Apathy, Voter

Apathy reflects a lack of engagement in even the most basic forms of public affairs participation. Apathy also has been described as a lack of interest and involvement in political affairs and a separation from matters political. Studies, however, have shown that interest is an effect rather than a characteristic of apathy. In addition, people can decline to participate for reasons other than apathy.

Reports of apathy have been inflated by flawed reporting of turnout rates. The most common method for reporting turnout, based on the “voting age population” from the U.S. census, includes noncitizens and ineligible felons. The number of ineligible citizens has increased markedly since 1972, but turnout among eligible voters has remained fairly steady.

Apathy often is considered one aspect of “political alienation,” which is said to include the four dimensions of normlessness or distrust (cynicism), powerlessness or efficacy, meaninglessness (seeing little difference among candidates, parties or policies), and apathy. It is common for party officials and commentators to combine apathy with other aspects of political alienation, and to blame deficiencies in high school civics education, negative campaigning, and poor media coverage for disengagement.

Education matters a great deal, but research does not bear out perceptions about the role of negative campaigning, media coverage, and cynicism. For example, some estimates indicate that negative advertising has tripled since the 1960s. Yet voting rates have not decreased proportionately. Turnout in 2004 was 77% (86% of registered voters), the highest since 1964.

Apathetic individuals may be somewhat immune to negativism in ads due to their lack of involvement and attention to the political process. Citizens who blame negative campaigning for their apathy also might not be accurately reporting the roots of their own lack of interest.

Cynicism also cannot shoulder the blame for apathy. Research has confirmed that apathy and cynicism form distinct constructs, meaning that someone who is cynical may not be apathetic. Instead, political disaffection can lead to action among those with higher efficacy. Action is most likely among those with the highest efficacy and highest disaffection.

Research suggests that disengagement results more from low efficacy and satisfaction with the status quo. Political efficacy has decreased markedly since the 1960s, when it was as high as 74%. In 2004 it was at 47% although it has increased gradually since the early 1990s. Those with conservative outlooks, higher incomes, more education, and Caucasian ethnicity tend to have higher efficacy. Partisans, the more advantaged, and Caucasians also tend to vote more reliably.

Apathy is most appropriately viewed as a separation from civic involvement that reflects a negative valence (I don't feel like caring; it doesn't matter; it's too much trouble to care). It differs substantially from [Page 37]complacency, which reflects a positive valence (I don't need to care because things are fine the way they are) based on comfort with the status quo.

This distinction explains problems with the view that a lack of substance in television coverage contributes to apathy. For example, satisfaction with television as an information source associates with more disengagement while increased use and attention to news—including on television—consistently associates with higher levels of political knowledge, efficacy, and public affairs involvement. It seems that television, a low-involvement medium, can cultivate interest and lead to more goal-oriented information seeking from additional sources. This then boosts efficacy, giving media a role to play in a positive cycle of increasing involvement.

...