Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 332 MATERIALISM VERSUS POST-MATERIALISM, POLITICAL PARTICIPATION AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS DEMOCRACY: AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF TOCQUEVILLE’S IDEA Liu Yongbo1, Shen Lihe2 1Institute for Social Science Research & Life Course Centre the University of Queensland 2School of Sociology, China University of Political Science and Law yongbo.liu@uq.net.au* lihe.shen@cupl.edu.cn * Corresponding author Abstract : Tocqueville suggested that materialism may result in a lower level of political participation and lower support for democracy. In this study, using the joint dataset of the World Values Survey (WVS) and the European Values Study (EVS) 2017-2020, we examine the influence of materialism/post-materialism on people’s support for democracy. From a hierarchical linear model, our results indicate that materialism against post-materialism is associated with a lower level of support for democracy, which supports Tocqueville’s thought. Furthermore, using causal mediation analysis, we find that political participation mediates 9.92% of the effect of materialism/post-materialism on support for democracy. Our results show that materialism/post-materialism is an important determinant to people’s support for democracy. Political participation is an important value in supporting democracy. Keywords: Democracy, materialism, post-materialism, political participation Submission : Auguts, 23rd 2022 Revision : September 19th 2022 Publication : November 30th 2022 INTRODUCTION Many studies have found that people’s support for democracy is influenced by multiple social factors, such as political trust (Chang, 2021; Marien & Hooghe, 2011), social capital (Dowley & Silver, 2002), modernization (Ciftci, 2010), government effectiveness (Magalhães, 2014), economic crisis (Cordero & Simón, 2016) and public safety (Fernandez & Kuenzi, 2010). However, there is an insufficient discussion about the impact of people’s values, such as materialism and post-materialism, on people’s support for democracy. It should be pointed that support for democracy is defined as support for democratic political institutions in this study. Except for social determinants for the support for democracy, people’s values may also import factors. Materialism and post- mailto:yongbo.liu@uq.net.au mailto:lihe.shen@cupl.edu.cn Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 333 materialism are two popular values in contemporary societies (Salonen & Åhlberg, 2013), which may influence people’s support for democracy. Materialism may have a negative impact to democracy. Tocqueville indicates that the pursuit of happiness in modern society caused less political participation, and the inclination of political system.(De Tocqueville, 2015). Some empirical studies agree with the idea of Tocqueville. Some researches found that materialism leads to lower public participation (Watson, 2015) and negative attitudes towards environmental protection (Hurst et al., 2013). Conversely that the insufficient empirical researches on whether materialism leads to low support for democracy needs more thoughts. Comparing materialism with the post-materialism may have positively associate people’s support to democracy. Post-materialism made the greater importance of non-material goals such as self-expression, autonomy, freedom of speech, gender equality and environmentalism (Inglehart, 2015; Salonen & Åhlberg, 2013). The post-materialism value paid more attentions to public affairs, which leads to more political participation (Cantijoch & San Martin, 2009; Copeland, 2014). Post-materialism leads to more attentions to participate in the public affairs. Conversely, the opposite people which againts materialism, may have more possibility supporting democracy. To summarize that the post-materialism created the differences to strengthen democracy. Political participations creates a mechanical association in order to support democracy. The insufficient empirical exploration resulted the impact of materialism that support democracy and the mechanism of it. This study using the sample from many countries to proof that influence of materialism/post-materialism on people’s attitudes to democracy and explore the mediation role of political participation by mediation analysis. In order to expand the understanding of determinants of the attitudes to democracy by estimating the impact of people’s values. Furthermore, to show profound explanation of the relationships between people’s values, political participation, and political attitudes. LITERATURE REVIEW Influence of Materialism on Political Participation and Political Attitudes Tocqueville argues that people’s social status is indicated primarily by their wealth rather than by their lineage or birthright in modern society (De Tocqueville, 2015). There is a greater desire to achieve social status through the pursuit of wealth. Pursuing wealth may cause people to become indifferent to public affairs and look for a more authoritarian government to manage public affairs on their behalf. Mazower shares a similar view. He criticizes that after World War II, Europeans did not really believe in democracy but capitalism, so indifference to public affairs can often be seen in the functioning of contemporary European democracy (Mazower, 2009). The low turnout of European voters bears this out (Van der Eijk & Van Egmond, 2007). Many empirical studies have examined the effects of materialism on political participation and political attitudes. Some of these studies have found that materialism reduces people’s