在選舉的研究中，社會學派、社會心理學派、和理性抉擇學派是三個主要的研究模型。社會學派認為社會經濟人口學的結構性因素與選舉的決定有相當程度的關連；社會心理學派主張社會學因素是間接的，政黨認同、候選人評價、政見取向是直接的因素；理性學派則指出投票行為乃是基於成本和效用的估算結果。在這一個研究中，使用民國八十五年總統大選後的問卷調查資料，對上述三者，以及三者的可能整合作全盤的檢測。研究發現心理的研究途徑是最佳的單一模型型，理性的次之，結構的再次之。在兩兩結合方面，結構和心理的為最佳，心理和理性的次之，結構和理性的再次之。三者整合的模型又比單一的或兩兩結合的為佳，在變異的解釋量上有少許的增加。雖然增加的解釋力並不是很高，但模型中三個理論均仍有顯著的變項。研究發現三者有重疊的地方，任何一個均未能充分說明投票行為。因此，投票行為的整合理論，在將來應該會得到廣泛的重視和進一步的研究。

There are three major schools in the study of voting behavior, namely, sociological, sociopsychological and rational. Sociological school presents evidence that structural factors have high correlation coefficients between socioeconomic factors and voting choice. Sociopsychological school indicates that sociological factors are long term indirect determinants while party identification, candidate evalution, and issues are direct determinants. Rational approach suggests that the choices of vote is based on cost and benefit consideration. In this study, using post election survey data from the 1996 presidential election, three major approaches are tested thoroughly. In order to demonstrate that the integrated theory is better than those separated theories, seven possible combinations have been tested. The results show that psychological model is the best single model, ration and structural followed respectively. The best joint model is the combination of structural and psychological, followed by psychological and rational, and structural and rational. The intergrated model has slightly increased the explanatory power in terms of variance explained. Although the increase is not dramatic, the model maintains. This results suggest that the three approaches have overlapping explanation power, and no single model can claim to be the dominate model. Since the combined model can increase explanation power, thus, he integrated model should be emphasized in near future.