Join | Login




VOTING BEHAVIOR

Economic and Social Disadvantage Can Affect Young Citizens’ Voter Turnout

Hardships Affect Different Racial Groups Distinctly

A study recently published in volume 64(3) of the Journal of Social Issues illustrates how certain disadvantages experienced in adolescence, such as early pregnancy, dropping out of high school, being arrested, or going to an underprivileged school, contribute to lower voter turnout in young adulthood. In addition, the types of disadvantage vary across racial groups.

Julianna Sandell Pacheco and Eric Plutzer of The Pennsylvania State University used data from the National Education Longitudinal Survey to measure disadvantage and voter participation.

Hardships affected cumulative turnout of disadvantaged youth, but in a manner specific to each racial group. For White youth, early pregnancy or parenthood leads to dropping out of high school, and the combined impact of these two events resulting in a turnout decline of more than 30 percent. For Blacks, being arrested is associated with dropping out of high school, subsequently decreasing turnout by more than 30 percent.

Institutions have both a positive and negative influence on youth voter turnout, acting to both increase and decrease the impact of these disadvantages on political participation. Whites who are poor are more likely to attend disadvantaged middle and high schools, which additively decreases turnout. Community colleges, however, increase youth voter turnout immensely among Blacks.

“The cumulative disadvantages experienced by some youths contribute to lower voter turnout,” the authors conclude. “Rising economic segregation and economic inequality has the potential to increase political inequality in the United States.”

_________________

This study is published in the September 2008 issue of the Journal of Social Issues. Media wishing to receive a PDF of this article may contact journalnews@bos.blackwellpublishing.net.

To view the abstract for this article, please click here.

The author of the study, Julianna Sandell Pacheco, is affiliated with The Pennsylvania State University and can be reached for questions.


 

Many Children Attribute White Male Monopoly on White House to Discrimination

Austin, TX – October 8, 2008 – A new study in the journal Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy explored elementary-school-age children’s views about the role of race and gender in the U.S. presidency, Results indicated that most children are aware that women and people of color have been excluded from the presidency. Further, many children attributed the lack of female, African American, and Latino presidents to gender and racial discrimination.

In the year prior to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s bids to become the Democratic nominee, researchers interviewed children between five and ten years of age from various ethnic and racial backgrounds to assess their knowledge of and attributions for the lack of female, African American, and Latino presidents.

The study found that most children endorsed the belief that the presidency should be filled by people of both genders and diverse races and ethnicities. At the same time, most children reported that women and people of color have been excluded from the role

Surprisingly, when asked about potential legal barriers, one in four children stated that it was currently against the law for women, African Americans, or Latinos to be President. Many children also blamed those who have been excluded, arguing that they lack the necessary attributes to hold the position, including the fact women aren’t as smart as men.

Girls who attributed the lack of female presidents to discrimination were more likely to report that they could not really become president, even if they were interested in doing so. In contrast, among African American children, attributions to discrimination were associated with an increased interest in becoming president, perhaps, Bigler said, as a result of the long and well-known history of African-Americans’ struggle to achieve equality in the United States,”

“Our research suggests that the U.S. presidency is a high-profile instance of gender and racial exclusion that is well known by young children and may shape their expectations concerning gender and race relations and discrimination,” the authors note. “If Obama loses his bid for the presidency, there may be little change in children's attitudes, but it could fuel their perception that American voters are racially prejudiced," Bigler said. "In contrast, if Obama wins children may believe that exclusionary laws and racial prejudice no longer shape the outcomes of the presidential elections.”

____________________

This study is published in the October 2008 issue of Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. Media wishing to receive a PDF of this article may contact journalnews@bos.blackwellpublishing.net.

To view the abstract for this article, please click here.

The author of this study, Rebecca Bigler, is affiliated with The University of Texas at Austin and can be reached for questions.


 

Democracy and Disenfranchisement in
Elections: New Data for Voting Advocates

Overview: This fact sheet summarizes some of the highlights of volume 64(3) of the Journal of Social Issues, presenting new scientific research on democracy and disenfranchisement in elections.  The studies included in this issue of the journal include wide-ranging investigations of the social psychology of voting, as well as a variety of suggestions for improving the fairness of and participation in future elections.  The editor for this issue of the Journal of Social Issues is SPSSI member Kevin Lanning of Florida Atlantic University.

Key Findings

• Predicting how people will vote: Joachim Krueger of Brown University and his colleagues find that how we vote is, in part, a function of personality. Data examined by Jaime Napier and John Jost, of New York University, suggest that the phenomenon of “working-class conservatism” is associated with both obedience towards authority and cynicism. Gian Vittorio Caprara, of the University of Rome, finds that political conservatism is associated with values centered on conscientiousness, while political liberalism is instead associated with openness and flexibility.

• Increasing voter participation – why we choose to vote or not to vote: Josh Harder and Jon Krosnick, of Stanford University, maintain that voter turnout is not merely a function of institutional variables such as registration laws, but also of individual variables such as knowledge, motivation, and social ties. Eugene Borgida, of the University of Minnesota and his colleagues, meanwhile, see voting as just one specific form of civic engagement, and suggest that participation can be enhanced through interventions in deliberative democracy in our public schools.

• Discovering the links between poverty and political non-participation: The link between poverty and low electoral participation may be self-perpetuating. In examining some of the mechanisms that may account for the perpetuation of these forms of inequality, Melissa Pacheco and Eric Plutzer, of Penn State University, document that phenomena as diverse as poor schools, encounters with the law, and early pregnancy may each contribute independently to withdrawal from the political sphere.

• Examining whether early voting actually leads to greater democracy: Data suggest that the opportunity to vote early does not provide particular access to those who would otherwise be disenfranchised. Paul Gronke and Dan Toffey, of Reed College, find that those who vote early are not those who would be unlikely to vote on election day (e.g., those who are young or belong to the working class), but are instead those who likely would have voted anyway. In an examination of the “principle of simultaneity” in human behavior, Dennis Thompson, of Harvard University, maintains that votes which take place at different times may be based on different information, can carry different consequences, and may be effectively unequal and undemocratic. 
 
• Looking at voter perceptions of the Electoral College: Kevin Lanning, of Florida Atlantic University, finds that while recent changes in voting laws may have reduced the occurrence of fraud and disenfranchisement, presidential elections are nonetheless likely to remain close and contested, and that our Electoral College system increases the likelihood that future elections will be contested. Lanning finds that the proposed “National Popular Vote” compact would, in addition to addressing the inequities of the Electoral College, also reduce the likelihood of contested elections.

• Probing the effects of the system’s shortcomings: Celia Gonzalez, of Harvard University, and Tom Tyler, of New York University, argue that American democracy is ultimately based in human trust, and that problematic elections lead to a reduction in the confidence we place in our leaders and the institutions they lead. They find that when elections are perceived as unfair, governments are perceived as illegitimate.

To read more on the studies published in this issue of the Journal of Social Issues (2008, volume 64, number 3), visit www.wileyblackwell.com.

___________________________

The Journal of Social Issues has been in publication since 1945. Each quarterly issue focuses attention on important social scientific findings that have strong policy implications. For more information about voting behavior or about how to access scientific data relevant to other policy issues, contact SPSSI’s Policy Coordinator, Christopher Woodside