participation in public affairs (Kilbourne & Pickett, 2008; McLeod, 2001; Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 334 Torlak & Koc, 2007). For example, based on data from a survey of 300 adults in the United States, McLeod finds that materialist values negatively affect participation through watching television entertainment (McLeod, 2001). Materialism leads people to devote more time to recreational activities and reduces their participation in public affairs. Other studies have found an association between materialism and people’s political attitudes. Materialists are more likely to be racist (Paxton, 2002; Roets et al., 2006) and have more negative attitudes towards environmental protection (Hultman et al., 2015; Hurst et al., 2013; Sreen et al., 2020). Previous research has provided some analyses of the effects of materialism on political participation and political attitudes. As predicted by Tocqueville’s idea, people’s materialistic tendencies may make them more indifferent to public life and less politically engaged. These empirical studies partly provide evidence for Tocqueville’s doctrine. Nevertheless, another part of Tocqueville’s idea is that people may be more likely to support a political system with authoritarian overtones because they pursue material wealth and are indifferent to public affairs. People who are more inclined towards materialism are more likely to favour authoritarianism over democracy in their preferences for political systems. The current empirical research on this problem has not given an adequate answer. The current study explores this problem. Influence of Post-materialism on Political Participation and Political Attitudes Along with the economic boom after World War II, human society began to transfer from industrial to post-industrial society (Bell, 2019), with highly developed productivity, gradually improving social welfare systems, and more concerning environmental issues. Inglehart developed the concept of post-materialism to show the new value in post- industrial societies (Inglehart, 1981). Unlike materialists, who prioritize economic growth and wealth possession, post-materialists are more concerned with ecology, quality of life, and self-actualization. Post-materialists may have more active political participation and more support for the democratic political system than materialists. First, post-materialists are more concerned about issues such as environmental protection than materialists. These issues are public affairs, which can only be pursued by political participation. This provides more possibilities for the post-materialists to participate in politics to achieve their goals. Second, under the influence of post-materialist values, people are increasingly pursuing the realization of self-worth and the meaning of life. The democratic environment is conducive to the operation of various subnational organizations and has better protection of free speech, which benefit post-materialists to achieve their goals. Existing empirical research has also found that post-materialists, compared to materialists, are more likely to support political issues, such as environmental protection and gender equality and the empowerment of ethnic and sexual minorities (Wong & Wan, 2009), and more likely to engage in political activities both offline (Henn et al., 2021; Paloniemi & Vainio, 2011) and online (Theocharis, 2011). For example, using data collected using a survey of 512 young people (ages 15-30) living in Finland, Paloniemi Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 335 and Vainio suggest that post-materialist values and political competence increased interest in environmental and political action (Paloniemi & Vainio, 2011). However, there is limited research about the influence of post-materialism on people’s attitudes to democracy. An example is, using data from the European Values Survey, Pavlović and Mentalities show that post-materialists against materialists are more included to support for democracy in Eastern Europe Countries (Pavlović, 2016). However, there is limited exploration of countries in other areas. Furthermore, as Tocqueville’s idea suggests, political participation may mediate the association of materialism/post-materialism and people’s attitude to democracy. The mediation role of political participation needs more exploration. METHOD Data and analytical sample The joint dataset of the World Values Survey (WVS) and the European Values Study (EVS) 2017-2020 is used. In line with it, EVS has been responsible for planning and conducting surveys in European countries, using the EVS questionnaire and EVS methodological guidelines. WVSA has been responsible for planning and conducting surveys in countries outside Europe and several European countries (Andorra, Cyprus, Greece), using the WVS questionnaire and WVS methodological guidelines. Five countries (Germany, Romania, Russia, Serbia, and Ukraine) conducted surveys in both waves, EVS 2017 and WVS7. Data from 81 countries and territories are collected in the joint dataset. Every country or territory is surveyed once from 2017 to 2020 in this dataset. All countries employed random probability representative samples of the adult population, which gives the data good representativeness. This data includes the key variables about materialism/post- materialism and people’s degree of support for democracy, so it is proper data to be used in this study. The used sample size is 135000 in this study, including cases from all surveyed countries. The summary information of the variables used in this study, including the information about the missing values, can be found in the supplementary materials. Measurements Outcome Variable A Likert Scale measures the attitude towards democracy with four questions: The respondents are asked, “I am going to describe various political systems and ask what you think about each as a way of governing this country. For each one, would you say it is a very good, fairly good, fairly bad or very bad way of governing this country?” 