Political Participation Among Latinos in the United States: The Effect of Group Identity and Consciousness n

Zulema Valdez, Texas A&M University

Objective. How do group identity and consciousness affect Latinos political participation in the United States? Recent studies that examine this relationship generally focus on a single ethnic group, for example, Mexicans, or the panethnic group, Latino/Hispanic, which limits the scope of their results. This study investigates how group identity and consciousness affect the political participation of differently identied Latinos. Methods. Using the unique 2007 Latino National Survey (LNS), a telephone survey of 8,500 Latino respondents, I investigate how group identity and consciousness affect political participation, as measured by electoral and nonelectoral activities. Results. Findings suggest that Latinos who selfidentify as American are more likely to engage in political action; however, a sense of group consciousness among ethnic, panethnic, and racial-identied Latinos alters this effect. Conclusion. The type of and extent to which Latinos engage in political action is contingent on primary self-identity and specic aspects of group consciousness.

The United States ranks third behind Mexico and Colombia as the country with the largest Latin-American-descent population. At 44.3 million, or 15 percent of the nations total, Latinos represent the largest minority group in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Certainly, this large and growing population is changing the U.S. demographic landscape. What is less certain is the extent to which Latinos will integrate into the political landscape. Researchers observe that group-based resources, such as identity and consciousness, affect the political incorporation of Latinos and other minority groups, such as Asians and blacks (Chong and Rogers, 2005; Lien, 1994; Sanchez, 2006; Stokes-Brown, 2006; Wong, Lien, and Conway, 2005). The monolithic treatment of Latinos, however, compresses distinct ethnic subgroups to a single panethnic one, which masks likely differences in political action. In contrast, those studies that focus on one or two ethnic groups only limit considerably the scope of their results.
n Direct correspondence to Zulema Valdez, Department of Sociology, Texas A&M University, 4351 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4351 hzavaldez@libarts.tamu.edui. The author thanks the participants of the Latino National Survey Junior Scholar Conference held at Cornell University and the anonymous reviewers for their comments. Data and program codes for replicating this research can be obtained from the author on request.

SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, Volume 92, Number 2, June 2011 r 2011 by the Southwestern Social Science Association DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.00778.x

Political Participation Among Latinos in the United States

467

Moreover, qualitative research reveals that the construction of group identity is a uid and dynamic process that is often contingent on a given context (Rockquemore and Laszloffy, 2005); yet, survey instruments and quantitative research designs often constrain the identity of respondents to a single force choice category of ethnicity, panethnicity, or race. Such studies neglect to consider how the group members themselves might choose to selfidentify if given the option, or to adjudicate differences between them. So although qualitative studies contribute to our knowledge of the process of identity formation and the role of identity in shaping political action, and quantitative studies examine this relationship for specic and preset groups, the relationship between how Latinos self-identity and their political outcomes has not been fully assessed. This study uses the newly released 2007 Latino National Survey to investigate and adjudicate the extent to which Latinos primary group identity and consciousness, whether national (American), ethnic, panethnic, or racial, affect their political outcomes, as measured by voter registration, voter turnout, and nonvoting behavior (i.e., contacting a government ofcial).1 Although the analysis is based on Latinos self-reported primary identity, a comprehensive picture of Latino group identity is more dynamic, situational, and complex than that captured by a few questions asked at one point in time on a national survey (Golash-Boza, 2006:29). That said, Latino respondents selection of one group identity over another likely captures a meaningful social group classication (Golash-Boza, 2006:29; Hitlin, Brown, and Elder, 2006:1299). Here, Latino respondents primary selfidentity choice is used to proxy their self-understanding of a central aspect of their identitya sense of belonging to a particular group that may, in part, condition political action (Brubaker and Cooper, 2000). Findings reveal that the relationship between group identity, consciousness, and political action is ultimately contingent on the combination of the distinct identity, the specic aspect of group consciousness, and the type of political action in which Latinos engage.

Group-Based Resources and Political Participation

Social scientists concerned with the political incorporation of minority groups argue that group-based resources, specically members group identity and consciousness, the latter indicated by perceptions of linked fate or group-based discrimination (Masuoka, 2006), affect their political participation. Previous studies tend to emphasize racial group differences in this relationship between white and black Americans (Chong and
1 The author acknowledges that the research design used here replicates, to some extent, one that was rst introduced by Wong, Lien, and Conway (2005), which examined the effect of group-based resources on Asian Americans political action.

