EXPLORING THE MICRO-DYNAMICS OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION:
UNPACKING TRENDS IN BLACK [AND WHITE] ACTIVISM OVER TIME
Valeria Sinclair-Chapman
University of Rochester
316 Harkness Hall
Rochester, NY 14627
vsan@mail.rochester.edu
(Corresponding Author)
Robert W. Walker
Washington University
rww@wustl.edu
Daniel Q. Gillion
University of Rochester
dgillion@rochester.edu
Paper prepared for presentation at the Shambaugh Conference on “The American Voter:
Change or Continuity over the Last Fifty Years,” May 8-10, 2008 hosted by the
Department of Political Science, University of Iowa.
The growth in black registration and turnout in the aftermath of the 1960s civil
rights movement spawned increased attention from political scientists to questions of
racial differences in political participation. With few exceptions, scholarship suggests
that African Americans’ voting and civic participation patterns are consistently distinct
from that of Anglo-whites. In a recent comparison of black voting patterns in the 2000
and 2004 presidential elections, the authors of The American Voter Revisited found that
black voters, who voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic nominee, were the most
distinctive voting bloc in the declining New Deal Coalition (Lewis-Beck, et. al. 2008,
322). White voters, on the other hand, split their votes more evenly between the two
parties. While there are many explanations for these differences, including party
campaigns and platform appeals (Walton 1985, Smith 1996, Smith and Seltzer 2007),
variation between the two major parties in mobilization efforts (Wielhouwer 2000), and
the role of group-based social and political institutions, such as churches or media outlets,
in informing voters and shaping their candidate selection (Dawson 1994, Calhoun-Brown
1996, Leighley 2001), the point remains that black-white differences in voting patterns
have persisted since the NES began its regular survey series in 1952. Racial differences
in voter turnout are also routinely observed (Verba and Nie 1972) though these effects are
attenuated or heightened by variation in socioeconomic status (Verba and Nie 1972;
Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995), social context (Cohen and Dawson 1993), and
group based resources such as stronger group identification or church attendance for
blacks (Dawson 1994, Tate 1994, Harris 1994, and Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995).
A look at levels of civic activism among blacks and whites also reveals crossracial distinctions. Americans do not participate in civic activity very often (Putnam
2000, Burns, Schlozman, and Verba 2001). Civic activism has been in slow decline since
2
the mid-1970s for both blacks and whites (Harris, et. al. 2006, 102-103; Rosenstone and
Hansen 1993). In one of the few studies of aggregate black civic activism to date, the
authors show that levels of black activism vary by region, gender, and social class and
that black activism is pushed and pulled by macro-political and socioeconomic forces
such as black electoral success or black unemployment that work at odd with each other
(Harris, et. al., 2006). But, even at its highest level during in the two decades between
1973 and 1994, black civic activism consistently trailed that of whites.
Scholars have attempted to explain racial differences in political participation in a
number of ways.
The most pervasive explanation is that variation in socioeconomic
status between blacks and whites is at the root of observed racial differences.
Specifically, lower education and income levels among blacks account for their lower
participation levels (Verba and Nie 1972). When socioeconomic status is controlled,
differences between blacks and whites disappear (Verba and Nie 1972, but see Claggett
1991). Black consciousness that increases internal political efficacy may also ameliorate
racial differences in participation (Shingles 1981, Miller et. al., 1981). Black
participation may equal or exceed that of whites in high-black-empowerment
environments, such as cities with black mayors and strong black representation on city
councils (Bobo and Gilliam 1990). One study of the black-empowerment effect in
congressional districts showed that the positive effect of black candidates on turnout was
generally short-lived for blacks and nonexistent for whites (Gay 2001).
While this body of literature contributes greatly to our understanding of why
blacks and whites might differently engage in political activity, it tells us little about how
individuals at varying levels of latent propensity to participate, i.e., low to high
likelihoods of participation, orient themselves to various political activities over time.
3
For instance, do we see variation in the activities that high (low) propensity participants
engage in overtime or do certain activities attract high (low) propensity participants year
after year? Answers to these questions lead directly to a follow up that asks: “How
reasonable is it to sum the standard 12-item battery of participation acts into a single
index of participation?” In other words, does it make sense to assume that attending a
rally is equivalent to working for a political party or signing a petition?1 Our results
suggest caution, showing that some activities reveal very little about the latent propensity
to participate while others tell us much more. Finally, we consider the role that race plays
in structuring the relationship between certain acts and varying levels of participation
propensities. Our preliminary results suggest that racial differences do exist in the level
of information that various activities reveal about underlying propensities to engage in
political activity.
