Abstract
Research documenting disparities in political participation across racial and ethnic groups (in particular lower levels of participation for Blacks and Latinos, compared to Whites) has primarily focused on broad explanations for racial and ethnic differences in participation (e.g., socio-economic status, social, or psychological resources). There is little research that links racial and ethnic differences in participation across issues to the literature on issue publics and issue-specific factors that may motivate participation. In this study, we examine racial and ethnic differences in participation for a variety of issues and test a model in which issue-specific motivators of participation (self-interest, racial or ethnic group interest, attitude importance, and policy change threat) and general explanations for participation differences (e.g., socio-economic status, political knowledge) account for these racial and ethnic differences. In particular, the results of a survey of Chicago residents show that Blacks, Latinos and Whites demonstrate significant differences in political participation across five issues (affirmative action, immigration, school funding, gentrification, the Iraq War), but that the specific pattern of racial and ethnic differences in participation varies across issues. Issue-specific factors help to explain why racial and ethnic differences in participation vary across issues above and beyond variables shown to be associated with participation more generally (e.g., political efficacy, education). This model has the potential to be expanded and applied to help explain other types of disparities in political participation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Respondents who said they were “something else” were asked to specify their race. Respondents who answered this specify question with a clear race or ethnicity were coded appropriately.
Consistent with Leighley and Vedlitz (1999) this variable was operationalized as the proportion of people living in the respondent’s ZIP code who were a race or ethnicity other than the respondent (e.g., the proportion of non-White residents for White respondents). Ethnic competition theory would suggest that higher proportions of other races and ethnicities would lead to greater perceived threat from those groups (Savelkoul et al. 2011). However, intergroup contact theory would suggest that greater contact with members of other racial and ethnic groups would reduce prejudice toward members of those groups. Evidence about the effects of living in areas with large proportions of people from other races and ethnicities is mixed (e.g., Hopkins 2010; Marschall and Stolle 2004; Oliver and Wong 2003; Scheepers et al. 2002; Semyonov et al. 2006; Stein et al. 2000; Taylor 1998).
We created a participation index to account for all forms of participation with a single variable. Racial and ethnic variations across different types of participation could also exist, but this is not the focus of this research.
One could argue that this measure of self-interest in gentrification is actually a subjective measure because it is a self-report of a perception. However, all the measures of objective self-interest are based on self-reports (e.g., having a child enrolled in public school). In addition, we would argue that although perceptions of whether or not gentrification is happening in one's neighborhood is a belief, it seems to be distinct from the measure of subjective self-interest. Respondents could believe that gentrification is happening in their neighborhoods, but believe that it does not affect them. On the other hand, respondents who do not believe gentrification is happening in their neighborhoods could believe that it affects them by affecting the city or violating their core values (e.g., it promotes income inequality). Respondents who thought gentrification was happening did report higher subjective self-interest (mean = .45) than those who thought gentrification was not happening in their neighborhood (mean = .26; t(640) = 4.93, p < .001), but whether or not respondents reported that gentrification was happening in their neighborhood predicted less than 4 % of the variance in subjective self-interest (R2 = .037). This suggests that the measure of whether or not gentrification was happening in one’s neighborhood was not simply an additional measure of subjective self-interest.
References
Aldrich, J. H. (1993). Rational choice and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 246–278.
Alex-Assensoh, Y., & Assensoh, A. B. (2001). Inner-city contexts, church attendance, and African-American political participation. The Journal of Politics, 63(3), 886–901.
Anand, S., & Krosnick, J. A. (2003). The impact of attitudes towards foreign policy goals on public preferences among presidential candidates. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 33(1), 31–71.
Arvizu, J. R., & Garcia, C. F. (1996). Latino voting participation: Explaining and differentiating Latino voting turnout. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(2), 104–128.
Barreto, M. A., Merolla, J., & Soto, V. D. (2011). Multiple dimensions of mobilization: The effect of direct contact and political ads on Latino turnout in the 2000 Presidential election. Journal of Political Marketing, 10(4), 303–327.
Belanger, E., & Meguid, B. M. (2008). Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote choice. Electoral Studies, 27(3), 477–491.
Bobo, L., & Gilliam, F. D, Jr. (1990). Race, sociopolitical participation, and Black empowerment. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 377–393.
