THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
Loyal to the Crown: Shifting Australian Public Opinion on the Monarchy Prepared for delivery at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the Political Studies Association, Sheffield, March 30 April 1
Luke J. Mansillo – 12 March 2015
Over the past half century the Australian public has remained divided on the issue of whether Australia should retain the monarchy or become a republic. Clive Bean (1993) found there had been remarkable stability on the issue and evidence of a long-term trend away from support for the o a h ith a sudde de li e i . This a ti le adopts Bea s lo gitudi al oss- sectional methods to examine the social and political basis of public attitudes. This articles analyses the Australian Election Study (1993- to o pa e Bea s esults a d ea al se earlier data from the National Social Science Surveys and Australian National Political Attitudes surveys (1967-1990). Public opinion has been fluid and is now at a crossroads between the 1980s high and the 1990s lows. Cohort analysis suggests socialisation impacts long term opinions. Gender and ethnic nationalism also influences opinion. It has ee put The su i al of the o a h i late t e tieth e tu B itai is a so io- psychological phe o e o of st a ge p opo tio s Billig [ ] : . If so the o a h s survival in twenty-first century Aust alia is fa o e outla dish. What is o e pe ulia is o a h s growing antipodean popularity. In the lead up to the 1999 referendum public opinion wilted for the monarchy (Bean 1993: 191) in spite of this the referendum failed (McAllister 2002) as voters took a least risk strategy opting to keep the Queen to one day vote for a congressional system instead of alter a parliamentary one (Davidson et al. 2006: 866; Wellings 2003). I the efe e du s afte ath, the e has ee a esu ge e of pu li suppo t fo the o a h . The o a h s fo tu es e e expected to continually decline over time given previous cohort analysis evidence (Bean 1993: 204) olste ed the effe ts of [...] edu atio a d eligio a d elated so ial ha ge. This a ti le investigates the social basis for support for the monarchy and argues events in both the United Ki gdo a d Aust alia i flue ed o a h s appeal i conjunction with the processes of political socialisation and banal nationalism.
This article is a longitudinal analysis of Australian public opinion on the monarchy-republic issue. It is an update of an article by Clive Bean (1993) which demonstrated opinion on the monarchy-republic issue had then been stable until 1990. Bean noted that commercial polling on the issue showed a shift away from monarchy in the early 1990s. This article demonstrates that public opinion on the issue since 1990 has been anything but stable. Before 1990 was an era of general stability with modest gradual declining support for the monarchy, which is well documented (McAllister 2011: 29). An era of instability has proceeded. First a rapid decline of support in the 1990s, followed by significant gains of support in the twenty-first century.
It is opportune to revisit the study of the monarchy-republic issue in Australia. In the intervening years since Bean s analysis there has been a series of events with the potential to affect public opinion. The 1990s featured significant royal scandals. These include the 1992 annus horribilis, P i e Cha les a d P i ess Dia a s di o e i , a d the death of P i ess Dia a i . This was followed by the failed 1999 republic referendum. More recently, the wedding of Prince William and Princess Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge and the birth of Prince George, has been a boon to the monarchy. The monarchy has been modernised with an end to succession and royal marriage anachronisms (Parpworth . A ua te e tu si e Bea s a al sis it is o th etu i g to the issue to investigate the social compositional factors behind opinion change over this period.
This a ti le uses Bea s a al sis of Do Aitki s Aust alia Natio al Political Attitudes study (ANPA) (1967- a d Jo atha Kelle s Natio al So ial S ie e Su e s NSSS -90). It compares Bea s a al sis ith data f o Ia M Alliste s Aust alia Ele tio Stud AES -2013) usi g Bea s ethods. This is an attempt to update Bea s a ti le ith the ost e e t AES data; comparing the era of stability with the era of instability.