468

Social Science Quarterly

Rogers, 2005; Miller et al., 1981; Verba and Nie, 1972). Studies conrm these ndings among Latinos (Garcia Bedolla, 2005; Jones-Correa and Leal, 1996; Oboler, 1995; Stokes, 2003; Stokes-Brown, 2006). For example, Stokes-Brown (2006) observes that identifying racially as Latino signicantly inuences Latinos voter decisions over those who identify as white or some other race. In particular, Latinos who identify racially are more likely to cast a ballot in favor of a Latino over a non-Latino candidate. In contrast, Latinos who identify racially as white or some other race are less likely to do so. Similarly, Stokes (2003:547) nds that Latinos who express a panethnic group consciousness, that is, the perception that their fate is linked with that of other Latinos, are more likely to participate politically than Latinos who do not. Regarding ethnic-based discrimination, Lien (1994:248, 250) observes that the sense of being discriminated and prejudiced against because of ones Mexican origin increases the extent to which persons of Mexican descent in the United States vote and participate in nonvoting political activities. Sanchez (2006) argues that both these group consciousness indicatorsa sense of commonality or shared interests and the perception of group-based discriminationfacilitate Latinos panethnic collective action. In particular, he observes that group consciousness inuences voting behavior and is especially salient in mobilizing Latino-specic activities directly tied to the Latino community (2006:428). In sum, previous research lends considerable evidence to the contention that identity and group consciousness among Latinos facilitate their political participation, regardless of whether that group afliation is ethnic, panethnic, or racial. Group identity, a sense of linked fate, and the perception of group-based discrimination combine to facilitate Latinos electoral and nonelectoral activities. That said, these studies do not adjudicate between distinct or different Latino group identities, but use a single, force choice category of identity that is established a priori in the survey instrument itself or in the development of the research design. So although the ndings of these studies presumably reveal the distinct effects of ethnic, panethnic, and racial identity on political outcomes, it is unclear whether or to what extent these studies are actually capturing what researchers presume are conceptually different group identities. Furthermore, the monolithic treatment of Latinos with their overlapping ethnic, panethnic, and racial group properties overlooks the possibility of intragroup identity differences and their corollary in political action. Some studies that compare intragroup differences among Latinos expose the complexity of group identity and consciousness and reveal divergent outcomes across differently identied groups. In contrast to those separate studies that taken together suggest a unilateral relationship, Schildkraut (2005) compares the relationship between Latino self-identity and political action, specically whether respondents self-identify ethnically, panethnically, or nationally (as American). Her results indicate that the perception of

Political Participation Among Latinos in the United States

469

discrimination diminishes voting among American-identied Latinos, but increases voting behavior among those Latinos who self-identify ethnically or panethnically. Schildkraut (2005) concludes that assimilating into the mainstream, in terms of favoring a U.S. identity over an ethnic or panethnic one, may not always be benecial to the Latino community, as it may diminish the likelihood of confronting group-based discrimination through political action. Correspondingly, Garcia Bedollas (2005) qualitative study of Latinos in Los Angeles uncovers intragroup differences in Latinos political incorporation. She reveals that middle-class Latinos residing in Montebello are more likely to incorporate into the U.S. mainstream, or adopt U.S. values and middle-class culture. Consequently, these Latino respondents are less likely to identify racially (as Latino) or engage in collective action in lieu of embracing the U.S. ideology of rugged individualism. In contrast, working-class Latinos who reside in the disadvantaged and ethnically concentrated East Los Angeles are more likely to identify ethnically or racially, and are also more likely to mobilize politically. She concludes that respondents positive ethnic or racial self-identity indicates those for whom agency and collective action is tied to their identity and thus fosters greater political action. These provocative studies highlight the need to consider intragroup differences among Latinos. Notably, however, Schildkraut (2005) assigns a panethnic identity to the Latino label, neglecting to consider its racial identity properties, whereas Garcia Bedolla (2005) ascribes only a racial identity to Latinos. Yet, panethnicity and race may not be conceptually or empirically interchangeable or easy to discern. In this study, an attempt is made to adjudicate between Latinos who identify panethnically from those who identify racially, as it is likely that those Latinos who self-identify as Latino but understand the meaning of that group afliation in panethnic or racial terms may not share the same identity or consciousness, or respond to such indicators in the same way.

Ethnic, Panethnic, and Racial Group Formation and Identity

Research on ethnic identity formation in the United States is generally concerned with self-identication. This research examines the conditions under which individuals claim membership in a particular ethnic group. Ethnic identity formation is a dynamic process, embedded in notions of similar and shared history, culture, and kinship. Thus, ethnic identity provides a salient basis of group identity that is nevertheless uid with respect to members socially constructed and contested meanings of similar and shared. Once established, ethnicity provides a powerful basis of group association that facilitates members circumstantialist (i.e., economic, political, legal, or symbolic) objectives (Cornell and Hartmann, 1998; Yancey, Erikson, and Juliani, 1976).

