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 participation
Conventional
CPP
Portuguese
Angolans
Brazilian
Total
Male > Female
Female > Male
Female > Male
PT> BRA> ANG
Female > Male
Female > Male
BRA> PT> ANG
Participation
on the net
Male = Female
Civil
disobedience
Male> Female
Female > Male
Female > Male
Economic
participation
Female > Male
Female > Male
Female > Male
Vote in
elections
Female > Male
Female > Male
Male> Female
PT> BRA> ANG
PT> BRA> ANG
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 participation
PT
ANG
BRA
Action
Pillai´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
P=.031; F>M
P=.708
P=.002; F>M
P=.285
Civil desob.
Economic
P=.706
P≤.0001; F>M
Efectiveness
Pillai´s Trace=.069,
F(5,370)=5.486,
p≤.0001
Civil desob.
P≤.0001; M>F
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
Pillai´s Trace=.021,
F(5,236)=1.026; p=403
P=.752
Pillai´s Trace=.009,
F(5,316)=.582,
p=.714
P=.236
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 Efficacy
Pillai´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, Pillai´s Trace=.057, Pillai´s Trace=.030
F(3,383)=11.913
F(3,243)=4.927,
F(3,228)=3.494,
p≤.0001
p=.002
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
Trust
Pillai´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
P=.053 M>F
P=.587
P=.001 M>F
P=.001 M>F
In governments
leaders
P=.425
Interpersonal trust
P=.036 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., selfpolitical 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.
civilD <---,009
,029
-,296
SOC - CC
civilD <--civilD <--civilD <--civilD <---
Effectiv.
Motivation
Interest
Attention
P
,768
,269
,068
3,972
***
,014
,022
,615
,538
-,011
,062
-,185
,853
,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: (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
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
Vote
Regression 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 Liège (Belgium), Masaryk University (Czech Republic),
University of Jena (Germany), University of Bologna (Italy), University of
Porto (Portugal), Örebro University (Sweden), Ankara University (Turkey)
and Queen’s University Belfast (UK)