Skip to main content

Gender Differences in Political Knowledge: Distinguishing Characteristics-Based and Returns-Based Differences

Political Behavior volume 31, pages 117–136 (2009)Cite this article

Abstract

This study assesses whether gender-based differences in political knowledge primarily result from differences in observable attributes or from differences in returns for otherwise equivalent characteristics. It applies a statistical decomposition methodology to data obtained from the 1992–2004 American National Election Studies. There is a consistent 10-point gender gap in measured political knowledge, of which approximately one-third is due to gender-based differences in the characteristics that predict political knowledge, with the remaining two-thirds due to male–female differences in the returns to these characteristics. The methodology identifies the relative contribution of the predictors of political knowledge to each portion of the gap, and then uses this information to elucidate the underlying sources of the political knowledge gender gap and its prognosis. Education is the characteristic that most clearly enlarges the gap, with men receiving significantly larger returns to political knowledge from education than women. Group membership reduces the gap as women obtain gains in political knowledge from belonging to organizations that do not accrue to men. However, these gains are not sufficient to significantly reduce the gap.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. Although there is debate over whether the schools do so effectively (Niemi and Junn 1998; cf. Galston 2004).

  2. This is by construction: “IQ” tests indicate academic ability, and contain few instruments that produce significant gender-based advantages or liabilities.

  3. In addition, the ANES interviewer assessments also show a statistically significant difference in perceived respondent intelligence by gender. Men score higher than women on this assessment in each of the 1992–2004 studies.

  4. Speaking of political knowledge, Jennings and Niemi (1974, p. 97), write that “We are arguing that homes where parents have higher levels of information are likely to be homes where the atmosphere is conducive for the child’s acquisition of political facts.” The same is most certainly true for political interest as well (see, for example, Jennings 1981, Table 4.1).

  5. Specifically, if women are more likely to respond “don’t know” when presented a question to which they do not know the answer, while equally uninformed men are more likely to guess, a knowledge measure created from a summation of correct responses with no adjustment for guessing may produce higher scores for men when there is no underlying difference in knowledge. This conclusion, however, has not gone unchallenged. The question of how to treat “don’t know” responses in the measurement of political sophistication is the subject of an active debate (Barabas 2002; Luskin and Bullock 2005, 2006; Mondak 2001). While the details of these exchanges are not central to this study, I believe the weight of evidence supports coding these responses as incorrect answers.

  6. Lupia (2006) cautions that responses to factual political knowledge questions such as those used in the ANES are sensitive to interviewing protocols, and may produce underestimates respondent’s actual knowledge. However, the dependent variable can withstand this scrutiny because it does not exclusively rely on factual knowledge questions of the type described by Lupia (e.g. “How long is the term of office for a US Senator?”). The dependent variable is also constructed in a manner similar to those used in the literature, so the findings may be easily compared with those from previous studies.

  7. There is also concern that the ANES questions may focus on political figures and policies that are of more interest to men than women, with attendant consequences for measured political knowledge. There is evidence, for example, that women are more likely than men to correctly identify members of the local school board (Delli Carpini and Keeter 1996, pp. 207–208). However, more generally, there is little evidence that women are more knowledgeable about so-called “women’s issues” than men, and even if this were the case, it would do little to attenuate the importance of the knowledge-gap revealed by the ANES questions.

  8. Race is not included as a variable because African American respondents are dropped from the sample. Race is a significant predictor of political sophistication, and it is customary to conduct analysis separately for racial groups (e.g. Burns et al. 2001, Table C11.10.1). Since my focus is on gender, the sample is limited to non-African American ANES respondents.

  9. The occupational prestige scores are the raw scores that are redacted from current ANES releases, but available through institutional research board request. For details on their construction, see Nakao et al. (1990). “Computing 1989 Prestige Scores,” Chicago: NORC, 1990. GSS Methodological Report No. 70.

  10. The mean personal income levels recovered from the 2000 ANES are less than those in the remaining years because this study uses a different income scale than in the previous or following years (compare ANES variables v960701 and v000997). This has few implications for the statistical analysis and interpretation because I am only interested in relative, not absolute, income.

