MULTIDIMENSIONAL EXPLANATORY FACTORS OF POLITICAL INTEREST IN TÜRKİYE: EVIDENCE FROM THE 2024 LIFE SATISFACTION SURVEY MICRODATA

Öz

This study examines the demographic, environmental, civic, and psychological explanatory factors of political interest in Türkiye. The analysis is based on microdata from the Turkish Statistical Institute’s 2024 Life Satisfaction Survey and covers 8,911 individuals. Political interest is modeled as moderate and high levels of political interest relative to a low-interest reference category. Age, gender, education, marital status, and employment status are included in the analysis as control variables, while interest in environmental and nature-related issues, interest in trade union and association activities, and hope for the future are incorporated as the main explanatory variables. The findings indicate that women are less likely than men to fall into the moderate and high political interest categories, while age and education are generally positively associated with political interest. Marital status and employment status are not statistically significant. Interest in environmental and nature-related issues and interest in trade union and association activities emerge as among the strongest explanatory factors in the model, whereas hope for the future operates in different directions across moderate and high levels of political interest. Overall, the study demonstrates that, in the Turkish context, political interest should be understood not only through classical socio-demographic variables but also in relation to public sensitivity, organized social engagement, and psychological orientations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Political Interest
• Interest in Environmental and Nature-Related Issues
• Interest in Trade Union and Association Activities
• Hope
• Multinomial Logistic Regression

TÜRKİYE’DE SİYASAL İLGİNİN ÇOK BOYUTLU AÇIKLAYICILARI: 2024 YAŞAM MEMNUNİYETİ ARAŞTIRMASI MİKRO VERİSİNDEN BULGULAR

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de siyasal ilginin demografik, çevresel, sivil ve psikolojik açıklayıcılarını incelemektedir. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu’nun 2024 Yaşam Memnuniyeti Araştırması mikro verilerine dayalı olarak 8.911 birey üzerinden analizler yürütülmüştür. Siyasal ilgi, düşük ilgi düzeyi referans kategori alınarak orta ve yüksek düzey siyasal ilgi biçiminde modellenmiş; yaş, cinsiyet, eğitim, medeni durum ve çalışma durumu kontrol değişkenleri olarak, çevre ve doğa sorunlarına ilgi, sendika ve dernek faaliyetlerine ilgi ile geleceğe yönelik umut düzeyi ise temel açıklayıcı değişkenler olarak analize dahil edilmiştir. Bulgular, kadınların orta ve yüksek düzey siyasal ilgi kategorilerinde erkeklere kıyasla daha düşük olasılıkla yer aldığını, yaş ve eğitimin ise siyasal ilgiyle genel olarak pozitif ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Medeni durum ile çalışma durumu anlamlı bulunmamıştır. Çevre ve doğa sorunlarına ilgi ile sendika ve dernek faaliyetlerine ilgi modelde en güçlü açıklayıcılar arasında yer alırken, geleceğe yönelik umut düzeyinin orta ve yüksek siyasal ilgi kategorilerinde farklı yönlerde işlediği görülmüştür. Çalışma, siyasal ilginin Türkiye bağlamında yalnızca klasik sosyo-demografik değişkenlerle değil, kamusal duyarlılık, örgütlü toplumsal temas ve psikolojik yönelimlerle birlikte ele alınması gerektiğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Siyasal İlgi
• Çevre ve Doğa Sorunlarına İlgi
• Sendika ve Dernek Faaliyetlerine İlgi
• Umut
• Multinomial Lojistik Regresyon

