By: Victoria Blanc
Political participation is essential to the democratic political process in the United States of America. Despite its importance, voter turnout (an essential part of participating in the political process of the US) has been low compared to other democratic nations resulting in several recent elections such as the presidential elections in 2016, 2020, and 2024 being remarkably close in terms of the popular vote. For example, during the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump won the state of Pennsylvania by a mere 1% of the total popular vote (Allen et al., 2024). In the 2020 election, Joe Biden won Pennsylvania by 1.2%, and in 2024, Trump won the state by about 1.7% (Allen et al., 2024). To ensure that elections accurately represent public opinion, there needs to be high voter participation.
High voter turnout is important to the democratic process, however, data shows that American voter turnout is notably low. The midterm election of 2018 had a turnout rate of 49%, which despite being very low was actually the highest turnout rate for a midterm election since 1914 (Daniller et al., 2023). PEW Research Center discovered that participation in all three federal elections between 2018 and 2022 was only 37% of all eligible voters (Danniller et al., 2023). Voter turnout in local elections is far lower than participation in state and federal elections. Research from Portland State University found that only 15% to 27% of all age-eligible voters participate in local elections (Jurjevich et al., 2016). This data was consistent across cities from all over the United States.
However, political participation is much more than participating in national, state, or local elections. Political participation by citizens is not limited to once every four years to elect a president, once every two years during midterms, or even just during election cycles. Political participation by citizens expands beyond voter participation and into the realm of everyday life. Political participation can take many forms, such as protesting a social issue, attending a local town hall meeting, volunteering for a campaign, and boycotting products or services. However, political participation can take even simpler form and be less time-consuming than the actions listed above. It can be as simple as wearing a campaign badge in support of a political candidate or signing a petition.
19th Century French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville stated in his two-volume book Democracy in America that “the health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by private citizens” (Tocqueville 1835). Maintaining a healthy democracy in the United States requires heavy participation from citizens. The “functions performed by private citizens” encompass voting, but also include a variety of actions such as signing petitions, reaching out to elected representatives, and protesting social issues, which can all help maintain a healthy democracy. Voters and citizens have power and influence far beyond participation in elections, and it is important to hold the government and representatives accountable. Many ways to influence the government outside of elections are discussed in the above
actions, such as boycotting, protesting, signing petitions, making political donations, and attending local meetings. Therefore, this paper will explore political participation beyond simple voter turnout. This study will explore what factors influence an individual to take a step beyond voting and engage in other political acts. These acts will be referred to as political activism.
Literature Review
Political participation is not limited to strictly voting in national, state, or local elections: it can take a variety of forms, such as protesting, contacting a representative, or volunteering in a political campaign. Researchers Charles Pattie, Patrick Seyd, and Paul Whiteley describe political participation in three dimensions: individualistic activism, contact activism, and collective activism. Individualistic activism is described as independent political actions an individual can participate in like donating money to a campaign, signing a petition, voting in elections, and wearing a campaign badge (Pattie et al., 2003). Contact activism focuses on contacting individuals in authority and can manifest as contacting a public official, contacting a political organization, or contacting the media (Pattie et al., 2003). Lastly, collective activism is described as participation in activities involving a group of people, which can be expressed by participating in protests or attending political meetings (Pattie et al., 2003). There are numerous academic models to describe what factors influence someone to participate in politics beyond voting in elections. However, the three schools of thought that this study will focus on are the models that stress the importance of demographics, mobilization and recruitment, and the importance of education and political knowledge of an individual.
Mobilization and Recruitment in Political Participation
Researchers Pattie, Seyd, and Whiteley in their study “Citizenship and Civic Engagement: Attitudes and Behaviour in Britain” created three models to describe political participation: General Incentives Rational Choice Model, which expresses rational choice and socio-psychological models of participation, the Social Capital Model, that emphasizes the trust of others and joining local organizations, and the Civic Voluntarism model, that stresses efficacy and general involvement in participation (Pattie et al., 2003). Although the researchers could not independently prove that one model solely explained political participation, their findings affirmed the importance of organizations and recruitment. In regards to total political participation, a combination of collective, individual, and contact activism, statistically significant variables were: mobilization, described as asking to be involved, membership of voluntary informal group networks, and high associational life, described as the social relationships formed through organizations (Pattie et al., 2003).
It is no surprise that mobilization and recruitment play a key role in a specific category of political participation: collective activism. A study called “Process and Protest: Accounting for Individual Protest Participation,” written by Alan Schussman and Sarah Soule, investigated what factors and variables contribute to participation in a political protest. In this study, Schussman and Soule found that the single most important variable affecting whether a person was going to attend a protest was being recruited or asked to join the protest (Schussman and Soule, 2005). This finding highlights the importance of recruitment in forms of political participation, specifically collective activism. However, it is important to note that the study also discovered that younger, educated individuals, who had high levels of interest in politics and political discussions, were the type of people who were most likely to be asked to participate in a protest (Schussman and Soule, 2005). This finding could indicate that the two theories of mobilization and recruitment and education level and civic skills, both play a role together in influencing political participation outside of voting.
