Despite initial hopes for more egalitarian access to democracy, research has shown that political participation on the Internet remains as stratified as its offline counterpart. Gender is among the characteristics affecting an individual’s degree of political engagement on the Internet—even when controlling for socioeconomic status. To explain this gender divide, it is necessary to go beyond purely resource-based perspectives. Social cognitive theory allows for an analysis of how environmental factors shape cognitions, such as political efficacy, which, in turn, foster political participation. Political efficacy has been shown to be lower among women compared to men. This study explores determinants of gendered online political participation (OPP) by analyzing how self-efficacy mediates the effect of newly developed measures of three different waves of feminist attitudes on OPP. Based on a survey of 1,078 Internet users in Germany, 70% of them women, we analyze the effects of feminism on political efficacy and participation. Feminism is associated with higher internal political efficacy. Also, some feminist paradigms are shown to empower women to participate politically online. This effect, however, is not mediated through efficacy. This finding sheds light on opportunities to foster women’s political participation.
AbendschönS.SteinmetzS. (2014). The gender gap in voting revisited: Women’s party preferences in a European context. Social Politics, 21, 315–344. doi:10.1093/sp/jxu009
2.
AlmondG. A.VerbaS. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
AnduizaE.GallegoA.CantijochM. (2010). Online political participation in Spain: The impact of traditional and Internet resources. Journal of Technology and Politics, 7, 356–368. doi:10.1080/19331681003791891
5.
ARD/ZDF. (2018). ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudie. Onlinenutzung. Tägliche Nutzungsdauer* des Internets 2018—differenziert nach Arten der Internetnutzung [ARD/ZDF (German broadcasting enterprises under public law) Online study. Online usage. Time* spent online per day 2018—differentiated by types of Internet usage]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ard-zdf-onlinestudie.de/onlinenutzung/nutzungsdauer/nach-arten-der-nutzung/
6.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
7.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8.
BargardA.HydeJ. S. (1991). Women’s studies: A study of feminist identity development in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 181–201. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1991.tb00791.x
9.
BashevkinS. B. (1985). Political participation, ambition and feminism: Women in the Ontario party elites. American Review of Canadian Studies, 15, 405–419. doi:10.3138/jcs.17.2.44
10.
BeckP. A.JenningsM. K. (1979). Political periods and political participation. American Political Science Review, 73, 737–750. doi:10.2307/1955401
11.
BimberB. (2001). Information and political engagement in America: The search for effects of information technology at the individual level. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 53–67. doi:10.2307/449207
12.
BlankG. (2013). Who creates content? Stratification and content creation on the Internet. Information, Communication & Society, 16, 590–612. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.777758
13.
BodeL. (2017). Closing the gap: Gender parity in political engagement on social media. Information, Communication & Society, 20, 587–603. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2016.1202302
14.
BoulianneS. (2009). Does Internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication, 26, 193–211. doi:10.1080/10584600902854363
15.
BurnsN. (2007). Gender in the aggregate, gender in the individual, gender and political action. Politics & Gender, 3, 104–124. doi:10.1017/S1743923X07221014
16.
ButlerJ. (1995). Körper von Gewicht. Die diskursiven Grenzen des Geschlechts [Bodies that matter. On the discursive limits of sex]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.
17.
CampbellA.GurinG.MillerW. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston, IL: Row.
18.
ChanM. (2014). Exploring the contingent effects of political efficacy and partisan strength on the relationship between online news use and democratic engagement. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1195–1215.
19.
CofféH.BolzendahlC. (2010). Same game, different rules? Gender differences in political participation. Sex Roles, 62, 318–333. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9729-y
20.
CollinsP. (1991). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge.
21.
CórdovaA.RangelG. (2017). Addressing the gender gap: The effect of compulsory voting on women’s electoral engagement. Comparative Political Studies, 50, 264–290. doi:10.1177/0010414016655537
22.
CornellD. (1991). Beyond accommodation. Ethical feminism, deconstruction, and the law. New York, NY: Routledge.
23.
CorreaT. (2010). The participation divide among ‘online experts’: Experience, skills and psychological factors as predictors of college students’ web content creation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16, 71–92. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01532.x
24.
DaltonR. J. (2008). Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Studies, 56, 76–98. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00718.x
25.
de BeauvoirS. (1949). The second sex. Paris, France: Gallimard.