Boninger, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Berent, M. K. (1995). The origins of attitude importance: Self-interest, social identification, and value relevance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 61–80.
Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES—A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 271–294.
Bryant, B. E. (1975). Respondent selection in a time of changing household composition. Journal of Marketing Research, 12(2), 129–135.
Calhoun-Brown, A. (1996). African American churches and political mobilization: The psychological impact of organizational resources. The Journal of Politics, 58(4), 935–953.
Campbell, A. L. (2002). Self-interest, social security, and the distinctive participation patterns of senior citizens. American Political Science Review, 96(3), 565–574.
Campbell, D. E. (2004). Acts of faith: Churches and political engagement. Political Behavior, 26(2), 155–180.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
Chong, D., Citrin, J., & Conley, P. (2001). When self-interest matters. Political Psychology, 22(3), 541–570.
Citrin, J., Green, D., Muste, C., & Wong, C. (1997). Public opinion toward immigration reform: The role of economic motivations. The Journal of Politics, 59(3), 858–881.
Clemens, J., Couper, M., & Powers, K. (2002). Detroit area study 1952–2001: Celebrating 50 years. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Cohen, C. J., & Dawson, M. C. (1993). Neighborhood poverty and African American politics. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 286–302.
Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and its discontents (pp. 206–261). New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
Conway, M. M. (2000). Political participation in the United States (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Crowe, J. W., & Bailey, W. J. (1995). Self-interest and attitudes about legislation controlling alcohol. Psychological Reports, 76(3), 995–1003.
Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who governs?. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Diaz, W. A. (1996). Latino participation in America: Associational and political roles. Hispanic Journal of Behavior, 18(2), 154–174.
Dixon, R. D., Lowery, R. C., Levy, D. E., & Ferraro, K. E. (1989). Self-interest and public opinion toward smoking policies: A replication and extension. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(2), 241–254.
Fessenden, F. (2012). A portrait of segregation in New York City’s schools. The New York Times May 11, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/11/nyregion/segregation-in-new-york-city-public-schools.html.
Fowler, J. H., & Kam, C. D. (2007). Beyond the self: Social identity, altruism, and political participation. The Journal of Politics, 69(3), 813–827.
Galston, W. A. (2001). Political knowledge, political engagement, and civic education. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 217–234.
Garcia, J. A., & Arce, C. H. (1988). Political orientations and behaviors of Chicanos: Trying to make sense out of attitudes and participation. In F. C. Garcia (Ed.), Pursuing power: Latinos and the political system (pp. 125–151). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame.
Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2000). The effects of canvassing, Telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94(3), 653–663.
Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. W. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout. Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 33–48.
Graber, D. (1984). Processing the news: How people tame the information tide. New York: Longman Inc.
Green, D. P., & Cowden, J. A. (1992). Who protests: Self-interest and white opposition to busing. Journal of Politics, 54(2), 471–496.
Green, D. P., & Gerken, A. E. (1989). Self-interest and public opinion toward smoking restrictions and cigarette taxes. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 53(1), 1–16.
Gusfield, J. E. (1963). Symbolic crusade: Status politics and the American temperance movement. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Han, H. (2009). Moved to action: Motivation, participation, and inequality in American politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hansen, J. M. (1985). The political economy of group membership. American Political Science Review, 79(March), 79–96.
Harris, F. C., Sinclair-Chapman, V., & McKenzie, B. D. (2005). Macrodynamics of Black political participation in the post-civil rights era. Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1143–1163.
Hero, R. E., & Campbell, A. G. (1996). Understanding Latino political participation: Exploring the evidence from the Latino national political survey. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(2), 129–141.
Highton, B. (2000). Residential mobility, community mobility, and electoral participation. Political Behavior, 22(2), 109–120.
Hopkins, D. J. (2010). Politicized places: Explaining where and when immigrants provoke local opposition. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 40–60.
Huckfeldt, R. R. (1979). Political participation and the neighborhood social context. American Journal of Political Science, 23(3), 579–592.
Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1992). Political parties and electoral mobilization: Political structure, social structure, and the party canvass. American Political Science Review, 86(1), 70–86.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Krosnick, J. A. (1990). Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue publics in contemporary America. Political Behavior, 12(1), 59–92.
Lau, R. R., Brown, T. A., & Sears, D. O. (1978). Self-interest and civilians’ attitudes toward the Vietnam War. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42(4), 464–483.