In the study “Trust, Identity, Skills, or Recruitment? Assessing Four Explanations of the Relationship between Associational Involvement and the Political Participation of Migrants,” researchers Marco Giugni and Maria Grasso examine four models that would explain why migrants participate in a variety of political activities. The four models described were the Social Trust Model, which is the idea that associations create social trust that spills over into political trust, the Group Attachment Model, which describes that collective identities bring people together who have similar interests and goals, the Civic Skills Model, which explain political participation in terms that civic skills facilitate effective engagement, and the Recruitment Model, that describes that political participation occurs because people are ‘pulled’ into it by others (Giugni and Grasso, 2019). Similar to the other studies, mobilization and recruitment were the strongest factors that led migrants to participate in political actions. Specifically, being directly asked to participate and the spread of information about activities in meetings were the strongest predictors of political participation beyond voting (Giugni and Grasso, 2019).
Education Level and Civic Skills in Political Participation
Researchers Henry E. Brady, Sidney Verba, and Kay Lehman Schlozman created a study to analyze what ‘resources’ affect political participation in the study “Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation”. The resources in the study were described as time, money, and civic skills (communication and other skills developed through education and work) (Brady et al., 1995). Political participation was described in three dimensions: voting, acts taking time (ie. protesting), and political money. There were two statistically significant variables that affect political participation, which were free time and civic skills (Brady et al., 1995). The study also explored that a lack of political participation could be because individuals do not have the time or the skills to participate, as opposed to a lack of desire or interest to participate. Overall, the research from Brady, Verba, and Schlozman supports the idea that having the skills and knowledge of how to participate in various forms of political engagement is vital to actually participating.
In the book Who Votes Now? Demographics, Issues, Inequality, and Turnout in the United States written by Jan Leighley and Jonathan Nagler study a variety of factors influencing voter turnout. This book focuses on political participation expressed solely by voter turnout. Although my study’s research focuses on political participation beyond voter turnout, voting is a form of individualistic activism, therefore the Leighley and Nagler study is worthwhile to investigate. The findings of their study greatly support the idea that there is a relationship between education level and voter turnout because political participation and education level was a statistically significant relationship. For example, “someone in the highest education group was 23 to 30 percentage points more likely to vote than a similar individual in the lowest education group” (Leighley & Nagler, 2014, 66). Furthermore, an individual in the middle third of the education levels was 17 percentage points more likely to vote when compared to an individual in the bottom third of education levels (Leighley & Nagler, 2014, 60). Leighley and Nagler use the ideas of researchers Wolfinger and Rosenstone to explain why education increases levels of political participation. They claimed that higher levels of education can provide the bureaucratic experience that is “useful in dealing with the costs of voting such as voter registration requirements” and that education can enhance an individual’s “cognitive skills” and therefore reduce information costs like time and effort (Leighley & Nagler, 2014, 58, 59).
Demographic Influence in Political Participation
A personal characteristic that can have a large impact on an individual’ s political participation is gender. Researchers Coffe and Bolzendahl explore this phenomenon through their study “Same Game, Different Rules? Gender Differences in Political Participation”. The main independent variable is gender, and the main dependent variable is political participation. Political participation is broken into three categories: contact activism, individual activism, and collective activism. The researchers used data from the International Social Survey Program (ISSP), which included data from 18 countries, to form their 20,359 person sample. Results indicated that women were more likely than men to participate in private forms of activism such as boycotting, signing petitions, and making political donations (Coffee and Bolzendahl, 2010). Men, however, were more likely to participate in forms of collective activism (attending demonstrations and attending political meetings) in addition to forms of contact activism (Coffee and Bolzendahl, 2010).
Age has also been found to be highly influential upon an individual’s political participation. In the study “Age and Political Participation in Germany, France, and the UK: A Comparative Analysis,” researchers Melo and Stockemer investigate the relationship between age and political participation. The two main types of political participation, and the dependent variables of this study, are signing petitions and attending demonstrations. The independent variable is age. The sample consists of interviews conducted between October 2007 and September 2008 from 2,072 people in France, 2,751 individuals from Germany, and 2,353 people from Great Britain (Melo and Stockemer, 2012). The results indicate that younger individuals are more likely to participate in demonstrations or protests than older individuals (Melo and Stockemer, 2012). Individuals aged 34 to 64 are the most likely to sign petitions, although younger individuals are still fairly likely to sign them. (Melo and Stockemer, 2012).
Theory and Hypothesis
In total, there are six dependent variables and nine independent variables in this study. Technically, there could be 42 total hypotheses, one for every relationship between an independent and dependent variable. To simplify this study, this study discusses in great detail two main hypotheses in order to investigate the relationship of the three models (Demographic, Socioeconomic, and Mobilization), in relation to the two main forms of activism (individualistic activism and collective activism).
Variables Explained
In this study, there are nine independent variables. An independent variable, also referred to as an x-variable, is a variable that is not influenced by another variable. The nine independent variables are grouped into one of the three models. Model 1, also referred to as the Demographic Model, includes common demographic characteristics such as sex, age, and race. Therefore, these three characteristics act as the independent variables of the study. Education level, political knowledge, and income are the independent variables that are a part of Model 2, known as the Socioeconomic Model. The Mobilization Model is also referred to as Model 3, and it includes the variables of political party influence, human influence, and organizational influence. Therefore, the nine total independent variables in this study are age, sex, race, education level, political knowledge, income, political party influence, organization influence, and human influence.
