To Participate or not to Participate?: An Analysis of
Hispanic Political Participation
Janine Marie Moreno
Creighton University
Moreno
2
I. INTRODUCTION
While various researchers have studied differences in participation levels between
African-Americans and Anglos, the evidence has traditionally been limited. It fails to
address minorities other than African-Americans and assumes that the evidence for
African-Americans is spread equally amongst all groups of ethnicity.
This paper addresses the differences between Hispanics and their roles in political
participation. Specifically this paper focuses on Hispanics within American politics.
There is substantial research literature that examines and tries to explain rates and modes
of political participation (Bennett and Bennett 1989, 123; Milbrath and Goel 1977, 126).
Yet the knowledge base for Hispanic political participation is practically non-existent.
Since there is a lack of theories regarding Hispanic political participation researchers rely
primarily on African-American theories. This, however, presents a problem. Linking
African-American theories to Hispanic participation neglects that both of these minority
groups are very diverse.
African Americans and Hispanics fight for much different causes.
African-
Americans, for instance, are notorious for participating in politics more than Hispanics.
A strong reason for this is African-Americans long history of segregation and inequality,
in which the need and desire to overcome barriers in the American political system is
pressing. Hispanics, which now constitute more than 30 percent of the population in
California and Texas, will eventually grow to become the majority of the American
population. Yet, despite their numbers Hispanics in the United States have not received
much attention in political science research, and there has been little effort to bring
together the implications of the analyses that do exist.
Moreno
3
Understanding Hispanic politics in the United States is indeed a challenge. First,
there is much diversity within the Hispanic community. Mexican Americans, Puerto
Ricans, and Cubans are some examples of different subgroups within the Hispanic
community. Second, the very large increase in the total number of Hispanics makes it
more difficult to differentiate the characteristics that separate these subgroups.
Research Question: Therefore this paper examines why do some Hispanics participate
in politics more than others?
Verba and Nie’s strong case of socioeconomic status theory has proven overtime
to be the widely acceptable conclusion to this question. However, there is a unique
contradiction.
Hypothesis: In Garcia and Arce’s analysis regarding Hispanics’ roles in political
participation, they found that Hispanics with lower economic status and with lower
educational-attainment have higher levels of civic orientation. This paper, therefore,
hypothesizes that Hispanics with lower socioeconomic status are more likely to
participate in politics.
With the significant increase of Hispanics within the last decade there is more
empirical data available to use than in past years. Further, there is a growing concern
about the political potential of Hispanics and how their political involvement is impacting
the American political system (Garcia 1988, 44).
Since, there has been very little
research done on Hispanic political participation this paper focuses primarily on
Hispanic’s political participation.
Moreno
4
II. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE QUESTION
Hispanics are in a disadvantaged position politically, socially, and economically
in the United States (Hero 1992, 11).
Political scientists are concerned with why
Hispanics fare considerably less well than Anglos, and less well in some instances than
blacks on a variety of measures of political representation and socioeconomic status
(Hero 1992, 12). Indeed, the discussion of political participation in America has been
grounded in theoretical discussions of democracy involving individual rights,
responsibilities, and institutional responsiveness and policies (Garcia 1988, 44).
In academic discussion experts are concerned with the differences between
minorities, and the differences between the social classes. Experts utilize reason to
evaluate these differences and form theories. For instance, the primary theory of political
participation is the infamous socioeconomic status (SES) theory, with its derivative most
often linked to researcher’s Verba and Nie. Many scholars claim that socioeconomic
status is often cited as the primary factor accounting for variations in rates of political
participation across the racial and ethnic groups (Leighley and Nagler 1992a, 1992b;
Verba and Nie 1972; Verba, Scholozman, and Brady 1995; Wolfinger and Rosenstone
1980). However, scholars of minority politics investigate a wider range of theories of
participation further than socioeconomic status. Cultural factors and value systems are
just some of the salient contributors to participatory patterns in minority political
participation (McClain and Garcia 1993, 535; Verba 1993, 536).
Further, politicians and policy makers enact a major role in minority political
participation. For example, the current 2004 presidential campaign is a great example of
Moreno
5
two candidates stressing the importance of conquering the minority vote. Both President
Bush and Senator Kerry strongly urged minorities to go to the polls and break the
historical political barriers, and to overcome the lack of political participation. For the
purpose of politics, dominant interpretations of U.S politics hold that if citizens exercise
the right to vote and participate in politics in other ways, the system can be responsive to
their concerns and preferences (Hero 1992, 67).
As indicated earlier, the research on reasons for political participation by
Hispanics is very limited.
The discussion in this study about Hispanic political
participation represents the extant literature and major findings mentioned below.
III. LITERATURE REVIEW
In Jan Leighley and Arnold Vedlitz’s analysis of minority political participation
entitled “Race, Ethnicity, and Political Participation: Competing Models and Contrasting
Explanations,” they demonstrate five models derived from various scholars.
Socioeconomic Status, Psychological Resources, Social Connectedness, Group
Consciousness, and Group Conflict are the five theories tested across four racial ethnic
groups (Leighley and Vedlitz 1999, 1092). Both Leighley and Vedlitz examine why
there are differences with political participation among the four minority groups being
tested. For the purpose of this study, this paper only examines the Hispanic political
participation findings and conclusions involved in Leighley and Vedlitz analysis.
The data used in this analysis to test these theories are drawn from a statewide
public opinion survey in Texas, the second most populous state in the nation, and also the
most ethnically diverse (Leighley and Vedlitz 1999, 1093). (Leighley and Vedlitz 1999,
Moreno
6
1100) describe the empirical measures they use to test the five participation models. The
socioeconomic status model is tested using two standard demographic indicators:
Education and Income. The Psychological Resources model is operationalized using two
indicators: Political Interest, and Political Efficacy. The Social Connectedness model is
tested using three indicators: Marital Status, Length of Residence, and Home Ownership.