Lau, R., & Heldman, C. (2009). Self-interest, symbolic attitudes, and support for public policy: A multilevel analysis. Political Psychology, 30(4), 513–537.
Leege, D. C., & Kellstedt, L. A. (1993). Rediscovering the religious factor in American politics. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Leighley, J. E., & Nagler, J. (1992). Individual and systematic influences on turnout—Who votes 1984. Journal of Politics, 54(3), 718–740.
Leighley, J. E., & Vedlitz, A. (1999). Race, ethnicity, and political participation: Competing models and contrasting explanations. The Journal of Politics, 61(4), 1092–1114.
Lijphart, A. (1997). Unequal participation: Democracy’s unresolved dilemma—Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1996. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 1–14.
Loomis, B. A., & Cigler, A. J. (1995). Introduction: The changing nature of interest group politics. In A. J. Cigler & B. A. Loomis (Eds.), Interest group politics (pp. 1–32). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Mangum, M. (2008). Testing competing explanations of Black opinions on affirmative action. Policy Studies Journal, 36(3), 347–366.
Marschall, M. J., & Stolle, D. (2004). Race and the city: Neighborhood context and the development of generalized trust. Political Behavior, 26(2), 125–153.
McClerking, H. K., & McDaniel, E. L. (2005). Belonging and doing: Political churches and Black political participation. Political Psychology, 26(5), 721–733.
Mettler, S. (2002). Bringing the state back into civic engagement: Policy feedback effects of the GI Bill for World War II Veterans. American Political Science Review, 96(2), 351–365.
Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2004). Threat as a motivator of political activism: A field experiment. Political Psychology, 25(4), 507–523.
Miller, J. M., Krosnick, J. A., Lowe, L., & Holbrook, A. (2002). The impact of policy change threat on financial contributions to interest groups. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota.
Murray, G. R., & Scime, A. (2010). Microtargeting and electorate segmentation: Data mining the American National Election Studies. Journal of Political Marketing, 9(3), 143–166.
Oliver, J. E., & Wong, J. (2003). Intergroup prejudice in multiethnic settings. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 567–582.
Olsen, M. E. (1970). Social and political participation of Blacks. American Sociological Review, 35(4), 682–697.
Ornstein, N. J., & Elder, S. (1978). Interest groups, lobbying, and policymaking. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Passel, J. & Cohn, D. (2010). U.S. unauthorized immigration flows are down sharply since mid-decade. Report from the Pew Hispanic Center. http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/126.pdf.
Pattillo, M. (2008). Black on the block: The politics of race and class in the city. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Popkin, S. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
Sanchez, G. (2011). Immigration policy is personal for Latinos. Latino Decisions Blog. http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2011/07/18/immigration-policy-is-personal-for-latinos/.
Savelkoul, M., Scheepers, P., Tolsma, J., & Hagendoorn, L. (2011). Anti-Muslim attitudes in the Netherlands: Tests of contradictory hypotheses derived from ethnic competition theory and intergroup contact theory. European Sociological Review, 27(6), 741–758.
Scheepers, P., Gijsberts, M., & Coenders, M. (2002). Ethnic exclusionism in European countries—Public opposition to civil rights for legal migrants as a response to perceived ethnic threat. European Sociological Review, 18(1), 17–34.
Schildkraut, D. J. (2005). The rise and fall of political engagement among Latinos: The role of identity and perceptions of discrimination. Political Behavior, 27(3), 285–312.
Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. E. (2012). The unheavenly chorus: Unequal political voice and the broken promise of American democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sears, D. O., & Citrin, J. (1982). Tax revolt: Something for nothing in California. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sears, D. O., Hensler, C. P., & Speer, L. K. (1979). Whites’ opposition to ‘busing’: Self-interest or symbolic politics? American Political Science Review, 73(2), 369–384.
Sears, D. O., Lau, R. R., Tyler, T. R., & Allen, H. M. (1980). Self-interest vs. symbolic politics in policy attitudes and Presidential voting. American Political Science Review, 74(3), 670–684.
Semyonov, M., Raijman, R., & Gorodzeisky, A. (2006). The rise of anti-foreigner sentiment in European societies, 1988–2000. American Sociological Review, 71(3), 426–449.