470

Social Science Quarterly

In contrast, research on racial identity formation focuses on the unavoidable and compulsory placement of individuals into racial categories based on socially constructed racially ascribed characteristics, such as skin color or ancestry. This process of race making relegates those individuals who are recognized as members of a given racial group to that groups positioning along the U.S. racial hierarchy (Bashi, 1998; Bonilla-Silva, 1997; Feagin, 2006). In a society where race matters, such as in the United States, racial classication is nontrivial; it is structurally important, as it confers greater (or lesser) privileges and facilitates (or constrains) members life chances. As Bonilla-Silva (1997:469) states:
Ethnicity has a primarily sociocultural foundation, and ethnic groups have exhibited tremendous malleability in terms of who belongs; racial ascriptions (initially) are imposed externally to justify the collective exploitation of a people and are maintained to preserve status differences . . . despite the similarities between race and ethnicity, they should be viewed as producing different types of structurations.

In other words, ethnic identity is distinct from racial identity in the United States; each produces and reproduces different aspects of the social structure. Against the comparably distinct categories of ethnicity and race, panethnicity has been labeled a primary and/or secondary ethnic identity as well as an intermediate or alternative racial identity (Campbell and Rogalin, 2006; Diaz McConnell and Delgado-Romero, 2004; Itzigsohn and DoreCabral, 2000; Jones-Correa and Leal, 1996; Lopez and Espiritu, 1990; Oboler, 1995; Omi, 2001; Omi and Winant, 1994; Rodriguez and Cordero-Guzman, 1992). The presumption that panethnicity serves the same function as ethnicity or race (or is interchangeable with these group afliations) is not convincing; rather, it is likely that panethnicity may offer insight into the limitations of each, as its emergence suggests a need for an additional, supplementary form of identity. Furthermore, it is unclear what determines whether a panethnic identity will be invoked over an ethnic or racial identity (Omi, 2001:247). Borrowing from the works of Padilla (1985) and Lopez and Espiritu (1990), panethnicity is dened here as a social group identity that is made up of multiple ethnic subgroups, whose ethnic identities are circumscribed by distinct national-origin boundaries (Padilla, 1985) and that, collectively, are perceived to share certain homogeneous characteristics and features (Lopez and Espiritu, 1990). The U.S. federal government denes Latinos as a panethnic group that includes persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race (Ofce of Management and Budget, 1997, emphasis added). Nevertheless, those Latinos who identify as such do not always ascribe to a panethnic identity. For example, the 2007 Latino National Survey provides questions on Latinos racial identity (based on the U.S. Census) as well as on their primary identity. The majority of respondents racially identify as

Political Participation Among Latinos in the United States

471

white. When asked to identify their primary identity, however, 44 percent of Latinos identify panethnically (e.g., Latino/Hispanic) while 47 percent identify themselves ethnically (e.g., Mexican). In a separate question that asked whether Latinos constitute a distinct racial group, however, roughly half of all survey respondents answered yes, regardless of their reported racial or primary identity. These ndings reveal the complexity involved in understanding group identity, even by the members themselves (Valdez, 2009). Ultimately, the question of whether Latinos political action varies across group self-identity is important to the U.S. polity in general and the Latino community in particular, since the Latino population is diverse, multigenerational, and large and growing. Moreover, understanding whether or to what extent the Latino population can better mobilize as a national, ethnic, panethnic, or racial group may shed light on how to increase Latinos political integration in the United States. This study builds on previous research by investigating different aspects of political participation outcomes among a population of differently identied Latinos, which includes a novel comparison between Latinos who self-identify panethnically and those who self-identify racially.
Data and Sample

I use the unique 2007 Latino National Survey (LNS) to investigate how Latinos group identity and consciousness affect their political participation. This telephone survey, conducted in English and Spanish, asked a variety of questions on the political and socioeconomic experiences of more than 8,500 Latino respondents 18 years and older, drawn from a nationally representative random sample of Latino households across the United States. Dependent VariablesPolitical Participation I use three indicators to assess political participation: voter registration, voted in the 2004 election, and nonvoting political action (i.e., contacting a government ofcial).2 I measure voter registration using the LNS variable REGVOTE, which includes those citizens who are currently registered to vote. I use the variable VOTE04 to indicate those respondents who indicated that they voted during the presidential election in November
2 I acknowledge that data on voting behavior, especially that which requires retrospective memory recall, is likely to contain some social desirability bias. According to previous research, voting behavior may be overestimated by as much as 18 to 30 percent (Himmelweit, Biberian, and Stockdale, 1978; Plumb, 1986). That being said, memory recall is often more accurate when the requested information relates to voting for a major party, which is the case here (Himmelweit, Biberian, and Stockdale, 1978:645). Moreover, the design of the 2007 LNS and the analysis strategy employed here compare favorably with previous surveys and studies (see Lien, 1994; Sanchez, 2006; Stokes, 2003), which helps ensure that these results are at least as reliable and accurate as those of past research (Smith, 1984:640).