The Group Consciousness model consists of two variables: Group Closeness and
Intergroup Distance. Finally, the group conflict model is conceptualized as the potential
threat from out-groups.
Leighley and Vedlitz’s findings are that the Socioeconomic Status, Psychological
Resource, and Social Connectedness models receive strong support as predictors of
overall participation for Hispanics (Leighley and Vedlitz 1999, 1110). Leighley and
Vedlitz conclude that Hispanics with higher levels of status or Psychological Resources
(e.g., Political Efficacy) participate more. In contrast, their findings with Group Conflict
and Group Consciousness did not support the overall participation for Hispanics.
Socioeconomic Status Theory
Leighley and Vedlitz are not the first researchers to confirm the SES
theory. Verba and Nie (1972, 29), for instance, were among the first researchers to
establish the socioeconomic status theory as an explanation of mass political behavior:
individuals with high levels of socioeconomic resources (e.g., education and income) are
more likely to adopt psychological orientations that motivate their participation in the
political system (Verba and Nie 1972, 32).
Many other studies also confirm their
findings of higher levels of education, income, and occupational status tend to vote more,
contact more, organize more, and campaign more than do those with lower status
Moreno
7
(Conway 1991; Kenny 1992; Leighley 1990; Leighley and Nagler 1992a, 1992b; Nie et
al. 1988; Verba et al. 1993, 1995; see also Leighley 1995 for a review of those studies).
In Carole Ulaner, Bruce Cain, and D. Roderick Kiewiet analysis of political
participation, entitled “Political Participation of Ethnic minorities in the 1980’s,” they
demonstrate that demographic and economic variables such as age, income, level of
education, marital status, incidence of single parenting, employment, and home
ownership affect political participation. They claim that such effects explain the lack of
socioeconomic resources (as in the case for Hispanics and blacks) (Uhlaner, Cain, and
Kiewiet 1989, 195).
Moreover, Ulaner, Cain, and Kiewiet add a unique variable: being a single mother
is indicative of the absence of free time as well as income. The results, however, show
that being a single mother does not have much significance relative to political
participation. In addition to the demographic and economic variables, they consider the
effects of ethnic minority political participation as an explicit sense of group selfidentification (Ulaner, Cain, and Kiewiet 1989, 197). Their conclusions demonstrate that
if the Hispanic population ages and becomes more Americanized and more English
speaking, and if the education and income levels rise, then they expect to see substantial
increases in political activity by Hispanics.
Counter Socioeconomic theories
Jose A. Garcia and Carlos H. Arce’s analysis, however, contradict the
Socioeconomic Status theory.
In their analysis entitled “Political Orientations and
Behaviors of Chicanos: Trying to Make Sense out of Attitudes and Perceptions” they
found, those of lower occupational prestige and with lower educational attainment had
Moreno
8
higher levels of civic orientation (Garcia and Arce 1988, 137). In fact, Garcia and Arce’s
evidence demonstrates positive and strong attitudes toward politics among Hispanics.
They define Hispanic “civic orientation” as attitudes focusing on political activities that
an active member of the political system pursues, such as voting as an individual
expression, getting more Hispanics to vote, and supporting demonstrations to change
unfair laws (Garcia and Arce 1988, 137). Garcia and Arce’s found very high levels of
civic orientation among Hispanics as well as attitudes reflecting a sense of ethnic
identification, or a “collectivist orientation,” were also positive and strong among
Hispanics.
With this pattern of political orientations, one might expect active levels of
political participation. Yet, the political participation rates of Hispanics are rather low
compared to other racial groups (Garcia and Arce 1988, 137). Garcia and Arce’s findings
are significant for the reason that the findings suggest the absolute opposite of Verba and
Nie’s SES theory.
Findings from Colorado (LARASA 1989, 104) are not in complete agreement
with Garcia and Arce’s findings. The Colorado survey done by the Latin American
Research and Service Agency or LARASA, found that among Spanish-surnamed
Coloradans, the more educated, higher incomes, and being native born are more likely to
be “involved in a Hispanic organization” than were the Mexican-born, (LARASA 1989,
104).
Another reason for the contradiction within the SES model is what Leighley and
Vedlitz state as: most studies that confirm the SES model have relied primarily on
samples of non-Hispanics, and it is assumed that socioeconomic status works similarly
Moreno
9
across the ethnic groups. Yet, the empirical evidence on this point is mixed. Leighley
and Vedlitz, for example, find that education is significantly related to participation
among Mexican-Americans, but not among Asian-Americans, while Harris (1994, 206),
Tate (1991, 205 1993, 56), and Dawson, Brown, and Allen (1990, 26) find that education
and income are only occasionally related to participation among African Americans.
Although the SES model dominates in the study of political participation, there is
still much room for debate. One study of political behavior, for example, argues that as
levels of education and income in the United States have increased over the past three
decades, the level of voter turnout has decreased (Brody 1978, 102). Political Scientists
try to tie this theory with the individual’s relationship to the larger society. These
discussions have reasoned that as individuals get to the point where they feel comfortable
in their everyday life they become less interested in political issues. Putnam (1995, 59),
Teixeira (1992, 28), and Uslaner (1995, 36) argue that the decline in political
participation over the past 20 years is directly related to the lack of connectedness
between individual citizens and the larger political and social community.
Clearly, Putnam, Teixeira, and Uslaner believe that behavioral factors are why
some minorities participate less in politics.
These behavioral factors include
organizational structures such as marriage, church-attendance, interest groups, and home
ownership.
In other words, committed individuals are more likely to participate in
politics. As stated earlier, Ulaner, Cain, and Kiewiet convey this concept to be group
identification. Katherine Tate’s 1991 study entitled “Black Political Participation in the
1984 and 1988 Presidential Elections,” found that home ownership is not associated with
Moreno 10
voting in presidential primary elections.
