American Politics Research http://apr.sagepub.

com/

Latino Group Consciousness and Political Participation

Atiya Kai Stokes American Politics Research 2003 31: 361 DOI: 10.1177/1532673X03031004002 The online version of this article can be found at: http://apr.sagepub.com/content/31/4/361

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
APR at the University of Illinois

Additional services and information for American Politics Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://apr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://apr.sagepub.com/content/31/4/361.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jul 1, 2003 What is This?

Downloaded from apr.sagepub.com at The University of Manchester Library on December 10, 2012

AMERICAN POLITICS RESEARCH / JULY 2003 10.1177/1532673X03252531 ARTICLE

Stokes / LATINO POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

LATINO GROUP CONSCIOUSNESS AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

ATIYA KAI STOKES University of Maryland at College Park

Although studies of minority political participation often emphasize the link between socioeconomic variables or between mobilization and political participation, little empirical research has investigated the effects of group consciousness on Latino political participation. This article examines this relationship using a multidimensional conception of group consciousness. Specifically, I argue that Latinos who self-identify using a pan-ethnic identifier, express dissatisfaction with access to political and material resources, and credit failure to succeed to systemic inequity are more likely to participate in political activities. The results of ordinary least squares models suggest that group consciousness increases Latino political participation; however, the components of group consciousness that increase political participation vary for each Latino subgroup. These findings raise serious questions about what can motivate specific Latino subgroups to participate in a wide range of political activities.

Keywords: Latino politics; political participation; group consciousness

The explosive growth of the Latino population in the United States has increased scholarly interest in Latino political behavior. Latinos have now surpassed African Americans as the largest miniority group in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). This demographic shift has already begun to change the face of American politics: During the 2000 presidential election, both major political parties significantly increased their efforts to appeal to Latino voters (Alvarez & Bedolla, 2000). The growth in the numer of racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S. suggests that Latinos and other minority voters will play a crucial role in American elections.
Authors Note: A version of this article was presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Political Science Association. I wish to thank Peter L. Francia, James G. Gimpel, Paul S. Herrnson, James Jennings, Karen M. Kaufmann, Eric M. Uslaner, Linda F. Williams, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
AMERICAN POLITICS RESEARCH, Vol. 31 No. 4, July 2003 361-378 DOI: 10.1177/1532673X03252531 2003 Sage Publications

361
Downloaded from apr.sagepub.com at The University of Manchester Library on December 10, 2012

362

AMERICAN POLITICS RESEARCH / JULY 2003

Although much of the literature on minority political participation emphasizes the impact of socioeconomic variables on political participation (e.g., Arvizu & Garcia, 1996; Calvo & Rosenstone, 1989; DeSipio, 1996a; Hero & Campbell, 1996) and the link between mobilization and political participation (e.g., Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993; Shaw, de la Garza, & Lee, 2000; Wrinkle, Steward, Polinard, Meier, & Arvizu, 1996), relatively few studies have investigated the relationship between group consciousness and political participation (but see Gurin, Miller, & Gurin, 1980; Jackson, 1987; Miller, Gurin, Gurin, & Malanchuk, 1981; Shingles, 1981; Verba & Nie, 1972; Walton, 1985; Wilcox & Gomez, 1990). There has been some debate about the impact of group consciousness on minority political participation, due, in part, to the measurement of group consciousness in various studies. Miller et al. (1981) argue that numerous works focusing on political participation use group identity as a measure of group consciousness, failing to capture the psychological dimensions of the participation model. Using a multidimensional conception of group consciousness, they find a strong association between group consciousness and political participation. Wilcox and Gomez (1990) replicate this model and find that group consciousness is not a significant predictor of participation among African Americans, whereas Leighley and Vedlitz (1999) find that group consciousness fails to account for political engagement among several racial and ethnic groups. Using a multidimensional conception of group consciousness, this article evaluates the influence of group consciousness on Latino political participation. The data come from a national survey of Latinos in the United States. I hypothesize that a greater level of group consciousness among Latinos is associated with increased political participation. However, because there are significant differences among Latino subgroups when the Latino population is disaggregated (Arvizu & Garcia, 1996; Calvo & Rosenstone, 1989; Wrinkle et al., 1996), this article will also examine political participation among three Latino subpopulations: Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans.1 I find that group consciousness increases Latino political participation; however, when the effects of group consciousness on political participation for Latino subgroups are compared, the components of group consciousness that increase political participation vary. This finding
Downloaded from apr.sagepub.com at The University of Manchester Library on December 10, 2012

Stokes / LATINO POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

363

raises serious questions about what can motivate specific Latino subgroups to participate in a wide range of political activities.