Kaynakça

1. Abramson, Lyn Y. vd. “Hopelessness Depression: A Theory‐Based Subtype of Depression”. Psychological Review 96/2 (1989), 358–372.
2. Almond, Gabriel A. – Verba, Sidney. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. USA: Sage Publications, 1989.
3. Baranowski, Mariusz vd. “Left–Right Political Orientation Fails to Explain Environmental Attitudes of Europeans Outside Western Europe: Exploring the Moderating Role of Party Positions and Issue Salience”. Environmental Politics 34/5 (2025), 793–816.
4. Barnfield, Matthew – Johns, Rob. “Hope, Optimism, and Expectations for the Political Future”. Political Behavior 47/1 (2025), 1–24.
5. Bauer, K. “The Power of Hope? Powerlessness and Strong Democratic Hope”. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 27/6 (2024), 887–905.
6. Bennett, Linda L. M. – Bennett, Stephen Earl. “Enduring Gender Differences in Political Interest: The Impact of Socialization and Political Dispositions”. American Politics Quarterly 17 (1989), 105–122.
7. Boulianne, Shelley – Ohme, Jakob. “Pathways to Environmental Activism in Four Countries: Social Media, Environmental Concern, and Political Efficacy”. Journal of Youth Studies 25/6 (2022), 771–792.
8. Campbell, Roise – Winters, Kristi. “Understanding Men’s and Women’s Political Interests: Evidence from a Study of Gendered Political Attitudes”. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 18/1 (2008), 53–74.