But, evidence concludes that blacks who
participate in weekly activities such as church participate more in politics.
Group Conflict
On that note, Paula McClain and Albert Karning demonstrate the theory that a
significant presence of one minority group affects the other minority group. Mclain and
Karning conclude that there are few investigations which have examined the relationship
between blacks and Hispanics in their struggles for political power and economic
advancement. Specifically, they look at Hubert Blalock’s theory of competition which
suggests that group competition accounts for some aspects of the discrimination
experienced by minorities. Blalock says that competition exists when two or more
groups strive for the same finite objectives, so that the success of one may imply a
reduced probability that another will attain its goals (Mclain and Karnig 1990, 536).
Thus, this leads many to believe self-interest is a factor among minorities.
Falcon, for instance, notes that blacks were concerned with desegregation and were not
supportive of bilingual education because they feared it would divert resources from
black concerns (Falcon 1988, 206). With blacks and Hispanics struggling to achieve
political and socioeconomic objectives, there are several possible intergroup patterns.
Most importantly, one group may do well at the expense of another (Mclain and Karnig
1990, 542). McClain and Karnig’s findings conclude that as black and Hispanic political
successes increase, political competition between Hispanics and blacks are triggered
(Mclain and Karnig 1990, 546).
Further, a study of ethnic-racial groups in New York City suggests that ethnicracial political culture is independent of, and often more significant than, socioeconomic
Moreno 11
status in explaining political participation (Hero 1992, 52). Another study in New York
by Dale Nelson found that several Latino groups -- Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and
Dominicans -- have “weak participant political cultures,” while blacks exhibit a distinct
strong orientation to political participation (Nelson 1979, 236).
Self-Identification
Rodney E. Hero has conducted a number of studies which examine individual self
identification. Self – reference -- the ethnic -- racial names or labels people use to identify
themselves are important for various reasons (Hero 1992, 56). First, Self Identification
has implications for group cohesion; persons who do not identify themselves as a group
are less likely to act as one (Hero 1992, 62). Second, Self-Identification demonstrates
group assimilation or acculturation in relation to the larger society.
Finally, Self-
Identification reveals how one person relates themselves in political society or a political
ideology (Hero 1992, 63).
Another fascinating theory formed by Frank D. Gillliam, Jr., states symbolic
politics and governing coalition theories are used to predict political orientations of
blacks, whites, and Hispanics in cities with long-term minority regimes (Gilliam 1996,
56). This theme complements the other theories on political participation. Thus, Frank
Gilliam’s analysis leads many to believe that minorities that participate more are
influenced by minority empowerment across the political system.
Gilliam initially
suggests that individuals who become more interested in politics will become part of a
group and lead orientations.
Moreno 12
Group Consciousness/Political Efficacy
Research in political science has also demonstrated the importance of Group
Consciousness as a factor influencing individual political behavior (Leighley and Vedlitz
1999, 1094). Miller et al. (1981, 256) find that Group Consciousness is associated with
participation for blacks, women, and the poor. Many researchers believe the closer an
individual is to a group the more likely the individual will participate in politics. For
many minorities it is a sense of belonging to a group that gives much confidence to
mobilize. Garcia and Arce argue that individuals with a positive sense of personal and
political efficacy are more likely to have preferences, motivations, and apply their
resources toward political actions (Garcia and Arce 1988, 46).
IV. THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS
This paper, therefore, hypothesizes that Hispanics with lower economic status and
lower educational attainment are more likely to participate in politics. This hypothesis is
related to Garcia and Arce’s theory of Hispanic political participation. Garcia and Arce
argue that the Socioeconomic Status theory is truly unique. It contradicts what most
scholars have said and widely agree upon. Their theory states: Hispanics with lower
economical status and with lower educational attainment have higher levels of civic
orientation. Garcia and Arce’s theory reveals a negative relationship between income,
education, and levels of participation.
This pattern is expected because the prediction is that Hispanics with lower
education and economic prestige are more inclined to want to change for the better.
Another prediction is Hispanics with lower education and economic prestige form a
Moreno 13
desire to mobilize and create coalitions to support more participation among other
Hispanics.
Garcia and Arce’s evidence demonstrates these higher levels of civic
orientations for lower class Hispanics. Again, their findings appear to be inconsistent
with the socioeconomic status theory. They oppose this theory because SES tends to
categorize all ethnicities in one category and neglects that Hispanics are not the same as
other ethnicities. Garcia and Arce’s theory explains the more income and education one
holds does not necessarily result in an increase in political participation.
Another theory important to this study is the idea of Political Efficacy. As
defined earlier Political Efficacy is a psychological factor of confidence that contributes
to political participation. Further, an individual attains a feeling of power or capacity to
produce a desired effect or effectiveness. The concept of Political Efficacy is tested in
the SES theory as a positive relationship between education, income, and levels of
participation. Thus, the more educated, and wealthier have higher levels of political
efficacy which results in higher levels of political participation. In Leighley and Vedlitz
analysis their evidence reveals political efficacy as a negative relationship for Hispanics
political participation (Leighley and Vedlitz 1999, 1094). For the purpose of this study a
positive relationship between political efficacy, income, education, and levels of political
participation is expected.
If the results reveal a positive relationship then political
efficacy reveals an impact on Hispanics political participation.