GROUP CONSCIOUSNESS

Group consciousness is developed when members of a group recognize their status as being part of a deprived group (Miller et al., 1981). It is this sense of commonality and collectivity that encourages groups to become more active in the political arena, thus explaining high rates of political participation among disadvantaged groups in American society (Olsen, 1970; Verba & Nie, 1972). Much of the literature concentrating on group consciousness primarily focuses on African American political behavior. These studies have long established that group consciousness stimulates African American participation (Bobo & Gilliam, 1990; Dawson, 1994; Gurin, Hatchett, & Jackson, 1989; Guterbock & London, 1983; Jackson, 1987; Shingles, 1981). Despite economic and social cleavages in the African American community, African American political behavior has been largely homogeneous because individual self-interest stems from group interests (Bobo, Dawson, & Johnson, 2001; Dawson, 1994; Kaufmann, 2000; Kinder & Sanders, 1996), creating a sense of commonality and political unity. In most research, group consciousness is primarily conceptualized as identification with a political group (but see Leighley & Vedlitz, 1999; Miller et al., 1981; Wilcox & Gomez, 1990). When an individual solely identifies with a group, there is a self-awareness of ones objective membership in the group, as well as a psychological sense of attachment to the group (Conover, 1984, p. 761). Social or economic circumstance can create an overall sense of belonging, but the individual might lack a conscious loyalty to the group because he or she does not perceive that the group lacks access to resources when compared to other groups (Miller et al., 1981). In contrast, group consciousness implies that the individual experiences a sense of belonging to the group as well as a conscious commitment to the goals and betterment of the group. Therefore, group consciousness measures not only individual awareness of the groups status in society relative to other groups but also an overall commitment to act collectively to satisfy
Downloaded from apr.sagepub.com at The University of Manchester Library on December 10, 2012

364

AMERICAN POLITICS RESEARCH / JULY 2003

group interests (Antunes & Gaitz, 1975; Gurin et al., 1980; Jackman & Jackman, 1973; Miller et al., 1981; Wilcox & Gomez, 1990). This theory of group consciousness can be extended to include Latinos, provided that Latinos perceive that access both to material and political resources and to opportunity are strongly linked to group (pan-ethnic) identity. This theory is an adaptation of the minoritygroup status hypothesis posed by Cain, Kiewiet, and Uhlaner (1991). Examining partisanship among Latinos and Asian Americans, Cain et al. argue that groups that experience discrimination and perceive unequal opportunities are more likely to identify as Democrats, given the Democratic partys image of being more supportive of policies that favor disadvantaged groups (p. 394). I extend this hypothesis about the relationship between experiences of discrimination and development of political identity from partisanship to group consciousness, arguing that Latinos who see themselves as members of a minority group, experience discrimination, and perceive that they lack opportunities are more likely to develop group consciousness. Given social and economic similarities between Latinos and African Americans, there is reason to expect that this theory will apply to the Latino population. When compared with Whites, a greater percentage of African Americans and Latinos are younger, have less education, and are more likely to live in poverty and experience some form of discrimination (Cain et al., 1991; McClain & Steward, 1995; McKinnon & Humes, 2000; Therrien & Ramirez, 2001). However, the extreme heterogeneity of the Latino population suggests that the Latino experience is also very diverse (Portes & Truelove, 1987). Thus, examining individual Latino subgroups is necessary to assess whether different components of group consciousness promote political participation among Latinos.

THE LATINO EXPERIENCE: HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS, GROUP CONSCIOUSNESS, AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

The development of group consciousness among Latinos requires a feeling of commonality and political unity among a large and diverse number of national-origin subgroups. Currently, the nations Latino
Downloaded from apr.sagepub.com at The University of Manchester Library on December 10, 2012