This study compiles 46 years of academic public opinion data building upon previous research (Bean 1993). I find support sharply declined from 58 per cent in 1990 to 40 per cent in 1993 dropping to a low of 34 per cent in 1998. Ian McAllister (2011: 29) described public opinion (as of 2010) as, monarchy has attracted e e ed if odest pu li suppo t. The e as a pe e t i ease i support from 42 per cent in 2010 to 47 per cent in 2013. The increase in support from 34 per cent to 47 per cent challenges the assertion of a mere modest support increase for the monarchy as an institution of Australian government. Rather public opinion on the monarchy is at a crossroads. It is
2 | P a g e between the 1998 low of 34 per cent and the 1987-88 high of 60 per cent. It is worth questioning why the movement of public opinion in both directions over the decades.
Trends in public opinion
Here I shall provide a brief overview of public opinion trends on the monarchy-republic issue as recorded by fourteen academic surveys. It is important to note that responses vary to a small degree on the exact question asked. Bean (1993: 192) noted that ANPA, NSSS and AES all have comparable questions which ha e o l i o diffe e es. 1
The fi st uestio asks espo de ts ho i po ta t do [the ] feel the Quee a d the ‘o al Fa il a e to Aust alia a d the se o d uestio asks if [the ] thi k that Aust alia should e o e a epu lic ith a Aust alia head of state, o should the Quee e etai ed as head of state. Fo the fi st question there are differences with the number of response categories.2 Second there are minor wording changes across the NSSS to the AES and ANPA questions and in the opinion of Bean (1993:192) – and for that matter the author too – [t]he e is o easo to assu e that [...] these small variations would have a ea i g o the o pa iso s. O e all si e the efe e du suppo t has improved in both absolute numbers who hold monarchist views and in strength.
There was reasonably stable support for the monarchy for both measures up to 1990 (see Table 1; Figure 1) which is reinforced by commercial polling (Figures 2 and 3). Curiously before 1993, there were significantly more people who wished to retain the monarchy but did not think the Queen was terribly important; however this had changed by 1993. This probably is due to the 1992 scandals. Commercial polling shows a leap from 36 per cent approval for the republic in 1991 to 57 per cent in 1992 (Bean 1993: 196). Murray Goot (1994: also o i ates as the ea he a high le el of suppo t fo the epu li emerged – surprisingly royal misbehaviour and public opinion has been neglected in academic discussions despite the 1992 height of public Royal misbehaviour.3
The strength of support for the republic has declined. In 1998 and 2001 respectively, 34 per cent and pe e t, elie ed Aust alia should defi itel e o e a epu li . This has de li ed to 7 per cent and 26 per cent in 2010 and 2013 respectively. There is a similar level of strong republicans in 2010- 13 to 1993; however the weak republicans have fallen away declining from 33 per cent to 27 per cent in 2013. The high level point of weak monarchist support is 2013 with 33 per cent exhibiting weak support for the monarchy. Furthermore strong support for the monarchy is at its highest point since 1990 – the damage from the annus horribilis may have been recovered. In 2013 importance for the monar h as at a si ila le el to the s afte P i e Cha les s a iage to Dia a. The AES results mirror a similar analysis using International Social Science Surveys data (Kelley et al. 1999). Ben Wellings (2003: 47- o se es the failure of the republican campaign cannot be seen as a
1 The question used in the AES is adopted from the ANPA. Bean referred to the ANPA and NSSS similarities. 2 The ANPA a d AES ha e th ee espo se atego ies: e i po ta t , fai l i po ta t a d ot e i po ta t. The NSSS has the additio al atego : ot i po ta t at all . It is assu ed that the ANPA a d AES ot e i po ta t atego o espo ds to the NSSS ot e i po ta t a d ot i po ta t at all. In the ANPA the uestio should Aust alia etai the Quee did ot ha e the fou atego ies ut i stead the were collapsed into two categories. In 1967 only the importance of royalty question was asked. 3 Billig (2002: 2-15) wrote of the volumes of popular press and nothingness of academic press on the issue as a fu tio of a ade i so iologists a d so ial ps hologists faili g to ide tit o a h itself as a p o le . 3 | P a g e victory for monarchism or Australian attachment to Britain. This e o e i oth total suppo t a d strength of support surely must be seen as a victory for the Palace.