In addition the concept of Group Consciousness is another important factor in
this discussion. As mentioned earlier, Jan Leighley and Arnold Vedlitz analysis entitled
“Race, Ethnicity, and Political Participation: Competing Models and Contrasting
Explanations” demonstrate the idea of group consciousness. They conclude that the
Moreno 14
Group Consciousness model of political participation -- arguably more relevant as an
explanation of Hispanic political behavior than of Anglo political behavior. Further there
is evidence of intellectual origins of differences in the participation levels of blacks and
whites, which posited that blacks participate more than whites, controlling for
socioeconomic status, because of their heightened levels of group consciousness
(Leighley and Vedlitz 1999, 1098). Consistent with prior theories this study suspects that
group consciousness will have a positive relationship with participation for Hispanics. In
this study a relationship of lower economic status Hispanics political participation is
expected to be affected when controlled for the model Group Consciousness.
Granted Garcia and Arce’s findings support their hypothesis and remain
remarkable. This analysis plans to further Garcia and Arce’s findings and retest their
variables with a limited number of cases from a data set different from their analysis.
Moreover, this analysis adds further contribution to a topic that is rarely covered in
political science. Indeed there is a limited amount of time to complete this analysis; time
will not be an intervening factor in completion of this analysis.
V. DATA AND VARIABLES
Garcia and Arce explore both arenas of political participation for Hispanics as
well as cultural factors such as Spanish language maintenance, foreign born origin, and
value systems (Garcia and Arce 1988, 126). This paper explores the electoral
participation of Hispanics and employs The American National Election Survey 2000:
Pre-and Post-Election Survey (NES) for the levels of participation of Hispanics. The
sample design includes a sample selection of 132 individuals who chose Spanish descent
Moreno 15
as their ethnicity. Garcia and Arce, however, employ The Latino National Political
Survey to reveal the political participation of Hispanics.
The independent variables that are used in this study are income, level of
education, group consciousness, and political efficacy. The limited evidence on Hispanic
political participation suggests lower than average participation rates, as well as
involvement in a limited range of activities. Socioeconomic Status is viewed as the
major determinant of an individual’s political participation (Brady et al 1995, 87).
Citizen activism is an expected norm for a democratic society, yet the actual level of
individual involvement is minimal. At the same time, there are costs and resources
involved for political participation. In terms of resources, the demands can be requests to
work on campaigns, contribute to organizations, and/or campaigns, signing petitions, or
writing letters on behalf of concerns or issues (Garcia and Arce 1988, 45).
The
individual costs are time, financial resources, communication and organization skills, and
personal orientations that include self-confidence, efficacy and trust (Garcia and Arce
1988, 45).
The traditional base for individual resources falls within the rubric of
socioeconomic resources--education, income, and occupation. For the purpose of this
study occupation is not used as one of the independent variables, instead education and
income represent the socioeconomic status variables.
Education fosters democratic
values such as individual rights and responsibilities, involvement, political expressions,
and freedoms. It also nurtures a sense of citizen competence, as well as providing skills
for political learning (Garcia and Arce 1988, 46). The independent variable level of
Moreno 16
education meets the criteria of face validity, in which the common understanding is that
in most cases more educated individuals can understand complex and abstract ideas.
The other part of the Socioeconomic Status theory is income. Income levels
affect participation in terms of economic resources, time, and opportunities. Individuals
who have a direct stake in political outcomes, as well as policy preferences, will be
involved politically (Leighley 1990; Huckfeldt and Sprague 1987).
Thus, the
independent variable income meets the criteria of face validity, where common
knowledge assumes that a person in higher occupational status positions and higher
income levels are directly motivated and invested in political involvement (Verba and
Nie 1972; Miller et al. 1981).
The discussion of individual political participation entails resources, motivations,
and opportunities. The motivation dimension deals with attitudinal factors as efficacy
and group consciousness (Verba and Nie 1972; Miller et al. 1981). The control variable
group consciousness and the independent variable political efficacy are measurements
which meet the criteria of face validity. These two variables are consistent with an
agreed definition of a generalized concept. In other words, individuals with a positive
sense of confidence in the political system are more likely to mobilize and move toward
political actions.
The sample consists of one hundred and thirty-two Hispanics. These one hundred
and thirty-two individuals are asked to respond to various questions regarding their
political participation. For instance, one of the questions is, “Did you vote in the 2000
election?” An additive index is engaged to formulate the dependent variable by summing
up the different categories of political participation such as campaigning, contributions to
Moreno 17
political parties, involvement in political organizations, and voting. Next the independent
variable income is recoded into three categories. In addition, the independent variable
level of education is recoded into three categories as well (see table 1, pg. 21).
VI. METHODS
The hypothesis being tested in this study is that Hispanics with lower economic
status and with lower educational attainment have higher levels of civic orientation. Both
dependent and independent variables are ordinal-ordinal, in which various statistical tests
are engaged. The statistical tests that are engaged in the study are bivariate tests, ChiSquare, Somer’s D, Gamma, and a multiple regression. A multiple regression test is
primarily intended for interval variables; however, a multiple regression test is widely
used in political science to test ordinal relationships. The other statistical tests that are
engaged in the study are the most appropriate for ordinal relationships.
A bivariate analysis employs whether there is a relationship between the
independent variable level of education and the dependent variable level of participation.
Then, a Chi-Square statistical test shows whether level of education and level of
participation are independent of each other. Also, the chi square compares the observed
distribution of cases among the cells with the distribution that would occur if there were
no relationship.
Next, a Somers’D test is used to determine the strength of the
relationship between level of education and level of participation. Finally, the statistical
test Gamma is used to determine the positive or negative relationship between level of
education and level of participation.
Moreno 18
The second bivariate analysis employs whether there is a relationship between the
independent variable household income and the dependent variable level of participation.
Next, a chi square statistical test is also used to determine whether the variables,
household income and level of participation are independent of each other. Then, a
Somer’s D test is used to determine the strength of the relationship between household
income and level of participation. Finally, a Gamma statistical test is used to indicate
whether there is a positive or negative relationship between household income and level
of participation.