Stokes / LATINO POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

365

population is composed of Mexican Americans (66%), Puerto Ricans (9%), Cubans (4%), and Latinos of other origins, including South and Central Americans (Therrien & Ramirez, 2001). The historical treatment of these groups in the United States suggests that Mexicans and Puerto Ricans are more likely than Cubans are to feel discriminated against and to perceive that they lack opportunity, conditions that foster the development of group consciousness. The Mexican American population is the oldest and largest Spanish-speaking, Latino minority and is composed of a sizable number of native-born Americans and immigrants (Affigne, 2000). Mexican Americans historically have been a target of discrimination and disenfranchisement. As a result, Mexican Americans have used political organizations to mobilize other Mexican Americans and politicize grievances (Antunes & Gaitz, 1975; Marquez & Jennings, 2000; McLemore & Romo, 1985). Puerto Ricans differ from Mexicans and Cubans in that Puerto Ricans born either in Puerto Rico or on the mainland are U.S. citizens by birth. However, those living on the island cannot vote in federal elections and are represented in Congress by a nonvoting resident commissioner (Portes & Truelove, 1987; Rodriguez, 1990). Like Mexicans, Puerto Ricans have also faced discrimination but have historically expressed grievances through local social movements and activism, which tend to mobilize those who externalize power imbalances between groups and blame institutional barriers for their status in society (Marquez & Jennings, 2000). In contrast, Cubanslargely composed of middle- and upper-class political and economic refugees and their descendentshave achieved the greatest level of political incorporation and power (particularly in Dade County, Florida) and are more likely to perceive that they face little to no discrimination than any other group (Affigne, 2000).2 This is largely because Cuban immigrants received government-sponsored economic support as well as federal encouragement to obtain citizenship (DeSipio & Henson, 1997; McClain & Steward, 1995). Although the preconditions for the development of group consciousness are present, preliminary analysis of the indicators of group consciousness suggests a strong Latino group consciousness is not discernable. Only one out of four Latinos prefers pan-ethnic names (Latino, Hispanic, or Spanish American), and a majority of Latinos
Downloaded from apr.sagepub.com at The University of Manchester Library on December 10, 2012

366

AMERICAN POLITICS RESEARCH / JULY 2003

prefer to identify by specific nationality (DeSipio, 1996c; Gonzalez, 1992).3 Spatial distance among various Latino subgroups might also explain to some extent why group identification among Latinos is low: Mexicans are concentrated in southwestern states, Puerto Ricans are concentrated in the New York metropolitan area and the Northeast, and Cubans are concentrated in Florida around Miami (Arvizu & Garcia, 1996; McClain & Steward, 1995).4 Other indicators show similar results. Although data collected by the federal government reveal that Latinos continue to experience discrimination in the areas of employment, education, housing, and language (Fleming, 1994), a significant portion of Latinos perceives little discrimination and does not feel a lack of access to resources.5 Recent studies of Latino political behavior reveal that although Latinos tend to participate politically through a broad range of political activities, political participation is lowest among Latinos when compared with non-Latinos (Hero & Campbell, 1996; see also Jennings, 1993; McClain & Steward, 1995). This is due in part to low rates of naturalization among Latino immigrants, which severely limit Latino voting power (DeSipio, 1996b; Shaw et al., 2000). However, for foreign-born Latinos, the length of time spent in the United States is an important predictor of turnout (Highton & Burris, 2002). There are also significant differences in terms of participation among Latino subgroups. Cubans have a higher propensity to vote than Mexicans and Puerto Ricans but are less likely to be involved in alternative forms of political participation (Wrinkle et al., 1996). This article has two goals. First, I will examine specific components of group consciousness to investigate the extent to which group consciousness influences political participation among Latinos, controlling for socioeconomic and sociodemographic factors. Second, I will discern how various components of group consciousness increase political participation for specific Latino subgroups: Mexicans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans.

DATA AND METHOD

The data for this study come from the Latino National Political Survey (LNPS).6 This unique survey includes a large N sample of three
Downloaded from apr.sagepub.com at The University of Manchester Library on December 10, 2012

Stokes / LATINO POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

367

predominant Latino subgroups, which is crucial for subnationality analyses. The survey specifically measures the political behavior, values, and attitudes of Latinos in the United States, permitting the examination of distinct components of group consciousness. The data include 1,776 Latino citizens, composed of 878 Mexicans, 587 Puerto Ricans, and 311 Cubans.7 With this data, I test the impact of group consciousness on the political participation of Latinos using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression.
DEPENDENT VARIABLE

Several studies confirm that Latinos engage in various forms of participation (de la Garza & DeSipio, 1994; Garcia, 1988; Hero & Campbell, 1996; Hritzuk & Park, 2000; Wrinkle et al., 1996). Therefore, to limit the study to only electoral political participation would misrepresent overall levels of Latino political activity (Hritzuk & Park, 2000, p. 157). The dependent variable measures individual-level participation for eight political activities: voting in the 1988 presidential election, attending rallies, contributing money to a candidate or a political party, volunteering for a candidate or a political party, signing a petition, writing to public officials or editors, attending public meetings, and displaying campaign buttons or bumper stickers. A principalcomponent analysis was employed to sort out the relationship of each of these indicators to one another. The results from this analysis are presented in Table 1. Although these activities represent several different modes of participation, they are sufficiently similar to be combined into a unidimensional index of political participation.8
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Four variables have been identified as elements of group consciousness: group identification, polar power, polar affect, and systemic blame. Group identification is a binary variable where 1 indicates pan-ethnic identifiers such as Hispanic, Latino, Spanish, Spanish American, and Hispano. Polar power measures satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the groups status and material resources (Miller et al., 1981). The scores range from 2 to +2. Negative scores