Shingles, R. D. (1981). Black consciousness and political participation: The missing link. American Political Science Review, 75(1), 76–91.
Stein, R. M., Post, S. S., & Rinden, A. L. (2000). Reconciling context and contact effects on racial attitudes. Political Research Quarterly, 53(2), 285–303.
Stewart, J., & Sheffield, J. F. (1987). Does interest group litigation matter? The case of Black political mobilization in Mississippi. Journal of Politics, 49(3), 780–798.
Stoker, L., & Jennings, M. K. (1995). Life-cycle transitions and political participation—The case of marriage. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 421–433.
Stokes, A. K. (2003). Latino group consciousness and political participation. American Politics Research, 31(4), 361–378.
Tate, K. (1991). Black political participation in the 1984 and 1988 Presidential elections. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1159–1176.
Tate, K. (1993). From protest to politics: The new Black voters in American elections. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Taylor, M. C. (1998). How white attitudes vary with the racial composition of local populations: Numbers count. American Sociological Review, 63(4), 512–535.
Thompson, C. (2012). Strike against inequality. The Nation Blog. http://www.thenation.com/blog/169947/strike-against-inequality.
Timpone, R. J. (1998). Structure, behavior, and voter turnout in the United States. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 145–158.
Verba, S., Burns, N., & Schlozman, K. L. (1997). Knowing and caring about politics: Gender and political engagement. Journal of Politics, 59(4), 1051–1072.
Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America. New York: Harper and Row.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H., & Nie, N. H. (1993). Race, ethnicity, and political resources—Participation in the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 23(4), 453–497.
Wolpert, R. M., & Gimpel, J. G. (1998). Self-interest, symbolic politics, and public attitudes toward gun control. Political Behavior, 20(3), 241–262.
Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Acknowledgments
This paper reports analyses using data from the 2008 Chicago Area Study. The data collection was supported by funds from the Chicago Area Study Initiative (http://igpa.uillinois.edu/cas/) and the Great Cities Institute (http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/gci/index.shtml) of the University of Illinois at Chicago. The authors would also like to dedicate this paper in memory of Ingrid Graf who served as the project coordinator for this project. Ingrid generously gave her time and many talents into this project and it would not have been successful without her.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Question Wording for Individual Level Variables
Appendix: Question Wording for Individual Level Variables
Gender
Coded by the interviewer.
Age
“Now, we’d like to find out a little bit about you. In what year were you born?” Coded to range from 0 (18 years old) to 1 (91 years old).
Years of Education
“What is the highest grade of school or year of college you have completed?” Coded to range from 0 (zero years of education) to 1 (17 or more of education).
Household Income
“Was your total household income for the year 2007, from all sources, before taxes, more or less than $60,000?” Respondents who said their income was less than 60k were asked: “Was it less than $40,000?” Those who said it was less than 40k were asked: “Was it less than $20,000?” Respondents who said their income was more than 60k were asked: “Was it more than $80,000?” Respondents who said their income was more than 80k were asked: “Was it more than $100,000?” Coded 0 for less than 20k, .20 for 20–40k, .40 for 40–60k, .60 for 60–80k, .80 for 80–100k, and 1 for more than 100k.
Marital Status
“What is your current marital status? Are you married, in a civil union, living with a partner, separated, divorced, widowed, or never married?” Respondents who were married, in a civil union or living with a partner were coded as having a partner (1) and all other respondents were coded 0.
Time Lived in Community
“How long have you lived in your current neighborhood or community?” Coded to range from 0 (less than 1 year) to 1 (97 years or more)
Homeownership
“Do you or your family own the home where you are currently living, are you renting, or do you have some other arrangement?” Respondents who said they or their family owned their own home were coded 1, all other respondents were coded 0.
Religious Attendance
“Do you attend religious services every week, almost every week, once or twice a month, a few times a year, or never?” Coded to range from 0 for “never” to 1 for “every week.”
Encouragement by a Religious Leader
“Has a religious leader at your place of worship publicly encouraged members of the congregation to politically participate in any way, for example by voting, attending a rally, or contributing to a cause or organization?” Respondents who said yes were coded 1; respondents who said no were coded 0.