A third bivariate analysis is employed to determine whether there is a relationship
between the independent variable group consciousness, and the dependent variable level
of participation. Second, a Chi-Square statistical test is used to examine the significance
of group consciousness and level of participation, and whether both variables are
independent of each other. Third, a Somer’s D statistical test is used to test for the
strength of the results. Finally, a Gamma statistical test is used to indicate whether there
is a positive or negative relationship (direction) between the two variables.
The final bivariate analysis is engaged to determine whether there is a relationship
between the independent variable political efficacy and the dependent variable level of
participation. Next, a Chi Square statistical test is used to determine the significance of
the relationship between political efficacy and level of participation. Then a Somer’s D
statistical test is used to reveal the strength of the relationship between the both variables.
Finally, a Gamma statistical test is used to determine the positive or negative relationship
(direction) between both variables.
Moreno 19
Unlike the bivariate analysis a multivariate analysis is used between the variables
level of education and level of participation, when controlling for Hispanic influence or
group consciousness. The exact statistical tests of Chi-Square, Somer’s D, and Gamma
used for the bivariate analyses are employed in this multivariate analysis to determine
whether the results will remain stagnant when controlling with another variable.
The second multivariate analyses demonstrated are between the variables of
household income and level of participation, when controlling for Hispanic influence or
group consciousness. As stated in the first multivariate analysis, the statistical tests ChiSquare, Somer’s D, and Gamma are used to determine if the relationship remains
stagnant when controlling with another variable.
The final analysis revealed is a multiple regression which determines the
relationship between the four independent variables and the dependent variable. The
statistical tests administered in the multiple regression are the regression coefficient,
standardized coefficient, and the R-square value. First, the regression coefficient predicts
how much change in the dependent variable is associated with a unit increase in the
independent variables. Second, the standardized coefficient predicts how much change in
the dependent variable is associated with a unit increase in the independent variables.
Finally, the R-square value indicates the proportion of variation in the dependent variable
explained by the independent variables.
VII. RESULTS
The Frequency tests below explain the basic patterns in the variables before the
variables are tested with one another. As seen in table one, the dependent variable
Moreno 20
participation demonstrates three main categories for the different levels of participation.
41.2 percent of Hispanics report doing nothing in participation with politics. In other
words, 41.2 percent of Hispanics claim that they did not influence the vote of others.
Also, they did not display buttons, stickers, signs, meetings, attend rallies, nor did they
vote. Thus, out of one hundred and thirty-two Hispanics, 41.2 percent did not participate
in any electoral political participation. Yet, 33.3 percent of Hispanics participated in one
activity while 20.5 percent participated in two or more activities.
Next, as seen in Table 1, a majority of Hispanics in NES exhibit more than 12
years of the highest level of education completed.
The level of education data
demonstrates that 43.9 percent completed up to twelve years of school while 45.5 percent
had thirteen to sixteen years of education. Only 10.6 percent of Hispanics had more
than17 years of the highest level of education completed. This is a 33.3 percent gap
between those individuals with more than 12 years of the highest level of education, and
those with more than 17 years of the highest level of education.
The next frequency as seen in Table 1 examines the question: “How much
Hispanic influence exists in American politics from the point of view of Hispanics.
Clearly, the data below illustrates 66.7 percent feels there is too little Hispanic influence
in American politics. Whereas only 4.2 percent of Hispanics feel there is too much
Hispanic influence in American politics. The data regarding, “Does the Hispanic R
believe their vote matters?” 52.2 percent disagree strongly with this question. Only 8.7
percent of Hispanics believe strongly that their vote matters. Evidently, there is a clear
consistency of negativity with the overall opinion of Hispanic politics in American
politics.
Moreno 21
The frequency of household income as seen in Table 1 confirms 61.9 percent
claim their household income to be $25,000-$104,999. 31.9 percent of Hispanics claim
their household income to be none or less than $25,000 while only 6.2 percent confirm
their household income to be $105,000-$200,000 and over.
Dept: Participation
Table 1***
Frequencies for Hispanic Respondents
Frequency
Valid Percent
Nothing
One Activity
Two or more Activities
Total
61
44
27
132
46.2
33.3
20.5
100.0
58
60
14
132
43.9
45.5
10.6
100.0
Level of Education
Up to 12 Years
13 to 16 Years
17 Years and Up
Total
Hispanics Influence
1. Too Much Influence
2. Just about the Right Amount
3. Too Little Influence
Total
Missing System
4
28
64
96
36
4.2
29.2
66.7
100.0
27.3
Does R Believe their vote matters
1. Agree Strongly
2. Agree Somewhat
3. Neither Agree Nor
Disagree
4. Disagree Somewhat
5. Disagree Strongly
Total
Missing System
8
9
8
8.7
9.8
8.7
19
48
92
40
20.7
52.2
100.0
Moreno 22
Household Income
None or Less Than
$25,000
$25,000-$104,999
$105,000-$200,000
And Over
Total
Missing System
36
70
7
113
19
***Source: National Election Survey-NES
A bivariate test for level of education and participation is shown below in Table 2.
The results in Table 2 exhibit that the more educated Hispanic tends to participate in
more activities. 50 percent of Hispanics who participated in two or more activities
revealed their level of education was 17 years or more while 10.3 percent of Hispanics
with an education level of up to twelve years did nothing to participate. Indeed, the
results in Table 2 confirm the Socioeconomic Status theory holds true, where the more
educated are more likely to participate more in politics. These results in Table 2 confirm
the opposite of the hypothesis in this study. Further, these results in Table 2 reveal that
education and income are significant in political participation of Hispanics.