Figure 1: Public opinion on the monarchy: Importance and whether to retain
4 | P a g e
Table 1: Attitudes towards the Monarchy-Republic issue, 1967-2013 (%)a 1967 1979 1984-85 1986-87 1987-88 1990 1993 1996 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 Importance of the Queen & Royal Family Very important 28 25 16 20 18 17 13 12 10 10 10 11 13 16 Fairly important 26 29 29 29 25 28 22 27 21 21 23 25 25 28 Not very important 47 46 31 32 32 31 65 61 70 69 68 64 63 56 Not important at all - - 24 21 25 24 ------(n) (2007) (1996) (2979) (1517) (1646) (2488) (2335) (1797) (1856) (1980) (1731) (1850) (2055) (3865) Australia become a Republic Definitely Retain the Queen - - 35 32 33 31 14 12 9 11 11 10 12 15 Probably Retain the Queen - - 24 27 26 27 26 29 25 25 27 30 30 33 (Total Retain Queen) - (64) (59) (59) (60) (58) (40) (41) (34) (36) (38) (40) (42) (47) Probably become a Republic - - 20 20 22 22 33 30 32 26 29 29 31 27 Definitely become a Republic - - 21 20 19 19 27 29 34 38 33 31 27 26 (Total become a Republic) - (36) (41) (41) (40) (42) (60) (59) (66) (64) (62) (60) (58) (53) (n) - (1864) (2907) (1512) (1640) (2481) (2334) (1730) (1833) (1960) (1722) (1830) (2047) (3841) Sources: Bean (1993); Australian Election Study, 1993-2013 a Percentages do not always sum exactly to subtotals because of rounding.
5 | P a g e
Figure 2: Support for the Monarchy, 1969-2014, Newspoll & Roy Morgan with a quadratic trend; R2=.515, n=57
Figure 3: Support for the Republic, 1969-2014, Newspoll & Roy Morgan with a quadratic trend; R2=.564, n=57
6 | P a g e
Methodology
In this article there are four a al ses. Fi st I epeat Bea s a al sis ith AES data from 1993 to the most recent. Second I odif Bea s oho t a al sis. Third I estimate the effect of ethnic and civic nationalisms on attitudes towards the monarchy with 1996 and 2001 AES data. Fourth I disaggregate the model by gender at high and low saliency periods.
The data used is from the ANPA (1967-1979), NSSS (1984-90) and the AES (1993-2013). The results in Bean (1993) are reproduced. The four analyses use the same variables with a few exceptions. Factor analysis and reliability analysis indicate that both questions on the importance of and whether to retain the monarchy are closely related measures of the same underlying concept. As Bean (1993: 197) did they are thus combined into a simple additive scale for the analyses coded 0 (most pro- republican) to 1 (most pro-monarchy).5 All independent variables are coded as dummy variables with the exceptions of years of age, years of education and frequency of church attendance. The variables are coded as Bean (1993: 197-98) described his variables. The second analysis investigates cohort effects. It differs from the first analysis with age removed and a series of birth year cohorts coded as dummy variables. The third analysis investigates the relationship ethnic and civic nationalisms have to public opinion on the monarchy republic issue. The independent variables are identical to the first analysis with the addition of civic and ethnic nationalism scales. The fourth analysis investigates the effect of gender through disaggregation at periods of high and low salience on the issue.
The four analyses use a wide range of social background factors which are known to influence political attitudes and behaviour in Australia (see McAllister 1992; 2011). Each employs an ordinary least squares regression to estimate the effects of each independent variable on attitudes towards the monarchy-republic issue modelled on Bean s (1993: 197-99) study. The unstandardised regression coefficient (b) increases are thus interpretable as proportional increases in pro-monarchy (and anti-republican) sentiments for each unit of change in the dependent variable.
