamney, Collective Action, Social Surveys, Abrams Emler, Analysis Variance, Behavior Wilcox, York City, voting behavior, rational choice, religious identification, rational choice model, choice model, decision vote, ethnic identification, costs voting, party identification, identification voting, associated voting, identification voting behavior, effects voting behavior, decision cast ballot, identification effects voting,
Approximate Word count = 3608
Approximate Pages = 14 (250 words per page)