Downloaded from apr.sagepub.com at The University of Manchester Library on December 10, 2012

368

AMERICAN POLITICS RESEARCH / JULY 2003 TABLE 1

Factor Loading for Political Participation Index

Variable Voting in 1988 presidential election Attending rallies Volunteering for a candidate or party Contributing money to a candidate or party Attending public meetings Signing a petition Writing to public officials or editors Displaying campaign buttons or bumper stickers Percentage explained of total variance Factor One .50 .72 .63 .58 .65 .64 .57 .64 Percentage Explained of Item Variance 25 52 40 34 42 41 42 41 40

indicate that a respondent believes that Latinos have more power than other groups in society, whereas positive scores indicate that a respondent believes Latinos have too little power. Thus, a positive and significant coefficient would indicate that greater dissatisfaction with group status and resources corresponds with higher levels of political participation. Polar affect measures how the respondent feels toward other non-Latino groups. Scores range from 2 to +2. Negative scores indicate a greater feeling toward non-Latino groups, and a positive score indicates a greater feeling toward Latino groups. Thus, a positive and significant coefficient would indicate that higher levels of polar affect correspond to higher levels of political participation.9 Systemic blame measures respondents attitudes about the groups status in society, indicating whether the respondent credits failure to succeed to individual failings or to institutionalized inequity (Miller et al., 1981). The 5-point scale ranges from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).10 I also include several control variables in the model. Education, income, and age are all significant predictors of political participation (Hero & Campbell, 1996; Milbrath & Goel, 1977; Verba & Nie, 1972; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995; Wolfinger & Rosenstone, 1980) and are scaled from low to high. Preliminary research suggests that Latinas differ from Latinos in various aspects of political participation (Hardy-Fanta, 1993; Montoya, Hardy-Fanta, & Garcia, 2000).

Downloaded from apr.sagepub.com at The University of Manchester Library on December 10, 2012

Stokes / LATINO POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

369

Female is a binary variable where 1 indicates a female respondent, and age is scaled from low to high. Research also suggests that nativity is an important indicator of participation in electoral politics (DeSipio, 1996b; Shaw et al., 2000). Foreign-born is a binary variable where 1 indicates a respondent born outside the United States.11

FINDINGS

The results are presented in Table 2. The first model includes all three Latino subgroups, and the remaining three models focus on each subgroup. The findings show that Latinos who self-identify using a pan-ethnic identifier (group identification), who express dissatisfaction with access to political and material resources (polar power), and who credit failure to succeed on systemic inequity (systemic blame) participate politically. Of the three components, polar power has the strongest influence: A one-unit increase in polar power increases political participation by 3%. The impact for group identification and systemic blame is 2% and 1%, respectively.12 In all four models, polar affect is statistically insignificant. This demonstrates that a preference for group members does not in itself motivate Latinos to engage in political activities. In evaluating each subgroup individually, it becomes clear that certain components of group consciousness become much more salient in predicting political participation. For Mexicans, polar power is statistically significant and increases political participation by 7%. The remaining components of group consciousness are positive but fall short of reaching statistical significance. In comparison, laying blame for lifes problems on external forces plays a pivotal role in the decision to participate for Puerto Ricans and Cubans. For Cubans, identification with a pan-ethnic identifier is also a significant predictor, increasing political participation by about 5%. The model also tests whether the groups differ on socioeconomic and sociodemographic factors that are strongly related to political participation. Consistent with much of the literature on political participation, higher levels of income and education are associated with greater political participation (Verba & Nie, 1972; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1993) and are significant for all three subgroups. Country of
Downloaded from apr.sagepub.com at The University of Manchester Library on December 10, 2012