Each analysis predicts public opinion with the following social background attributes: parental party preference (Liberal-National Coalition), gender, age, occupation, subjective social class, religion, church attendance, urban-rural residence, state, birthplace, and political party identity. The first analysis identifies the long term relationship between each observed social compositional factor and attitudes. The second analysis of cohorts is in two parts. First it odifies Bea s : 202) cohort analysis a d se o d o st u ts a e sio to test politi al so ialisatio s effe t. Bean controlled for the effects in the first analysis with the exception of age and he coded cohorts into 20 year cohorts.6 I revisit cohorts to test political socialisation with eight year cohorts to measure its effect between the ages of 12 and 18 (Torney-Purta 2005). The third analysis determines if there is a relationship between monarchism and the two nationalism measures which are produced using principal components factor analysis from a seven question battery. The model investigating nationalisms is compared to the model from the fi st a al sis ide ti al to Bea s o igi al odel to show the
5 Across the 13 surveys with combined measures, the correlations of the two variables are between .7 and .8 a d the C o a h s alpha elia ilit oeffi ie t anges between .75 and .9. The variables combined make a highly reliable scale. 6 Due to generational replace e t the efe e e atego i the ep odu tio of Bea s oho t a al sis has been altered.
7 | P a g e
change. The model with ethnic and civic nationalism scales has its measures produced from principal component factor analysis of the nationalism battery included in the 1996 and 2001 AES (Appendix 1). This will determine the relationship of opinion on the Australian monarchy to ethnic and civic nationalisms. The fourth analysis compares the effects of gender disaggregating gender in the model in the first analysis; i.e. gender is removed and men and women analysed separately.
Social and Political Underpinnings of Monarchy-Republic Attitudes
The results from the first analysis are presented in Table . Bea s : esults a e reproduced for comparison with the autho s a al sis from 1993 onwards. The first analysis reveals from 1996 to 2010 parental socialisation did not have a significant relationship to attitudes on the monarchy unlike the period before the republic was discussed. In 2013 parental socialisation re- emerged as a factor of suppo t fo the o a h follo i g the o al a iage a d P i e Geo ge s birth. Conservative partisan political identity has been a stable social compositional factor for support for the monarchy.7 Bea : o luded that the pa tisa di ide ould e iggest hu dle – this was passed with a dissolving of parental socialisation s i flue e ut the o se ati e pa tisa ship hu dle the epu li a s failed to shift. Pa e tal so ialisatio s i flue e has si e regained influence on public opinion. Generally the older an individual the more monarchist they were; age had a larger effect from 1967 to 1993 but since 1996 the effect has significantly lessened – in 2007 and 2010 there was no significant relationship for age and a small effect in 2013. This confirms previous research (Kelley et al. 1999: 106). Urban dwellers remain more republican. Education continues to have a mostly stable effect producing anti-monarchical public opinion and there is a gender divide with male support for the republic higher. The resilient gender divide is e usi g ith o e s edu atio le els ea hi g parity with men (Evans 1980) along with their political attitudes – and in recent years becoming more progressive than men (McAllister 2011: 112- 20).
Class continues to make a stable impression on monarchy-republic public opinion. Those who identified with the middle class or non-manual workers were relatively antithetical towards the monarchy and stable in their opinion over the period covered. Trade union membership has been a poor indicator of support over the half century; 1993 was an exception.
Protestant identity remains a stable and a good predictor of support for the monarchy. Those who claim no religion more often tend to support republicanism. Religiosity, measured as church attendance, has become a weaker indicator of support for the monarchy. This I interpret as a long term secularisation on the monarchy-republic issue.
A pe so s i thpla e has a e du i g effe t o pu li opi io . Those o i Asia ha e lo e le els of attachment to the monarchy; however this has been declining in recent years. Those born in continental Europe had lower support for the monarchy than those born in Australia. This trend declined from the 1980s to 2001 and no longer has a significant effect. Those born in the United Kingdom or Ireland retain a large degree of support for the monarchy compared to those born in Australia. The support for the monarchy from migrants from the British Isles has been stable over the period unlike those from Asia and continental Europe. This could be an effect associated with
7 However in 1993 following the 1992 annus horribilis the effect for partisan identity is remarkably smaller.
8 | P a g e
John Howard s a ipulatio of Aust alia ide tit to efle t the alues of the ajo it A glo-Celtic population as Carol Johnson (2007) has argued; something this article will expand upon.