472

Social Science Quarterly

2004. Finally, nonvoting political action is dened using the LNS variable, CONTOFF, which identied those respondents who indicated that they had tried to get government ofcials to pay attention to something that concerned [you], either by calling, writing a letter, or going to a meeting. This variable includes responses from citizen and noncitizen Latinos. Independent VariablesPrimary Group Identity and Group Consciousness Group identity is dened here simply as the recognition of membership in a given group and an afnity with other group members (Garcia, 2003), even if that afnity is limited to the recognition of others as being members of that same group. Group consciousness is indicated by the perception of linked fate, or a sense of commonality and shared circumstances (Sanchez, 2006), as well as the perception that membership may confer unique disadvantages, such as being targets of discrimination and deprivation (Miller et al., 1981). Following Wong, Lien, and Conway (2005:546), I recognize that group identity and consciousness may have overlapping properties, but I distinguish between group identity and consciousness because although group identity is a ubiquitous category of social grouping in the United States (like gender, everyone has a group identity), it does not also require that members share a sense of common circumstance or attribute discrimination to membership in a given collectivity. I assess how political action varies across respondents self-identied primary group identity. Specically, I consider how ethnic, panethnic, or racial self-identication affects electoral and nonelectoral activities, when compared against respondents who self-identify as American.3 Primary selfidentity was determined using the variable, PRIMEID. Respondents were asked: Of the three previous terms, Latino/Hispanic, [ethnic], or American, which best describes you? (PRIMEID). Those respondents who indicated an ethnic identity as their primary identity were classied as ethnic; those respondents who indicated a panethnic identity (Latino/Hispanic) were classied as panethnic; and those respondents who indicated a national (American) identity were classied as American. Respondents who identied panethnically were further classied racially if they regarded this identity as a racial identity. That is, respondents were classied racially if they selfidentied panethnically (Latino/Hispanic) and they also answered yes or maybe to the question: In the US, we use a number of categories to describe ourselves racially. Do you feel that Hispanics/Latinos make up a
3 Following Wong, Lien, and Conway (2005:563), I recognize that ethnic or racial minorities who identify as American are more likely to participate politically, since those who identify as American have likely incorporated into the mainstream. As such, identifying as an American does not signify a group-based resource; rather, this group identity provides a reasonable nongroup identity reference group.

Political Participation Among Latinos in the United States

473

distinctive racial group in America? (LATRACE).4 I include two measures of group consciousness: a sense of linked fate and the perception of groupbased discrimination. Linked fate is recoded from the variables, RGFATE and LATFATE, and is dened as respondents belief that their individual or ethnic groups doing well depends on other Latinos/Hispanics also doing well. Respondents perception of group-based discrimination is recoded from the variable, WHYDISC, and is dened as respondents belief that personal experiences of discrimination in the past were based primarily on being Latino, being an immigrant, being a member of [your] national origin, speaking [your] language or accent, or being [your] skin color.

Background Characteristics Conventional predictors of political incorporation include socioeconomic status and demographic indicators such as income, education, age, gender, and married status. Being married is dened as married (coded as 1) and other (single, widowed, divorced) (coded as 0). Cultural factors include nativity, English-language prociency, length of residence in the United States, citizenship, and national origin. English prociency is dummy coded, with the ability to speak English well or very well coded as 1 and not well or not at all coded as 0. Citizenship status affects formal political participation activity, such as the ability to register to vote or vote. Citizenship status is dened as U.S. citizen or U.S. citizen by naturalization (coded as 1) or not a citizen (legal permanent residents and the undocumented) (coded as 0). Although this latter category combines undocumented immigrants and permanent legal residents (e.g., those with a green card), it is likely to capture the harsher context of reception among noncitizens, many of whom are younger, less educated, report fewer years of U.S. residence, and entered the United States illegally (Kossoudji and Cobb-Clark, 2002; Tienda and Singer, 1995). Finally, political interest and the strength of ones party afliation (e.g., strongly Democrat) have been shown to affect political incorporation (Wong, Lien, and Conway, 2005) so I include a dummy variable to capture this effect (strong party afliation coded as 1). Table 1 presents some descriptive characteristics of the sample. Generally, American-identied Latinos are older, better educated, and earn more than their ethnic-, panethnic-, or racial-identied counterparts. Additionally, they are more likely to be uent in English, educated in the United States, and are less likely to be foreign born (rst generation). Finally, they are less likely to report a sense of group consciousness than all other Latino subgroups, although they are more likely to report experiences with discrimination than ethnic- and
4 Preliminary analyses did not reveal marked differences in the results between respondents who answered yes and those who answered maybe.