370

AMERICAN POLITICS RESEARCH / JULY 2003 TABLE 2

The Impact of Group Consciousness on Political Participation

Independent Variable All Latinos Mexicans Puerto Ricans Cubans

Group identification .124** (.054) .052 (.080) .051 (.095) .300** (.130) Polar power .168* (.092) .396*** (.133) .223 (.160) .195 (.225) Polar affect .003 (.068) .034 (.096) .012 (.114) .280 (.184) Systemic blame .075*** (.023) .047 (.034) .092** (.040) .110* (.058) Income .046*** (.007) .044*** (.011) .050*** (.013) .060*** (.019) Education .283*** (.031) .373*** (.049) .314*** (.054) .163** (.074) Female .099* (.054) .082 (.080) .165* (.095) .125 (.130) Age .013*** (.002) .018*** (.003) .017*** (.004) .007 (.005) Foreign-born .169*** (.107) .058 (.119) .218** (.108) .052 (.225) Constant 1.860 2.178 1.781 1.726 Adjusted R Number of cases
2

.134 1,779

.157 878

.143 587

.103 311

NOTE: Estimates are ordinary least squares (OLS) coefficients. Standard errors are in parentheses. *p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

birth, age, and gender are also significantly associated with Latino political participation but vary for each subgroup. Puerto Ricans born outside the United States are less likely to participate than those born on the mainland, whereas age is a significant predictor for Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. The results also show that political participation among Puerto Rican females differs from that of males (Hardy-Fanta, 1993) and confirm that the predictive power of gender can be extended to all forms of political participation (see Wrinkle et al., 1996).

CONCLUSION

The findings support the main hypothesis that group consciousness among Latinos increases political participation. However, by using a

Downloaded from apr.sagepub.com at The University of Manchester Library on December 10, 2012

Stokes / LATINO POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

371

multidimensional approach to define group consciousness, the results also show that for each subgroup, different aspects of group consciousness increase political participation. Polar power increases Mexican political participation, systemic blame increases participation among Puerto Ricans, and systemic blame and group identification increase political participation among Cubans. These findings suggest that it is imperative to identify universal methods that tap into these components of group consciousness, which can build a sense of shared fate among Latinos and ultimately increase political participation. Although the diverse experiences of members of the Latino community might make it difficult to foster a sense of group consciousness, various factors including increased levels of interaction among ethnic Latinos and the salience of leadership and organizations (Kaufmann, 2000) suggest that this is not an impossible task. In the past, Latinos rarely interacted with Latinos from other ethnic groups.13 However, it should be noted that the attitudes and opinions of Latinos have changed somewhat since the LNPS, and there are signs that suggest a growing group consciousness in the Latino community. Intermarriage among Latinos has increased in recent years, which might foster pan-ethnicity, an aspect of group consciousness (Rosenfeld, 2001). Moreover, the missions of organizations like the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and a growing number of state and local organizations show that pan-national cooperation is desired and possible. In addition, pan-ethnicity has been heightened through media outlets like television and radio (but see Davila, 2000). Therefore, it is important to note that the LNPS might not sufficiently measure the impact of these and other factors that work to promote group consciousness for collective action. The development of group consciousness still poses a great challenge; however, the results presented in this article demonstrate that this process is worth the effort given its potential to greatly increase overall political engagement.

Downloaded from apr.sagepub.com at The University of Manchester Library on December 10, 2012

372

AMERICAN POLITICS RESEARCH / JULY 2003

APPENDIX Coding of Variables for Multivariate Analysis Group identification: 1 if respondent identified self by using pan-ethnic identifiers such as Latino, Hispanic, Hispano, Spanish, or Spanish American; 0 if not. Polar power: ranges from 2 for satisfaction with group resources in comparison with other groups to +2 for dissatisfaction with group resources. Polar affect: ranges from 2 for negative feelings about comparison with Latinos to other groups to +2 for positive feeling toward Latinos. Systemic blame: ranges from 1 for strongly agree to 5 for strongly disagree. Income: ranges from 1 for a family income of up to $4,999 and 15 for family income more than $75,000. Education: (0) no formal schooling, (1) elementary school, (2) middle school, (3) high school, (4) college, (5) postgraduate. Female: 1 if respondent is female, 0 if respondent is male. Age: age of respondent ranging from 18 to 88. Foreign-born: 1 if respondent was born outside the United States, 0 if not.