There are six dependent variables in this study. Dependent variables can be referred to as y-variables, and y-variables change as a result of the independent variable. Essentially, the dependent variable is what is measured in the experiment. In this study, the dependent variables represent various forms of political participation, referred to as activism: attending a protest or march, attending a political meeting, contacting a political official, signing a petition, participating in a boycott, and making a political donation. Attending a political meeting and attending a march or protest are categorized as collective forms of activism because Pattie, Seyd, and Whiteley categorized them in collective activism in their 2003 study “Citizenship and Civic Engagement: Attitudes and Behaviour in Britain.” Signing a petition, participating in a boycott, and making a political donation are described as individual forms of activism because this is where they were categorized in the same 2003 study from Pattie, Seyd, and Whiteley. Although Pattie, Seyd, and Whiteley categorized contacting a public official under contact activism, The data used for this study does not have enough examples of contact activism to create an entire contact category. Therefore, contacting a public official is categorized as an individual form of activism because it does not require physically forming a large group of people, and it is mainly an individual act and an individual decision.
Hypothesis One
The first major hypothesis is that the Mobilization Model will have the highest effect on forms of collective activism. Factors of recruitment, like being a member of a political organization or being asked to participate in activism, increase the likelihood of participating in collective forms of activism. The independent variables of this hypothesis are the characteristics of the Mobilization Model (party influence, organizational influence, and human influence), while the dependent variable is participating in collective forms of activism (protesting or attending a political meeting).
Various studies support this hypothesis and the idea that mobilization and recruitment efforts are highly influential in individuals’ participation in collective forms of activism. The very nature of collective activism, like attending a protest or attending political meetings, relies on groups of people, so it is no surprise that recruitment and mobilization would be a key piece of this activism. Schussman and Soule found that the ‘single most important’ variable of an individual attending a protest was being asked to, which supports the Mobilization Model. Giugni and Grasso also found that being asked to participate and attending activities of a political organization was the ‘strongest predictor’ of political participation beyond voting.
Hypothesis Two
The second major hypothesis is that the Socioeconomic Model will have the strongest effect on forms of individual activism. If a respondent has a high education level, income, and political knowledge, then they will be more likely to engage in individual forms of activism. The independent variables in this hypothesis are characteristics of the Socioeconomic Model, like education level, income, and political knowledge, and the dependent variables are individual forms of activism (signing a petition, contacting a political official, boycotting, or making a political donation).
This hypothesis stems from the idea that individual forms of activism do not necessarily rely on groups of people, so the mobilization and recruitment effect will be low; it is an individual’s own motivation and personal skills that influence a person to participate in individual activism. For example, evidence supports this idea with Brady et al.’s study, which found that the statistically significant variables in regard to an individual making a political donation were income, an individual’s education level, and political interest (Brady et al., 1995). Furthermore, Brady et al.’s study found that ‘acts taking time’ (used to describe forms of activism like contacting public officials) found that political interest and civic skills were statistically significant factors (Brady et al., 1995). The overarching idea is that an individual who has political knowledge, interest, and a high level of education is self-motivated to politically participate and has developed the skills to participate in forms of activism outside of voting. An individual with civic skills and who is interested in politics will participate on their own and does not require motivation from political organizations or other individuals.
Data and Methods
As previously stated, and in a broad sense, the independent variables of the study are the three models and their variables: the Demographic Model, the Mobilization Model, and the Socioeconomic Model. Generally speaking, the dependent variable is political participation, which can be broken down into individual forms of activism and collective activism. Although I am using the responses to survey questions as my data, the units of analysis (which are the main entity being studied) are people.
Collection of Data
Data for this study was collected from the American National Election Studies (ANES). ANES is a research program that has been researching and collecting data on voter attitudes and voter behavior since 1948 and is funded by the National Science Foundation. It is a collaboration of Duke University, the University of Michigan, the University of Texas at Austin, and Stanford University (ANES, 2022).
Data from the 2020 Time Series Study Full Release User Guide and Codebook, which totaled 796 pages, was used in my research. The 2020 ANES Full Release was chosen as opposed to the more recent 2024 ANES data because the 2024 study only has the preliminary data released, and it lacks the post-election data. This study heavily relies on the post-election questions because questions are asked about the respondent’s participation in collective and individual forms of activism in the last twelve months; therefore, the full release, including preliminary data and post-election data, is absolutely necessary to complete my study.
Interviews for the 2020 ANES Study were completed by either web, video, or telephone. The various forms of interviews are important because they will reduce possible response bias (where respondents may not answer questions truthfully). ANES also conducts random samples of “all age-eligible citizens” from across the United States for their studies (ANES, 2022). I included responses from the 8,280 pre-election interviews and 7,449 post-election re-interviews from the 2020 ANES Study in my research. The large sample size is important because it increases the accuracy of findings and allows for more precise estimates. A high sample size also reduces the chance of a sampling error, which is when the sample characteristics largely deviate from the characteristics of the population.