In this paper, we unpack a standard index of civic activity from the Roper Social
and Political Trends data set, and employing a Rasch Model, begin a preliminary
exploration of what knowledge about the acts an individual engages in tells us about his
underlying propensity to participate. In order to do this, we put individuals in a “black
box,” so to speak, with no information about the correlates, such as measures of SES, that
research demonstrates drive participation. We believe that this is a reasonable first step
toward establishing the power and flexibility of the modeling technique (which we
describe in more detail below) and accept the necessary tradeoff that the implications of
our results can only be very cautiously interpreted.
1
These acts make up the commonly used measure of “political work” (see Harris, et.al., 2006, Burns et. al.,
2001).
4
In the remainder of this section we continue to discuss the rationale motivating
this research approach and conclude with a discussion of our modeling decisions. In the
next section, we discuss the results of our analysis of black participation during a 21 year
period from 1973-1994 with specific focus on three points in time: 1973, 1985, and
1994. We follow this with a comparison of black and white participation at two points in
time, 1973 and 1994. Finally, we end the paper with brief concluding remarks.
As we noted earlier, this paper is an exploratory examination of the foundations of
some of the most seminal work in the study of political participation across racial groups.
Verba, Schlozman, Brady, and Nie (1993), Brady, Verba, and Schlozman (1995),
Leighley and Vedlitz (1999), Harris, Sinclair, and McKenzie (2006) among others,
measure participation by aggregating a series of political acts and modeling a count of the
number of acts as a function of theoretically relevant covariates either at the individual or
aggregate level. As an extension of this previous work, our paper examines the
underlying validity of measures of political participation. We unpack potential
differences among a variety of [potentially] disparate participation activities beyond
voting and uncover the information that each activity reveals about the latent propensity
of individuals to engage in more or less political participation. This exploratory effort is
part of a larger project that builds on explicit micro-measures to reexamine theories of
political participation with specific attention to racial politics.
The analysis that we present here informs a host of important questions in the
study of political participation. First, the measurement models that we employ allow for
fine-grained assessments of the dynamics of participation across racial and ethnic groups
and over time. Our use of data covering almost a quarter of a century and inquiring about
the same sets of activities with a large national sample of respondents allows us to
5
consider not only whether there are differences in mean levels of political participation,
but also whether some of the apparent differences among racial groups are related to
dynamic variance.2 Flexible measurement models allow us to undertake straightforward
comparisons with other aggregate time-serial measures of political participation and to
ask questions about the general dynamic trajectories of the propensity to participate
across time, space, and racial groups.
In this project, we build on previous research by assuming less about the data.
Three related areas of interest motivate this paper. First, does the relative likelihood of
individuals to engage in particular participation acts remain constant over time? In other
words, if we look across time does the relative rank-order of participation activities
remain stable or do we find variation in the likelihood of individuals to engage in certain
activities? Similarly, we ask whether the capacity of a particular activity, say serving on
a local committee, to predict an individual’s latent propensity to participate remains
constant or varies over time. Finding temporal variation in either the likelihood of
individuals to engage in certain activities or in the information that those activities reveal
about propensities to participate would suggest that activities, such as signing a petition
and serving on a committee for example, are not equivalent, which leads to our next area
of interest.
Second, our research asks how reasonable it is to sum the usual suspects in
participation research, e.g., the standard 12-item battery of participation acts, in a single
index of participation? The flexibility of the measurement model allows us to avoid
imposing our own ex ante assumptions about whether engaging in one activity is
2Because the class of latent variable models that we employ are motivated by symmetric disturbances, the
mean is an unbiased measure of central tendency. The problem is that any sampling error has more
profound consequences, all other things equal, when variances are larger. Implicitly, all existing studies
assume that variances in participation are constant with respect to time.
6
equivalent to engaging in another. In other words, ought we to assume that the frequency
of national and local voting are effectively summable? Should working in a campaign,
contacting government officials, protesting, engaging in informal community activity, or
local governing board [either as a leader or regular participant] be summed with each act
equivalent to the next.3 Our analysis shows significant heterogeneity in the information
that can be inferred from an identical series of activities. We find that some activities
reveal very little about the latent propensity to participate while others tell us much more.
Furthermore, our research demonstrates that the level of information an activity discloses
about the underlying propensity of an actor to participate can vary over time as well.
Third, we ask whether certain activities tell us more or less about individuals’
propensities to participate depending on the race of respondents. In other words, does
knowing whether a respondent wrote a letter to her representative in the previous year
reveal the same level of information about the propensity of that individual to participate
regardless of race? The preliminary results presented in the paper suggest that racial
differences do exist in the level of information that various activities reveal about
underlying propensities to engage in political activity.
A final potential benefit of our approach is that our measurement model, because
of its flexibility compared to previous work, facilitates our allowing the data “speak for
itself,” without imposing strict assumptions about how the world works. Thus, we do not
assume that engaging in one act is the equivalent of engaging in another similar act. In
some ways, our analysis extends the work Brady, Verba, and Schlozman (1995) where
they pay careful attention to the different classes of participation acts by focusing on
seven activities (voting in the 1988 presidential election, contacting federal or local
3These are implicit assumptions in the work of Brady, Verba, and Schlozman (1995).