  11. I use the test statistic outlined in Gujarati (2003, pp. 306–310). The Chow test assumes the female and male regressions have equal error variances. Regression diagnostics reveal that these are approximately equal, and retesting using Wald statistics, which allows for unequal variances, revealed no significant differences in the statistical inferences.

References

  • Banducci, S., & Semetko, H. A., N.d. Gender and context: Influences on political interest in Europe. Institute for government studies, Universiteit Twente. Presented at the 2002 annual meeting of the midwest political science association, Chicago.

  • Barabas, J. (2002). Another look at the measurement of political knowledge. Political Analysis, 10(2), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blinder, A. S. (1973). Wage discrimination: Reduced forma and structural estimates. The Journal of Human Resources, 8, 436–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody, N. (1999). What is intelligence?. International Review of Psychiatry, 11(1), 19–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, N., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (2001). The private roots of public action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, N., Kinder, D. R., Rosenstone, S. J., Sapiro, V., & The National Election Studies, American national election study. (2000). Pre and post election survey [computer file]. Conducted by University of Michigan, Center for political studies. 2nd ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies, and Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producers], 1999. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies, and Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2002.

  • Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delli, C., Michael, X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazer, E., & Macdonald, K. (2003). Sex differences in political knowledge in Britain. Political Studies, 51, 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galston, W. A. 2001. Political knowledge, political engagement, and civics education. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 217–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galston, W. A. (2004). Civic education and political participation. PS: Political Science and Politics, 2, 263–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garand, J. C., Guynan, E., & Fournet, M. (2005). The gender gap and political knowledge: Men and women in national and state politics. In Paper Presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, LA.

  • Gidengil, E., Goodyear-Grant, E., Nevitte, N., Blais, A., & Nadeau, R. (2003). Gender, Knowledge and Social Capital. In Paper Presented at the Conference on Gender and Social Capital, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB.

  • Gilligan, C. (1982). Is there a different voice? Psychological theories and women’s development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenn, N. D., & Grimes, M. (1968). Ageing, voting and political interest. American Sociological Review, 33, 563–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gujarati, D. N. (2003). Basic econometrics (4th ed.). Boston. McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, D. F., & LaMay, M. L. (2000). The smarter sex: A critical review of sex differences in intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 12(2), 229–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, M. L. (1981). Political interest in western European women. Comparative Political Studies, 14, 299–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamison, K. H. (2000). Everything you think you know about politics…and why you’re wrong. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jann, B. (2005). Standard errors for the Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition. In Presented at the 3rd German Stata Users Group Meeting, Berlin, Germany.

  • Jennings, M. K. (1996). Political knowledge over time and across generations. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(2), 228–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1974). The political character of adolescence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1981). Generations and politics. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosman, B. A., Mayer, E., & Keysar, A. (2001). American religious identification survey. New York: The Graduate Center, City University of New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, S. (1960). Political man: The social basis of politics. Garden City: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupia, A. (2006). How elitism undermines the study of voter competence. Critical Review, 18, 217–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luskin, R. C. (1987). Measuring political sophistication. American Journal of Political Science, 31, 856–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luskin, R. C. (1990). Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior.

  • Luskin, R. C., & Bullock J. (2004). Re(:)Measuring political sophistication. In Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.

  • Luskin, R. C., & Bullock J. (2005). Don’t know means don’t know. In Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.

  • Luskin, R. C., & Bullock J. (2006). Taking ‘Don’t Know’ for an answer: DK responses and the measurement of political knowledge. University of Texas at Austin. Working Paper.

  • McClurg, S. (2006). The electoral relevance of political talk: Examining disagreement and expertise effects in social networks on political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 737–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, J. M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1982). Women and weak ties: Differences by sex in the size of voluntary organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 87, 883–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, W. E., Kinder, D. R., Rosenstone, S. J., & The National Election Studies, American National Election Study. (1992). Pre- and Post- Election Survey. [Enhanced with 1990 and 1991 Data] [computer file]. Conducted by University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies. 2nd ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies, and Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producers], 1999. Ann Arbor, MI; University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies, and Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1999.

