English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Electoral participation research points to political interest as a strong and consistent predictor of voting, but overlooks the propensity of interested people to overreport in surveys. Vote validation studies demonstrate that vote overreporting exaggerates the association between political interest and turnout, but fails to highlight the pathways through which this bias occurs. To fill this gap and link these two strands of literature, we take a closer look at the relationships between political interest, likelihood of voting (as defined by one's actual voting record), and participation in given vote, while taking care of overreporting. Applying causal mediation models to a unique set of validated vote data, we show that the  modus operandi  of overreporting is both direct and indirect: A portion of politically interested people overreport their vote regardless of whether they usually vote or not. Yet, the indirect path also matters: Another portion of interested people do vote frequently, which prompts them to overreport if they for once abstain. This is consequential for the commonly found association between political interest and turnout.

A reassessment of the association between political interest and electoral participation: adding vote overreporting to the equation