Independent Variables
In order to test the effects of various demographics on an individual’s participation in different forms of activism, the Demographic Model was created. It uses three independent variables: age, race, and sex. In the ANES survey, question V201507x was used to operationalize the variable of age. The responses of age were broken down into four age categories: 18-30, 31-49, 50-65, and 66+. The variable of race was operationalized by using ANES question V201549x. The eight original response categories for this question were simplified into two categories: white and non-white. Question V201600 was used to operationalize the variable of sex, where there were two response options recorded to male or female.
The Socioeconomic Model was created to test the effects of economic factors and social structures on an individual’s political participation. The three independent variables were education level, political knowledge, and income. ANES question V201511x was used to operationalize the education level variable, and the original eight response options were simplified into three: less than college degree, bachelor’s degree, and graduate degree. It is difficult to operationalize a respondent’s total political knowledge, so question V201005 “How often do you pay attention to what’s going on in government and politics?” was used to operationalize political knowledge (ANES, 2022). The response options for this question were: always, most of the time, about half the time, some of the time, and never. It was also difficult to find a question that strictly examined the respondent’s income, so to operationalize the independent variable of income, question V201617x was used to identify the respondent’s total family income. The original 24 response options were recoded into three options: lower income ($0 to $29,000), middle income ($30,000 to $99,999), and upper income ($100,000+).
The last model being used in this study is the Mobilization Model, which attempts to capture the effects of mobilization or recruitment. The three independent variables in the Mobilization Model are the effects of people, political parties, and organizations. Question V201545 was used to operationalize the variable of organizational influence. Organizational influence refers to the effects that organizations might have on motivating individuals to participate in forms of activism. Question V201545 asks if any member of the respondent’s household or the respondent themself was a member of a union. The original six response options were simplified into a yes or no. Question V202005 was used to operationalize the variable of political party influence in regards to an individual participating in activism. This question asked if anyone from a political party called or physically approached the respondent to talk about the 2020 campaign. The original seven response options to this question were simplified into two opinions: yes or no. The variable of human influence (whether it be a stranger, family member, or friend) was operationalized by question V202008 which asked: “During the campaign this year, did anyone talk to you about registering to vote, or getting out to vote?” The original five response options were simplified into 2 categories: yes or no.
Dependent Variables
Collective activism is referring to the type of activism that requires “groups of like-minded people” to form physically (Pattie, et al., 2003). There are two types of collective activism being discussed in the study: protesting and political meetings. To operationalize the idea of protesting, I searched for questions asking the respondents of the ANES study about their participation in these activities in the last 12-months. Post-election interview question V202025 was used for the variable of protesting, and it asked the respondent if they had participated in a protest, march, rally, or demonstration in the last year. The original five response choices were simplified into yes or no. Similarly, in order to operationalize the variable of political meetings I searched for ANES questions that asked the respondent about their participation in political meetings. Post-election interview question V202014 was used to determine if the respondent had attended any political meetings, speeches, or dinners in the last year. Again, the original five answer choices were recoded into a simple yes or no.
Individual activism is referring to the type of activism and political participation that are largely “individual acts” and do not require groups of people to physically meet. (Pattie, et al, 2003). The four types of individualistic activism being discussed are political donations, boycotts, petitions, and contacting political officials. To operationalize the idea of donations, I used question V202017 from the post-election interview, which asked the respondent if, during the last election year, they gave money to an individual candidate running for public office. The four original response options were recoded to a yes or no. Boycotting was operationalized by ANES post-election interview question V202042. The idea of boycotting can cover a wide variety of actions, so it was described as a respondent within the last 12 months buying or refusing to buy certain products or services because of the “social or political values of the company that provides it” (ANES, 2022). The original eight answer options, which asked how often the respondent boycotted were simplified into a simple yes, they have boycotted a product/service in the last 12 months, or no they have not boycotted in the last 12 months.
The variable of contacting a political representative or official was operationalized by searching for ANES questions that asked the respondent about contacting political officials at any level. ANES did not have a single question to ask about the respondent contacting an elected official at either the federal, state, or local level, so post-election interview questions V202034 and V202038 were combined and recoded to combine the data. Combining these questions created a new variable that accounted for if the respondent contacted any elected political official in the last twelve months whether it was a federal, state, or local representative. The five original response options were simplified into a yes or no.
It may seem like petitions could be a form of collective activism, but it is being classified as an individual form of activism for this study. In order for a petition to succeed, it requires a collective group of people agreeing to sign it, but the individual act is an individual’s choice to sign the petition. Furthermore, Pattie, Seyd, and Whitely classified petitions as individualistic activism in their 2003 study “Citizenship and Civic Engagement: Attitudes and Behaviour in Britain”. To operationalize petitions, ANES post-election survey question V202026 was used, this question asked the respondent if during the last year they signed a paper petition or a petition on the internet on a political or social issue. The original five response options were simplified into a yes or a no.