Downloaded from apr.sagepub.com at The University of Manchester Library on December 10, 2012

TABLE A1

Correlations
Variable All Latinos Group identification Polar power Polar affect Systemic blame Income Education Female Age Foreign-born Mexicans Group identification Polar power Polar affect Systemic blame Income Education Female Age Foreign-born 373 Group Polar Identification Power Polar Affect Systemic Blame Income Education Female Age ForeignBorn

Downloaded from apr.sagepub.com at The University of Manchester Library on December 10, 2012

.014 .023 .013 .065 .109 .061 .093 .040 .058 .026 .046 .056 .174 .073 .092 .007

.011 .030 .135 .080 .057 .031 .003

.013 .032 .009 .030 .068 .079

.181 .127 .000 .011 .010

.369 .172 .150 .121

.022 .405 .137

.020 .003

.283

.002 .062 .165 .131 .076 .012 .027

.032 .063 .074 .005 .048 .076

.156 .134 .108 .029 .049

.330 .149 .077 .008

.023 .462 .131

.025 .124

.084

(continued)

374
Downloaded from apr.sagepub.com at The University of Manchester Library on December 10, 2012

TABLE A1 (continued) Group Polar Identification Power Polar Affect Systemic Blame ForeignBorn

Variable Puerto Ricans Group identification Polar power Polar affect Systemic blame Income Education Female Age Foreign-born Cubans Group identification Polar power Polar affect Systemic blame Income Education Female Age Foreign-born

Income Education Female

Age

.000 .116 .010 .089 .100 .046 .040 .080 .106 .036 .014 .219 .045 .070 .115 .015

.040 .018 .134 .005 .062 .074 .045

.096 .070 .083 .024 .061 .042

.230 .139 .146 .087 .004

.341 .275 .134 .149

.071 .489 .316

.021 .056

.486

.016 .057 .002 .071 .001 .013 .097

.024 .141 .089 .113 .105 .039

.145 .069 .042 .040 .094

.426 .083 .524 .188

.075 .310 .078

.002 .099

.473

Stokes / LATINO POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

375

NOTES
1. Latino subgroups are referred to by their nationality of family origin. It is nonetheless understood that this context refers to native and foreign-born Mexicans and Cubans. Therefore Mexicans include Mexican Americans, and Cubans include Cuban Americans. 2. Forty-three percent of Cubans believe that they do not face discrimination as compared to 9% of Puerto Ricans and 7% of Mexicans. 3. Among the intelligentsia and native-born Latinos, particularly second-generation Latinos, pan-ethnicity has increased (de la Garza, 1992; Portes, 1996), but this has yet to hold true for most of the population (DeSipio & Henson, 1997). Latino and Hispanic are often used interchangeably as pan-ethnic identifiers and are subject to debate with regional variations: generally, Latino is used in the West, whereas Hispanic is used in the East and by the federal government (Affigne, 2000; Kanellos, 1994). 4. An overwhelming majority of Latinos are geographically concentrated in seven states: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Arizona, and New Jersey (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). 5. Cubans differ significantly from Puerto Ricans and Mexicans: more than 50% of Cubans surveyed believe that they face little to no discrimination as compared with 25% of Puerto Ricans and Mexicans. 6. de la Garza, Rodolfo, Angelo Falcon, F. Chris Garcia, and John A. Garcia. Latino National Political Survey, 1989-1990 [Computer file]. 3rd ICPSR version. Philadelphia: Temple University, Institute for Social Research [producer], 1992. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1998. 7. I specifically focus on citizen respondents because the political-participation scale includes voting, an activity applicable only to citizens. It can also be argued that citizens are more engaged and therefore more likely to participate in a wide range of activities and various aspects of the political process. 8. All eight activities were intercorrelated with one another ( .5) and loaded well ( .5) on the first factor in the principal component (see Beck & Jennings, 1982; Kim et al., 1977; Kim & Mueller, 1978; Kline, 2000). The participation scale has a standardized Cronbach alpha of .74 (see Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmaias, 1992; Kline, 2000). 9. The polar power measure was operationalized by responses to questions about discrimination and combines discrimination against ethnic Latinos and discrimination against other groups (Anglos, African Americans, and Asian Americans). The polar affect measure is constructed in parallel fashion, combining thermometer ratings of ethnic Latinos and other groups. 10. The exact question wording is, Using the answers on this card, tell me how strongly you agree of disagree with the following statement: Success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside of your control. 11. Puerto Ricans born on the Puerto Rican mainland are coded as 1. Recent research suggests that the number of years foreign-born citizens have lived in the United States might also be a significant indicator (Highton & Burris, 2002). I estimated the model with nativity and length of time in the United States; however, the results could not be interpreted given that these variables are highly correlated (.856) and introduce multicollinearity into the model. Therefore, the length of time foreign-born Latinos have lived in the United States is not included in the model. 12. To calculate the percentage by which a one-unit increase in the coefficient changes the dependent variable, I divided the coefficient by the range of the political-participation variable (5.662) and multiplied by 100. 13. Less than 0.5% of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and Cubans have friends that are of a different Latino ethnicity, nor do they attend social gatherings and parties where more than 0.5% of the people in attendance are from other Latino groups.