474
TABLE 1

Social Science Quarterly

Descriptive Characteristics of Latinos in the United States (N 5 5,783) Ethnic Panethnic 77.9% 59.7% 25.2% 67.6% 20.4% 39.2% 84.3% 32.2% 38.9 46.5% 32.3% 12.0% 9.2% $20,638 45.9% 55.6% 38.0% 15.0% 38.3% 1,001 Racial 82.5% 67.5% 37.5% 58.0% 31.3% 67.1% 59.3% 58.0% 40.3 29.5% 28.7% 24.4% 17.4% $22,370 44.1% 53.7% 55.2% 21.3% 62.9% 1,320 American 90.8% 79.8% 51.4% 41.3% 27.2% 89.0% 29.1% 84.8% 45.2 16.9% 23.1% 29.0% 31.0% $28,745 54.5% 58.6% 67.1% 38.8% 89.8% 1,155

DEPENDENT VARIABLES Registered to Vote, 2004 Voted, 2004 Political Participation Beyond Voting GROUP-BASED RESOURCES Group Consciousness Perception of Discrimination MIGRATION-RELATED VARIABLES English Prociency First Generation (foreign born) Higher Education in U.S. CONTROL VARIABLES Mean Age Education Less than High School High School Some College BA or Higher Mean Personal Income Male Married Status Party Afliation: Strong Political Interest: Very Interested Citizen TOTAL (N):
SOURCE: 2007 Latino National Survey.

78.2% 62.8% 30.9% 59.6% 26.2% 49.6% 76.3% 42.2% 40.1 37.2% 28.7% 18.9% 15.2% $20,136 46.0% 55.3% 47.0% 18.5% 46.6% 2,307

panethnic-identied Latinos (but are less likely to report discrimination than racial-identied Latinos). These and other differences contribute to each selfidentied groups overall political participation; hence, they are included as inuential background characteristics in the analyses that follow. In Table 2, I conduct three separate logistic regression analyses that predict voter registration, voted in the 2004 election, and contacting a government ofcial, respectively. Specically, I assess how primary identity (i.e., ethnic, panethnic, racial, American (reference)) and group consciousness (linked fate, perception of discrimination) affect these three outcome variables, net of inuential background characteristics. Included in the model are two-way interactions of respondents primary identity by the two separate aspects of group consciousness.5
5 Not shown are preliminary analyses of the regression models with the control variables only. All signicant predictors in these more parsimonious models were also signicant in the expanded models.

TABLE 2

Group-Based Resources and Political Participation Among Latinos in the United States Nonelectoral Political Actionz 0.858 0.545 0.927 0.990 0.848 1.177 0.922 0.665 1.900 0.985 1.143 1.030 2.020 1.206 1.372 1.252 0.974 0.839

GROUP RESOURCES 0.529 0.715 0.996 1.529 0.638 1.001 0.507 0.722 2.269 1.200 1.107 1.146 0.827 0.681 0.545

Voter Registrationw

Voted in 2004w

Self-Identied Group Ethnic

Panethnic

Racial

0.637 n n (0.210) 0.336 (0.283) 0.003 (0.242) 0.607 n n n (0.173) 0.384 (0.246) 0.190 (0.191)

0.153 (0.128) 0.607 n n (0.187) 0.176 (0.141)

Group Consciousness Linked Fate

Ethnic nLinked Fate

Panethnic nLinked Fate

Racial nLinked Fate

Political Participation Among Latinos in the United States

Perception of Discrimination

Ethnic nDiscrimination

Panethnic nDiscrimination

Racial nDiscrimination

0.425 (0.248) 0.449 (0.298) 0.001 (0.374) 0.679 n (0.322) 0.326 (0.250) 0.819 n n (0.315) 0.183 (0.441) 0.101 (0.326)

0.136 (0.181) 0.165 (0.231) 0.163 (0.310) 0.081 (0.248) 0.407 n (0.189) 0.642 n n (0.247) 0.015 (0.368) 0.133 (0.259)

0.010 (0.131) 0.030 (0.164) 0.703 n n (0.222) 0.187 (0.181) 0.316 n (0.145) 0.225 (0.180) 0.027 (0.238) 0.176 (0.196)

475

476

TABLE 2continued
Voter Registrationw 1.667 0.850 1.366 1.038 1.420 1.397 0.042 n n n (0.003) 1.043 1.034 0.836 1.413 Voted in 2004w Nonelectoral Political Actionz 1.500 0.967 1.100 0.010 n n n (0.002) 1.010 1.128 1.546 0.762 n n n 1.145 0.893 1.502 2.226 2.289 2.143 1.048 0.869 1.153 1.282 2.601

GROUP RESOURCES

MIGRATION FACTORS English Prociency

First Generation

Higher Education in U.S. 0.037 n n n (0.004)

0.511 n n (0.161) 0.162 (0.142) 0.312 (0.182)

0.346 n (0.146) 0.179 (0.118) 0.033 (0.157)

0.405 n n n (0.095) 0.034 (0.092) 0.096 (0.104)