Empirical Analysis
The empirical analysis used was crosstabulation. The crosstabulation chart is used to describe the direction of the relationship between the independent variables and dependent variables. The Pearson Chi-Square test was used to test the significance of the relationship between independent and dependent variables. The level of significance for the study is 0.05. If the p-value, or significance value, is at 0.05 or below, the relationship between variables is statistically significant. Statistical significance means that it is highly unlikely the relationship between the independent and dependent variables occurred by chance, and instead it implies a real relationship exists between the variables. If the P-value is above 0.05, then there is no relationship between variables, and it indicates the results could have just happened by random chance. To analyze the strength of the relationship, the Symmetric Measures table was used. Strength values in the Symmetric Measures table fall between .00 and .99. Any value between .00 and .09 signifies the relationship between variables is weak, values between .10 and .19 signify a moderate relationship, values between .20 and .29 signal a moderately strong relationship between variables, and values higher than .30 represent a strong relationship.
This study uses SPSS, a statistical software program that social sciences commonly use, to run the empirical analysis. Since there are six dependent variables and nine independent variables, 42 tests were run. Each test consisted of an output of three charts, so there were 126 total charts in total. It is not practical to include the 126 tables in this paper; to streamline the data, two tables were created to summarize the significance numbers and strength values. However, strength values were only included for statistically significant relationships. Figure 1 summarizes the significance numbers and strength values for individual forms of activism, and Figure 2 summarizes the significance numbers and strength values for collective forms of activism. Three tables were created with the percentages of people who participated in the activism to summarize the direction of the relationships for statistically significant relationships only. These tables are referred to as Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5, and they are listed under Analysis and Findings.
In order to confirm or reject the two main hypotheses, that the Mobilization Model will have more of an influence on collective forms of activism and the Socioeconomic Model will have more of an influence on individual forms of activism, I used data from Figure 1 and Figure 2. The three models were scored out of six in regard to collective forms of activism (three independent variables multiplied by the two forms of collective activism). In regard to individual forms of activism, the three models were scored out of twelve (three independent variables in the model multiplied by the four types of activism). I added how many statistically significant relationships there are per model per type of activism, and whichever model had a higher amount of statistically significant relationships (out of twelve for individual activism and out of nine for collective activism), would be determined to have the most influence.
Analysis and Findings
Regression analysis was used to test the relationship between the three models, including nine independent variables, and six dependent variables. The significance values of the 42 relationships are summarized in Figure 1. For each statistically significant value, the symmetric value analyzing the strength of the relationship is also provided in the table. In total, 26 of the 42 relationships examined were proven to be statistically significant. Two of the statistically significant relationships were weak, seven were moderate relationships, six were moderately strong relationships, and eleven were strong relationships. The percentages to indicate the direction of the relationship between the independent variable and the different types of activism for significant relationships are provided in Figure 3 for the Demographic Model, Figure 4 for the Socioeconomic Model, and Figure 5 for the Mobilization Model.
Model Two, the Socioeconomic Model, and Model Three, the Mobilization Model, had an equal impact on contacting political officials. All three characteristics of the Socioeconomic Model, education level, political knowledge, and household income, were statistically significant with values of <.001. The findings indicated that respondents with a graduate degree contacted officials the most, followed by individuals with a bachelor’s degree, and then individuals with less than a college degree indicating that the higher an individual’s education level is, the more likely they are to contact their public officials. The data also revealed a trend indicating that the higher an individual’s political knowledge, the more likely they are to contact a political figure. The third statistically significant relationship showed that the higher a respondent’s household income is, the more likely they are to contact a political figure. Additionally, all three characteristics of the Mobilization Model, which are any individuals in the household being a member of a union, being contacted by a political party, and being contacted by anyone, were also statistically significant with values of <.001. The data shows that individuals who were contacted by a political party, or by anyone, and a respondent with a household member being a part of a union were all more likely to contact political figures than the individuals not contacted by parties or people or had no connection to a union. Although both models had the same significance value of <.001, in regard to contacting political officials, the Socioeconomic model had higher symmetric measures, indicating stronger statistically significant relationships. The Socioeconomic Model had a symmetric measure of .318 for education level, .411 for political knowledge, and .160 for household income, compared to the values of .129 for being a member of a union, .331 for being contacted by the party, and .216 for being contacted by anyone.
Two dependent variables of making political donations and participating in any type of boycotting revealed something interesting: there were no statistically significant relationships between any of the characteristics in the three models. It is interesting that even the relationship between household income and political donations yielded a statistically insignificant number of .320. Chi squared values for boycotting and political donations ranged from .076 to as high as .936. As previously stated, to be considered statistically significant, the variable would have to have a Chi-squared value of .05 or lower.
After running regression analysis, the tests revealed that all independent variables of Model Two, the Socioeconomic Model, and all independent variables of Model 3, the Mobilization Model resulted in identical statistically significant relationships with a significance value of <.001 for signing petitions. The higher educated, people who pay attention to politics, and those with higher incomes were all found to be more likely to sign petitions. In addition, respondents who were contacted by a political party, contacted by anyone, or was a member or had a household member who was a part of a union were all more likely to sign petitions. Although both models had an equal number of statistically significant relationships, the Mobilization Model generally had higher strength values, with the Union variable yielding a value of .117, being contacted by a political party had a value of .307, and being contacted by anyone was .336. In addition to the Mobilization Model and Socioeconomic model, there are moderately strong statistically significant relationships with signing petitions in regards to sex, women being more likely to sign petitions than males, (significance value of <.001 and symmetric value of .165) and age, younger people being more likely to sign petitions than older people (significance value of <.001 and symmetric value of .153).