Participation
Table 2
Level of Education
Up to 12 years 13 to 16 years
17yearsand up
Total
Nothing
56.9%
40.0%
28.6%
46.2%
One Activity
32.8%
36.7%
21.4%
33.3%
Two or more
Activities
10.3%
23.3%
50.0%
20.5%
Moreno 23
100.0%
58
Total
100.0%
60
100.0%
14
100.0%
132 cases
The results in Table 3 examine the strength, direction, and significance of the
bivariate test regarding participation and level of education. There is a very strong
statistical significant difference of .012 which lets us reject the null hypothesis. Also, the
Somers’D result exhibits a moderate value of .231, which concludes a moderate
relationship between levels of education and levels of participation. Gamma reveals a
.381 moderate positive relationship between levels of educations and levels of
participation. These tests do not have any missing values and account for all 132 cases.
Somers’D
Table 3
Level of Education
Chi-Square.
Gamma
.231
.012
.381
The next bivariate test examines the relationship between participation and
household income. Here the results in Table 4 are similar to the level of education. Both
data results in Table 2 and 4 confirm the Socioeconomic Status theory to be valid. As
seen in Table 4, 63.9 percent of Hispanics who revealed an annual household income of
none or less than $25, 000 did nothing to participate in politics. Table 4 below also
demonstrates that 14.3 percent of Hispanics, who reported an annual household income
of $105,000 to $200,000 and over, participated in two or more activities. The result in
Table 4 show that the more income one makes the more likely one participates in politics.
Moreno 24
Participation
Nothing
Table 4
Household Income
None or Less
$25,000$105,000than $25,000
$104,999
$200,000 and
Over
63.9%
40.0%
14.3%
Total
46.0%
One Activity
27.8%
32.9%
42.9%
31.9%
Two or More
Activities
8.3%
36
27.1%
70
42.9%
7
22.1%
113 cases
Evidently the Chi-Square shown in Table 5 reveals there is a very strong
significance level of .036. Therefore, we can feel confident in rejecting the null
hypothesis. Also, the Somer’s D value of .247 demonstrates a moderate relationship
between the levels of participation and Household income. The Gamma value of .476
demonstrates a moderate positive relationship as well.
Somers’D
Table 5
Household Income
Chi-Square
Gamma
.247
.036
.476
The third bivariate test as seen in Table 6 is the relationship between Hispanic
influence and levels of participation. The interesting facts of Table 6 are that 20.3
percent of Hispanics who feel Hispanics have too little influence did nothing to
participate. On the other hand, 50 percent of Hispanics who feel Hispanics have too
much influence did nothing to participate. Furthermore, 29.7 percent of Hispanics who
felt Hispanics have too little influence participated in two or more activities while .0
percent of Hispanics who felt Hispanics have too much influence participated in two or
more activities. The results in Table 6 do not support the hypothesis. These results
Moreno 25
reveal that there is no evidence of Hispanics forming coalitions to mobilize and engage in
political participation.
Nothing
Too Much
Influence
50.0%
Table 6
Hispanic Influence
Just About the
Right Amount
46.4%
Too Little
Influence
20.3%
29.2%
One Activity
50.0%
32.1%
50.0%
44.8%
Two or More
Activities
.0%
4
21.4%
28
29.7%
64
26.0%
96
Participation
Total
As seen in Table 7, the Somers’D value reveals a .267 value which exhibits a
moderate relationship. The Gamma value of .356 in Table 7 also demonstrates a
moderate relationship between level of participation and Hispanic influence. The ChiSquare significance level of .085 in Table 7 is statistically significant. Thus, we cannot
reject the null hypothesis.
Somers’D
Table 7
Hispanic Influence
Chi-Square
Gamma
.267
.085
.396
The fourth bivariate test determines the relationship between Political Efficacy
and the levels of participation. The total percentages as seen in Table 8 represent only
three categories below and not the five categories used to test the original bivariate.
These three categories in Table 8 are chosen because these categories are the most
relevant results. The results in Table 8 demonstrate that 16.7 percent of Hispanics who
Moreno 26
feel their vote does not matter did nothing to participate while 62.5 percent of Hispanics
who feel their vote does matter did nothing to participate. The results in Table 8 also
show about 80 percent who feel their vote does not matter participated in one or more
activities while about 37.5 percent of Hispanics participated in one or more activities.
The results in Table 8 demonstrate support for mobilization. In other words, the results
in Table 8 reveal there is a strong case that the 80 percent who feel their vote does not
matter decided to take action and participate.
The results in Table 8 demonstrate a positive direction.
Since the Political
Efficacy variable is scaled 1 to 5, there is a positive direction with 1 representing agree
strongly and 5 disagree strongly.
As stated earlier, the Socioeconomic Status theory
expects a negative relationship for Political Efficacy.
Table 8
Does Respondent believe their Vote matters (Political Efficacy)
Participation Agree Strongly Neither Agree
Disagree
Total
Nor Disagree
Strongly
62.5%
50.0%
16.7%
31.5%
Nothing
One Activity
37.5%
37.5%
43.8%
41.3%
Two or More
Activities
.0%
8
12.5%
19
39.6%
48
27.2%
92 cases
Table 9 shows that the Somers’D .391 and Gamma .573 demonstrates a moderate
relationship between Political Efficacy and levels of participation. The Chi-Square value
of .005 exhibits probability that the relationship does not exist. There is a high statistical
significance, which leads us to reject the null hypothesis.
Moreno 27
Table 9
Does Respondent believe their Vote matters (Political Efficacy)
Somers’D
Chi-Square
Gamma
.391
.005
.573
Next, a multivariate analysis of levels of education and levels of participation
when controlling for Hispanic influence revealed that there was a significant number of
cases that fell under the category of too little influence. In this analysis, the decision to
control for Hispanic influence is important for support of the hypothesis. Similar to
Garcia and Arce’s results with the Group Consciousness model this study tests if group
consciousness will overcome Socioeconomic Status when controlled. The category “too
little influence” is chosen, because if group consciousness can overcome Socioeconomic
Status theory, then it would be in this category where Socioeconomic Status theory would
break down. However, the results reveal that Socioeconomic Status theory still holds
true even when controlling for the category.