Membership in Civic Groups
“There are lots of organizations in the community that people belong to. Do you belong to any of the following groups: a fraternal organization such as the Lions or Kiwanis? …a group working on local political issues? …a school group such as a Parent Teacher Association or PTA, school booster group, or community school organization? …a labor union?” Responses to each of these three questions were coded 0 if the respondent said no and 1 if s/he said yes and averaged together to form an index of membership in civic groups.
Political Efficacy
“Next, I’d like you to tell me whether you agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat, or disagree strongly with the following statement: ‘Sometimes politics and government seem so complicated that I can’t really understand what’s going on.’”
“How much influence on federal government policies do you think you have? Would you say a great deal, quite a bit, some, a little, or none?”
“How much influence on City of Chicago policies do you think you have? Would you say a great deal, quite a bit, some, a little, or none?”
“How much attention do you feel the federal government pays to what people like you think when it decides what to do? Would you say a great deal, quite a bit, some, a little, or none?”
“How much attention do you feel the government in the City of Chicago pays to what people like you think when it decides what to do? Would you say a great deal, quite a bit, some, a little, or none?”
“How much influence on City of Chicago policies do you think you have? Would you say a great deal, quite a bit, some, a little, or none?”
Responses to each question were coded to range from 0 (“agree strongly” for the first question and “none” for the other 5 questions) to 1 (“disagree strongly” for the first question and “a great deal” for the other 5 questions).
Trust in Government
“How much of the time do you think you can trust the federal government to do what is right? Would you say always, most of the time, sometimes, occasionally, or never?”
“How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in the City of Chicago to do what is right? Would you say always, most of the time, sometimes, occasionally, or never?”
Responses to each question were coded to range from 0 for never to 1 for always and averaged together to form an index.
Political Interest
“How interested are you in politics? Are you extremely interested, very interested, somewhat interested, not very interested, or not at all interested?” Coded to range from 0 for not at all interested to 1 for extremely interested.
Strength of Party Identification
“Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or something else?” Respondents who said “Republican” were asked: “Would you consider yourself a strong Republican or a not very strong Republican?” Respondents who said “Democratic” were asked “Would you consider yourself a strong Democrat or a not very strong Democrat?” Respondents who said “Independent” or “something else” were asked: “Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or to the Democratic party?” Coded 1 for strong Democrats and Republicans, .66 for not very strong Democrats and Republicans, .33 for respondents who leaned toward one party or the other, and 0 for respondents who did not identify with or lean toward either party.
Strength of Political Ideology
“In general, would you describe your political views as very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal, or very liberal?” Coded 1 for respondents who said “very liberal” or “very conservative,” .5 for respondents who said “conservative” or “liberal,” and 0 for respondents who said “moderate.”
Knowledge of Local Politics
“Do you happen to know what job or political office is now held by Todd Stroger?”
“Whose job is it to create the annual state budget; the governor, the state legislature, or the state supreme court?”
“Do you happen to know the name of the Chief Executive Officer of the Chicago Public Schools?”
Local political knowledge was coded as the proportion of these questions the respondent answered correctly.
Knowledge of National Politics
“Do you happen to know what job or political office is now held by Dick Cheney?”
“How much of a majority is required for the U.S. Senate and House to override a presidential veto?”
“Do you happen to know which party has the most members in the House of Representatives in Washington?”
National political knowledge was coded as the proportion of these questions the respondent answered correctly.
Degree to Which a Respondent is in the Majority or Minority in His or Her ZIP Code
Respondents were asked to report their ZIP code and threat was coded as the proportion of residents in the respondent’s ZIP code who were a different race or ethnicity than the respondent according to 2000 Census data.
Group Consciousness
“Next, please tell me how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements: Being [R’s RACE/ETHNICITY] determines a lot how you are treated in this country. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree.”
“Being [R’s RACE/ETHNICITY] determines a lot how you are treated in Chicago. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?”
Responses to both questions were coded to range from 0 for strongly disagree to 1 for strongly agree and averaged to form an index of group consciousness.
Internet Access
“Do you ever access the Internet, either at home, at work, or at a place like a public library or Internet cafe?”
Voting Eligibility
“Have you ever been eligible to vote in the United States?”
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Holbrook, A.L., Sterrett, D., Johnson, T.P. et al. Racial Disparities in Political Participation Across Issues: The Role of Issue-Specific Motivators. Polit Behav 38, 1–32 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9299-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9299-3