1) Having a strong leader who does not have to bother with parliament and elections Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 336 2) Having experts, not government, make decisions according to what they think is best for the country 3) Having the army rule the country. 4) Having a democratic political system. For each question, there are four potential answers: [1] Very good, [2] Fairly good, [3] Fairly bad, [4] Very bad. Specifically, for the fourth question, “Very bad” is recoded to 1, “Fairly bad” is recoded to 2, “Fairly good” is recoded to 3, and “Very good” is recoded to 4. Then the scores of the answers to four questions are summed to generate the outcome variable “support for democracy”. Explanatory Variable Materialism/post-materialism is measured by two questions, 1) If you had to choose, which one of the things (on this card) would you say is most important? 2) And which would be the next most important? For each question, there are four answers: [1] Maintaining order in the nation, [2] Giving people more say in important government decisions, [3] Fighting rising prices, [4] Protecting freedom of speech. It is constructed by coding as Materialists those who select aims 1 and 3, Post-materialists those who select aims 2 and 4 and Mixed those who select aims 1 or 3 and aims 2 or 4. We recoded “post-materialism” to 0, “mixed” to 1, and “materialism” to 2. This way generates the variable “materialism”. Mediator A Likert Scale measures political participation with three questions. The respondents are asked that “I am going to read out some different forms of political action that people can take, and I would like you to tell me, for each one, whether you have actually done any of these things, whether you might do it or would never, under any circumstances, do it.” 1) Signing a petition, 2) Joining in boycotts, 3) Attending lawful demonstrations For each question, there are three potential answers: [1] Would never do, [2] Might do, [3] Have done. The variable political participation is generated by summing the scores of the answers to these questions. Measurements of Confounders Several confounders are adjusted in this study, including people’s occupation group, marital status, education attainment, religious denomination, health status, attitude towards income inequality, and countries and territories. The occupation group is measured by asking, “To which of the following occupational groups do you belong?”. The potential answers are [0] Never had a job, [1] Professional Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 337 and technical, [2] Higher administrative, [3] Clerical, [4] Sales, [5] Service, [6] Skilled worker, [7] Semi-skilled worker, [8] Unskilled worker, [9] Farm worker, [10] Farm owner, farm manager, [11] Other. Marital status is measured by asking, “What is your current legal marital status?”. The potential answers are [1] Married, [2] Living together as married, [3] Divorced, [4] Separated, [5] Widowed, [6] Single/Never married. The level of education attainment is measured by asking the question, “Highest educational level attained”. The potential answers are [0] Less than primary, [1] Primary, [2] Lower secondary, [3] Upper secondary, [4] Post-secondary non-tertiary, [5] Short- cycle tertiary, [6] Bachelor or equivalent, [7] Master or equivalent, [8] Doctoral or equivalent. 0-2 are recoded to “Lower”, 3-4 are recoded to “Middle”, and 5-8 are recoded to “Upper”. Religious denomination is measured by asking, “Do you belong to a religious denomination? (IF YES) Which one?”. The potential answers are [0] Do not belong to a denomination, [1] Roman Catholic, [2] Protestant, [3] Orthodox (Russian/Greek/etc.), [4] Jew, [5] Muslim, [6] Hindu, [7] Buddhist, [8] Other Christian (Evangelical/Pentecostal/Free church/etc.), [9] Other. Health status is measured by asking, “All in all, how would you describe your state of health these days? Would you say it is:”. The potential answers are [1] Very poor, [2] Poor, [3] Fair, [4] Good, [5] Very good. Attitude to income equality is measured by asking, “On this card, you see a number of opposite views on various issues. How would you place your views on this scale?”. The potential answers are from 1 to 10. 1 means “Incomes should be made more equal”, and 10 means “We need larger income differences as incentives”. A more significant number shows higher support for higher income equality. Countries or territories of respondents and the age and gender of respondents are also adjusted. First, adjusting the confounders, we use a hierarchical linear model to explore the influence of materialism/post-materialism on the degree of support for democracy, which puts the variable “country or territory” in the second level, and the other variables in the first level. This approach solves the autocorrelations of features with the same country or territory (Schonfeld & Rindskopf, 2007). Following that, mediation analysis is made by the causal mediation analysis method (Imai, Keele, & Tingley, 2010; Pearl, 2014). It should be emphasized that the term “causal” is used because this method is based on the counterfactual framework, which has a clear definition of causal relationships between the explanatory variable, the mediator and the outcome variable. Compared to the traditional approach to mediation analysis, such as Baron-Kenny method (Baron & Kenny, 1986) and structural equation model (Woody, 2011), the causal mediation analysis can show the proportion of the total effect mediated by the mediator by percentage. In this study, it can show what proportion of the effect of the impact of materialism on the degree of support for democracy is mediated by political participation. Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 338 In the causal mediation analysis, four estimations are reported: natural indirect effect, natural direct effect, total effect, and proportion of mediated (Pearl, 2014). The causal mediation analysis method has several estimations. In this study, the natural indirect effect (NIE) means the indirect effect of materialism on support for democracy through political participation. The natural direct effect (NDE) means the effect of materialism, not through political participation. It should be pointed out that technically the NDE is the direct effect. However, theoretically, it may include the effect of other potential mediators, which are not discussed in this study. The total effect is the sum of NIE and NDE. Furthermore, the “mediated proportion” is calculated by NIE/total effect, which means what proportion of the total effect is mediated by political participation. In the mediation analysis, all confounders are also adjusted. The R package “mediation” is used to make causal mediation analysis in this study (Tingley et al., 2014). Although we adjust several confounders, there may be other unobserved confounders. Therefore, we make a sensitivity analysis from Imai and his group’s approach (Imai, Keele, & Yamamoto, 2010) to test the robustness of the mediation effect of political participation. This approach uses a sensitivity parameter ρ to estimate the potential influence of unobserved confounders, the details of this method can be found from Imai and his team’s work (Imai, Keele, & Yamamoto, 2010). RESULTS Descriptive Analysis Figure 1 shows respondents’ mean scores for materialism and support for democracy in the studied countries (Figure 1). Generally, this figure demonstrates that people of developed countries, for example, Germany and Sweden, have the lowest inclination to materialism (highest inclination to post-materialism) and a higher degree of support for democracy. Furthermore, a negative correlation between materialism and inclination to support democracy can be found. Generally, people of a country with a higher inclination to materialism against post-materialism also see a lower level of support for democracy. This preliminarily indicates that materialism is a determinant to support democracy at the country level. Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 339 Figure 1: Mean Score of Materialism and Support for Democracy of Countries and Territories Figure 1 shows the mean score of materialism and support for democracy for different countries. The X-axis shows the mean score of materialism, and the Y-axis shows the mean score of support for democracy. Because post-materialism is frequently seen in developed societies, we show the results separately for developing and developed countries. The developed countries are defined by the criterion by International Monetary Fund (Long & Ascent, 2020). Generally, Figure 2 demonstrates that in developed and developing countries, people, either young or old, with materialistic values against post-materialism values, have lower support for democracy (Figure 2). This preliminarily finding supports the hypothesis that materialism negatively impacts support for democracy. A surprising result is that in both developed and developing countries, the support for democracy sees a decline for younger people. This confirms that the worry about the decline of support for democracy should not be ignored. Though developed countries have a higher level of support for democracy, regardless of their value, materialism or post-materialism, the decline of support for democracy among young people should be given enough attention. Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 340 Figure 2 Support of Democracy for People with Materialism versus Post- materialism: Change over People’s Birth Year Figure 2 shows the degree of support for democracy for people with materialism versus post- materialism values, varying over people’s age in developing and developed countries, respectively. Scatter plots with quadratic fit lines are shown in the figure. The gap of support for democracy between different values are larger in developed countries, which indicates that materialism/post-materialism has higher impact on support for democracy in developed countries. In developing countries, the gap also exists, but is much smaller. This mainly because the general degree of support for democracy is relatively low in developing countries where democracy is not well developed. The potential development of democracy in developing countries may lead to larger gap of support for democracy for between materialists and post-materialists. Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 341 The Influence of Materialism/post-materialism on Support for Democracy As stated in the section of methods, a hierarchical linear model is used to estimate the impact of materialism on the inclination of support for democracy. Table 1 shows the results of the regression analysis (Table 1). Model (1) only adjusts the confounders, and model (2) also adjusts the mediator (political participation). It can be seen that a higher level of materialism leads to lower support for democracy in both models (1) (Beta=- 0.206, p<0.01) and model (2) (Beta=-0.192, p<0.01). This supports the hypothesis that materialism against post-materialism negatively impacts the possibility of supporting democracy. Table 1 The Impact of Materialism on Support for Democracy (1) (2) Support for democracy Support for democracy Materialism -.206*** -.192*** (.015) (.015) Occupation Group Never had a job Professional and technical .227*** .183*** (.037) (.038) Higher administrative .115** .075 (.054) (.055) Clerical .084** .047 (.038) (.039) Sales -.011 -.039 (.035) (.035) Service -.053 -.078** (.039) (.039) Skilled worker -.063 -.083** (.04) (.041) Semi-skilled worker -.121*** -.145*** (.042) (.043) Unskilled worker -.141*** -.147*** (.041) (.042) Farm worker -.257*** -.288*** (.048) (.049) Farm owner, farm manager -.178*** -.201*** (.057) (.058) Other -.268** -.292** (.136) (.137) Gender Male Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 342 Female -.039** -.022 (.019) (.019) Age .019*** .02*** (.001) (.001) Marital Status Married Living together as married .073** .066* (.036) (.037) Divorced -.016 -.018 (.046) (.047) Separated .009 .024 (.06) (.061) Widowed -.19*** -.173*** (.044) (.045) Single/Never married .11*** .106*** (.025) (.025) Education Attainment Lower Middle .341*** .313*** (.024) (.025) Upper .51*** .463*** (.029) (.03) Religious Denomination Do not belong to a denomination Roman Catholic -.107*** -.113*** (.032) (.032) Protestant .118*** .109*** (.04) (.04) Orthodox .133** .123** (.061) (.062) Jew .027 .035 (.157) (.159) Muslim -.152*** -.12** (.047) (.047) Hindu -.349*** -.322*** (.103) (.105) Buddhist -.063 -.067 (.05) (.051) Other Christian .078 .071 (.053) (.054) Other -.06 -.051 (.065) (.066) Health .027** .029*** Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 343 (.011) (.011) Attitude to income equality .002 .003 (.003) (.003) Political Participation .061*** (.005) _Cons 10.184*** 9.776*** (.174) (.173) Observations 57316 55075 Standard errors are in parentheses *** p<.01, ** p<.05, * p<.1 Note: the variable “country or territory” includes too many categories. The coefficients of the dummy variables for the variable “country or territory” are omitted in this table. Mediation Analysis Table 2 shows the mediation analysis results, using political participation as the mediator (Table 2). The mediated proportion of political participation is 9.92% (P<0.01). This shows that political participation mediates 9.92% of the association between materialism and inclination of supporting democracy. Political participation is a mechanism between materialism and inclination of supporting democracy, as supposed by the theory. Table 2 The Mediation Effect of Political Participation on The Association Between Materialism and Support for Democracy Estimate 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper p-value Significance NIE -0.0225 -0.0258 -0.02 <0.000 *** NDE -0.2049 -0.2395 -0.18 <0.000 *** Total Effect -0.2274 -0.2623 -0.20 <0.000 *** Proportion of Mediated 0.0992 0.0795 0.12 <0.000 *** *** p<.01, ** p<.05, * p<.1, Sample Size Used: 47248 Note: NIE is the indirect effect of materialism through political participation; NDE is the effect of materialism not through political participation; Total effect is the sum of NIE and NDE; Proportion of mediated shows what proportion of total effect is mediated by political participation, which is calculated by NIE/Total effect Figure 3 shows the sensitivity analysis to the potential influence of the unobserved cofounders to the mediation effect of political participation. The analysis indicates that the original conclusion about the direction of the NIE of political participation (represented by the dashed horizontal line) would be maintained unless ρ is higher than 0.06. This implies that the mediation effect of political participation is relatively robust. Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 344 Figure 3 Sensitivity Analysis for the Mediation Effect of Political Participation Figure 3 shows the results of the sensitivity analysis for the mediation effect of political participation. The solid line represents the estimated NIE for the mediator (political participation) for differing values of the sensitivity parameter ρ. The gray region represents the 95% confidence interval. The horizontal dashed line is drawn at the point estimate of the original estimated NIE. CONCLUSION Tocqueville argues that democracy is crucial influenced by social structure and people’s values. Our study examines the impact of materialism versus post-materialism on Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 345 people’s support for democracy to make an empirical answer to Tocqueville’s idea. Our findings suggest that compared to post-materialism, people with a higher inclination to materialism have a lower degree to support for democracy. The impact of materialism/post-materialism on support for democracy is partially mediated by political participation. First, our study extends the research on the relationships between people’s values and political attitudes. Previous studies have made contributions to the association between people’s values and participation in public affairs. Our study finds that materialism/post- materialism also influences people’s inclination to support democracy. Except for social- economic factors such as the growth of the economy (Hahn & Logvinenko, 2008), religion(Ben-Nun Bloom & Arikan, 2012; Cordero & Simón, 2016), level of socio- economic inequality (Kang, 2015; Muhtadi & Warburton, 2020; Schäfer, 2012), people’s values are also