There is still a moderate relationship overall, for the values of Somers’D .291 and
Gamma .491 are positive. The relationship is still statistically significant positive. We
can confidently agree that the Socioeconomic Status theory still holds true between levels
of education and levels of participation, even when controlling for Hispanic influence.
The second multivariate analysis explains household income and the levels of
participation when controlling for Hispanic influence. Due to the majority of individuals
in the category, “too little influence,” group consciousness is primarily tested in this
category where we might see a break down of the Socioeconomic Status theory. Here the
values of Somers’D .002 and Gamma .576 confirm a moderate relationship between
household income and levels of participation when controlling for Hispanic influence.
Moreno 28
Further, the Chi-Square value of .086 is statistically significant, which lets us reject the
null hypothesis.
The final analysis as seen in Table 10 is a multivariate regression which shows the
relationship of the four independent variables to the levels of participation. The R-Square
value reveals that there is a 36.2 percent of variance explained by the regression. In other
words, the R-Square value indicates the proportion of variation in the dependent variable
explained by the independent variables.
The adjusted R-Square is the same but
compensates for this small sample consisting of one hundred and thirty-two Hispanics.
Next, the slope below, or B predicts how much change in levels of participation is
associated with a unit increase in each of the independent variable below, holding the
other independent variables constant.
In addition, Table 10 shows the Beta values as a relative strength for the values of
both whether the respondent believes their vote matters and household income. The
multivariate regression is used to compare the Beta values, so the regression allows us to
see which independent variable has the biggest impact on the levels of participation.
Clearly, as shown below, the biggest impact on the levels of participation is the
independent variable whether or not the respondent believes their vote matters. The
positive direction of the independent variable, “Does respondent believe their vote
matters,” explains that the more an individual disagreed that their vote matters the more
they participated in political activities. Taking a closer look at the bivariate analysis (see
Table 8), the original scale goes from negative to positive. Thus, a positive relationship
exists.
Moreno 29
Finally, the significance levels shown in Table 10 indicate that it is difficult to
reject the null hypothesis for the independent variable Hispanic influence because of the
statistical significance. However, the other values are weak to moderate significances,
which lead us to reject the null hypotheses for these three independent variables.
Table 10
Regression
Constant
Level of Education
B
.173
Beta
.154
Significance
.153
Hispanics Influence
.232
.177
.077
Does R believe their
vote matters
.189
.332
.002
HH income-all HH’s
.053
.244
.024
R SQUARE=.362
ADJUSTED R SQUARE=.324
VIII. DISSCUSSION
In analyzing these final results, we must discuss the criteria of causality of each
independent variable. First, the relationship between level of participation and level of
education demonstrates a causal relationship.
For instance, both variables change
together logically and plausibly. Since we rejected the null hypothesis because there is
an association between the two variables, the Socioeconomic Status theory supports this
logical connection by claiming that the more educated an individual is the more likely
that individual will participate in politics. Granted, this causal relationship does not
support the hypothesis being studied, but it does establish a stronger relationship for the
Socioeconomic Status theory. Finally, level of education and level of participation may
Moreno 30
be explained away through the influence of other independent variables because of the
multiple regression results.
Second, the relationship between level of participation and household income also
demonstrate a causal relationship. Indeed, both variables change together logically and
plausibly. Again, since we rejected the null hypothesis, there is an association between
these two variables. The Socioeconomic Status theory that supports level of education
holds the same results for income. Thus, the more income an individual accumulates the
more likely an individual will participate in politics. Again this causal relationship does
not support the hypothesis being studied, but establishes an even stronger relationship for
the Socioeconomic Status theory. Finally, the observed relationship between level of
participation and income is not explained away through the influence of other
independent variables.
Third, the variable Hispanic influence results demonstrate a causal relationship
with level of participation. Our results confirm the rejection of the null hypothesis for
these two variables. Clearly, both of these variables are associated and follow a logical,
plausible order. The Group Consciousness theory explained earlier demonstrates a strong
argument for this causal relationship and the results shown above. Also, the observed
relationship between level of participation and Hispanic influence is not explained away
through the influence of other independent variables.
Finally, the Political Efficacy variable which asks the respondent if they believe
their vote matters in the 2000 election demonstrates a causal relationship with level of
participation. For example, both variables change together logically and plausibly. We
can reject the null hypothesis since there is an association between these two variables.
Moreno 31
Indeed, the Political Efficacy theory supports the results of the causal relationship. As
mentioned earlier, the Political Efficacy is a psychological factor of confidence that
contributes to political participation. Further, an individual attains a feeling of power or
capacity to produce a desired effect or effectiveness. The concept of Political Efficacy is
tested in the Socioeconomic Status theory as a positive relationship between education,
income, and levels of participation.
Thus, the more educated and wealthier have higher levels of Political Efficacy
which results in higher levels of political participation. The results of Political Efficacy
help support the hypothesis and support the theory behind the results by confirming a
mobilization factor. Also, the observed relationship between level of participation and
efficacy is not explained away through the influence of other independent variables.
The conclusion of the results confirm that the Socioeconomic Status theory holds
true: the more educated, wealthier individuals participate more in politics. These results
demonstrate that more educated, wealthier Hispanics in this study participated more in
American politics. However, there are some interesting results with group consciousness
and efficacy, which supports the hypotheses. The results demonstrate mobilization from
Hispanics. Also, the results examine whether the theories in this study are valid within
significant subgroups of the population. This is very important in minority participation,
especially participation involving Hispanics, because of the large population of Hispanics
in the United States.