Summarizing these findings, in regard to the individual forms of activism (signing petitions, boycotting, contacting a public official, and making a political donation), it is surprising to note that the hypothesis was disproved. The Socioeconomic Model does not have the strongest effect on individual forms of activism. Instead, the findings indicate that the Socioeconomic Model and the Mobilization Model have an equal effect on the individual forms of activism discussed with six statistically significant relationships each (the Demographic Model only had four statistically significant relationships). The variables of contacting public officials and signing petitions resulted in identical statistically significant relationship values of <.001 from all three characteristics of the Mobilization Model and the Socioeconomic Model. Similarly, there were zero statistically significant relationships established between donations and boycotts for any of the three variables from the Mobilization Model, the Socioeconomic Model, or the Demographic Model. Although petitions were classified as individual forms of activism because of Pattie’s research, the strong relationship with the Mobilization Model could be explained because in order for a petition to succeed, it needs many signatures. Therefore, outreach from people or organizations occurs regularly for petitions.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||||
| Sex | Age | Race Education Level | Political Knowledge | Household Income | Member of Union | Contacted by Party | Contacted by Anyone | |
| Individual Activism | ||||||||
| Contact Official | .144 | <.001 (.169) | <.001 <.001 (.241) (.318) | <.001 (.411) | <.001 (.160) | <.001 (.129) | <.001 (.331) | <.001 (.216) |
| Donation | .621 | .076 | .459 .393 | .333 | .320 | .852 | .456 | .920 |
| Boycott | .098 | .774 | .889 .541 | .203 | .203 | .478 | .290 | .936 |
| Petition | <.001 (.165) | <.001 (.153) | .569 <.001 (.229) | <.001 (.255) | <.001 (.08) | <.001 (.117) | <.001 (.307) | <.001 (.336) |
Figure 1: Significance and Strength Chart of Individual Forms of Activism
The significant values are on the first line. Values in bold are statistically significant. The value for the strength of the relationship is on the second line in parentheses. Italicized numbers are the values depicting a moderately strong or strong relationship.
It is clear that the Mobilization Model had the strongest impact on the variable of attending political marches or protests because all three of the Mobilization variables yielded statistically significant results: .002 for union membership, <.001 for being contacted by the party, and <.001 for being contacted by anyone. Union membership, being contacted by the party, and being contacted by anyone were all found to increase the likelihood of the respondent attending political protests or marches. Furthermore, the relationship between being contacted by the party and attending protest is not only statistically significant but it is strong with a symmetric measure of .371. The relationship between being contacted by anyone and attending a protest or march is also extremely strong because there is a symmetric measure value of .396. Although the Mobilization Model showed the strongest relationship on attending a protest, the variables of education level, political knowledge, and age also yielded statistically significant values. The data revealed that the higher a respondent’s education level and political knowledge were the more likely they were to attend a protest, and the younger a respondent was, the more likely they were to attend a protest.
The Mobilization Model was also the model that had the strongest impact on the dependent variable, attending a political meeting. Two of the three independent variables of being contacted by a political party and being contacted by anyone yielded statistically significant values of <.001. Findings indicate that people who were contacted by a political party or by anyone were more likely to attend political meetings. Additionally, both of the statistically significant relationships were strong relationships because the symmetric measures table revealed a value of .507 when being contacted by a political party and .330 when being contacted by anyone. The variable of attending political meetings only had two other statistically significant relationships outside of the Mobilization Model: age, which yielded a significance value of .005, and political knowledge, which yielded a significant score of <.001 and a strength value of .452. These results indicate that people who pay attention to politics are more likely to attend political meetings and that younger people, ages 18-30, and older people, ages 50-65, are the two most likely groups to attend political meetings.
Summarizing these findings, there was overwhelming support for my hypotheses that the Mobilization Model has the most impact on collective forms of activism. Between the six relationships tested with attending protests and attending political meetings, five relationships were found to be statistically significant, and four of the five were found to be strong relationships with symmetric values of .330 or higher. The Socioeconomic Model had three statistically significant relationships, and the Demographics Model had two statistically significant relationships. As discussed previously, recent literature and research support this finding that the Mobilization Model has the strongest influence. It is unsurprising that collective forms of activism, which require large groups of people to gather, are greatly affected by the mobilizing efforts of individual people, political parties, or organizations like labor unions.