Destatis: Statistisches Bundesamt [Federal Statistical Office]. (2018). 13. Koordinierte Bevölkerungsvorausberechnung für Deutschland. Altersaufbau. [13th Coordinated calculation of population growth for Germany. Distribution of age]. Retrieved fromhttps://service.destatis.de/bevoelkerungspyramide/#!y=2018&o=2018v1
28.
DuvergerM. (1955). The political role of women. Paris, France: UNESCO.
29.
EmmerM.WollingJ.VoweG. (2012). Changing political communication in Germany: Findings from a longitudinal study on the influence of the internet on political information, discussion and the participation of citizens. Communications—European Journal of Communication Research, 37, 233–252. doi:10.1515/commun-2012-0013
FeezellJ. (2016). Predicting online political participation: The importance of selection bias and selective exposure in the online setting. Political Research Quarterly, 69, 495–509. doi:10.1177/1065912916652503
35.
FraserN. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56–80.
36.
FraserN. (2012). Feminism, capitalism, and the cunning of history. An introduction. Paris, France: Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme.
37.
FreyR.DinglerJ. (2001). Wie Theorien Geschlechter konstruieren. In Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (Ed.), Alles Gender? Oder was? Theoretische Ansätze zur Konstruktion von Geschlecht(ern) und ihre Relevanz für die Praxis in Bildung, Beratung und Politik (2nd ed., pp. 7–25). Berlin, Germany: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung.
38.
GibsonR.CantijochM. (2013). Conceptualizing and measuring participation in the age of the Internet: Is online political engagement really different to offline?The Journal of Politics, 75, 701–716. doi:10.1017/s0022381613000431
39.
Gil de ZúñigaH.DiehlT.Ardévol-AbreuA. (2017). Internal, external, and government political efficacy: Effects on news use, discussion, and political participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61, 574–596.
40.
Gil de ZúñigaH.Puig-i-AbrilE.RojasH. (2009). Weblogs, traditional sources online and political participation: An assessment of how the internet is changing the political environment. New Media & Society, 11, 553–574. doi:10.1177/1461444809102960
41.
HamiltonL.GeistC.PowellB. (2011). Marital name change as a window into gender attitudes. Gender & Society, 25, 145–175. doi:10.1177/0891243211398653
42.
HarawayD. (1995). Ein Manifest für Cyborgs: Feminismus im Streit mit den Technowissenschaften. In HarawayD. (Ed.), Die Neuerfindung der Natur: Primaten, Cyborgs und Frauen (pp. 33–72). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus Verlag.
43.
HargittaiE. (2005). Survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy. Social Science Computer Review, 23, 371–379. doi:10.1177/0894439305275911
44.
HargittaiE.WalejkoG. (2008). The participation divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital age. Information, Communication & Society, 11, 239–256. doi:10.1080/13691180801946150
45.
HayesB. C.BeanC. S. (1993). Political efficacy: A comparative study of the United States, West Germany, Great Britain and Australia. European Journal of Political Research, 23, 261–280. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.1993.tb00359.x
46.
Hernandez-TruyolB. E. (2011). On que(e)rying feminism: Reclaiming the F word. Issues in Legal Scholarship, 9, 1–23. doi:10.2202/1539-8323.1137
47.
HoffmanL. H. (2012). Participation or communication? An explication of political activity in the Internet age. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9, 217–233. doi:10.1080/19331681.2011.650929
48.
HoogheM.VissersS. (2009). Reaching out or reaching in? The use of party websites during the 2006 electoral campaign in Belgium. Information, Communication & Society, 12, 619–714. doi:10.1080/13691180802483062
49.
InglehartR.NorrisP. (2000). The developmental theory of the gender gap. Women’s and men’s voting behavior in global perspective. International Political Science Review, 21, 441–463. doi:10.1177/0192512100214007
50.
KabeerN. (2009). World survey on the role of women in development. Report of the UN Division for the Advancement of Women UN-DESA. New York, NY: United Nations.
51.
KayS. A. (1985). Feminist ideology, race, and political participation: A second look. The Western Political Quarterly, 38, 476–484. doi:10.2307/448528
KenskiK.StroudN. J. (2006). Connections between Internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 173–192.
KlingerC. (1997). Liberalismus—Marxismus—Postmoderne. Der Feminismus und seine glücklichen oder unglücklichen ‘Ehen’ mit verschiedenen Theorieströmungen im 20. Jahrhundert. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 38, 177–193. doi:10.1007/978-3-322-97083-1_9
McCabeJ. (2005). What’s in a label? The relationship between feminist self-identification and ‘feminist’ attitudes among U.S. women and men. Gender & Society, 19, 480–505. doi:10.1177/0891243204273498
60.