7
officials, campaign contributions, informal work with others on community problems,
campaign work, protesting, and regular meeting attendance) that are suggestive of a
particular kind of political participation.
A Bit More on the Rasch Model
In this section, we describe the mappings between individual items and latent levels of
participation using a two-parameter item response model [also commonly known as a
Rasch model]. This model closely resembles a standard regression model including a
slope coefficient and a constant, all that differs is the standard interpretation of the model.
In this two parameter item response model, the variable of interest is the latent utility for i
which is related by the slope to the probability of an act j which either occurs or does not
on the basis of whether or not the product of the latent utility for participation times the
slope added to the constant exceeds the zero threshold.
More formally, we measure a model of j acts for i individuals as,
participation activity ij alpha j beta j thetai .
As this simple formula clarifies, we assume that there is a single latent propensity to
participate in political activities, broadly construed, that is measured by theta [indexed by
individuals i]. In the language of Rasch models in item response theory, the two
parameters are given functional names, the difficulty and discrimination parameters. The
difficulty parameters are equivalent to the constant in a standard linear regression model
and they describe, for an individual with a zero latent measure of participation, the
likelihood that said individual participates in act j. Of greater importance, the
discrimination parameters measure the responsiveness in the probability of action j to
changes in the latent propensity to participate. As a result, greater [absolute] values of
8
the discrimination parameter imply that small changes in the latent variable correlate with
more substantial increases in the probability of an activity.4
Data
To explore questions about the latent propensity to participate among black and
white Americans, we use a unique rolling cross-sections survey instrument designed by
Roper (1994). The Roper Social and Political Trends data measures a twelve-item
battery of social and political participation compiled from Roper surveys of over 400,000
respondents from 1973 to 1994. While we have access to and have performed analyses
on all of the available data, here we report specific results for African-American
respondents and some summary results for Anglo-American respondents as a point of
contrast. The size of the African-American sample is substantial compared to other
commonly used surveys, e.g., the ANES and NES. No year contains less than 1095
observations and that the total sample contains 44,615 observations on African-American
respondents over 21 years. The items that we analyze are listed in Appendix 1.
Results
We present the results by first comparing the estimated mean values of the
difficulty parameters in Figure 1. Intuitively, it should be obvious that nonparticipation is
the norm. For example, signing a petition is the most widely expressed form of political
4
All of the models were estimated on yearly samples using Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithms. To
ensure convergence to appropriate posterior density, we examined traceplots, and utilitized a series of
diagnostics for assessing convergence in multiple chain runs. The posteriors plotted in the appendix
mix 29000 draws from three chains that were intentionally chosen so as to provide interchangeable
extrema of the feasible parameter space. Furthermore, identification was achieved by assuming a
standard normal distribution to the latent propensities to participate and rotational invariance was
avoided via post-processing. Formal diagnostics for the multiple chains indicated convergence using
the technique described by Gelman and Rubin (1992).
9
participation and yet only 18.24% of respondents are expected to engage in this activity.5
Similarly, attending a public meeting is only slightly more difficult and provides
considerable information about the latent levels of participation of respondents. Indeed,
there are two rough constellations of participation acts that can be statistically
differentiated from one another using the difficulty parameters alone. On the one hand,
activities like signing petitions and attending public meetings are visibly distinct from
running for political office, working for a political party, and writing articles or letters to
express political opinions in magazines and newspapers. To render a clear substantive
interpretation to the results, recall that the baseline model is a standard normal item
response model that very closely resembles the standard probit model. Thus, the
difficulty parameters are equivalent to an item specific constant and the fact that virtually
all of these item specific constants are greater than two suggests that less than 2.5% of the
respondents will ultimately engage in the activity.6 Simply put, participation is quite rare.
With this in mind, we now turn to a description of the discrimination parameters.
The discrimination parameters tell a story that contains two central elements.
The first is that running for political office [the light blue line at the bottom of Figure 2]
offers little or no information about the underlying propensity to participate. At the same
time, signing petitions and attendance at public meetings relating to local or school affairs
provide substantial information about latent levels of political participation. While most
of the indicators tend to provide some albeit limited information about the latent
propensity to participate, it is clear that running for political office is distinct [and almost
5To be precise, the integral from negative infinity to the difficulty parameter determines the probability that
an individual with a zero value of theta will participate in act j. For all cases that we consider, this
integral is over a proper density.
6 This value is obtained by taking the probability that a z-score is greater than two. To be more precise, we
must note that this claim in part depends on assuming a value of the discrimination parameter. In the
present case, values less than one ensure that this claim is correct, though if the discrimination
parameter is greater than one, then the percentage will be greater than 2.5%.