The problem that results in the “general” theories of participation is that testing
data from national election surveys almost always consist of primarily Anglos.
Obviously, this presents a problem with the results. It is almost impossible to apply
Moreno 32
certain theories to Hispanics if the survey consists mostly of Anglos. The argument
stands that there are limitations with many of the theories mentioned earlier.
How can this data contribute to another subgroup if prior research has shown a
vast majority of Anglos are used in national surveys? There are limitations within this
study because the lack of Hispanic respondents in national surveys makes it difficult to
understand the entire community of Hispanics. Clearly, the data reveals the small N
cases of Hispanic respondents, but there are still 132 respondents, so the study was still
able to complete statistical analyses.
VIII. CONCLUSION
This study examined electoral participation involving Hispanics from an approach
that opposed Verba and Nie’s prior conclusions. The evidence from this study, however,
reveals that Verba and Nies conclusions regarding socioeconomic status and participation
remain valid. Since this study tested electoral participation with Hispanics, activity
participation is another method one could test to see if there are different or similar
results. Future researchers could attempt to use these results and prior research to
conduct their own analyses. There is still much to be learned about Hispanic politics in
America. Because so little research has been done in this area, there is always an
opportunity for more insightful research.
Garcia and Arce’s theory of Hispanic political participation planted the seed for
this analysis. They specifically focused on the Hispanic community and their patterns of
civic orientations. They define Hispanic “civic orientation” as attitudes focusing on
political activities that an active member of the political system pursues, such as voting as
an individual expression, getting more Hispanics to vote, and supporting demonstrations
Moreno 33
to change unfair laws (Garcia and Arce 1988, 137). Oppose to Garcia and Arce’s study,
this study used a different measurement for participation that focused primarily on
electoral politics, with the exception of political efficacy and group consciousness.
Garcia and Arce focused primarily on the attitudes of Hispanics, and they used a
secondary data set, specifically intended for Hispanics; while in this study, the secondary
data NES is utilized.
While the Hispanic population in America continues to grow, the need to
understand why there is such little Hispanic representation in politics remains. There
needs to be a marginal change in Hispanic participation in survey samples in order for a
researcher to have a larger sample size. In this study, the small sample size of Hispanics
proved that it would have been very helpful if more Hispanics were involved in the
process. However, because of the limited number of Hispanics, the results make it more
difficult to come to a conclusion. Hopefully, there will be an increase in the National
Election Survey for 2004, so future researchers will have a larger sample to test for more
accurate, real -- world results.
Moreno 34
Bibliography
Bennett, Linda, and Stephen Bennett. 1989. “Enduring Gender Differences in Political
Interest: The Impact of Socialization and Political Dispositions.” American
Political Quarterly 17: 102-22.
Blalock, Hubert M. 1967.Toward a Theory of Minority-Group Relations. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Brody, Richard A. 1978. “The Puzzle of Political Participation in America.” In The New
American Political System, ed. Anthony King. Washington, DC: American
Enterprise Institute.
Falcon, Angelo. 1988. “Blacks and Latino Politics in New York City.” In Latinos in the
Political System, ed. F. Chris Garcia. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University
Press.
Garcia, Jose A., and Carlos H. Arce. 1988. “Political Orientations and Behaviors of
Chicanos: Trying to Make Sense Out of Attitudes and Perceptions.” In Latinos
and the Political System, edited by F. Chris Garcia, 125-151. Notre Dame, Ind:
University of Notre Dame Press.
Gilliam, Frank H., Jr. “Exploring Minority Empowerment: Symbolic Politics, Governing
Coalitions and Traces of Political Style in Los Angeles.” American Journal of
Political Science, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Feb., 1996), 56-81.
Gray, Virginia, and Russell L. Hanson. 2004. Politics in the American States.
Washington, DC. CQ PRESS. Pgs. 13-50.
Hero, Rodney E. 1992. Latinos and the U.S., Political System. Philadelphia, Temple
Moreno 35
University Press. Pgs. 56-85.
LARASA (Latin American Research and Service Agency). 1989. Hispanic Agenda Poll.
Denver, Colorado.
Leighley, Janet. 1990. “Social Interaction and Contextual Influences on Political
Participation.” American Politics Quarterly 18 (October): 458-75.
Leighley, Jan E. and Arnold Vedlitz. “Race, Ethnicity, and Political Participation:
Competing Models and Contrasting Explanations.” The Journal of Politics, Vol.
61, No.4 (Nov., 1999), 1092-1114.
McClain, Paula D, and Albert Karnig. “Black and Hispanic Socioeconomic and a
Political Competition.” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 84, No 2
(Jun 1990), 535-545.
Milbrath, Lester, and M. L. Goel. 1977. Political Participation. 2nd ed. Chicago: Rand
McNally.208-239
Nelson, Dale. 1979. “Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status as Sources of Participation:
Putnam, Robert D. 1995. “Turning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social
Capital in America.” PS 28: 664-83.
Tate, Katherine. 1991. “Black Political Participation in the 1984 and the 1988
Presidential Elections.” American Political Science Review 85(4): 1159-76.
Teixiera, Ruy A. 1992. The Disappearing American Voter. Washington DC: Brookings
Institution. “The Case for Ethnic Political Culture.” American Political Science
Review 73, no. 4 (December): 1024-1038.
Uhlaner, Carole J; Cain, Bruce E. and Kiewiet Roderick. “Political Participation of
Moreno 36
Ethnic Minorities in the 1980s.” Political Behavior. Vol. 11, No 3 (Sep., 1989),
195- 231.
Uslaner, Eric M. 1995. “Faith, Hope, and Charity: Social Capital, Trust, and Collective
Action.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science
Association.
Verba, Sidney, and Norman H. Nie. 1972. Participation in America: Political Democracy
And Social Equality. New York: Harper and Row.