CONTROL VARIABLES Age

Education High School 0.335 n n (0.125) 0.814 n n n

Some College

0.121 (0.087) 0.436 n n n 2.256 (0.095) 3.655

BA or Higher

Personal Income 0.862 1.288 2.438 1.997

2.778 (0.133) 2.778 (0.155) 1.134

Male

Married Status

Party Afliaton Strength

Social Science Quarterly

Political Interest

0.351 n (0.138) 1.022 n n n (0.159) 1.022 n n n (0.185) 0.126 n n (0.040) 0.149 (0.107) 0.253 (0.139) 0.891 n n n (0.106) 0.692 n n n (0.145) 1.296 n n n (0.102) 0.135 n n n (0.032) 0.113 (0.090) 0.407 n n n (0.114) 0.800 n n n (0.089) 0.828 n n n (0.113)

0.047 n (0.022) 0.141 n (0.063) 0.142 (0.080) 0.248 n n n (0.065) 0.956 n n n (0.072)

TABLE 2continued
Voter Registrationw Voted in 2004w Nonelectoral Political Actionz 1.598

GROUP RESOURCES

Citizen

Constant

NUMBER OF OBS LOG-LIKELIHOOD PSEUDO R2

1.678 n n n (0.340) 3349 1220.57 0.19 0.269 n n n (0.289) 3349 0.1631.51 0.21

0.469 n n n (0.092) 2.310 n n n (0.192) 5783 3224.85 0.15

Political Participation Among Latinos in the United States

po0.05; n npo0.01; n n npo0.00. Includes U.S. citizens only. z Includes citizen and noncitizen Latinos. NOTE: For voter registration, 1 5 registered and 0 5 not registered. For voter turnout in 2004, 1 5 voted in 2004 and 2 5 did not vote in 2004. Across variables there were missing data for approximately 20 percent of cases. Excluded prime identity category is American. Included but not shown are the following nonsignicant, dummy variables for ethnic origin: Argentinian, Bolivian, Chilean, Colombian, Costa Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Ecuadoran, Salvadoran, Guatemalan, Honduran, Mexican (reference), Nicaraguan, Peruvian, Puerto Rican, Spanish, Venezuelan, and other.

477

478
Findings

Social Science Quarterly

The multivariate results estimating the coefcients and odds ratios of voter registration, voting in the 2004 election, and nonelectoral political action, net of inuential background characteristics, are reported in Table 2. In both registration and voting models, ethnic-identied Latinos are associated with lower odds of registering and voting than American-identied Latinos, whereas panethnic-identied and racial-identied Latinos are not. Regarding group consciousness, a perception of discrimination lowers the odds of voting among all Latinos. When the interactive effects of group identity and consciousness are assessed, the insignicant interactive terms suggest that the two indicators of group consciousness, specically, a belief in linked fate or the perception of discrimination, do not generally contribute much to what group identity can predict about voter registration and participation, with two exceptions: for racial-identied Latinos who believe in linked fate, the odds of registering to vote are lower than for racialidentied Latinos who do not. For ethnic-identied Latinos who hold a perception of discrimination, the odds of registering to vote and voting participation double when compared with those who do not. With respect to inuential background characteristics, speaking English well or very well contributes to the odds of registering to vote. Moreover, the demographic and socioeconomic control variables that facilitate voter registration include age, education, and personal income. Lastly, partisan strength and political interest both increase the odds of registering to vote. The effects of the controls on voting correspond to those of voter registration, with one exception: being married increases the odds of voting by 50 percent (but does not markedly alter the odds of registering to vote). Regarding nonelectoral participation, panethnic-identied Latinos are less likely to participate in this type of political action than other-identied Latinos. Yet, the interactive effects of group identity and consciousness demonstrate that the unique experience of panethnic-identied Latinos who believe in linked fate is associated with greater political participation than panethnic-identied Latinos who do not. Additionally, a perception of discrimination increases the odds of political participation for all Latinos, whereas the interactive effects of group identity and discrimination are not signicant. Finally, English prociency, age, personal income, partisan strength, political interest, and citizenship status increase the odds of contacting a government ofcial for all Latinos.
Discussion

Ethnic-identied Latinos who experience discrimination are more likely to participate in electoral behavior than American-identied Latinos. These ndings are particularly interesting given that, in general, Latinos who

