Construction of a synthesized model of electoral behavior based on M. Archer’s dualism theory


Paper dwells upon approaches to the concept of electoral behaviour and emphasizes the importance of constructing a model based on the synthesis of macro- and microfactors that determine it and the one that takes into account the conditions of democratic processes development in Ukraine. The analysis of empirical studies shows that there is a lack of concepts in Ukrainian scientific theorizing that would explain the essence, content, and factors of influence on electoral behaviour in modern Ukrainian society, since empirical investigation continues to prevail in this area. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a multifactorial analysis of electoral behaviour based on the latest theoretical developments and up-to-date methods of empirical research, which would consider changes in theorizing in the present world sociological thought, and the methodological procedures proposed on their basis, which have been adapted to Ukrainian realities. Author has distinguished several classical approaches to the interpretation of electoral behaviour in the social sciences, in particular in sociology, social psychology and economics based on the analysis of relevant scientific literature of a multidisciplinary nature. Paper describes limitations and possibilities of using these approaches under modern conditions together with the heuristic possibilities of M. Archer’s theory of dualism, which modified according to Ukrainian specificity. This allowed providing a synthesized conceptual model for the study of electoral behaviour through the synthesis of macrofactors and agent’s actions, with the identification of relevant concepts and their definitions. In particular, personal factors include social status, socio-demographic characteristics, personal motives, level of political culture, political activity, level of trust to political institutions, affiliation to religious denomination, political socialization. Macro factors are divided into three groups: political, economic and cultural. Paper elaborates possible interdependence (correlation) of the actor’s (voter’s) action and macrostructures in the context of contemporary Ukrainian society. Three types of correlations are proposed to explain voter’s action and system features: correlation between systems, correlation between systems and voter action, correlation between voter actions (microfactors).

  1. Vishnyak, O. (2000). Electoral Sociology: History, Theory, Methods. Kyiv: The Institute of Sociology, NAS of Ukraine [in Ukranian]

  2. Lipset, S.M. (1959). Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy. The American Political Science Review, 53, 1, 69-105.

  3. Pylypenko, V., Popova, I., Vyshniak, O. (2007). Special and branch sociology. Kyiv: Foliant [in Ukranian]

  4. Zhvania, T. (2014). Electoral Behavior: Theoretical Approaches to Studying. Suchasne suspilstvo: politychni nauky – Modern Society: Political Science, 1, 39-49 [in Ukranian]

  5. Bun, V. (2014). Construction of integrative models of an electoral choice based on the methodology “funnel of causality”. Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu. Seriia filosofsko-politolohichni studii Visnuk of the Lviv University. Series Philosophical Political Studies, 5, 177-188 [in Ukranian]

  6. Pushkareva, G.V. (2003). The study of electoral behaviour: an outline of the cognitive model. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniyaPolis. Political Studies, 3, 120–130  [in Russian]

  7. McGann, A. (2016). Voting Choice and Rational Choice.

  8. Polishchuk, I.O. (2016). Conceptual and methodological bases of research electoral practices. Visnyk Nationalnoho universytety “Yurydychna akadeniia Ukrainy imeni Yaroslava Mudroho” – Visnyk of the National University “Yaroslav the Wise Law Academy of Ukraine”, 3 (30), 89-94 [in Ukranian]

  9. Archer, M.S. (2010). Morphogenesis versus structuration: on combining structure and action. The British Journal of Sociology. 225-152.

  10. Archer, M. (1995). Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  11. Newman, J. (2018). Morphogenetic theory and the constructivist institutionalist challenge. Journal for the theory of social behaviour, 49, 106-126.

  12. Frega, R. (2018). The Social Ontology of Democracy. Journal of Social Ontology, 4 (2), 157-185.

  13. Shields, R., Golabi, F., Ghoreishi, F., Bayani, F. (2018). The Ontology of Social Reality from Critical Realism’s Perspective; Focusing on the Ideas of M. Archer and A. Sayer. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 9, 3, 57-70.

  14. Akram, S. (2019). Re-thinking Contemporary Political Behaviour: The Difference that Agency Makes. London: Routledge Studies in Anti-Politics and Democratic Crisis.

  15. Coole, D. (2005). Rethinking Agency: A Phenomenological Approach to Embodiment and Agentic Capacities. Political Studies, 53 (1), 124-142.

  16. Newman, J. (2017). Re-Addressing the Cultural System: Problems and Solutions in Margaret Archer’s Theory of Culture. Paper to the Political Studies Conference, 1-22. URL:

Full text