9. Cansever, Niran. “Siyaset Bilimi ve Kamu Yönetimi Eğitiminin Siyasal İlgi ve Katılıma Etkisi: Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Örneği”. Akademia Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 1/Özel Sayı (2018), 74–93.
10. Cengiz, Bengi R. Women’s Political Participation in Turkey: Existent Barriers and Policy Recommendations for Increasing Participation. İstanbul: Istanbul Political Research Institute, 2023.
11. Chowdhury, Rafi M. M. I. – Septianto, Felix. “Recruiting Volunteers: The Roles of Fear, Hope and Courage”. European Journal of Marketing 57/1 (2023), 226–257.
12. Chrona, Stavroula – Capelos, Tereza. “The Political Psychology of Participation in Turkey: Civic Engagement, Basic Values, Political Sophistication and the Young”. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 17/1 (2017), 77–95.
13. Coffé, Hilde – Bolzendahl, Catherine. “Same Game, Different Rules? Gender Differences in Political Participation”. Sex Roles 62/5–6 (2010), 318–333.
14. Cohen-Chen, Smadar – Zomeren, Martijn Van. “Yes We Can? Group Efficacy Beliefs Predict Collective Action, But Only When Hope Is High”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 77 (2018), 50–59.
15. Çarkoğlu, Ali – Kalaycıoğlu, Ersin. Turkish Democracy Today: Elections, Protest and Stability in an Islamic Society. London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2007.
16. Dalton, Russell J. Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Thousand Oaks: CQ Press, 2014.
17. Dalton, Russell J. The Participation Gap: Social Status and Political Inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
18. Demir, Mustafa. Jamovi ve Jasp Programı ile Temel ve İleri Düzey Nicel Veri Analizi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık, 2024.
19. Dobson, Andrew. “Environmental Citizenship: Towards Sustainable Development”. Sustainable Development 15 (2007), 276–285.
20. Downs, Anthony. “Up and Down with Ecology: The Issue-Attention Cycle”. Public Interest 28 (1972), 38–50.
21. Dunlap, Riley E. vd. “Measuring Endorsement of the New Environmental Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale”. Journal of Social Issues 56/3 (2000), 425–442.
22. Eser, Hamza Bahadır – Sarışahin, Pınar. “Cinsiyet-Siyasal Katılım İlişkisi: SDÜ Örnek Olayı”. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi 7/15 (2016), 38–58.
23. Esmer, Yılmaz. Değişimin Kültürel Sınırları: Türkiye Değerler Atlası. İstanbul: Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2012.
24. Fernández, Juan J. “Societal Religiosity and the Gender Gap in Political Interest, 1990–2014”. British Journal of Sociology 72/2 (2021), 252–269.
25. Fraile, Marta – Gomez, Raul. “Bridging the Enduring Gender Gap in Political Interest in Europe: The Relevance of Promoting Gender Equality”. European Journal of Political Research 56/3 (2017), 601–618.
26. García‐Albacete, Gema vd. “Beyond Gender: Exploring the Intersectional Dynamics in Political Interest Among Youth”. Politics and Governance 13 (2025), 1–24.
27. Glenn, Norval D. – Grimes, Michael. “Aging, Voting, and Political Interest”. American Sociological Review 33/4 (1968), 563–575.
28. Inglehart, Ronald. “Public Support for Environmental Protection: Objective Problems and Subjective Values in 43 Societies”. PS: Political Science & Politics 28/1 (1995), 57–72.
29. Inglehart, Ronald. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997.
30. Karagöz, Yalçın. SPSS 23 ve AMOS 23 Uygulamalı İstatistiksel Analizler. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık, 2016.
31. Kasapoğlu, Aytül – Özerkmen, Necmettin. “Gender Imbalance: The Case of Women’s Political Participation in Turkey”. Journal of International Women’s Studies 12/4 (2011), 97–107.
32. Kerrissey, Jasmine – Schofer, Evan. “Union Membership and Political Participation in the United States”. Social Forces 91/3 (2013), 895–928.
33. Larreguy, Horacio – Liu, Shellye X. “When Does Education Increase Political Participation? Evidence from Senegal”. Political Science Research and Methods 12/2 (2024), 354–371.
34. Le, Kien – Nguyen, My. “Education and Political Engagement”. International Journal of Educational Development 85 (2021), 1–14.
35. Lodi, Ernesto vd. “Courage as Mediator between Positive Resources and General/Domain-Specific Well-Being Indices”. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 12/8 (2022), 1067–1081.
36. Maffly-Kipp, Joseph vd. “Civic Hope and the Perceived Authenticity of Democratic Participation”. Social Psychological and Personality Science 14/4 (2022), 1–9.
37. Marquart-Pyatt, Sandra T. “Environmental Concerns in Cross-National Context: How Do Mass Publics in Central and Eastern Europe Compare with Other Regions of the World?”. Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review 48/3 (2012), 441–466.
38. Nawrotzki, Raphael J. “The Politics of Environmental Concern: A Cross-National Analysis”. Organization & Environment 25/3 (2012), 286–307.
39. Norris, Pippa. Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
40. Papp, Zsófia. “Environmental Attitudes, Environmental Problems and Party Choice. A Large-N Comparative Study”. Political Geography 97 (2022), 1–11.
41. Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.
42. Schermer, Julie Aitken vd. “Locus of Hope as a Predictor of Political Engagement”. Canadian Journal of Political Science 59 (2026), 1–18.
43. Seligman, Martin E. P. Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-Being. New York: Free Press, 2011.
44. Skocpol, Theda. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2003.
45. Şen, A. Fulya – Şen, Y. Furkan. “Online Environmental Activism in Turkey: The Case Study of the Right to Water”. Global Bioethics 27/1 (2016), 1–21.
46. Tam, Kim-Pong. “Understanding the Psychology × Politics Interaction Behind Environmental Activism: The Roles of Governmental Trust, Density of Environmental NGOs, and Democracy”. Journal of Environmental Psychology 71 (2020), 1–8.
47. Turner, Thomas vd. “Does Union Membership Matter? Political Participation, Attachment to Democracy and Generational Change”. European Journal of Industrial Relations 26/3 (2019), 279–295.
48. Verba, Sidney vd. “Family Ties: Understanding the Intergenerational Transmission of Political Participation”. The Social Logic of Politics: Personal Networks as Contexts for Political Behavior. ed. Alan S. Zuckerman. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2005, 95–114.
49. Verba, Sidney vd. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.
50. Yaşar, İbrahim Halil. “Siyasal İfade Amaçlı Sosyal Medya Kullanım Düzeyinin Siyasal İlgi ve Katılım Üzerinde Rolü: Sosyal Medya Platformları Bağlamında Bir Saha Araştırması”. Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi 17/34 (2021), 1173–1203.