Downloaded from apr.sagepub.com at The University of Manchester Library on December 10, 2012

376

AMERICAN POLITICS RESEARCH / JULY 2003

REFERENCES
Affigne, T. (2000). Latino politics in the United States: An introduction. PS: Political Science and Politics, 33(3), 523-527. Alvarez, R. M., & Bedolla, L. G. (2000, March). The foundations of Latino voter partisanship: Evidence from the 2000 election. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Las Vegas, Nevada. Antunes, G., & Gaitz, C. M. (1975) Ethnicity and participation: A study of Mexican-Americans, Blacks and Whites. American Journal of Sociology, 80(5), 1192-1211. Arvizu, J. R. (1994). National origin based variations of Latino voter turnout in 1988: Findings from the Latino national political survey (Working Paper Series No. 21). Tucson: Mexican American Studies and Research Center, University of Arizona. Arvizu, J. R., & Garcia, C. F. (1996). Latino voting participation: Explaining and differentiating Latino voting turnout. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(2), 104-128. Beck, P. A., & Jennings, K. (1982). Pathways to participation. American Political Science Review, 76(1), 94-108. Bobo, L. D., & Gilliam, F. D., Jr. (1990). Race, sociopolitical participation, and Black empowerment. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 377-393. Bobo, L. D., Dawson, M. C., & Johnson, D. (2001). Enduring two-ness: Through the eyes of Black America. Public Perspectives, 12(3), 13-16. Cain, B. E., Kiewiet, D. K., & Uhlaner, C. J. (1991). The acquisition of partisanship by Latinos and Asian Americans. American Journal of Political Science, 35(2), 390-422. Calvo, M. A., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1989). Hispanic political participation. San Antonio, TX: Southwest Voter Research Institute. Conover, P. J. (1984). The influence of group identifications on political perception and evaluation. Journal of Politics, 46(3), 760-785. Davila, A. (2000). Mapping Latinidad: Language and culture in the Spanish TV battlefront. Television and Media, 1(1), 75-94. Dawson, M. C. (1994). Behind the mule: Race and class in African-American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. de la Garza, R. O. (1992). Latino politics: A futuristic view. National Political Science Review, 3, 137-144. de la Garza, R. O., & DeSipio, L. (1994). Overview: The link between individuals and electoral institutions in five Latino neighborhoods. In R. O. de la Garza, M. Menchaca, & L. DeSipio (Eds.), Barrio ballots: Latino politics in the 1990 elections. Boulder, CO: Westview. DeSipio, L. (1996a). Counting the Latino vote: Latinos as a new electorate. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press. DeSipio, L. (1996b). Making citizens or good citizens? Naturalization as a predictor of organizational and electoral behavior among Latino immigrants. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(2), 154-175. DeSipio, L. (1996c). More than the sum of its parts: The building blocks of pan-ethnic Latino identity. In W.C. Rich (Ed.), The politics of minority coalitions. Westport, CT: Praeger. DeSipio L., & Henson, J. R. (1997). Cuban Americans, Latinos and the print media. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 2, 52-70. Franfort-Nachmias, C., & Nachmias, D. (1992). Research methods in the social sciences (4th ed.). New York: St. Martins. Fleming, M. M. (1994). The faces of discrimination. Hispanic, 7(6), 22-26.

Downloaded from apr.sagepub.com at The University of Manchester Library on December 10, 2012