10
never rejects the null hypothesis of no effect] and that the most common participatory
acts that we examine [petitions and attendance at meetings] also provide the most
information about latent utilities for political participation.
Item Difficulty
3
2.5
contact
rally
petition
party-work
org-member
pub-meeting
run-office
org-cmte
org-ofcr
letter
speech
article
2
1.5
1
0.5
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
86
85
84
83
82
81
80
79
78
77
76
75
74
94
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
73
0
Figure 1. Estimated Mean Values of Difficulty Parameters for Participation Acts
11
Discrimination Parameters
1.4
1.2
contact
rally
petition
party-work
org-member
pub-meeting
run-office
org-cmte
letter
speech
article
org-ofcr
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
19
73
19
74
19
75
19
76
19
77
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
0
Figure 2. Discrimination Parameters for Participation Acts
Response Probabilities
In the following section, we describe the changes in the activity probabilities as a
function of changes in the unobserved latent level of participation. To state it differently,
as we examine changes in the probabilities that individuals will engage in each activity as
we change the latent propensity of participation from low to high. We plot the
probability for an individual to engage in each of 12 activities with the latent propensity
to participate given on the x-axis. Starting at the top right, the first and most obvious
conclusion is that African-Americans are quite unlikely to write to their congressperson
or senator. Because we have assumed an underlying normal model, there is virtually no
change and epsilon chance of such activities for 84% of black respondents. Though the
activity probabilities rise quickly, they only rise for the 16% that are most likely to
12
participate. However, there is an interesting pattern to the responses with respect to time.
The lowest (small-dash) line represents the probability of self-reported writing to a
congressperson or senator in 1974, the intermediate (solid) line represents this same
probability in 1994, while the top line demonstrates that African-American respondents
were most likely to write to a congressperson or senator in 1985 when compared to 1973
and 1994.7
An interesting contrast arises in analyzing attendance at a public rally or speech.
An examination of all of the action probabilities mirrors the evidence presented in the top
right panel of Figure 1.3. We find evidence of responsiveness in terms of the propensity
to participate, though we also find that at least 50% percent of the population has almost
zero likelihood of engaging in the act. The probability of attendance at a public rally or
speech is highest in 1973 and from there begins a slow decline through the 1970s and
1980s, reaching a low point at the end of the sample [the mid-1990s].
Moving to petition signing, this participation activity is by far the most common.
Indeed, the mean respondent [a respondent who does not participate], has just over a 10%
chance of signing a petition and as the latent propensity increases, so to does the
likelihood of signing petitions. It is interesting to note the remarkable stability of petition
behavior among blacks through time. There is almost no appreciable difference in the
effect of latent propensities to participate on petition signing when comparing the 1970s,
1980s, and 1990s. Looking at the 95% confidence intervals for the discrimination
parameter, only 1982 is substantively different [and larger] from all of the remaining
years from 1973 to 1995.
7
A look at all of the action probabilities for each of the yearly samples demonstrates that the upward trend
begins early in the 1970s and continues until the mid-1980s before beginning a secular decline to 1994
levels.
13
Working for a political party showcases interesting variation. On the one hand,
only a small fraction of respondents report working for a political party and the mean
respondent is quite unlikely to engage in party work. On the other hand, there is
considerable and interesting variation in the role of party work through time. While the
1970s and 1980s show that the probability of working for a political party is appreciably
increasing in latent propensities to participate, the 1994 results suggest that blacks are
significantly less likely to become engaged in work for a political party. Of considerable
importance for the measurement of political participation, we find that party work is
dynamic through time.
For membership in a “better government” group, there is very little evidence of a
strong link with underlying propensities to participate. There is some evidence of a weak
link between the propensity to participate and membership in a better government group,
but what evidence there is largely vanishes by the 1990s. A close look at the results for
all years suggests that the difficulty parameter is quite high for membership in such
groups while the discrimination parameter is generally quite small, though statistically
differentiable from zero with at least 95% confidence. In other words, the threshold for
engaging in this activity is apparently quite high and thus, while it may tell us more about
African-Americans’ latent propensity to participate in politics than writing a member of
Congress, it nevertheless tells us very little.
Attendance at public meetings on town or school affairs is at least somewhat
common although it is decreasing through time. For the mean respondent in a given year,
the probability of attending a meeting on town or school affairs is quite low, never more
than 5%. However, for those with the highest propensity to participate there has been a
relatively steady decline in public meeting attendance through time. For example, the
14
dotted line demonstrates significant curvature indicative of high levels of responsiveness
to latent participation in the 1970s. The dashed line, demonstrating the relationship
between latent propensities to participate and public meeting attendance, is less
responsive to changes in latent propensities than the 1970s but is more responsive than
the 1990s. For the 1990s, there is evidence of a drop-off in the likelihood of attending
meetings regarding town and school affairs, although those that are most inclined to
participate are still quite likely to engage in this activity.