Political Participation Among Latinos in the United States

479

identify as ethnic are less likely to register to vote or vote than their American-identied counterparts. It appears, then, that the perception of discrimination mobilizes electoral action among ethnic-identied Latinos to a greater degree than among Latinos who identify primarily as American; ethnic-identied Latinos may connect the negative consequences of nativism or racism to their social location or co-ethnic community. These ndings underscore ethnic-identied Latinos belief in the power of voting to affect change on that front, in support of Liens (1994) and Schildkrauts (2005) observations that a perception of discrimination increases political action among ethnic groups. Racial-identied Latinos, in contrast, are not markedly different from American-identied Latinos in their electoral activity; however, if they believe that their individual fate is linked to that of other Latinos, they are signicantly less likely to register to vote. Findings suggest that members of this subgroup may see themselves as a racially oppressed group that is disenfranchised from the electoral process and whose specic interests and needs are not being met by the mainstream political establishment (Newman and Tanguay, 2002:387). Accordingly, this subgroup may be more likely to resign itself to the status quo and withdraw from formal political action. Unlike racial-identied Latinos, panethnic-identied Latinos with a sense of linked fate are more likely to participate in nonelectoral political action (i.e., contacting a government ofcial). This type of political participation may represent a substitute form of political engagement (Tolley, 2003:7) that allows noncitizen Latinos to participate politically (Leal, 2002), as well as a supplementary form of political participation among citizens (Tolley, 2003). Findings suggest that panethnic-identied Latinos may attach a different meaning to their group membership than racial-identied Latinos, with consequent differences in political participation. These outcomes are in keeping with those observed by Stokes (2003) and Sanchez (2006), who nd, respectively, that a sense of linked fate increases political participation (Stokes, 2003) and nonvoting behavior (Sanchez, 2006) among Latinos, although they do not distinguish between panethnic- and racial-identied Latinos. My ndings reveal differences in political action across these different subgroups, highlighting the need to distinguish between those Latinos who identify racially from those who identify panethnically for a more complete picture of the relationship between self-identity and political participation. Overall, ndings reveal that Latinos self-understanding of their group identity facilitates different types of political engagement, which may not always align with researchers conception or use of the Latino label. Finally, the positive interaction between ethnic or panethnic identity and discrimination when compared against that of American-identied Latinos suggests that the latter group is less likely to participate in political action in the face of discrimination. As Schildkraut (2005) and Garcia Bedolla (2005) suggest, American-identied Latinos may be more assimilated or more

480

Social Science Quarterly

likely to believe in the U.S. ideology of rugged individualism than ethnicand panethnic-identied Latinos. As such, American-identied Latinos may downplay or dismiss the existence or impact of group-based discrimination, which discourages their engagement in collective action based on this concern. In contrast, racial-identied Latinos who experience discrimination may reach the opposite conclusion but to similar effect; that is, they may recognize themselves as disenfranchised from mainstream politics, which deters them from participating politically, when compared to other-identied Latinos. This study investigated how group-based resources affect Latinos political participation. In support of previous research, my ndings conrm that group identity inuences Latinos political action and, furthermore, that the relationship between group identity and consciousness differentially inuences Latinos electoral and nonelectoral activities, with generally positive outcomes. In a challenge to existing research, my ndings stress the salience of primary identity in shaping political action, and substantiate the need for a more nuanced measure of self-identication. In recent studies, the term Latino/Hispanic has been characterized as a panethnic or racial identity, or used interchangeably, by the researchers themselves. Yet, compressing these conceptually distinct identities into one without considering the meaning that Latino members attach to each may not accurately reect members primary identity or capture differences in political participation between panethnic- and racial-identied Latinos. Ultimately, my ndings suggest that Latino group members are not a homogenous group; research that conceives of them as such fails to capture the complexity of group identity and its relationship to political action. This study reveals that political participation among Latinos is contingent on the combined factors of self-identity, specic aspects of group consciousness, and the type of political activity in which Latinos engage. Overall, this study encourages a more rened conception of group identity and consciousness to more fully capture the process of political participation among this diverse group.

REFERENCES Bashi, Vilna. 1998. Racial Categories Matter Because Racial Hierarchies Matter: A Commentary. Ethnic and Racial Studies 21(5):95969. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 1997. Rethinking Racism: Toward a Structural Interpretation. American Sociological Review 62:46580. Brubaker, Roger, and Frederick Cooper. 2000. Beyond Identity. Theory and Society 29(1):147. Campbell, Mary E., and Christabel L. Rogalin. 2006. Categorical Imperatives: The Interaction of Latino and Racial Identication. Social Science Quarterly 87(s1):103052. Chong, Dennis, and Reuel Rogers. 2005. Racial Solidarity and Political Participation. Political Behavior 27(4):34774.