essential to support for democracy. When discussing people’s attitudes towards democracy, not only socio-economic factors but also people’s values should be paid enough attention. Second, there is a debate about whether democracy is declining in current times, and our study partially answers this question. Though optimistic scholars argue that democracy is increasing globally (Pinker, 2018), there has been a worry about the decline of democracy in recent years (Ágh, 2016; Diamond, 2016). The report from Freedom House shows that from 2005 to 2021, in most years, more countries see declines in the aggregate score of democracy than countries see improvements in the score (House, 2022). For example, in 2021, 60 countries saw declines in democracy, and only 25 countries saw improvements in democracy. This makes it essential to know the determinants of the trend of democracy to know the future of democracy. Our study shows that both in developed and developing countries (and territories), materialism is a negative factor in support for democracy. This supports the idea that materialism may lead to the decline of democracy. People’s values should be paid enough attention to when discussing the future of democracy. Additionally, a worrying result is that though the transformation from materialism to post-materialism may make people to supporting democracy more, it does not reverse the trend of the decline of degrees in supporting democracy of young people. The more crucial problem is for the developing countries. These countries have weaker systems of democracy in general, and the materialism of people in these countries makes people have relatively low support for democracy. On the one hand, post-materialism versus materialism is vital for people’s support for democracy. On the other hand, the optimistic future of democracy should not be overly estimated by arguing that post-materialism is expanding in modern industrialized societies. Post-materialism is a positive determinant for support for democracy, but to estimate the future of democracy, its role should be considered with other factors such as inequality (Kang, 2015; Muhtadi & Warburton, 2020) and social capital (Nur-tegin, 2021; Woolcock, 2010). Third, our results also evidence that political participation is a mediator of the association between materialism/post-materialism and support for democracy. Political participation partially explains why a high inclination towards materialism is associated with low support for democracy. As Tocqueville’s idea suggests, the inclination of Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 346 materialism drives people to care about accumulating wealth and getting higher social status through it, which leads to lower interest in participating in public affairs. This makes it more likely that these people will be inclined to support an authoritarian political system to manage public affairs for themselves. Oppositely, People who hold post-materialist values are more active in political participation. Compared to materialists, post-materialists attach more importance to various public affairs, such as environmental protection and social justice, as meaningful to them. As Putnam points out, participation in public affairs is a form of social capital, making democracy work better. In political participation, people experience the advantages of democracy and recognize their contribution to public affairs, which makes them more likely to support it. Previous studies have shown the influence of materialism versus post-materialism on political participation. Our study shows that another part of the story is that low political participation of materialists will lead to low support for democracy. The impact of materialism versus post-materialism is not only on political participation but also on political attitude. Our study has some limitations. First, we mainly focus on the impact of materialism/post- materialism on political attitudes, but further studies should make the determinants of why people have the materialism or post-materialism value more explored. Our study suggests that the country’s economic status may be a determinant of people’s values. Nevertheless, there may be other determinants, such as culture, historical traditions, and people’s demographic characteristics (such as education attainment). To make a deeper understating of the role of materialism/post-materialism on politics, further studies may explore the determinants of these values. Second, based on Tocqueville’s idea, we examine the mediation effect of political participation on the association between materialism/post-materialism and support for democracy. The result of mediation analysis shows that about 10% of the total effect is mediated by political participation. There may be other mediators. For example, in authoritarian political systems, people are more likely to gain material benefits through power rent-seeking (Aidt, 2016). Perceptions of power rent-seeking may also be a mediator. Further studies may make more explorations of these mediators to deeply explain the mechanisms between people’s values and attitudes towards democracy. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We sincerely acknowledge Prof. Jennifer Pan from Stanford University for her suggestions to the conceptions and methods of this study. DECLARATION OF INTEREST STATEMENT All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Data availability statement: Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 347 The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in World Values Survey at https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp REFERENCES Ágh, A. (2016). The decline of democracy in East-Central Europe: Hungary as the worst- case scenario. Problems of Post-Communism, 63(5-6), 277-287. Aidt, T. S. (2016). Rent seeking and the economics of corruption. Constitutional Political Economy, 27(2), 142-157. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173. Bell, D. (2019). The coming of post-industrial society. Routledge. Ben-Nun Bloom, P., & Arikan, G. (2012). A two-edged sword: The differential effect of religious belief and religious social context on attitudes towards democracy. Political behavior, 34(2), 249-276. Cantijoch, M., & San Martin, J. (2009). Postmaterialism and political participation in Spain. South European Society and Politics, 14(2), 167-190. Chang, W.-C. (2021). Media use, political trust and attitude toward direct democracy: empirical evidence from Taiwan. Online Information Review. Ciftci, S. (2010). Modernization, Islam, or social capital: what explains attitudes toward democracy in the Muslim world? Comparative Political Studies, 43(11), 1442-1470. Copeland, L. (2014). Value change and political action: Postmaterialism, political consumerism, and political participation. American Politics Research, 42(2), 257- 282. Cordero, G., & Simón, P. (2016). Economic crisis and support for democracy in Europe. West European Politics, 39(2), 305-325. De Tocqueville, A. (2015). Democracy in America-Vol. I. and II. Read Books Ltd. Diamond, L. (2016). Democracy in decline: how Washington can reverse the tide. Foreign Aff., 95, 151. Dowley, K. M., & Silver, B. D. (2002). Social capital, ethnicity and support for democracy in the post-communist states. Europe-Asia Studies, 54(4), 505-527. Fernandez, K. E., & Kuenzi, M. (2010). Crime and support for democracy in Africa and Latin America. Political Studies, 58(3), 450-471. Hahn, J. W., & Logvinenko, I. (2008). Generational differences in Russian attitudes towards democracy and the economy. Europe-Asia Studies, 60(8), 1345-1369. Henn, M., Sloam, J., & Nunes, A. (2021). Young cosmopolitans and environmental politics: How postmaterialist values inform and shape youth engagement in environmental politics. Journal of Youth Studies, 1-21. House, F. (2022). Freedom in the World 2022: The Global Expansion of Authoritarian Rule. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022- 02/FIW_2022_PDF_Booklet_Digital_Final_Web.pdf Hultman, M., Kazeminia, A., & Ghasemi, V. (2015). Intention to visit and willingness to pay premium for ecotourism: The impact of attitude, materialism, and motivation. Journal of Business Research, 68(9), 1854-1861. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/FIW_2022_PDF_Booklet_Digital_Final_Web.pdf https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/FIW_2022_PDF_Booklet_Digital_Final_Web.pdf Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 348 Hurst, M., Dittmar, H., Bond, R., & Kasser, T. (2013). The relationship between materialistic values and environmental attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 257-269. Imai, K., Keele, L., & Tingley, D. (2010). A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological methods, 15(4), 309. Imai, K., Keele, L., & Yamamoto, T. (2010). Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Statistical science, 25(1), 51-71. Inglehart, R. (1981). Post-materialism in an environment of insecurity. American political science review, 75(4), 880-900. Inglehart, R. (2015). The silent revolution. Princeton University Press. Kang, W. (2015). Inequality, the welfare system and satisfaction with democracy in South Korea. International Political Science Review, 36(5), 493-509. Kilbourne, W., & Pickett, G. (2008). How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Business Research, 61(9), 885-893. Long, A., & Ascent, D. (2020). World economic outlook. International Monetary Fund. Magalhães, P. C. (2014). Government effectiveness and support for democracy. European Journal of Political Research, 53(1), 77-97. Marien, S., & Hooghe, M. (2011). Does political trust matter? An empirical investigation into the relation between political trust and support for law compliance. European Journal of Political Research, 50(2), 267-291. Mazower, M. (2009). Dark continent: Europe's twentieth century. Vintage. McLeod, M. S., Jack M. (2001). Values, communication behavior, and political participation. Political communication, 18(3), 273-300. Muhtadi, B., & Warburton, E. (2020). Inequality and democratic support in Indonesia. Pacific Affairs, 93(1), 31-58. Nur-tegin, K. (2021). Social capital–a topsoil for democracy. Review of Social Economy, 79(2), 166-190. Paloniemi, R., & Vainio, A. (2011). Why do young people participate in environmental political action? Environmental Values, 20(3), 397-416. Pavlović, Z. (2016). (Post) materialism, satisfaction with democracy and support for democracy in Eastern Europe. European Quarterly of Political Attitudes and Mentalities, 5(3), 41-55. Paxton, P. (2002). Social capital and democracy: An interdependent relationship. American sociological review, 254-277. Pearl, J. (2014). Interpretation and identification of causal mediation. Psychological methods, 19(4), 459. Pinker, S. (2018). Enlightenment now: The case for reason, science, humanism, and progress. Penguin UK. Roets, A., Van Hiel, A., & Cornelis, I. (2006). Does materialism predict racism? Materialism as a distinctive social attitude and a predictor of prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 20(2), 155-168. Salonen, A. O., & Åhlberg, M. (2013). Towards sustainable society: from materialism to post-materialism. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 5(4), 374-393. Schäfer, A. (2012). Consequences of social inequality for democracy in Western Europe. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 6(2), 23-45. Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 349 Schonfeld, I. S., & Rindskopf, D. (2007). Hierarchical linear modeling in organizational research: Longitudinal data outside the context of growth modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 10(3), 417-429. Sreen, N., Purbey, S., & Sadarangani, P. (2020). Understanding the relationship between different facets of materialism and attitude toward green products. Journal of Global Marketing, 33(5), 396-416. Theocharis, Y. (2011). Young people, political participation and online postmaterialism in Greece. New Media & Society, 13(2), 203-223. Tingley, D., Yamamoto, T., Hirose, K., Keele, L., & Imai, K. (2014). Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Torlak, O., & Koc, U. (2007). Materialistic attitude as an antecedent of organizational citizenship behavior. Management Research News. Van der Eijk, C., & Van Egmond, M. (2007). Political effects of low turnout in national and European elections. Electoral Studies, 26(3), 561-573. Watson, D. C. (2015). Materialism and the five-factor model of personality: a facet-level analysis. North American Journal of Psychology, 17(1). Wong, K.-Y., & Wan, P.-S. (2009). New evidence of the postmaterialist shift: The experience of Hong Kong. Social Indicators Research, 92(3), 497-515. Woody, E. (2011). An SEM perspective on evaluating mediation: What every clinical researcher needs to know. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 2(2), 210-251. Woolcock, M. (2010). The rise and routinization of social capital, 1988–2008. Annual review of political science, 13, 469-487. Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 350 Appendices Appendix: Summary of Variables Used in This Study Overall (N=135000) Support for Democracy Mean (SD) 11.6 (2.45) Median [Min, Max] 12.0 [4.00, 16.0] Missing 20290 (15.0%) Materialism Mean (SD) 1.15 (0.625) Median [Min, Max] 1.00 [0, 2.00] Missing 5348 (4.0%) Occupation Group Never had a job 11400 (8.4%) Professional and technical 10684 (7.9%) Higher administrative 2779 (2.1%) Clerical 7672 (5.7%) Sales 9116 (6.8%) Service 6436 (4.8%) Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 351 Overall (N=135000) Skilled worker 6677 (4.9%) Semi-skilled worker 5307 (3.9%) Unskilled worker 5233 (3.9%) Farm worker 3515 (2.6%) Farm owner, farm manager 2110 (1.6%) Other 339 (0.3%) Missing 63732 (47.2%) Gender Male 62383 (46.2%) Female 72540 (53.7%) Missing 77 (0.1%) Country and Territory Albania 1435 (1.1%) Andorra 1004 (0.7%) Argentina 1003 (0.7%) Armenia 1500 (1.1%) Australia 1813 (1.3%) Austria 1644 (1.2%) Azerbaijan 1800 (1.3%) Bangladesh 1200 (0.9%) Belarus 1548 (1.1%) Bolivia 2067 (1.5%) Bosnia and Herzegovina 1724 (1.3%) Brazil 1762 (1.3%) Bulgaria 1558 (1.2%) Canada 4018 (3.0%) Chile 1000 (0.7%) China 3036 (2.2%) Colombia 1520 (1.1%) Croatia 1487 (1.1%) Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 352 Overall (N=135000) Cyprus 1000 (0.7%) Czechia 1811 (1.3%) Denmark 3362 (2.5%) Ecuador 1200 (0.9%) Egypt 1200 (0.9%) Estonia 1304 (1.0%) Ethiopia 1230 (0.9%) Finland 1199 (0.9%) France 1870 (1.4%) Georgia 2194 (1.6%) Germany 3698 (2.7%) Great Britain 1788 (1.3%) Greece 1200 (0.9%) Guatemala 1203 (0.9%) Hong Kong SAR 2075 (1.5%) Hungary 1514 (1.1%) Iceland 1624 (1.2%) Indonesia 3200 (2.4%) Iran 1499 (1.1%) Iraq 1200 (0.9%) Italy 2277 (1.7%) Japan 1353 (1.0%) Jordan 1203 (0.9%) Kazakhstan 1276 (0.9%) Kyrgyzstan 1200 (0.9%) Lebanon 1200 (0.9%) Lithuania 1448 (1.1%) Macau SAR 1023 (0.8%) Malaysia 1313 (1.0%) Mexico 1739 (1.3%) Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 353 Overall (N=135000) Montenegro 1003 (0.7%) Myanmar 1200 (0.9%) Netherlands 2404 (1.8%) New Zealand 1057 (0.8%) Nicaragua 1200 (0.9%) Nigeria 1237 (0.9%) North Macedonia 1117 (0.8%) Norway 1122 (0.8%) Pakistan 1995 (1.5%) Peru 1400 (1.0%) Philippines 1200 (0.9%) Poland 1352 (1.0%) Portugal 1215 (0.9%) Puerto Rico 1127 (0.8%) Romania 2870 (2.1%) Russia 3635 (2.7%) Serbia 2545 (1.9%) Singapore 2012 (1.5%) Slovakia 1432 (1.1%) Slovenia 1075 (0.8%) South Korea 1245 (0.9%) Spain 1209 (0.9%) Sweden 1194 (0.9%) Switzerland 3174 (2.4%) Taiwan ROC 1223 (0.9%) Tajikistan 1200 (0.9%) Thailand 1500 (1.1%) Tunisia 1208 (0.9%) Turkey 2415 (1.8%) Ukraine 2901 (2.1%) Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 354 Overall (N=135000) United States 2596 (1.9%) Vietnam 1200 (0.9%) Zimbabwe 1215 (0.9%) Age Mean (SD) 45.8 (17.2) Median [Min, Max] 45.0 [16.0, 82.0] Missing 643 (0.5%) Marital Status Married 74189 (55.0%) Living together as married 7066 (5.2%) Divorced 8364 (6.2%) Separated 2509 (1.9%) Widowed 10034 (7.4%) Single/Never married 32085 (23.8%) Missing 753 (0.6%) Education Attainment Lower 36623 (27.1%) Middle 53115 (39.3%) Upper 44181 (32.7%) Missing 1081 (0.8%) Religious Denomination Do not belong to a denomination 35072 (26.0%) Roman Catholic 28289 (21.0%) Protestant 14139 (10.5%) Orthodox 17674 (13.1%) Jew 244 (0.2%) Muslim 26624 (19.7%) Hindu 600 (0.4%) Buddhist 4987 (3.7%) Other Christian 3258 (2.4%) Journal of Social Political Sciences JSPS Vol. 3, No. 4, November, 2022 ISSN: 2715-7539 (Online) 355 Overall (N=135000) Other 2837 (2.1%) Missing 1276 (0.9%) Health Mean (SD) 3.77 (0.898) Median [Min, Max] 4.00 [1.00, 5.00] Missing 295 (0.2%) Attitude to Income Equality Mean (SD) 6.00 (2.96) Median [Min, Max] 6.00 [1.00, 10.0] Missing 2141 (1.6%) Political Participation Mean (SD) 6.00 (2.96) Median [Min, Max] 6.00 [1.00, 10.0] Missing 2141 (1.6%)