-1
0
1
2
0.8
0.4
3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Propensity to Participate
Signed a petition?
Worked for a political party?
0.0
0.4
Probability
0.4
0.8
Propensity to Participate
0.8
-2
0.0
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Propensity to Participate
Was a member of ... group?
Attended a public meeting ...?
Probability
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.8
Propensity to Participate
0.8
-3
0.4
Probability
-3
Probability
Blacks-1994
Blacks-1985
Blacks-1973
0.0
0.4
Probability
0.8
Attended a public rally or speech?
0.0
Probability
Wrote congressman or senator?
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Propensity to Participate
3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Propensity to Participate
Figure 3. Activities by Latent Propensities for Black Respondents
15
The same cannot be said for running for public office, shown in the top left panel
below. Running for public office is not at all responsive to changes in latent participation
nor is there much evidence that this has changed over time. A more detailed analysis of
this finding suggests that the threshold [difficulty parameter] is extraordinarily high and
the discrimination parameter cannot be statistically differentiated from zero in over half
of the yearly samples. In half of the years in our analysis, knowledge about whether a
respondent ran for public office tells us nothing at all about his or her underlying
likelihood to participate in politics. There appears to be something qualitatively different
about participation in terms of running for political office that is distinct from the other
activities measured by this survey instrument. Furthermore, it appears that running for
political office provides no or little information about an individual’s latent propensity to
participate.
Turning to the top right panel below, we find that serving on a committee of a
local organization, though somewhat rare, is quite responsive to changes in the latent
propensity to participate and this effect is not static with respect to time. Consistent with
much of the evidence previously presented, we find that the 1970s and 1980s are quite
similar, while the 1990s demonstrate a sizable decrease in the relationship between latent
propensities to participate and committee service on local organizations. Indeed, a closer
examination of the yearly results suggests a clear and steady decline in the discrimination
parameter that begins in 1986 and continues until the end of the available data in 1994.8
With this in mind, we turn to the dynamics of office-holding in local organizations.
Insofar as officers of local clubs and organizations are concerned, there is
considerable stability in the relationship between latent propensities to participate and
8
The 1994 finding is based on a smaller sample than those that precede it. As a result, the confidence
intervals are larger and we cannot rule out the possibility that this decline stops in 1994.
16
participating as officials in local clubs and organizations. Though the likelihood that the
mean respondent holds some office of a club or organization is quite small, the changes
in the relationship between latent propensities and officeholding [in clubs and
organizations] are extraordinarily small. Though there is a bit of evidence that this sort of
participation increased from the 1970s through the mid-1980s, there is also evidence of a
decline from the mid-1980s through the mid-1990s when our data end. The ultimate
linkage between the propensity to participate and officeholding was the same in 1973 as
it was in 1994.
The middle and bottom right panels display the relationship between latent
propensities to participate and writing letters to the newspaper [middle] or writing articles
for newspapers and magazines [bottom]. The similarities in these activities are mirrored
by their relationships to latent participation. Put simply, there is very little evidence that
either form of writing to print media outlets facilitates discrimination of latent
propensities to participate. Next to running for political office, article writing is the most
difficult act and provides the least information about the latent propensity of respondents.
It appears that writing letters and articles to media outlets is not strongly tied to latent
propensities to participate among African-Americans.
Finally, we turn to speechmaking. Not surprisingly, given decreasing
participation in organizations, public rallies, and meetings, speechmaking is not an
extremely strong discriminator of those with low and high propensities to participate.
Furthermore, the general likelihood of engaging in speechmaking, all other things equal,
is declining over time. Like many of the other activities we examine, there is
considerable evidence of a secular decline in the likelihood of speechmaking; it is highest
in the 1970s, decreases in the 1980s, and decreases further in the 1990s.
17
To conclude the empirical analysis, we briefly consider evidence concerning
differences between African-Americans and Anglo-Americans in two time periods.9
First, we compare participatory activity for 1974 in Figures 5 and 6.
Comparing Blacks and Whites in 1974
Because these figures are identical to those comparing snapshots for AfricanAmericans in the previous section, we focus on the substantive differences in
participatory activities as they relate to latent propensities to participate for blacks and
whites. For example, there are no appreciable differences in the propensity to participate
among African-Americans and Anglo-Americans with respect to attending public rallies
or speeches, working for political parties, membership in a better government group,
attending public meetings on town or school affairs, holding or running for political
office, speechmaking, and writing articles for newspapers and/or magazines. Where
differences do exist, it is universally the case that Anglo-Americans are as or more likely
to engage in a given act when compared to African-Americans with similar latent
propensities to participate.
For example, Anglo-Americans are considerably more likely to write their
representatives or senators as their latent levels of participation rise, while the probability
that an identical African-American would write to a federal representative is quite small.
