Explaining women’s civic and political participation: the role of political, social and psychological

factors.  Maria Fernandes-Jesus, Norberto Ribeiro, Carla Malafaia, 

Joaquim Coimbra, Elvira Cicognani & Isabel Menezes.

Paper presented at the Surrey PIDOP Conference on “Political and Civic Participation”, April 16th-17th, 2012, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

Concerns about women participation• Gap gender – different levels of participation or different

forms of be engaged? (Andersen, 1997; Burns 2007; Paxton, Kunhovich & Hughes, 2007)

• A political need - women from different cultures and background need to be included in public and private arenas (Lister et. al, 2007)

• Creating models of participation under the assumption that participation is influenced by several factors and dimensions.

The sample

The data was collected by the Portuguese team of PIDOP

Forms of participation

Levels of participation

Levels of participationPortuguese Angolans Brazilian Total 

Conventional CPP Male > Female Female > Male Female > Male PT> BRA> ANG

Participation on the net

Male = Female Female > Male Female > Male BRA> PT> ANG

Civil disobedience

Male> Female Female > Male Female > Male PT> BRA> ANG

Economic participation Female > Male Female > Male Female > Male PT> BRA> ANG

Vote in elections Female > Male Female > Male Male> Female BRA> PT> ANG

In general:- Reduction of the gender gap in terms of levels of participation…- Inversion of the gap gender on the minority groups… but…

Gender ≠s on participationPT ANG BRA

ActionPillai´s Trace=.059,

F(5,372)=4.659, p≤.0001

Pillai´s Trace=.049, F(5,238)=2.476, p=.033

Pillai´s Trace=.022, F(5,337)=1.530,

p=.180

Conventional P=.877 P=.037; F>M P=.216

Civil desob. P=.706 P=.031; F>M P=.708

Economic P≤.0001; F>M P=.002; F>M P=.285

EfectivenessPillai´s Trace=.069,

F(5,370)=5.486, p≤.0001

Pillai´s Trace=.021, F(5,236)=1.026; p=403

Pillai´s Trace=.009, F(5,316)=.582,

p=.714

Civil desob. P≤.0001; M>F P=.752

P=.236

Dispositions Pillai´s Trace=.058,

F(5,369)=4.545, p≤.0001

Pillai´s Trace=.015, F(5,237)=.742; p=.593

Pillai´s Trace=.006, F(5,312)=.364,

P=.873

Civil desob. P=.001; M>F P=.702 P=.960

Gender ≠s on political attitudes

PT ANG BRA

Political Interest& Attentiveness& 

Knowledge

Pillai´s Trace=.042, F(3,358)=5.230,

p=.002

Pillai´s Trace=.002, F(3,203)=1.916,

p=.128

Pillai´s Trace=.009, F(3,285)=.911,

p=.436

Interest P=.007; M>F P=.867 P=.818

Attentiveness P=.001; M>F P=.616 P=.193

knowlege P=.270 p=.025 F>M P=.390

Political EfficacyPillai´s Trace=.046, F(3,384)=595.895,

p≤.0001

Pillai´s Trace=.033, F(2,250)=2.817,

p=.040

Pillai´s Trace=.015 F(2,349)=1.812,

p=.145

Internal efficacy p≤.0001 M>F P=.107 P=.032

Lack (external) P=.609 P=.85 P=.993

Collective P=-979 P=.004 M>F P=.244

Gender ≠s on political attitudes

PT ANG BRA

Sense of Community & 

Social Well-being 

Pillai´s Trace=.010, F(2,379)=.1.303,

p=.273

Pillai´s Trace=.037 F(3,249)=3.163,

p=.025

Pillai´s Trace=.032 F(3,337)=3.741,

p=.011

SW P=.559 P=.319 P=.002 M>F

Opportunities YP P=.053  M>F P=.852 P=.293

Community change P=.605 P=.019 M>F P=.107

Support Minority Rights

Pillai´s Trace=.085, F(3,383)=11.913

p≤.0001

Pillai´s Trace=.057,

F(3,243)=4.927, p=.002

Pillai´s Trace=.030 F(3,228)=3.494,

p=.016

Equal rights P≤.0001 F>M p=.006 F>M P=.068

Cultural rights P≤.0001 F>M P=.015 F>M P=.060

Positive discrimination P=.148 P=.011 M>F P=.152

Gender ≠s on political attitudes

PT ANG BRA

Motivations & Barriers

Pillai´s Trace=.014, F(3,381)=1.812

p=.144

Pillai´s Trace=.030, F(3,250)=2.601,

p=.053

Pillai´s Trace=.005 F(3,348)=.602,

p=.614

Personal enhancement P=.022 P=.006 M>F P=.602

Social change P=.109 P=.013 M>F P=.570

Barriers P=.826 P=.830 P=.205

TrustPillai´s Trace=.021,

F(3,383)=2.794 p=.040

Pillai´s Trace=.069, F(3,246)=6.061,

p=.001

Pillai´s Trace=.039 F(3,351)=4.776,

p=.003

In others forms of governments P=.020  M>F P≤.0001  M>F P=.572

In governments leaders

P=.425 P=.053  M>F P=.587

Interpersonal trust P=.036  M>F P=.001 M>F P=.001  M>F

• We realize several dilutions of gender differences regarding the participation action, but slightly changes on political attitudes. Could this suggest the major role of political opportunities?

• Gender differences on economic participation, with women revealing advantages, exception on Brazilian origin group

• Maintenance of traditional gender differences (e.g., self-political efficacy)

• Inversion of the traditional gender gap (e.g., political knowledge) on the group with Angolan origin – cultural issues?

