Mechanisms of Political Mobilization and Voting Behavior Change: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach to Local Elections in Surat Thani, Thailand
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Comprehensive models capturing how campaign fundamentals translate into voter responses through mobilization, including reciprocal relationships, remain underdeveloped in Southeast Asian subnational contexts. This study examines how political mobilization patterns mediate the associations between electoral success factors and changes in voting behavior in the 2025 Surat Thani Provincial Administrative Organization (PAO) chief executive election. Drawing on mediation theory and dynamic campaign models, structural equation modeling was applied to survey data from 430 eligible voters selected through multi-stage sampling to test a model that integrates five electoral success dimensions, six mobilization patterns, and multidimensional voting behavior. Model fit was acceptable (CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.058, χ²/df = 2.14). Electoral success factors were associated with voting behavior both directly and indirectly through mobilization, with the indirect pathway accounting for approximately half the total effect. Mobilization patterns showed bidirectional associations with success factors, with the forward pathway substantially stronger than the feedback pathway, suggesting an asymmetric reciprocal structure. These findings contribute to population and social studies by refining our understanding of how subnational electoral dynamics in consolidating democracies are shaped by traditional authority, digital communication, and institutional networks, with implications for mediation theory and dynamic campaign models. Findings are interpreted as patterns consistent with dynamic electoral processes rather than definitive causal evidence.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
• Arghiros, D. (2001). Democracy, development and decentralization in provincial Thailand. Curzon.
• Aspinall, E., & Berenschot, W. (2019). Democracy for sale: Elections, clientelism, and the state in Indonesia. Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501732997
• Banyaem, W., Rajbhandaraks, S., Ngernklay, P., & Chuenjit, P. (2024). Kan mueang choeng rabop uppatham khong ongkon pokkhrong suan thongthin nai changwat Samut Prakan [Patronage-based system politics of local government organizations in Samut Prakan Province]. The Journal of Development Administration Research, 14(3), 1033–1049. https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/JDAR/article/view/275571
• 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), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
• Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021226224601
• Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x
• Boulianne, S. (2020). Twenty years of digital media effects on civic and political participation. Communication Research, 47(7), 947–966. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218808186
• Bureau of Registration Administration, Department of Provincial Administration. (2025, March). Sathiti prachakon thang kan thabian ratsadon (rai duean) [Monthly population registration statistics]. https://stat.bora.dopa.go.th/stat/statnew/statMONTH/statmonth/#/mainpage
• Chayawong, K. (2021). Naeonom kan mueang Thai kap sue sangkhom onlai nai satawat thi 21 [Trends in Thai politics and social media in the 21st century]. Journal of Mass Communication Technology, RMUTP, 6(1), 97–107. https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jmctrmutp/article/view/252157
• Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
• Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
• Choomsook, P., Jaiyen, P., & Suwankoot, N. (2024). Setthasat wa duai kan lueaktang nai yuk dichithan [Economics of elections in the digital age]. Journal of Buddhist Innovation and Management, 7(1), 224–238. https://so06.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/bim/article/view/266475
• Eaton, K. (2017). Territory and ideology in Latin America: Policy conflicts between national and subnational governments. Oxford University Press.
• Election Committee of Surat Thani Provincial Administrative Organization. (2025, February 7). Prakat khana kammakan kan lueaktang pracham ongkan borihan suan changwat Surat Thani rueang phon kan nap khanaen lueaktang (So.Tho./Pho.Tho. 5/8) [Announcement of the Election Committee of Surat Thani Provincial Administrative Organization regarding election vote-count results (Form S.T./P.T. 5/8)]. Surat Thani Provincial Administrative Organization. https://www.suratpao.go.th/news/detail/16104
• Falleti, T. G. (2010). Decentralization and subnational politics in Latin America. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511777813
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Pearson.
• Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
• Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
• Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
• Hicken, A. D. (2002, August 26–27). The market for votes in Thailand [Paper presentation]. Trading Political Rights: The Comparative Politics of Vote Buying, Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States. http://web.mit.edu/cis/fw_cpvb.html
• Hicken, A. (2011). Clientelism. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.031908.220508
• Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Imai, K., Keele, L., & Tingley, D. (2010). A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological Methods, 15(4), 309–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020761
• Imai, K., Keele, L., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2011). Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review, 105(4), 765–789. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055411000414
• Kantaros, N. (2022). Kan khaengkhan thang kan mueang lae khrueakhai thang kan mueang: Bot wikhro korani kan lueaktang nayok ongkan borihan suan changwat Lampang Pho.So. 2563 [Political competition and political network: The analysis of Lampang’s chief executive of the Provincial Administration Organization election in 2020]. School of Administrative Studies Academic Journal, 5(1), 83–98. https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/SASAJ/article/view/252300
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
• Kongkirati, P. (Ed.). (2012). Kan mueang wa duai kan lueaktang: Wathakam, amnat, lae phonlawat chonnabot Thai [Election politics: Discourse, power, and the dynamics of rural Thailand]. Same Sky Books.
• Kreiss, D. (2016). Prototype politics: Technology-intensive campaigning and the data of democracy. Oxford University Press.
• Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
• Kulachai, W., Lerdtomornsakul, U., & Homyamyen, P. (2023). Factors influencing voting decision: A comprehensive literature review. Social Sciences, 12(9), Article 469. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12090469
• Lee, J. J., & Blevins, J. L. (2025). Social media and digital politics: Networked reason in an age of digital emotion. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003386377
• Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57(3), 519–530. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.3.519
• McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241. https://doi.org/10.1086/226464
• Pannarai, K., & Maneekarn, N. (2022). Phruettikam kan lueaktang Pho.So. 2562 khong prachachon nai changwat Surat Thani [Election behavior B.E. 2562 of people in Surat Thani Province]. Journal of Politics and Governance, 12(2), 35–51. https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jopag/article/view/263104
• Phatarametravorakul, S., Tokaew, W., Kantaboon, K., & Suthivoraseth, J. (2023). Kan suesan phuea ronnarong ha siang lueaktang nayok ongkan borihan suan changwat Samut Prakan khong klum Samut Prakan Kao Na [Communication for the election campaign for chief executive of the Samut Prakan Provincial Administrative Organization by the Progressing Samutprakarn Group]. Journal of Social Science and Cultural, 7(6), 124–137. https://so06.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/JSC/article/view/265099
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
• Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. Longman.
• Rovinelli, R. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1977). On the use of content specialists in the assessment of criterion-referenced test item validity. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijs Research, 2(2), 49–60.
• Schaffer, F. C. (Ed.). (2007). Elections for sale: The causes and consequences of vote buying. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• Scott, J. C. (1972). Patron-client politics and political change in Southeast Asia. American Political Science Review, 66(1), 91–113. https://doi.org/10.2307/1959280
• Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312. https://doi.org/10.2307/270723
• Suwanmala, J. (2007). Watthanatham kan mueang thongthin nai prathet Thai [Local political culture in Thailand]. King Prajadhipok’s Institute Journal, 5(3), 1–34. https://so06.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/kpi_journal/article/view/244694
• Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Addison-Wesley.
• Tucker, J. A., Theocharis, Y., Roberts, M. E., & Barberá, P. (2017). From liberation to turmoil: Social media and democracy. Journal of Democracy, 28(4), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0064
• Vaccari, C. (2017). Online mobilization in comparative perspective: Digital appeals and political engagement in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Political Communication, 34(1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1201558
• Vaccari, C., & Valeriani, A. (2021). Outside the bubble: Social media and political participation in Western democracies. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190858476.001.0001
• Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
• Wlezien, C., Franklin, M., & Twiggs, D. (1997). Economic perceptions and vote choice: Disentangling the endogeneity. Political Behavior, 19(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024841605168