Whites are also considerably more likely to sign petitions than Blacks near mean levels of
participation, though those Blacks and Whites with either very high or very low latent
levels of participation are almost identical in their probabilities of signing petitions.
9
We are currently completing a comparison for all time periods but in the interests of time and space, we
provide evidence for the beginning [1974] and end [1994] points of the series here.
18
0
2
0.8
0.4
4
-2
0
2
4
Served as an officer ...?
Wrote a letter to the paper?
0.0
0.4
Probability
0.4
0.8
Propensity to Participate
0.8
Propensity to Participate
0.0
-2
0
2
4
-2
0
2
Made a speech?
Wrote an article ...?
Probability
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.8
Propensity to Participate
0.8
Propensity to Participate
4
0.4
Probability
-2
Probability
Blacks-1994
Blacks-1985
Blacks-1973
0.0
0.4
Probability
0.8
Served on a committee ...?
0.0
Probability
Held or ran for political office?
-2
0
2
Propensity to Participate
4
-2
0
2
4
Propensity to Participate
Figure 4. Activities by Latent Propensity to Participate for Blacks, con’t
With reference to organization activities, committee service and serving in official
positions, above average levels of latent participation result in higher likelihoods of these
behaviors among Anglo-Americans than African-Americans. Finally, Anglo-Americans
with the highest propensities to participate are at least somewhat likely to write letters to
the newspaper while similarly inclined African-Americans are estimated to almost never
engage in the same activity.
To summarize, for most activities, there is little or no difference in the behavioral
patterns of African- and Anglo-Americans, though where differences do exist, the
19
differences imply that Anglo-Americans participate in the activities that we measure at
higher rates. To conclude this comparison, we now examine differences in the activity
probabilities as functions of the latent propensity to participate from 1994 data.
-1
0
1
2
0.8
0.4
3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Propensity to Participate
Signed a petition?
Worked for a political party?
0.0
0.4
Probability
0.4
0.8
Propensity to Participate
0.8
-2
0.0
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Propensity to Participate
Was a member of ... group?
Attended a public meeting ...?
Probability
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.8
Propensity to Participate
0.8
-3
0.4
Probability
-3
Probability
Blacks-1974
Whites-1974
0.0
0.4
Probability
0.8
Attended a public rally or speech?
0.0
Probability
Wrote congressman or senator?
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Propensity to Participate
3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Propensity to Participate
Figure 5. Activities by Latent Propensity to Participate for Anglo-whites
20
-2
-1
0
1
2
0.8
0.4
3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Served as an officer ...?
Wrote a letter to the paper?
0.0
0.4
Probability
0.4
0.8
Propensity to Participate
0.8
Propensity to Participate
0.0
-1
0
1
2
3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Propensity to Participate
Propensity to Participate
Made a speech?
Wrote an article ...?
Probability
0.0
0.4
0.0
3
0.8
-2
0.8
-3
0.4
Probability
-3
Probability
Blacks-1974
Whites-1974
0.0
0.4
Probability
0.8
Served on a committee ...?
0.0
Probability
Held or ran for political office?
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Propensity to Participate
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Propensity to Participate
Figure 6. Activities by Latent Propensity to Participate for Anglo-whites, con’t
Comparing Blacks and Whites in 1994
In Figures 7 and 8, we assess the same relationships at the end of our sample, 1994. The
evidence suggests that whatever differences existed in 1974 have virtually dissipated by
the 1990s. There is no discernable difference with regard to attending a public rally or
speech, working for a political party, being a member of a better government group,
holding or running for political office, serving on committees or as an officer of local
21
organizations, speechmaking, and article and letter writing to media outlets [though there
are very minor differences in writing letters to the newspaper]. Signing petitions, writing
letters to federal representatives, and attending public meetings on local or school affairs
are the only activities for which there are appreciable differences between Blacks and
Whites by 1994. However, it is apparent that these differences are subsiding, on a
general level, and the number of activities displaying significant differences has declined
considerably throughout the sample period.
-2
-1
0
1
0.8
0.4
2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Signed a petition?
Worked for a political party?
0.0
0.4
Probability
0.4
0.8
Propensity to Participate
0.8
Propensity to Participate
0.0
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Was a member of ... group?
Attended a public meeting ...?
Probability
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.8
Propensity to Participate
0.8
Propensity to Participate
0.4
Probability
-3
Probability
Blacks
Whites
0.0
0.4
Probability
0.8
Attended a public rally or speech?
0.0
Probability
Wrote congressman or senator?
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Propensity to Participate
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Propensity to Participate
Figure 7: Comparing Blacks and Whites in 1994
22
-2
-1
0
1
0.8
0.4
2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Served as an officer ...?
Wrote a letter to the paper?
0.0
0.4
Probability
0.4
0.8
Propensity to Participate
0.8
Propensity to Participate
0.0
-2
-1
0
1
2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Propensity to Participate
Made a speech?