Stokes / LATINO POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

377

Garcia, F. C. (Ed.). (1988). Latinos and the political system. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Gonzalez, D. (1992, November 15). Whats the problem with Hispanic? Just ask a Latino. New York Times, p. E6. Gurin, P., Miller, A. H., & Gurin, G. (1980). Stratum identification and consciousness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43(1), 30-47. Gurin, P. (1985). Womens gender consciousness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49(2), 143-163. Gurin, P., Hatchett, S., & Jackson, J. S. (1989). Hope and independence: Blacks response to electoral and party politics. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Guterbock, T. M., & London, B. (1983). Race, political orientation, and participation: An empirical test of four competing theories. American Sociological Review, 48(4), 439-453. Hardy-Fanta, C. (1993). Latina politics, Latino politics: Gender, culture, and political participation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Hero, R. E., & Campbell, A. G. (1996). Understanding Latino political participation: Exploring the evidence from the Latino national political survey. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(2), 129-141. Highton, B. & Burris, A. L. (2002). New perspectives on Latino voter turnout in the United States. American Politics Research, 30, 285-306. Hritzuk, N., & Park, D. K. (2000). The question of Latino participation: From an SES to a social structural explanation. Social Science Quarterly, 81(1), 151-166. Jackman, M. R., & Jackman, R. W. (1973). An interpretation of the relation between objective and subjective social status. American Sociological Review, 38, 569-582. Jackson, B. O. (1987). The effects of racial group consciousness on political mobilization in American cities. Western Political Quarterly, 40, 631-646. Jennings, J. T. (1993). Voting and registration in the election of November 1992 (U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, pp. 20-466). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Kanellos, N. (1994). The Hispanic almanac: From Columbus to corporate America. Detroit, MI: Visible Ink Press. Kaufmann, K. M. (2000, August-September). Cracks in the rainbow: Group commonality as a basis for Latino and African American political coalitions. Presented for the 2000 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Washington, DC. Kim, J., & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues. London: Sage. Kim J., Nie, N., & Verba, S. (1977). A note on analyzing dichotomous variables: The case of political participation. Political Methodology, 4, 39-62. Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kline, P. (2000). A psychometrics primer. London: Free Association Books. Leighley, J. E., & Vedlitz., A. (1999). Race, ethnicity, and political participation: Competing models and contrasting explanations. Journal of Politics, 61(4), 1092-1114. Marquez, B., & Jennings, J. (2000). Representation by other means: Mexican American and Puerto Rican social movement organizations. PS: Political Science and Politics, 33(3), 541546. McClain, P. D., & Steward, J., Jr. (1995). Can we all get along? Racial and ethnic minorities in American politics. Boulder, CO: Westview. McKinnon, J., & Humes, K. (2000). The Black population in the United States: Population characteristics (U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, pp. 20-530). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Downloaded from apr.sagepub.com at The University of Manchester Library on December 10, 2012

378

AMERICAN POLITICS RESEARCH / JULY 2003

McLemore, S. D., & Romo, R. (1985). The origins and development of the Mexican American people. In R. O. de la Garza, F. D. Bean, C. M. Bonjean, R. Romo, & R. Alvarez (Eds.), The Mexican American experience: An interdisciplinary anthology. Austin: University of Texas Press. Milbrath, L. W., & Goel, M. L. (1977). Political participation. Chicago: Rand McNally. Miller, A. H., Gurin, P., Gurin, G., & Malanchuk, O. (1981). Group consciousness and political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 494-511. Montoya, L. J., Hardy-Fanta, C., & Garcia, S. (2000). Latina politics: Gender, participation, and leadership. PS: Political Science and Politics, 33(3), 555-562. Olsen, M. E. (1970). Social and political participation of Blacks. American Sociological Review, 35(4), 682-697. Portes, A., & Truelove, C. (1987). Making sense of diversity: Recent research on Hispanic minorities in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 359-385. Portes, A. (Ed.). (1996). The new second generation. New York: Russell Sage. Rodriguez, C. E. (1990). Puerto Rican studies. American Quarterly, 42(3), 437-455. Rosenfeld, M. (2001). The salience of pan-national Hispanic and Asian identities in U.S. marriage markets. Demography, 38, 161-175. Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan. Shaw, D., de la Garza, R. O., & Lee, J. (2000). Examining Latino turnout in 1996: A three-state, validated survey approach. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 332-340. Shingles, R. D. (1981). Black consciousness and political participation: The missing link. American Political Science Review, 75(1), 76-91. Therrien, M., & Ramirez, R. R. (2001). The Hispanic population in the United States: Population characteristics (U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, pp. 20-535). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. U.S. Census Bureau (2003). Census Bureau releases population estimates by age, sex, race and Hispanic origin (CB03-16). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). States ranked by Hispanic population, July 1, 1999 (ST-99-48). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. New York: Harper & Row. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L, & Brady, H. (1993). Race, ethnicity and political resources: Participation in the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 23(4), 453-497. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walton, H., Jr. (1985). Invisible politics: Black political behavior. Albany: State University of New York Press. Wilcox, C., & Gomez, L. (1990). Religion, group identification, and politics among American Blacks. Sociological Analysis, 51(3), 271-285. Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Wrinkle, R. D., Steward, J., Jr., Polinard, J. L., Meier, K. J., & Arvizu, J. R. (1996). Ethnicity and non-electoral political participation. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(2), 142153.

Atiya Kai Stokes is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland at College Park.

Downloaded from apr.sagepub.com at The University of Manchester Library on December 10, 2012