Some states retain greater residual support for the monarchy. Queensland and South Australia have had higher support. In 2010 there were high levels of support for the monarchy in Tasmania when the pregnant Crown Princess Mary of Denmark, a Tasmanian by birth, visited Hobart in the week prior to the election. Royals apart from the Windsors have an impact upon attitudes to keep the Crown in Australia.
9 | P a g e
Table 2: Social background and attitudes towards the monarchy-republic issuea by year, 1967-2013: unstandardised regression coefficientsbc
1967 1979 1984- 1986- 1987- 1990 1993 1996 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 85 87 88 Pa e ts pa t p efe e e .06* .02 .04* .07* .04+ .03+ .05** .02 .05* -.03 .01 .03+ .00 .03* (Conservative) Gender (male) -.10* -.03+ -.07* -.07* -.04* -.06* -.03* -.01 -.04* .02 -.03+ -.03* -.06*** -.05*** Age (years) .004* .003* .004* .004* .003* .004* .003*** .001** .001** .001** .002*** .000 .000 .001* Education (years) -.009* -.006* -.018* -.011* -.006+ -.005* -.004 -.009* -.005 -.013*** -.013*** -.014*** -.008* -.007** Occupation (non-manual) -.03 .01 .01 .01 .01 -.03 -.02 -.04* -.03+ -.04** -.05*** -.02 -.04** -.05*** Subjective social class (middle) -.04* .03+ .02 -.05* .01 -.00 -.06*** -.06** .05** -.06+ .00 .03* -.03* -.02+ Trade union membership .02 -.01 -.01 -.02 -.02 -.03+ -.04** -.01 -.02 -.03 -.03 -.02 -.01 -.01 Religion (Reference: Catholic & ------Other) Protestant .10* .10* .10* .09* .13* .10* .08*** .06** .09*** .08*** .07*** .09*** .11*** .12*** No religion -.11* -.00 -.02 -.08* -.07* -.08* .00 .00 -.00 -.02 -.04+ -.03 -.04* -.03* Church Attendance .10* .08* .15* .17* .15* .10* .03*** .02** .02** .03*** .01 .02** .02* .01* Urban-rural residence (urban) -.03+ -.02 -.03* -.03 -.03 .00 .01 -.04* -.05** -.06*** -.01 -.03* -.04** -.04** State (Reference: NSW) ------Victoria .02 .01 -.01 .05* -.02 .03+ .02 -.03 .02 -.01 -.03 -.01 -.02 .02 Queensland .00 .02 .07* .05+ .02 .05* .04+ .00 .05* -.01 .02 .00 -.02 .03* South Australia -.04 .01 .04+ .07* -.01 .01 .03 -.01 .05+ -.05 -.03 -.01 -.00 .05*** Western Australia -.02 .04+ .01 .02 -.00 .02 .02 -.02 .03 -.02 -.02 -.02 .00 .01 Tasmania -.03 .08* .08* .05 .01 .05+ -.01 .04 .00 .04 -.02 -.01 .10** -.02 Birthplace (Reference: ------Australia & Other) British Isles .04 .09* .13* .16* .09* .10* .10*** .10*** .08*** .10*** .05+ .07** .12*** .07*** Continental Europe -.03 -.13* -.18* -.17* -.16* -.14* -.08** -.10** -.05 -.12** .07 -.07+ -.06+ -.03 Asia - -.04 -.01 -.12+ .02 -.09+ -.03 -.10* -.01 -.06* -.09+ -.03 -.03 -.02 Political identity (Conservative) .03 .16* .18* .21* .16* .15* .22*** .19*** .09*** .12*** .14*** .14*** .15*** .13*** Constant .36 .31 .35 .28 .28 .29 .08*** .24*** .19*** .21*** .21*** .26*** .37*** .34*** R2 .12 .25 .32 .32 .26 .24 .28 .20 .14 .17 .17 .18 .18 .16 (n) (2054) (2016) (3012) (1528) (1663) (2504) (1737) (1364) (1424) (1532) (1311) (1446) (1747) (3225) Mean on monarchy-republic .53d .56 .51 .53 .52 .51 .33 .33 .28 .28 .30 .31 .34 .38 scale (standard deviation) (.36) (.30) (.34) (.34) (.34) (.34) (.32) (.31) (.29) (.30) (.30) (.30) (.31) (.32) a Dependent variable scaled from 0 (most pro-republic) to 1 (most pro-monarchy). b + sig ifi a t at p≤. ; *p≤. ; ** p≤.01; ***- p≤.001 c All figures have been rounded to two decimal places, with the exception of age and years of education which are to three decimal places. d The means and standard deviations of the dependent variables at each time point are show consistency. There are minor measurements differences between the ANPA, NSSS and AES meaning the means are not a good guide of the level of public support for the monarchy.