Wrote an article ...?
Probability
0.0
0.4
0.0
2
0.8
Propensity to Participate
0.8
-3
0.4
Probability
-3
Probability
Blacks
Whites
0.0
0.4
Probability
0.8
Served on a committee ...?
0.0
Probability
Held or ran for political office?
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Propensity to Participate
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Propensity to Participate
Figure 8: Comparing Blacks and Whites in 1994
Conclusions
We began with the objective of studying the microfoundations of extant studies of
political participation that assume the validity of summation indices of political
participation. We have shown that there is significant dynamism implicit in the mappings
between a host of operational indicators of political participation and underlying latent
23
propensities to participate. While these models are somewhat restrictive, we have
provided evidence that participation activities vary in their relation to propensities to
participate through time. Furthermore, we hope to have succeeded in motivating further
and more detailed inquiry into the measurement of political participation and in stressing
appropriate measures of political participation as necessary and prior to testing models of
the determinants of political participation.
The approach to modeling participation that we have undertaken here provides
numerous avenues for future inquiry. For example, it is straightforward to link covariates
to individual latent propensities allowing us to discern the importance of various familiar
micro-level factors on individual participation behavior. For example, we have
information on the size of households and levels of household income, levels of
education, sex, race, age, and marital status, among other variables, that could be used to
understand how latent propensities vary with key socio-economic and demographic
characteristics. The Roper survey also includes information on media usage and
television viewing, and a host of other activities as well as some data (not yet made
public) on respondents party identification and presidential approval measures that could
be mapped onto individual latent propensities with little difficulty. All of these pieces of
information can be used with the modeling technique explored in this paper to render a
more complete story of the relationship between various relevant explanatory factors and
participation at the individual level. The benefit of our approach over current modeling
techniques lies in the flexibility of the Rasch model as a tool that allows us to “listen” to
the data from multiple vantage points while imposing relatively few ex ante restrictions
on what it can say.
24
Appendix 1: The Survey Items
Which, if any, of these things have you done in the past
year?
Served as an officer of some club or organization
Worked for a political party
Served on a committee of some local organization
Attended a public meeting on town or school affairs
Attended a political rally or speech
Made a speech
Wrote congressman or senator
Signed a petition
Was a member of some "better government" group
Held or ran for political office
Wrote a letter to the paper
Wrote an article for a magazine or newspaper
25
Appendix 2: Estimates and 95% Confidence Intervals for each estimated year: AfricanAmericans
Contacting Public Officials: Difficulty [Top] and Discrimination [Bottom]
Contact
3
2.5
2
97.5-alpha1
2.5-alpha1
mean-alpha1
1.5
1
0.5
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
Contact
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
97.5-beta1
2.5-beta1
mean-beta1
0.3
0.2
0.1
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
Attending Rallies: Difficulty [Top] and Discrimination [Bottom]
26
Rallies
3
2.5
2
97.5-alpha2
2.5-alpha2
mean-alpha2
1.5
1
0.5
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
Rallies
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
97.5-beta2
2.5-beta2
mean-beta2
0.4
0.2
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
Signing Petitions: Difficulty [Top] and Discrimination [Bottom]
27
Signing Petitions
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
97.5-alpha3
2.5-alpha3
mean-alpha3
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0.2
0
Signing Petitions
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
97.5-beta3
2.5-beta3
mean-beta3
0.4
0.2
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
Party Work: Difficulty [Top] and Discrimination [Bottom]
28
Party Work
3
2.5
2
97.5-alpha4
2.5-alpha4
mean-alpha4
1.5
1
0.5
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
Party Work
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
97.5-beta4
2.5-beta4
mean-beta4
0.3
0.2
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0.1
0
Organization Membership: Difficulty [Top] and Discrimination [Bottom]
29
Organization Members
3
2.5
2
97.5-alpha5
2.5-alpha5
mean-alpha5
1.5
1
0.5
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
Organization Members
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
97.5-beta5
2.5-beta5
mean-beta5
0.2
0.1
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
Attending
Public Meetings
30
Attending Public Meetings
2.5
2
1.5
97.5-alpha6
2.5-alpha6
mean-alpha6
1
0.5
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
Attending Public Meetings
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
97.5-beta6
2.5-beta6
mean-beta6
0.4
0.2
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
Running for Office: Difficulty [Top] and Discrimination [Bottom]
31
Running for Office
3.5
3
2.5
97.5-alpha7
2.5-alpha7
mean-alpha7
2
1.5
1
0.5
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
Running for Office