McCluskeyM. R.DeshpandeS.ShahD.McLeodD. M. (2004). The efficacy gap and political participation: When political influence fails to meet expectations. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 16, 437–455.
61.
MilbrathL. W.GoelM. L. (1965). Political participation: How and why do people get involved in politics?Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
62.
MoffettK. W.RiceL. L. (2018). College students and online political expression during the 2016 election. Social Science Computer Review, 36, 422–439. doi:10.1177/0894439317721186
63.
MorganB. L. (1996). Putting the feminism into feminism scales: Introduction of a Liberal Feminist Attitude and Ideology Scale (LFAIS). Sex Roles, 34, 359–390. doi:10.1007/BF01547807
64.
NiemiR. G.CraigS. C.MatteiF. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. The American Political Science Review, 85, 1407–1413. Retrieved fromhttp://users.clas.ufl.edu/sccraig/readings/apsr91_copy.pdf
65.
NorrisP. (2002). Democratic phoenix: Reinventing political activism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
66.
OserJ. (2017). Assessing how participators combine acts in their “political tool kits”: A person-centered measurement approach for analyzing citizen participation. Social Indicators Research, 133, 235–258. doi:10.1007/s11205-016-1364-8
67.
OserJ.HoogheM.MarienS. (2013). Is online participation distinct from offline participation? A latent class analysis of participation types and their stratification. Political Research Quarterly, 66, 91–101. doi:10.1177/1065912912436695
68.
QuintelierE.TheocharisY. (2013). Online political engagement, Facebook, and personality traits. Social Science Computer Review, 31, 280–290. doi:10.1177/0894439312462802
69.
RojasH.Puig-i-AbrilE. (2009). Mobilizers mobilized: Information, expression, mobilization and participation in the digital age. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 902–927. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01475.x
70.
RussoS.AmnaE. (2016). The personality divide: Do personality traits differentially predict online political engagement?Social Science Computer Review, 34, 259–277. doi:10.1177/0894439315582487
71.
SaulnierC. F. (2008). Feminist theories. In CoadyN.LehmannP. (Eds.), Theoretical perspectives for direct social work practice: A generalist-eclectic approach (pp. 343–366). New York, NY: Springer.
SchlozmanK. L.BurnsN.VerbaS. (1999). “What happened at work today?”: A multistage model of gender, employment, and political participation. The Journal of Politics, 61, 29–53. doi:10.2307/2647774
74.
SchlozmanK.VerbaS.BradyH. (2010). Weapon of the strong: Participatory inequality and the Internet, Perspectives on Politics, 8, 487–509. doi:10.1017/S1537592710001210
75.
SchusterJ. (2013). Invisible feminists? Social media and young women’s political participation. Political Science, 65, 8–24. doi:10.1177/0032318713486474
SwankE.FahsB. (2017). Understanding feminist activism among women: Resources, consciousness, and social networks. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 9, 1–9. doi:10.1177/237802311773408
80.
TheocharisY. (2015, July–December). The conceptualization of digitally networked participation. Social Media + Society, 1–14. doi:10.1177/2056305115610140
81.
TheocharisY.van DethJ. W. (2018). The continuous expansion of citizen participation: A new taxonomy. European Political Science Review, 10, 139–163. doi:10.1017/S1755773916000230
82.
TurnerS. G.MaschiT. M. (2015). Feminist and empowerment theory and social work practice. Journal of Social Work Practice, 29, 151–162. doi:10.1080/02650533.2014.941282
83.
van DethJ. W. (2014). A conceptual map of political participation. Acta Politica, 49, 349–367. doi:10.1057/ap.2014.6
84.
VerbaS.NieN. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
85.
VerbaS.SchlozmanK. L.BradyH. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
86.
WeiK. K.TeoH. H.ChanH. C.TanB. C. Y. (2011). Conceptualizing and testing a social cognitive model of the digital divide. Information Systems Research, 22, 170–187. doi:10.1287/isre.1090.0273
87.
WenN.XiaomingH.GeorgeC. (2013). Gender and political participation: News consumption, political efficacy and interpersonal communication. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, 19, 124–149. doi:10.1080/12259276.2013.11666168
88.
WittigM. (1992). The straight mind and other essays. Boston, MA: Beacon.
89.
YamamotoM.KushinM. J.DalisayF. (2015). Social media and mobiles as political mobilization forces for young adults: Examining the moderating role of online political expression in political participation. New Media & Society, 17, 880–898. doi:10.1177/1461444813518390
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