10 | P a g e
Sources: Bean (1993); Australian Election Study, 1993-2013
11 | P a g e
Cohort Analysis: Generational Political Socialisation and Attitudes
The second analysis (Table 3), investigates cohort effects as Bean (1993) demonstrated lifecycle effect and several studies have pointed to the most impressionable years being from 12 to 18 where significant national events have a disproportionate and enduring impact on public opinion (Jennings and Zhang 2005; Schuman et al. 1998; Schuman and Rogers 2004; Torney-Purta 2005). Critical events leave their mark upon children and adolescence that quickly can change their political views. Dennis and Webster (1975) found the opinions on the US president of those as young as seven years old shifted after the Watergate Scandal. Sears and Valentino (1997) hold pre-adult socialisation produces stable predispositions which are catalysed by exogenous political events. These events socialise attitudes selectively, only in the specific domains they make salient ; thus longstanding predispositions are socialised episodically rather than incrementall . The Whitla dis issal, the 1992 annus horribilis, and lead up to the 1999 referendum provide three critical episodes; first misuse of royal prerogative, second royal misbehaviour and increasing saliency of monarchy as an issue and third lead up to the 1999 referendum. This analysis sets out to empirically test the generational difference of public opinion based upon their political socialisation. Generational responses to the annus horribilis, referendum, the marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the birth of Prince George are covered. Here I shall discuss some notable cohorts.
Bea s odel fi ds little di e ge e et ee the -1959 and 1960-1979 cohorts. While from 2001 to 2010 the generation born 1980 onwards is indistinguishable from the cohort born 1920- 1939. Unsurprisingly the generation born before 1920 held the most monarchist views. Furthermore as each of the five cohorts in Beans model age the general trend is for increasing support for the monarchy. For example the 1960-79 cohort has unstandardised coefficients ranging from -.15 to -.10 in the 1980s reducing the -.12 to -.04 in the 2000s.
The autho s odified oho t a al sis fi ds hildhood and adolescent political socialisation influences opinion on the monarchy. Those born from 1916-1923 experienced the year of three kings, those born 1932-1939 experience the 1952 Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, those born 1955- 1963 were socialised when Whitlam was ousted in 1975, those born 1964-1970 experienced Prince Cha les a iage i , those o - o al is eha iou , P i ess Dia a s death a d the referendum, and those born after 1986 experienced the new generation of royals, namely princes William and Harry, come of age.
The generation born 1916-1923 exhibit significantly higher support for the monarchy than the 1924- 1931 cohort. This group was of prime socialisation age in when the 1936 year of three kings rocked the Court of St. Ja es. F o to the e is e ide e to suggest this oho t s highe le el of support compared to the 1924-1931 cohort could be attributed to that political experience.
Those born in 1932-1939 where impressionable when Queen Elizabeth II was coronated in 1953. Compared to the generation born 1940-47 they have higher levels of support for the monarchy. The different levels of support disappeared in 1996 reappearing in 2010.