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
97.5-beta7
2.5-beta7
mean-beta7
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
Organizatio
nal Committees: Difficulty [Top] and Discrimination [Bottom]
32
Organization Committees
3
2.5
2
97.5-alpha8
2.5-alpha8
mean-alpha8
1.5
1
0.5
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
Organization Committees
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
97.5-beta8
2.5-beta8
mean-beta8
0.4
0.2
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
Organization Officer: Difficulty [Top] and Discrimination [Bottom]
33
Organization Office
3
2.5
2
97.5-alpha9
2.5-alpha9
mean-alpha9
1.5
1
0.5
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
Organization Office
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
97.5-beta9
2.5-beta9
mean-beta9
0.3
0.2
0.1
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
Writing a Letter: Difficulty [Top] and Discrimination [Bottom]
34
Letter
3.5
3
2.5
97.5-alpha10
2.5-alpha10
mean-alpha10
2
1.5
1
0.5
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
Letter
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
97.5-beta10
2.5-beta10
mean-beta10
0.1
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
-0.1
Speechmaking: Difficulty [Top] and Discrimination [Bottom]
35
Speech
3
2.5
2
97.5-alpha11
2.5-alpha11
mean-alpha11
1.5
1
0.5
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
Speech
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
97.5-beta11
2.5-beta11
mean-beta11
0.3
0.2
0.1
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
Writing Articles: Difficulty [Top] and Discrimination [Bottom]
36
Article
3.5
3
2.5
97.5-alpha12
2.5-alpha12
mean-alpha12
2
1.5
1
0.5
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
Article
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
97.5-beta12
2.5-beta12
mean-beta12
0.2
0.1
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
0
References
37
Bobo, Lawrence, and Franklin D. Gilliam, Jr. 1990. “Race, Sociopolitical Participation,
and Black Empowerment.” American Political Science Review 84: 377-93.
Brady, Henry, Sidney Verba, and Kay Lehman Schlozman. 1995. Beyond SES: A
Resource Model of Political Participation. American Political Science Review 89(2):
271-94.
Burns, Nancy, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Sidney Verba. 2001. The Private Roots of
Public Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Calhoun-Brown, Allison.
1996.
“African American Churches and Political
Mobilization: The Psychological Impact of Organizational Resources.” Journal
of Politics 58: 935-53.
Cohen, Cathy J., and Michael C. Dawson. 1993. “Neighborhood Poverty and African
American Politics.” American Political Science Review 87
Dawson, Michael C. 1994. Behind the Mule: Race and Class in African-American
Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Harris, Fredrick C. 1994. “Something Within: Religion as a Mobilizer of AfricanAmerican Political Activism.” Journal of Politics 56: 42-68.
Harris, Fredrick C., Valeria Sinclair-Chapman, and Brian Mc Kenzie. 2006.
Countervailing Forces in African-American Civic Activism, 1973-1994. NY:
Cambridge Unversity Press.
Gelman, Andrew and Donald Rubin. 1992. Inference from iterative simulation using
multiple sequences. Statistical Science 7, 457-511.
Leighley, Jan E. 2001. Strength in Numbers: The Political Mobilization of Racial and
Ethnic Minorities. NJ: Princeton University Press.
Leighley, Jan E. and Arnold Vedlitz. 1999. Race, Raciality, and Political Participation:
Competing Models and Contrasting Explanations. Journal of Politics 61(4): 1092-1114.
Lewis-Beck, Michael, S., William G. Jacoby, Helmut Norpoth, and Herbert Weisberg.
2008. The American Voter Revisited. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Miller, Arthur H., Patricia Gurin, Gerald Gurin, and Oksana Malanchak. 1981. “Group
Consciousness and Political Participation.” American Journal of Political Science 25:
494-511.
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone in America: The Collapse and Revival of
American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
38
Roper. Roper Social & Political Trends Data, 1972-1994. Roper Center for Public
Opinion Research: Storrs, CT.
Rosenstone, Steven J. and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and
Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.
Shingles, Richard. 1981. Black Consciousness and Political Participation: The Missing
Link.” American Political Science Review 75: 76-91.
Smith, Robert C. and Richard Seltzer. 2007. “The Deck and the Sea: The African
American Vote in the Presidential Elections of 2000 and 2004.” National Political
Science Review. 11:253-270.
Smith, Robert C. 1996. We Have No Leaders: African Americans in the Post-Civil
Rights Era. NY: SUNY.
Tate, Katherine. 1994. From Protest to Politics: The New Black Voters in American
Elections. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. 1995. Voice and
Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: University of
Harvard University Press.
Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, Henry Brady, and Norman Nie. 1993. Race,
Raciality, and Political Resources: Participation in the United States. British Journal of
Political Science 23(4): 453-97.
Verba, Sidney, and Norman H. Nie. 1972. Participation in America: Political
Democracy and Social Equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Walton, Hanes, Jr. 1985. Invisible Politics: Black Political Behavior. NY: SUNY.
Wielhouwer, Peter W. 2000. “Releasing the Fetters: Parties and the Mobilization of the
African-American Electorate.” Journal of Politics. 62: 206-222.
39