• Brazilian youth are those who reported few gender ≠s• Angolan group is the group who show more gender ≠s • Portuguese group shown more advantages of men on political

attitudes.

 Independently of the migrants status, let´s analyze the role of motivations,

perceived effectiveness (Klandermans, 1997; 2002), political interests, political attentiveness (Van Deth & Elff; 2004) and sense of community -

community change (Ryan, Agnitsch, Zhao & Mullick, 2005) on participation - in relation with the both gender….

Conventional forms of CPP

Regression Weights: (Male - Default model)

Est. S.E. C.R. P

cpp <--- SOC - CC ,082 ,025 3,289 ,001

cpp <--- Effectiv. ,096 ,025 3,793 ***

cpp <--- Motivat. ,009 ,016 ,572 ,567

cpp <--- Interest ,063 ,031 2,009 ,045

cpp <--- Attention ,056 ,028 1,984 ,047

Regression Weights: (Female - Default model)

Est. S.E. C.R. P

cpp <--- SOC - CC ,034 ,024 1,407 ,159

cpp <--- Effectiv. ,048 ,022 2,140 ,032

cpp <--- Motivat. ,017 ,019 ,901 ,367

cpp <--- Interest ,041 ,032 1,270 ,204

cpp <--- Attention ,095 ,030 3,130 ,002

Economic participation

Regression Weights: (Male – Default model)

Est. S.E. C.R. P

Econ <-- SOC - CC ,044 ,044 ,991 ,321

Econ <-- Effectiv. ,305 ,064 4,764 ***

Econ <-- Motivation ,025 ,033 ,759 ,448

Econ <-- Interest ,249 ,091 2,745 ,006

Econ <-- Attention ,058 ,072 ,801 ,423

Regression Weights: (Female – Default model)

Est- S.E. C.R. P

Econ <--- SOC - CC -,005 ,045 -,109 ,913

Econ <--- Effectiv. ,123 ,057 2,141 ,032

Econ <--- Motivation ,152 ,040 3,806 ***

Econ <--- Interest -,119 ,083 -1,437 ,151

Econ <--- Attention ,379 ,076 4,996 ***

Civil disobedience Regression Weights: (Male – Default model)

Est. S.E. C.R. PcivilD <---

SOC - CC-,009 ,029 -,296 ,768

civilD <---Effectiv.

,269 ,068 3,972 ***

civilD <---Motivation

,014 ,022 ,615 ,538

civilD <---Interest

-,011 ,062 -,185 ,853

civilD <---Attention

,096 ,052 1,855 ,064

Regression Weights: (Female - Default model)

Est. S.E. C.R. P

civilD <- SOC - CC -,022 ,033 -,663 ,507

civilD <- Effectiv. ,221 ,051 4,314 ***

civilD <- Motivation -,011 ,027 -,402 ,687

civilD <- Interest ,068 ,053 1,276 ,202

civilD <- Attention ,095 ,046 2,049 ,040

Participation on the Internet

Regression Weights: (Female - Default model)

Est S.E. C.R. P

net <--- SOC - CC ,044 ,026 1,653 ,098

net <--- Effectiv. ,260 ,037 6,948 ***

net <--- Motivation -,020 ,021 -,948 ,343

net <--- Interest ,122 ,043 2,836 ,005

net <--- Attention ,078 ,038 2,081 ,037

Regression Weights: (Male - Default model)

Est S.E. C.R. P

net <--- SOC - CC ,032 ,031 1,014 ,311

net <--- Effectiv. ,358 ,051 7,017 ***

net <--- Motivation -,006 ,023 -,277 ,782

net <--- Interest ,201 ,069 2,918 ,004

net <--- Attention ,042 ,055 ,749 ,454

VoteRegression Weights: (Male - Default model)

Est S.E. C.R. P

vote <--- SOC - CC ,093 ,100 ,928 ,353

vote <--- Efficacy ,345 ,045 7,730 ***

vote <--- Motivation ,009 ,076 ,114 ,909

Vote <--- Interest ,427 ,215 1,984 ,047

vote <--- Attention ,076 ,176 ,435 ,664

Regression Weights: (Female - Default model)

Est S.E. C.R. P

Vote <--- SOC - CC -,047 ,093 -,508 ,612

vote <--- Efficacy ,248 ,044 5,626 ***

Vote <--- Motivation ,023 ,076 ,306 ,760

Vote <--- Interest ,407 ,149 2,737 ,006

vote <--- Attention ,122 ,129 ,945 ,345

• Perceived effectiveness of participation explain a significant part of all the forms of participation on both genders – consistent with the literature (Klandermans, 1997; 2002; Bandura, 2001)

• Our models seems to better explains the variance on economic participation and also participation on the internet - different forms of participation have different predictors

• Gender differentiation under the predictors of participation – sense of community seems to be important to explain conventional forms of civic and political participation of men (but not women). Motivations is a important predictor of women, but not men, economic participation

• Excepting on vote, political attentiveness is one significant predictors of female participation behaviors (but not male)

• There is no gender differences on the model of vote in elections - efficacy and political interest

Nevertheless, further analysis should considered that different groups can have different predictors of participation: ethnicity and

migrant status…

The PIDOP project is supported by a grant received from the European Commission 7th Framework Programme, FP7- SSH-2007-1, Grant

Agreement no: 225282, Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation (PIDOP) awarded to the University of Surrey (UK), University of Liege (Belgium), Masaryk University (Czech Republic),

University of Jena (Germany), University of Bologna (Italy), University of Porto (Portugal), Orebro University (Sweden), Ankara University

(Turkey) and Queen’s University Belfast (UK)