The 1955-1963 cohort has the most resilient passion against the monarchy. From 1979 to 1993 and reappearing in 2001 and 2007 to 2013 they had the most longstanding republican sentiments. They were the only cohort to a strengthen their anti- o a his esol e i i the efe e du s aftermath. While from 2007 to 2013 the cohort exhibits the highest level of republicanism. This is
12 | P a g e
congruent with the effect early experiences have on childhood and adult political development (Sears and Brown 2013: 59-60). This disposition has lasted through the lifespan.
Similar to the 1955-1963 cohort, those born from 1964-70 were particularly republican from 1984 to 1993 and again in 2007 and 2010. From 1984 to 1986 this cohort exhibited stronger antimonarchical feelings than the 1955-1963 cohort. At the time of the Whitlam Dismissal many were five through eleven year olds in this cohort. The cohort responded in a similar way to the seven and eight year old children did to Watergate (Dennis and Webster 1975). In 2013 following the royal wedding and P i e Willia s a iage the e is o sig ifi a t difference between the 1932-39 and 1964-70 cohorts. This cohort has not remained set by their early childhood experiences; they have developed their views during their life course (Sapiro 1994: 204). In 2007 the 1955-1963 and 1964-1970 cohorts had similar levels of republicanism. By 2010 a gap between the 1955-1963 and 1964-1970 cohorts had emerged, and by 2013 1964-1970 had no significant difference compared to 1932-39 the cohort, unlike those born in 1955-1963. One cohort warmed to monarchy, while another did not. On the monarchy issue, political socialisation at after the age of 12 has more long-lasting impressions than before the age of 12.
The cohorts born 1979-1985 and 1986-1995 exhibit no significant difference from the 1932-39 cohort. The first was socialised with royal misbehaviour characterising the period and the death of Diana and the second the coming of age of the new royals.
Public opinion is structured around age cohorts created through socialisation impacted by exogenous political events. Since 2007 the generation politically socialised during the Whitlam dismissal is the only generation which shows overt negative attitudes towards the monarchy. This confirms Sears and Valentino (1997), exogenous shocks to the political system crystallise thought. Only the Whitlam dismissal and not the annus horribilis, could be deemed to crystallise thought on the monarchy while also confirming some cohort opinions did evolve more than others during adulthood as expected (Sapiro 1994) but within the period of royal renewal. Royal misbehaviour appears not to have affected those born after 1979 but instead temporarily damaged opinion (Figure 2). Those who had developed the cognitive capacity for abstract thought when Whitlam was dismissed (Sears and Brown 2013: had g eate esilie e thus the e og itio of the p o le of monarchy is more enduring for that cohort (Billig 2002: 7-12).
13 | P a g e
