Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published October 2001

Winners, Losers, and Attitudes about Government in Contemporary Democracies

Christopher J. Anderson and Yuliya V. TverdovaView all authors and affiliations
Volume 22, Issue 4
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512101022004003

Abstract

The article compares the effect of political majority and minority status on attitudes toward government in mature and newly established democracies. Specifically, it examines whether being in the majority translates into more positive attitudes toward government than being in the minority. Using surveys conducted by the International Social Survey Project (ISSP) in 12 democracies in 1996, it finds that being in the majority generally translates into more positive attitudes toward government. However, this effect is not of uniform magnitude across countries, nor does it affect all attitudes toward government equally. Specifically, the data show that being in the political majority or minority strongly affects attitudes toward the performance of the political system and the power of government, but does not affect people's levels of political efficacy in systematic ways.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

Get Access
1. Some social psychologists working in the area of behavioral decision making have found that behavior consistent with strict utility maximization assumptions cannot always be documented. See, for example, Thaler (1994), and several studies by Kahneman and his colleagues.
2. The International Social Survey Program (ISSP) is a continuing annual program of surveys covering topics important to social science research. The ISSP jointly develops modules dealing with important areas in the social sciences, fields the modules in a fifteen-minute supplement to the regular national surveys undertaken by the members, includes an extensive common core on background variables, and makes the data available to the social science community.
3. People's sense of whether the government had too much or too little power was measured as follows: “And what about the government? Does it have too much power or too little power?” Answer categories included: “far too much power,”“too much power,”“about the right amount of power,”“too little power,” and “far too little power.”
4. However, the weak effects for Ireland are in contrast to the findings reported in earlier analyses of the winner-loser distinction (cf. Anderson and Guillory, 1997; Norris, 1999), and the effects for Slovenia may well be the result of the multiparty nature of Slovenian politics.

References

Abelson, R.P. and M.J. Rosenberg (1958). “Symbolic Psycho-logic: A Model of Attitudinal Cognition.” Behavioral Science, 3: 1-13.
Google Scholar
Anderson, C.J. and C.A. Guillory (1997). “Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems.” American Political Science Review, 91: 66-81.
Google Scholar
Anderson, C.J. and A.J. LoTempio (1999). “Winning, Losing, and Political Trust in America.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA, September.
Google Scholar
Balch, G.J. (1974). “Multiple Indicators in Survey Research: The Concept `Sense of Political Efficacy'.” Political Methodology, 1: 1-43.
Google Scholar
Brehm, J.W. (1962). “Motivational Effects of Cognitive Dissonance.” In Explorations in Cognitive Dissonance (J.W. Brehm and A.R. Cohen, eds.), 131-159. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Google Scholar
Campbell, A., G.Gurin, and W.E. Miller (1954). The Voter Decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Google Scholar
Citrin, J. and D.Green (1986). “Presidential Leadership and the Resurgence of Trust in Government.” British Journal of Political Science, 16: 431-453.
Google Scholar
Clarke, H.D. and A.C. Acock (1989). “National Elections and Political Attitudes: The Case of Political Efficacy.” British Journal of Political Science, 19: 551-562.
Google Scholar
Clarke, H.D. and A. Kornberg (1992). “Do National Elections Affect Perceptions of MP Responsiveness: A Note on the Canadian Case.” Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17: 183-204.
Google Scholar
Dahl, R. (1971). Polyarchy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Google Scholar
Donovan, T. and S. Bowler (2000). “Direct Democracy, Political Efficacy, and Cynicism.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April.
Google Scholar
Easton, D. (1953). The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Knopf.
Google Scholar
Easton, D. (1965). A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley.
Google Scholar
Easton, D. (1975). “A Re-Assessment of the Concept of Political Support.” British Journal of Political Science, 5: 435-437.
Google Scholar
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Google Scholar
Festinger, L. (1964). Conflict, Decision, and Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Google Scholar
Finkel, S.E., E.N. Muller, and M.A. Seligson (1989). “Economic Crisis, Incumbent Performance and Regime Support: A Comparison of Longitudinal Data from West Germany and Costa Rica.” British Journal of Political Science, 19: 329-351.
Google Scholar
Frenkel, O. and A. Doob (1976). “Postdecision Dissonance at the Polling Booth.” Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 8: 347-350.
Google Scholar
Fuchs, D., G.Guidorossi, and P. Svensson (1995). “Support for the Democratic System.” In Citizens and the State (H.D.Klingemann and D.Fuchs, eds.), 323-353. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Gabriel, O.W. (1989). “Regierungswechsel und politische Unterstützung: Implikationen des Parteienwettbewerbs für die Struktur politischer Unterstützung in der Demokratie.” Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 30: 75-93.
Google Scholar
Gibson, J.L. (2000). “Being Democratic in a Deeply Divided Society: Racial, Ethnic, Linguistic Conflict Over Democratic Values in the New South Africa.” Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April.
Google Scholar
Ginsberg, B. and R.Weissberg (1978). “Elections and the Mobilization of Popular Support.” American Journal of Political Science, 22: 31-55.
Google Scholar
Guinier, L. (1998). Lift Every Voice. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Google Scholar
Holmberg, S. (1999). “Down and Down We Go: Political Trust in Sweden.” In Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government (P.Norris, ed.), 103-122. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Huntington, S. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
Google Scholar
International Social Survey Program (ISSP) (1996). Computer file. Ann Arbor, MI: ICPSR.
Google Scholar
Jaggers, K. and T.R. Gurr (1995). “Tracking Democracy's Third Wave with the Polity III Data.” Journal of Peace Research, 32: 469-482.
Google Scholar
Joslyn, M.R. (1998). “Opinion Change After the Election.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, September.
Google Scholar
Joslyn, M.R. (1999). “The Impact of Elections on Popular Beliefs About Government.” Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April.
Google Scholar
Kaase, M. and K.Newton (1995). Beliefs in Government. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (1994). “New Challenges to the Rationality Assumption.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics—Zeitschrift Für die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 150: 18-36.
Google Scholar
Klingemann, H.D. (1999). “Mapping Political Support in the 1990s: A Global Analysis.” In Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government (P.Norris, ed.), 31-56. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Knight, J. (1992). Institutions and Social Conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Kornberg, A. and H.D. Clarke (1994). “Beliefs about Democracy and Satisfaction with Democratic Government: The Canadian Case.” Political Research Quarterly, 47: 537-563.
Google Scholar
Lambert, R.D., J.E. Curtis, S.D. Brown, and B.J. Kay (1986). “Effects of Identification with Governing Parties on Feelings of Political Efficacy and Trust.” Canadian Journal of Political Science, 19: 705-728.
Google Scholar
Lane, R.E. (1959). Political Life. Why People Get Involved in Politics. New York: The Free Press.
Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. (1953). Politics: Who Gets What When and How. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1994). “Democracies: Forms, Performance, and Constitutional Engineering.” European Journal of Political Research, 25: 1-17.
Google Scholar
Lipset, S.M. (1959). Political Man: The Social Bases of Poltics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Google Scholar
Lopez Pina, A., P. McDonough, and S.H. Barnes (1994). “The Nature of Political Support and Legitimacy in Spain.” Comparative Political Studies, 27: 349-380.
Google Scholar
McGuire, W. J. (1968). “Theory and the Structure of Human Thought.” In Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook (R.P. Abelson, ed.), 140-162. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Google Scholar
Mishler, W. and R. Rose. (1997) “Trust, Distrust and Skepticism: Popular Evaluations of Civil and Political Institutions in Post-Communist Societies.” Journal of Politics, 59: 418-451.
Google Scholar
Nadeau, R. and A. Blais (1993). “Accepting the Election Outcome: The Effect of Participation on Losers' Consent.” British Journal of Political Science, 23: 553-563.
Google Scholar
Norris, P. (1999). “Institutional Explanations for Political Support.” In Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government (P. Norris, ed.), 217-235. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Powell, G. B. (1982). Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability and Violence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Powell, G. B. (1986). “Extremist Parties and Political Turmoil: Two Puzzles.” American Journal of Political Science, 30: 357-378.
Google Scholar
Regan, D.T. and M. Kilduff (1988). “Optimism About Elections: Dissonance Reduction at the Ballot Box.” Political Psychology, 9: 101-107.
Google Scholar
Riker, W.H. (1965). Democracy in the United States (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Google Scholar
Riker W.H. (1982). Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. San Francisco: W.H.Freeman.
Google Scholar
Riker, W.H. (1983). “Political Theory and the Art of Heresthetics.” In Political Science: The State of the Discipline (A.W. Finifter, ed.), 47-67. Washington: American Political Science Association.
Google Scholar
Rousseau, D.L., C. Gelpi, D. Reiner, and P.H. Huth (1996). “Assessing the Dyadic Nature of the Democratic Peace, 1918-88.” American Political Science Review, 90: 512-533.
Google Scholar
Seligson, M.A. (1993). “Political Culture and Regime Type: Evidence from Nicaragua and Cost Rica.” Journal of Politics, 55: 777-792.
Google Scholar
Stricker, G. (1964). “The Operation of Cognitive Dissonance on Pre- and Post-Election Attitudes.” Journal of Social Psychology, 63: 111-119.
Google Scholar
Thaler, R. (1994). The Winner's Curse: Paradoxes and Anomalies of Economic Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5: 297-323.
Google Scholar
Vetter, A. (forthcoming). “Frischer Wind in einer alten Beziehung? Political Efficacy und die Bundestagswahlen 1998.” In Wirklich ein Volk? Die politischen Einstellungen von Ost- und Westdeutschen im Vergleich (J.W. Falter, O.W. Gabriel, and H.Rattinger, eds.). Opladen: Leske & Budrich.
Google Scholar
Whiteley, P.F. and P. Seyd (1998). “The Dynamics of Party Activism in Britain: A Spiral of Demobilization?” British Journal of Political Science, 28: 113-137.
Google Scholar

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Volume 22, Issue 4
Pages: 321 - 338
Article first published: October 2001
Issue published: October 2001

Keywords

  1. Elections
  2. Government trust
  3. Political trust
  4. Satisfaction
  5. Winners and losers

Rights and permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Christopher J. Anderson
View all articles by this author

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in International Political Science Review.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 818

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016

Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores


Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 26 view articles Opens in new tab

Crossref: 0

  1. State Pride and the Quality of Democracy in the American States
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  2. Can political parties narrow the intra-party winner-loser gap? An expe...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  3. Election integrity across Europe: who thinks elections are held fairly...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  4. The normatively troubling impact of attitudes toward the role of money...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  5. When the tables turn: Parties in power, losers’ consent, and instituti...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  6. From ideological congruence to satisfaction with democracy: how levera...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  7. Does the Election Winner–Loser Gap Extend to Subjective Health and Wel...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  8. Perils of political engagement? Examining the relationship between onl...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  9. Same same…but different?
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  10. Considerations of American Democracy, Feeling Like a Loser, and Suppor...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  11. Winning & losing in coalition systems. A quasi-experimental study of t...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  12. Uncooperative society, uncooperative politics or both? Trust, polariza...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  13. Mind the gap(s): Winning, losing, and perceptions of electoral integri...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  14. Political support through representation by the government. Evidence f...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  15. Perceived party differences, election outcomes, and satisfaction with ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  16. Losers’ consent and emotions in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  17. Extraversion and External Efficacy: The Moderating Role of Corruption
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  18. Consultative referendums and democracy - assessing the short-term effe...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  19. Revisiting the Winner–loser Gap in Support for Democracy: Exploring El...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  20. Perceptions of polarization among political representatives
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  21. Are elite cues necessary to drive the “Winner Effect” on trust in elec...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  22. Ranked-Choice Voting and Democratic Attitudes
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  23. Electoral outcomes and support for Westminster democracy
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  24. Affective Polarization and the Populist Radical Right: Creating the Ha...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  25. Right-wing populist parties and their appeal to pro-redistribution vot...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  26. Regime types and winner-loser Gaps in support for democracy in East As...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  27. Research note: Office participation and the dissipating populism-distr...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  28. European Union Funding-an element for predictable business success?
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  29. Electoral integrity matters: how electoral process conditions the rela...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  30. When populists win: How right-wing populism affects democratic satisfa...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  31. Institutions, political attitudes or personal values? A multilevel inv...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  32. The Partisan Origins of Economic Perceptions in a Weak Party System: E...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  33. Permissive Winners? The Quality of Democracy and the Winner–Loser Gap ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  34. From election day to presidential approval: Partisanship and the honey...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  35. How the Referendum Changed Scotland: Engagement, Polarisation and Lose...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  36. The Effect of Partisan Representation at Different Levels of Governmen...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  37. When election expectations fail: Polarized perceptions of election leg...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  38. The impact of election outcome on internal political efficacy: The rol...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  39. Voting and winning: perceptions of electoral integrity in consolidatin...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  40. Having a say or getting your way? Political choice and satisfaction wi...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  41. Suffer little children: Power, boundaries and the epistemology of igno...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  42. Measuring electoral integrity: using practitioner knowledge to assess ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  43. Does sophistication increase partisan bias? Evidence from a cross-nati...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  44. Preferences for consensus and majoritarian democracy: long- and short-...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  45. Partisanship and generalized trust in response to the 2016 U.S. presid...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  46. The Lingering Effects of Losing and Nonvoting on Institutional Trust: ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  47. Affective polarization in multiparty systems
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  48. Emotions, cognitions and moderation: understanding losers’ consent in ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  49. How Democracy Works: Divergent Perspectives of Representatives and Cit...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  50. Conservatism positively predicted fading affect bias in the 2016 ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  51. Backlash against the procedural consensus
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  52. Winners, losers, and the others: Disaggregating South Korean satisfact...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  53. Undermining or defending democracy? The consequences of distrust for d...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  54. Economic Expectations and Satisfaction with Democracy: Evidence from I...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  55. ‘You Can't Always Get What You Want’: The effects of winning and losin...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  56. Partisan responses to democracy promotion – Estimating the causal effe...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  57. The paranoid style of American elections: explaining perceptions of el...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  58. The influence of “dark networks” on citizens’ confidence in democratic...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  59. On the front lines of democracy: perceptions of electoral officials an...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  60. Ethnic identity and perceptions of the police in Turkey: the case of K...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  61. The Hillary Hypotheses: Testing Candidate Views of Loss
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  62. On the Subjectivity of the Experience of Victory: Who Are the Election...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  63. ¿Qué influye en la confianza en las instituciones? Evidencia empírica ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  64. Winners, Losers, and Perceptions of Vote (Mis)Counting
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  65. Globalization and the Transformation of Political Attitude Structures ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  66. The Concept of Political Confidence
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  67. “It’s Largely a Rigged System”: Voter Confidence and the Winner Effect...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  68. Public support of transport policy instruments, perceived transport qu...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  69. Social media echo chambers and satisfaction with democracy among Democ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  70. Going back to the well: A panel study into the election boost of polit...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  71. Public Perceptions of Clean Elections in Mexico: An Analysis of the 20...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  72. Does fraud trump partisanship? The impact of contentious elections on ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  73. Losers’ and Non-voters’ Consent: Democratic Satisfaction in the 2009 a...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  74. The Effects of Government System Fractionalization on Satisfaction Wit...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  75. Campaign finance and perceptions of interest group influence in Austra...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  76. When the choice is made matters: voting in Japan’s 2012 House of Repre...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  77. A General Model of Strategic Voting
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  78. Winning hearts & minds (!)...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  79. The dynamics of the winner–loser gap in satisfaction with democracy: E...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  80. Inter‐level Trust in a Multilevel Political System
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  81. The costs of electoral fraud: establishing the link between electoral ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  82. What Drives Political Participation? Motivations and Mobilization in a...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  83. The perils of semi-presidentialism: Confidence in political institutio...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  84. Malaise as a Symptom of Conflict: Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay in Com...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  85. How governing experience conditions winner-loser effects. An empirical...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  86. Elections as a democratic linkage mechanism: How elections boost polit...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  87. The conditional impact of winner/loser status and ideological proximit...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  88. EU enlargement and satisfaction with democracy: a peculiar case of imm...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  89. Losing Happily? The Mitigating Effect of Democracy and Quality of Gove...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  90. Party responsiveness and voter confidence in Australia
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  91. Winning is not everything: Public perceptions of losers and non-voters...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  92. Strange bedfellows: Coalition makeup and perceptions of democratic per...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  93. Winning, Losing, and the Dynamics of External Political Efficacy
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  94. Does a Growing Income Gap Affect Political Attitudes?
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  95. Partisanship and confidence in the vote count: Evidence from U.S. nati...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  96. Public evaluations of electoral institutions in Mexico: An analysis of...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  97. Assessing the Stability of Trust in Government Across Election Periods...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  98. When Winners Feel Like Losers: Evidence from an Energy Subsidy Reform
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  99. Losers’ Consent or Non-Voter Consent? Satisfaction with Democracy in E...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  100. Dynamics of Democratic Satisfaction in Transitional Settings...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  101. The Democratic Deficit in South Korea: The 2012 Presidential Election ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  102. Is trust in government a short-term strategic value or a long-term dem...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  103. Winners, losers and the Grand Coalition: Political satisfaction in the...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  104. Efficacy, Political
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  105. Migrant Political Participation and Voting Behavior in Romania
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  106. The Declining Representativeness of the British Party System, and Why ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  107. Responsiveness and the rules of the game: How disproportionality struc...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  108. Political consumerism: Civic engagement and the social media connectio...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  109. El Estado, los movimientos sociales y el ciudadano de a pie: exploraci...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  110. The Impact of Political Conviction on the Relation Between Winning or ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  111. Understanding the Rules of the Game: Evidence From T ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  112. The Eroding Effect of Corruption on System Support in S ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  113. La légitimité politique en Amérique latine : exercices de cartographie...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  114. Do Culture and Institutions Matter? Explaining the Sources of Cross‐Na...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  115. Nail-biters and no-contests: The effect of electoral margins on satisf...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  116. Elections and Public Satisfaction with Democracy: Process and Result
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  117. Satisfaction with Democracy in Multi-ethnic Countries: The Effect of R...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  118. Ethnicity and Trust in National and International Institutions: Kurdis...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  119. Unhappy, Uninformed, or Uninterested? Understanding “None of the Above...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  120. Predicting intention to uptake H1N1 influenza vaccine in a university ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  121. Making Democratic Citizens...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  122. Satisfaction with Democracy and the Winner/Loser Debate: The Role of P...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  123. Social Media Use for News and Individuals' Social Capital, Civic Engag...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  124. Differentiating winners: How elections affect satisfaction with democr...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  125. Minimizing the losers: regime satisfaction in multi-level systems
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  126. Ideological Congruence and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-Nation...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  127. FREEDOM TO CHOOSE AND DEMOCRACY: THE EMPIRICAL QUESTION
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  128. Winning and Competitiveness as Determinants of Political Support ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  129. Is there really a turnout paradox?
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  130. The Mediating Role of Knowledge and Efficacy in the Effects of Communi...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  131. Cultural Explanations of Electoral Reform: A Policy Cycle Model
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  132. Electoral losers revisited – How citizens react to defeat at the ballo...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  133. Political Efficacy of Emerging Elites in Post-Socialist Countries: The...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  134. Generalized trust and political support: A cross-national investigatio...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  135. Citizens’ Views on Electoral Governance in Mexico
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  136. Electoral and structural losers and support for a national referendum ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  137. Citizen Dissatisfaction with the US Presidential Primary System
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  138. Cultural Explanations of Electoral Reform: A Policy Cycle Model
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  139. Institutional Incentives and Trust: Marginalized Groups and the Creati...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  140. Mapping political legitimacy in Latin America
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  141. Strategic Voting and Legislative Redistricting Reform...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  142. The quality of institutions and satisfaction with democracy in Western...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  143. Cross‐National Analyses of Satisfaction with Democracy and Ideological...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  144. Social Trust and Attitudes Toward Democracy
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  145. The Paradox of Term Limit Support: To Know Them Is NOT to Love Them
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  146. Winning, Losing and Satisfaction with Democracy
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  147. Winners, Losers, and Election Context: Voter Responses to the 2000 Pre...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  148. Protest Voting in Austria, Denmark, and Norway
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  149. Satisfaction with democracy: A note on a frequently used indicator in ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  150. Corruption, Political Allegiances, and Attitudes Toward Government in ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  151. Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:

Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Subscribe to this journal

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

Start 2 week free trial
Need help?

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub
Download PDF

Also from Sage