  • Mondak, J. J. (2001). Developing valid knowledge scales. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 224–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondak, J. J., & Anderson, M. R. (2004). The knowledge gap: A reexamination of gender-based differences in political knowledge. The Journal of Politics, 66, 492–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakao, K., & Judith, T. (1990). Computing 1989 prestige scores. Chicago: NORC. GSS Methodological Report No. 70.

  • National Center for Education Statistics, United States Department of Education. (2005). Trends in Educational Equity of Girls and Women: 2004. NCES Report 2005–016.

  • Newmark, D. (1988). Employers’ discriminatory behavior and estimation of wage discrimination. The Journal of Human Resources, 23, 279–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemi, R. G., & Junn, J. (1998). Civic education: What makes students learn. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oaxaca, R. (1973). Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets. International Economic Review, 14, 693–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popkin, S., Gorman, J. W., Phillips, C., & Smith, J. A. (1976). What have you done for me lately? Toward an investment theory of voting. American Political Science Review, 70, 779–805.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior, M., & Lupia, A. (2006). What citizens know depends on how your ask them: Political knowledge and political learning skills. Working Paper, Princeton University.

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall, V. (1987). Women and politics: An international perspective. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstone, S. J., Kinder D. R., Miller W. E., & The National Election Studies, American National Election Study. (1996). Pre- and Post- Election Survey. [computer file]. ICPSR06986-v5. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies, and Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producers], 2003. Ann Arbor, MI; University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies, and Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2005.

  • Trevor, M. C. (1999). Political socialization, party identification and the gender gap. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63, 62–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies, American National Election Study, American National Election Study. (2004) Pre- and Post-Election Survey [computer file]. ICPSR04245-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies, American National Election Study [producer], 2004. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2006.

  • Verba, S., Burns, N., & Schlozman, K. L. (1997). Knowing and caring about politics: Gender and political engagement. Journal of Politics, 59, 1051–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaller, J. (1990). Political awareness, elite opinion leadership and mass survey response. Social Cognition, 8, 125–153.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank Kenneth Troske, Jeff Milyo and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on this study. I am responsible for all errors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Jay K. Dow

Authors
  1. Jay K. Dow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jay K. Dow.

Appendix

Appendix

ANES Instruments used to create political knowledge measure: 1992–2004

 

1992

1996

2000

2004

Ideological

Self-placement

×

×

×

×

Candidate placement

×

×

×

×

Party placement

×

×

×

×

Objective knowledge

Vice president

×

×

 

×

Chief justice supreme court

×

×

×

×

Russian PM

×

×

  

British PM

  

×

×

House of representatives speaker

×

×

 

×

Senate majority leader

  

×

 

Attorney general

  

×

 

Issue placement

Services and spending—candidate

×

×

×

×

Services and spending—party

×

×

×

×

Defense spending—candidate

×

×

×

×

Defense spending—party

×

×

×

×

Jobs and Std of living—candidate

×

×

×

×

Jobs and Std of living—party

×

 

×

×

Abortion—candidate

×

×

×

×

Abortion—party

 

×

 

×

Independent variables: coding

Age

Age in years

Married

Binary: 1 (married), 0 (not married)

N child

Number of children living in the household more than half time

Education

Education level on ANES 7 Point Scale

PID strength

O (independent) to 3 (strong partisan) scale

Political interest

1 (low) to 3 (high) scale

Working

Binary: 1(employed outside the home), 0 (not employed outside the home)

Education

Education level on ANES 7 Point Scale

PID strength

O (independent) to 3 (strong partisan) scale

Political interest

1 (low) to 3 (high) scale

Working

Binary: 1(employed outside the home), 0 (not employed outside the home)

Hours worked

Number of reported working hours

Occupational prestige

NORC Occupational Prestige Scores: 15 (low) – 85 (high). See note 7

Personal income

Personal income on ANES scale. See note 8

Group membership

Reported membership in community, philanthropic or work related groups that hold regular meetings or face-to-face activities

Religious service

Religious service attendance coded on a 0 (never attends services) to 4 (attends weekly services) scale

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dow, J.K. Gender Differences in Political Knowledge: Distinguishing Characteristics-Based and Returns-Based Differences. Polit Behav 31, 117–136 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9059-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9059-8

Keywords

  • Gender
  • Political knowledge
  • Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition