IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v11y2022i5p206-d812123.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relationship of Work-Related Stress and Offline Social Leisure on Political Participation of Voters in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Oldřich Šubrt

    (Faculty of Law, University of Amsterdam, 1000 BA Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract

In the United States (US), citizens’ political participation is 15%. Contemporary psychological models explaining political participation are based on education and socioeconomic status, which are unable to explain the overall low political participation figures. The study suggests a holistic approach, with two societal tendencies: increasing work-related stress and diminishing offline social leisure, together with a mediating effect of participatory efficacy to assess associations with the political participation of US voters. The quantitative correlational study uses structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis on the General Social Survey representative sample of US voters ( N = 295, M age = 44.49, SD = 13.43), controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Work-related stress was not significantly associated with political participation ( β = 0.08, p = 0.09). Offline social leisure was positively associated with political participation ( β = 0.28, p < 0.001). The mediating effect of participatory efficacy on the relationship between offline social leisure and political participation was positive and significant ( β = 0.05, p < 0.001). Additional analyses, regression and SEM on the European Social Survey sample ( N = 27,604) boosted internal and external validity. Results indicate that offline social leisure is more predictive than education and socioeconomic status, showing that examining societal trends leads to a better understanding of political participation.

Suggested Citation

  • Oldřich Šubrt, 2022. "Relationship of Work-Related Stress and Offline Social Leisure on Political Participation of Voters in the United States," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-35, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:11:y:2022:i:5:p:206-:d:812123
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/11/5/206/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/11/5/206/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Angelo Antoci & Fabio Sabatini & Mauro Sodini, 2013. "Economic Growth, Technological Progress and Social Capital: The Inverted U Hypothesis," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 401-431, July.
    2. Lawrence F. Katz & Alan B. Krueger, 2019. "Understanding Trends in Alternative Work Arrangements in the United States," NBER Working Papers 25425, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Ellen Quintelier & Jan W. Deth, 2014. "Supporting Democracy: Political Participation and Political Attitudes. Exploring Causality Using Panel Data," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 62, pages 153-171, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joshua Greenstein, 2020. "The Precariat Class Structure and Income Inequality among US Workers: 1980–2018," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 52(3), pages 447-469, September.
    2. Fabio Sabatini & Francesco Sarracino, 2015. "Keeping up with the e-Joneses: Do online social networks raise social comparisons?," Papers 1507.08863, arXiv.org.
    3. Francesco Sarracino & Kelsey J. O’Connor, 2023. "Neo-humanism and COVID-19: Opportunities for a socially and environmentally sustainable world," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 18(1), pages 9-41, February.
    4. Cody Cook & Rebecca Diamond & Jonathan V Hall & John A List & Paul Oyer, 2021. "The Gender Earnings Gap in the Gig Economy: Evidence from over a Million Rideshare Drivers [Measuring the Gig Economy: Current Knowledge and Open Issues]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(5), pages 2210-2238.
    5. Datta, Nikhil, 2019. "Willing to pay for security: a discrete choice experiment to analyse labour supply preferences," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103390, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Mikucka, Malgorzata & Sarracino, Francesco & Dubrow, Joshua K., 2017. "When Does Economic Growth Improve Life Satisfaction? Multilevel Analysis of the Roles of Social Trust and Income Inequality in 46 Countries, 1981–2012," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 447-459.
    7. Christopher L. Foote & Tyler Hounshell & William D. Nordhaus & Douglas Rivers & Pamela Torola, 2021. "Measuring the US Employment Situation Using Online Panels: The Yale Labor Survey," Current Policy Perspectives 93422, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    8. Jason J Sandvik & Richard E Saouma & Nathan T Seegert & Christopher T Stanton, 2020. "Workplace Knowledge Flows," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(3), pages 1635-1680.
    9. Katharine G. Abraham & Brad Hershbein & Susan N. Houseman & Beth C. Truesdale, 2024. "The Independent Contractor Workforce: New Evidence on Its Size and Composition and Ways to Improve Its Measurement in Household Surveys," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 77(3), pages 336-365, May.
    10. Angelo Antoci & Fabio Sabatini & Mauro Sodini, 2014. "Bowling alone but tweeting together: the evolution of human interaction in the social networking era," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1911-1927, July.
    11. Coppier, Raffaella & Sabatini, Fabio & Sodini, Mauro, 2021. "Social Capital, Human Capital, And Fertility," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 632-650, April.
    12. Munnell, Alicia & Sanzenbacher, Geoffrey T. & Walters, Abigail N., 2021. "How do older workers use nontraditional jobs?," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 374-392, July.
    13. Belloc, Filippo & Burdin, Gabriel & Cattani, Luca & Ellis, William & Landini, Fabio, 2022. "Coevolution of job automation risk and workplace governance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    14. Fabio Sabatini & Francesca Modena & Ermanno Tortia, 2014. "Do cooperative enterprises create social trust?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 621-641, March.
    15. Adermon, Adrian & Hensvik, Lena, 2022. "Gig-jobs: Stepping stones or dead ends?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    16. Ganserer, Angelika & Gregory, Terry & Zierahn, Ulrich, 2022. "Minimum Wages and the Rise in Solo Self-Employment," IZA Discussion Papers 15283, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Fabio Sabatini & Francesco Sarracino, 2013. "Will Facebook save or destroy social capital? An empirical investigation into the effect of online interactions on trust and networks," Department of Economics University of Siena 692, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    18. Tito Boeri & Giulia Giupponi & Alan B. Krueger & Stephen Machin, 2020. "Solo Self-Employment and Alternative Work Arrangements: A Cross-Country Perspective on the Changing Composition of Jobs," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 34(1), pages 170-195, Winter.
    19. Rotondi, Valentina & Stanca, Luca & Tomasuolo, Miriam, 2017. "Connecting alone: Smartphone use, quality of social interactions and well-being," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 17-26.
    20. Angelo Antoci & Fabio Sabatini, 2018. "Online networks, social interaction and segregation: an evolutionary approach," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 859-883, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:11:y:2022:i:5:p:206-:d:812123. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.