| Model1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||||
| Sex | Age | Race Education Level | Political Knowledge | Household Income | Member of Union | Contacted by Party | Contacted by Anyone | |
| Collective Activism | ||||||||
| Protest | .119 | <.001 (.330) | .209 <.001 (.292). | <.001 (.297) | .230 | .002 (.165) | <.001 (.371) | <.001 (.396) |
| Political meeting | .341 | .005 (.085) | .811 .055 | <.001 (.452) | .335 | .325 | <.001 (.507) | <.001 (.330) |
Figure 2: Significance and Strength Chart of Collective Forms of Activism
The significant values are on the first line. Values in bold are statistically significant. The value for the strength of the relationship is on the second line in parentheses. Italicized numbers are the values depicting a moderately strong or strong relationship
It is interesting to note that Model One, the Demographic Model, did not have a strong impact on the overall collective political participation or the overall individual forms of political participation. Out of eighteen relationships being analyzed in relation to the six forms of activism and three demographic characteristics, only six relationships were statistically significant. Of the three characteristics of the Demographic Model (sex, age, and race) age had the strongest impact on any type of activism, resulting in four statistically significant relationships: contacting a public official, signing petitions, attending a protest, and attending a political meeting. Sex and race both resulted in only one statistically significant relationship each. The relationship between sex and signing petitions was statistically significant, and the relationship between race and contacting officials was statistically significant (whites were more likely to contact officials than non-whites).
| Sex | Age | Race | |
| Individual Activism | |||
| Contact Official | Not Significant | 18-30: 17.1% 31-49: 21.6% 50-65: 27% 66+: 29.2% | White: 26.7% Non-White: 18.2% |
| Petition | Female: 31.6% Male: 24.9% | 18-30: 38.6% 31-49: 30.2% 50-65: 27.1% 66+: 24.3% | Not Significant |
| Collective Activism | |||
| Protest | Not Significant | 18-30: 18.8% 31-49:10.7% 50-65: 7.3% 66+: 5.6% 50-65: 5.9% 66+: 4.6% | Not Significant |
Figure 3: Demographic Model – Relationship Direction
Political Meeting Not Significant 18-30: 7.6% 31-49: 4.9% Not Significant
Significant relationships have percentages to indicate the direction of the relationship. Percentages are created by the number of respondents who indicated they participated in the activity in the last 12 months out of the total number of responses.
| Education Level | Political Knowledge | Household Income | |
| Individual Activism | |||
| Contact Official | Less than College: 18% Bachelor’s: 29.4% Graduate: 35.2% | Always: 38% Most: 26.5% Half: 16.5% Some: 9.2% Never: 6.3% | Lower: 19.3% Middle: 23.9% Upper: 28.8% |
| Petition | Less than College: 23.4% Bachelor’s: 32.7% Graduate: 36.4% | Always: 37.2% Most: 29.9% Half: 26.1% Some: 15.6% Never: 7.9% | Lower: 24.6% Middle: 30.3% Upper: 29% |
| Collective Activism | |||
| Protest | Less than College: 6.7% Bachelor’s: 11.2% Graduate: 14.3% | Always: 15% Most: 8.8% Half: 7.2% Some: 5.1% Never: 3.2% | Not Significant |
| Political Meetings | Not Significant | Always: 10.7% Most: 5% Half: 2.9% Some: 1.9% Never: 1.6% | Not Significant |
Figure 4: Socioeconomic Model – Relationship Direction
Significant relationships have percentages to indicate the direction of the relationship. Percentages are created by the number of respondents who indicated they participated in the activity in the last 12 months out of the total number of responses.
| Member of Union | Contact by Party | Contact by Anyone | |
| Individual Activism | |||
| Contact Official | Union: 28.8% No Union: 23.8% | Contact: 33.2% No Contact: 20% | Contact: 28.6% No Contact: 20.5% |
| Petition | Union: 32.8% No Union: 27.8% | Contact: 37.6% No Contact: 24.2% | Contact: 35.6% No Contact: 21.6% |
| Collective Activism | |||
| Protest | Union: 12.1% No Union: 8.9% | Contact: 14.9% No Contact: 7.4% | Contact: 12.9% No Contact: 6% |
Figure 5: Mobilization Model – Relationship Direction
Political Meeting Not Significant Contact: 9.6% No Contact: 3.4%
Contact: 7.2% No Contact: 3.8%
Significant relationships have percentages to indicate the direction of the relationship. Percentages are created by the number of respondents who indicated they participated in the activity in the last 12 months out of the total number of responses.
Discussion and Conclusion
Hypothesis One was supported by the results of this study. The Mobilization Model had the strongest effect on forms of collective activism. Not only do the results from this study support Hypothesis One, but the theories, research, and studies conducted by Schussman and Soule, along with Guiugni and Grasso, strongly support this hypothesis
In this contrast, Hypothesis Two was not completely supported. The Socioeconomic Model did not have the strongest effect on individual forms of activism. Instead, the research demonstrated that the Socioeconomic Model and the Mobilization Model had equal effects on individual forms of activism. Research from Brady, Cerba, and Schlozman supports part of these results when their research discovered that civic skills (formed strongly by education) were statistically significant in contacting officials. Results from my study showed that education level, which is connected to the formation of civic skills, was a statistically significant variable for contacting political officials. Research from Giugni and Grasso also support the idea that the Mobilization Model has the strongest influence on participation beyond voting.