Table 3: Cohort Analysis 1967 1979 1984-85 1986-87 1987-88 1990a 1993 1996 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 Born before 1920 .13*** .10*** .08*** .06* .10*** .02 .05+ .02 .11* .16** -.02 .06 -.04 -.06 (proportion in cohort) (.41) (.21) (.14) (.09) (.09) (.09) (.06) (.04) (.03) (.01) (.01) (.01) (.00) (.00) Born 1920-1939 (Ref.) ------(proportion in cohort) (.44) (.31) (.26) (.31) (.27) (.30) (.32) (.25) (.26) (.25) (.20) (.18) (.10) (.05) Born 1940-1959 -.03 -.08*** -12*** -.11*** -.09*** -.11*** -.09*** -.05* -.03 -.04+ -.05* -.07*** -.12*** -.05* (proportion in cohort) (.15) (.42) (.46) (.43) (.46) (.40) (.40) (.39) (.39) (.36) (.38) (.40) (.33) (.30) Born 1960-79 - -.05 -.14*** -.15*** -.10*** -.13*** -.09*** -.04+ -.04+ -.04+ -.07*** -.06** -.12** -.07* (proportion in cohort) - (.04) (.14) (.14) (.18) (.21) (.22) (.32) (.32) (.33) (.29) (.28) (.36) (.39) Born 1980 onwards ------.02 -.03 .01 -.05+ -.05* (proportion in cohort) ------(.05) (.08) (.10) (.21) (.26) Born before 1892 .09 .22+ (proportion in cohort) (.01) (.00) Born 1892-1899 .14** .13+ .03 .03 .03 (proportion in cohort) (.04) (.01) (.01) (.00) (.01) Born 1900-1907 .09** .11** .15*** .04 .15* .11 .04 .08 .01 .02 (proportion in cohort) (.10) (.05) (.03) (.01) (.01) (.01) (.00) (.01) (.00) (.00) Born 1908-1915 .06+ .09** .12*** .12** .08+ .08+ .08* -.11 .11 .28 .09 .05 .05 .02 (proportion in cohort) (.13) (.09) (.06) (.04) (.04) (.03) (.04) (.01) (.01) (.01) (.00) (.00) (.00) (.00) Born 1916-1923 .04 .08* .14*** .11*** .07* .06* .07* .04 .08+ .04 .18*** .10+ -.08 .14+ (proportion in cohort) (.16) (.11) (.10) (.08) (.08) (.09) (.07) (.06) (.03) (.03) (.02) (.02) (.01) (.00) Born 1924-1931 -.05+ .00 .06** .03 -.02 .02 .00 .06 .01 .07* .15*** .08* .03 .12** (proportion in cohort) (.19) (.15) (.10) (.12) (.11) (.12) (.12) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.06) (.05) (.03) (.02) Born 1932-1939 ------(proportion in cohort) (.21) (.12) (.10) (.17) (.12) (.14) (.14) (.14) (.17) (.15) (.16) (.15) (.07) (.05) Born 1940-1947 -.07* -.05 -.04+ -.05* -.06* -.06* -.06* -.01 -.02 -.00 -.02 -.02 -.10** .01 (proportion in cohort) (.15) (.14) (.15) (.17) (.17) (.13) (.15) (.13) (.13) (.13) (.12) (.14) (.11) (.10) Born 1948-1954 -.36 -.08** -.07*** -.07** -.10*** -.12*** -.08*** -.03 -.04 -.01 .02 -.04+ -.12*** -.05+ (proportion in cohort) (.00) (.16) (.18) (.15) (.17) (.15) (.15) (.15) (.14) (.13) (.15) (.16) (.11) (.12) Born 1955-1963 -.06* -.09*** -.13*** -.12*** -.09*** -.10*** -.03 -.02 -.05* -.01 -.07** -.15*** -.08** (proportion in cohort) (.17) (.22) (.20) (.21) (.19) (.17) (.20) (.20) (.19) (.18) (.18) (.18) (.16) Born 1964-1970 -.12*** -.17*** -.09** -.10*** -.10*** -.05 -.04 -.01 .01 -.06* -.10** -.03 (proportion in cohort) (.05) (.05) (.09) (.11) (.09) (.14) (.12) (.13) (.10) (.10) (.15) (.13) Born 1971-1978 -.13** -.02 -.03 -.02 -.01 -.02 -.01 -.10** -.02 (proportion in cohort) (.03) (.05) (.10) (.10) (.10) (.10) (.09) (.11) (.13) Born 1979-1985 -.01 .01 .04 .05 -.04 -.03 (proportion in cohort) (.03) (.06) (.08) (.07) (.12) (.12) Born 1986-1995 -.07 .01 -.04 -.03 (proportion in cohort) (.01) (.04) (.11) (.15) (n) (2054) (2016) (2898) (1511) (1638) (2371) (1771) (1433) (1530) (1633) (1417) (1554) (1747) (3225) Sources: Australian National Political Attitudes survey, 1967-79; National Social Sciences Survey, Integrated 1984-88 file (1993 release) & Election Panel, 1990; Australian Election Study, 1993-2013 a The 1990 Election panel file held by the Australian Data Archive no longer has all independent variables; the country of birth is missing from this analysis unlike Bean (1993.
14 | P a g e