Political Participation Among Latinos in the United States

481

Cornell, Stephen, and Douglas Hartmann. 1998. Ethnicity and Race: Identities in a Changing World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Diaz McConnell, Eileen, and Edward A. Delgado-Romero. 2004. Latino Panethnicity: Reality or Methodological Construction? Sociological Focus 37(4):297312. Feagin, Joe R. 2006. Systemic Racism: A Theory of Oppression. New York: Routledge. Garcia, John A. 2003. Latino Politics in America: Community, Culture, and Interests. Oxford: Rowman and Littleeld Publishers. Garcia Bedolla, Lisa. 2005. Fluid Borders: Power, Identity and Politics in LA. Berkeley, CA: UC Press. Golash-Boza, Tanya. 2006. Dropping the Hyphen? Becoming Latino(a)-American Through Racialized Assimilation. Social Forces 85(1):2755. Himmelweit, Hilde T., Marianne Jaeger Biberian, and Janet Stockdale. 1978. Memory for Past Vote: Implications of a Study of Bias in Recall. British Journal of Political Science 8:36575. Hitlin, S., J. Scott Brown, and G. H. Elder. 2006. Racial Self-Categorization in Adolescence: Multiracial Development and Social Pathways. Child Development 77:1298 1308. Itzigsohn, Jose, and Carlos Dore-Cabral. 2000. Competing Identities? Race, Ethnicity and Panethnicity Among Dominicans in the United States. Sociological Forum 15(2):22547. Jones-Correa, Michael, and David L. Leal. 1996. Becoming Hispanic: Secondary Panethnic Identication Among Latin American-Origin Populations in the United States. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 18(2):21454. Kossoudji, Sherrie A., and Deborah A. Cobb-Clark. 2002. Coming Out of the Shadows: Learning About Legal Status and Wages from the Legalized Population. Journal of Labor Economics 20(3):598628. Leal, David L. 2002. Political Participation by Latino Non-Citizens in the United States. British Journal of Political Science 32(2):35370. Lien, Pei-Te. 1994. Ethnicity and Political Participation: A Comparison Between Asian and Mexican Americans. Political Behavior 16(2):23764. Lopez, David, and Yen Le Espiritu. 1990. Panethnicity in the United States: A Theoretical Framework. Ethnic and Racial Studies 13(2):198254. Masuoka, Natalie. 2006. Together They Become One: Examining the Predictors of Panethnic Group Consciousness Among Asian Americans and Latinos. Social Science Quarterly 87(5):9931011. Miller, Arthur, Patricia Gurin, Gerald Gurin, and Oksana Malanchuk. 1981. Group Consciousness and Political Participation. American Journal of Political Science 25(3): 494511. Newman, Jacquetta, and A. Biran Tanguay. 2002. Crashing the Party: The Politics of Interest Groups and Social Movements. Pp. 387412 in Joanna Everitt and Brenda ONeill, eds., Citizen Politics: Research and Theory in Canadian Political Behavior. Toronto: Oxford Press. Oboler, Suzanne. 1995. Ethnic Labels, Latino Lives: Identity and the Politics of (Re)Presentation in the United States. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Ofce of Management and Budget. 1997. Federal Register Notice, October 30, 1997. Washington, DC: OMB Publications Ofce.

482

Social Science Quarterly

Omi, Michael. 2001. The Changing Meaning of Race. Pp. 24363 in Neil J. Smelser, William J. Wilson, and Faith Mitchell, eds., American Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge. Padilla, Felix. 1985. Latino Ethnic Consciousness. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Plumb, Elizabeth. 1986. Validation of Voter Recall: Time of Electoral Decision Making. Political Behavior 8(4):30212. Rockquemore, Kerry, and Tracey A. Laszloffy. 2005. Raising Biracial Children. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press. Rodriguez, Clara E., and Hector Cordero-Guzman. 1992. Placing Race in Context. Ethnic and Racial Studies 15(4):52342. Sanchez, Gabriel R. 2006. The Role of Group Consciousness in Political Participation Among Latinos in the United States. American Politics Research 34(4):42750. Schildkraut, Deborah J. 2005. The Rise and Fall of Political Engagement Among Latinos: The Role of Identity and Perceptions of Discrimination. Political Behavior 27(3):285312. Smith, Tom W. 1984. Recalling Attitudes: An Analysis of Retrospective Questions on the 1982 GSS. Public Opinion Quarterly 48:63949. Stokes, Atiya Kai. 2003. Latino Group Consciousness and Political Participation. American Politics Research 31(4):36178. Stokes-Brown, Atiya Kai. 2006. Racial Identity and Latino Vote Choice. American Politics Research 34(5):62752. Tienda, Marta, and Audrey Singer. 1995. Wage Mobility of Undocumented Workers in the United States. International Migration Review 29:11238. Tolley, Erin. 2003. Supplement, Substitute or Stepping Stone? Understanding the Electoral and Non-Electoral Participation of Immigrants and Minorities. Paper presented at the Sixth National Metropolis Conference. Edmonton, Alberta. U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. Population Estimates, July 1, 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Valdez, Zulema. 2009. Agency and Structure in Panethnic Identity Formation: The Case of Latino/a Entrepreneurs. Pp. 20013 in Jose Cobas, Jorge Duany, and Joe R. Feagin, eds., How the United States Racializes Latinos: White Hegemony and its Consequences. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Verba, S., and N. H. Nie. 1972. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper and Row. Wong, Janelle S., Pei-Te Lien, and M. Margaret Conway. 2005. Group-Based Resources and Political Participation Among Asian Americans. American Politics Research 33(4): 54576. Yancey, William, Eugene Erikson, and Richard Juliani. 1976. Emergent Ethnicity: A Review and Reformulation. American Sociological Review 41:391403.