Limitations
It is important to note that the ANES data was collected in 2020, which is when COVID-19 was rampant worldwide, and most of the nation was in lockdown as a result of the pandemic. Participation in collective types of activism, where individuals had to gather together, was extremely low compared to individual forms of activism. Only 400 of the over 7,000 respondents reported attending political meetings (6%), and only 650 respondents reported attending protests (9.5%). However, forms of activism that didn’t require physical contact had higher participation, like contacting officials 24% participation rate, and boycotting products or services, with a 60% participation rate. It would be worth studying whether participation in collective forms of activism, or even individual forms of activism, is higher in older ANES studies where group gatherings were not prohibited or discouraged as a result of COVID-19.
Collective Activism Implications
In regard to collective forms of activism, like joining a protest or attending a political meeting, the Mobilization Model had the largest effect. Union membership, being contacted by a political party or by anyone associated with a political organization or cause, had statistically significant relationships with protesting, and with attending a political meeting. This means that outreach and holding conversations with political parties or anyone can positively influence an individual to participate in collective forms of activism.
Only 9.5% of the total sample reported joining in a protest in the last year. Attending political meetings had an even lower level of participation, with around 6% of the total sample. This low participation rate of protesting and attending political meetings is not impossible to change. This study has shown that contact, outreach, and conversations with political parties, organizations, or anyone can increase participation in collective forms of activism, which, as established by Tocqueville, is a vital aspect of a healthy democracy.
Individual Activism Implications
One of the most encouraging findings is that the Mobilization Model has a strong effect on individual forms of activism as well. Being a member of a union, being contacted by a political party, or by anyone, all have positive effects and increase the likelihood of individuals contacting political officials and signing petitions. These findings provide a vital map forward for political organizations such as unions and interest groups. Emphasizing direct outreach to individual people appears to have the strongest impact on political participation, meaning that organizations could benefit from focusing their efforts on this method. Around 2,100 respondents, which is around 30% of the total sample, reported signing a petition in the last year. Only 24% of the total sample (1,700 individuals) reported contacting a political official. If organizations, political parties, and regular people use the power of conversation and outreach, the number of individuals signing petitions or contacting officials is very likely to increase.
The three parts of the Socioeconomic Model, political knowledge, education level, and household income, also had statistically significant relationships with two individual forms of activism, contacting political officials and signing petitions. Political knowledge is an important topic to discuss because its implications are that increasing an individual’s political knowledge will likely increase their participation in contacting officials and signing petitions. This idea can go hand in hand with the outreach of organizations, political parties, or individuals. Political knowledge doesn’t have to be learned solely because of an internal or personal desire. If organizations or people educate those around them, it can also increase the political participation of those individuals through actions like contacting officials and signing petitions.
Closing Remarks
As discussed, political participation should not be limited to voting. Political participation should be expanded to involvement in types of activism like protesting, signing petitions, making political donations, boycotting, contacting representatives, and attending political meetings. It is important to note that not only do citizens have the power to influence the government, representatives, and legislation, but this study also shows that individual people can have an influence on people around them to increase their political participation. Using your voice is a powerful tool for political parties, organizations, and people.
References
Allen, D., Gorman, L., DeVeaux, A. T., & Swanson, et al. 2024 “2024 Pennsylvania Election Results”. AP News. https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/pennsylvania/?r=0
American National Election Studies. 2021. “ANES 2020 Time Series Study Full Release [Dataset and Documentation]”. https://electionstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/anes_timeseries_ 2020_userguidecodebook_ 20220210.pdf
Brady, Henry, Sidney Verba, and Kay Schlozman. 1995. “Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation”. American Political Science Review. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2082425?seq=1
Daniller, Andrew, Ted Van Green, Hannah Hartig, and Scott Keeter. 2023. “Voter Turnout, 2018-2022”. PEW Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/voter turnout-2018- 2022/
Giugni Marco and Maria Grasso. 2019. “Trust, Identity, Skills, or Recruitment?: Assessing Four Explanations of the Relationship between Associational Involvement and the Political Participation of Migrants”. International Migration Review. https://journals.sagepub.com /doi/full/10.1177/0197918319856362
Hilde, Coffe and Catherine Bolzendahl. 2010. “Same Game, Different Rules? Gender Differences in Political Participation”. Sex Roles. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-009-9729-y
Jason R Jurjevich, et al. 2016. “Who Votes for Mayor?” Portland State University. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/usp_fac/166/
Leighley, Jan, and Jonathan Nagler. 2014. Who Votes Now? Demographics, Issues, Inequality, and Turnout in the United States. Princeton University Press. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691159355/who-votes-now?srsltid=AfmBOoqXdqIkBF91nxw7094Yl1-xpQY8dzZur3M0qk af6mpNWD37NKqq
Pattie, Seyd, Whiteley. 2003. “Citizenship and Civic Engagement: Attitudes and Behaviour in Britain”. Political Studies.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9248.00435.
Schussman Alan, and Sarah Soule. 2005. “Process and Protest: Accounting for Individual Protest Participation”. Social Forces. https://research.ebsco.com/c/icphr5/viewer/pdf/vqmnsixnzn
Tocqueville, Alexis, 1835. “Democracy in America: Volume 1”. Saunders and Otley.