Gender inequalities in political ambition and participation persistently concern those aiming for more gender emancipation in the political realm. Although female descriptive representation has increased in many Western democracies, gender differences in political participation endure (Fox and Lawless, 2014; Burns et al, 2018; Wolak, 2020), harming the representation of women’s interests (Wängnerud, 2009). An important pathway to why women are less inclined to become politically active is their lower confidence levels, specifically in a political setting (Wolak, 2020). Internal political efficacy (IPE) refers to individuals’ self-confidence about their abilities to understand and engage with politics (Beaumont, 2010), and IPE is a strong predictor of political participation (Levy and Akiva, 2019). Analogously with the general notion of self-efficacy, it is argued that people are highly influenced by their self-confidence to successfully carry out a task and be motivated to do so: ‘Unless people believe they can produce desired outcomes, they have little incentive to address challenging tasks, to pursue ambitious goals, and to persevere in the face of difficulties’ (Caprara et al, 2009: 1004).
The same holds in the political field, where people’s beliefs in their political capabilities mediate future political participation (Levy and Akiva, 2019). Political scientists started researching IPE in the 1950s as an essential determinant of political participation. One of the first accounts described IPE as a ‘feeling that political and social change is possible and that the individual citizen can play a part in bringing about this change’ (Campbell et al, 1954: 187). Empirical studies conducted with data from Europe, Canada and the US consistently show lower levels of IPE for women than men despite their having similar resources (Gidengil et al, 2008; Thomas, 2012; Fraile and de Miguel Moyer, 2022). Gidengil et al (2008: 544–5) show a consistent gender gap ranging between 10 and 16 percentage points in IPE in the US since 1952 and a gender gap ranging from 11 to 15 percentage points in Canada since 1965 (see Figures 1 and 2). Although we do not have similar trend data on IPE in Europe, Fraile and de Miguel Moyer (2022: 9) show a statistically significant IPE gender gap across 27 European countries, which ranges between 5 and 10 percentage points (see Figure 3).
/img/Blank.svg)
The gender gap in self-perceived political understanding: USA. Percentage confidence shows those who reject the statement that politics is sometimes too complicated for a person like themselves to understand. This figure shows the United States of America results with data from the American National Election Studies, 1952 to 2000.
Citation: European Journal of Politics and Gender 6, 3; 10.1332/251510821X16884720033706
Source: recreated from Gidengil et al, 2008: 544.The gender gap in self-perceived political understanding: Canada. Percentage confidence shows those who reject the statement that politics is sometimes too complicated for a person like themselves to understand. This figure shows the results for Canada with data from the Canadian Election Studies, 1965 to 2004.
Citation: European Journal of Politics and Gender 6, 3; 10.1332/251510821X16884720033706
Source: recreated from Gidengil et al, 2008: 544.The mean differences in internal political efficacy between men and women across European countries with data from the 8th and 9th waves of the European Social Survey.
Citation: European Journal of Politics and Gender 6, 3; 10.1332/251510821X16884720033706
Source: recreated from Fraile and deMiguel Moyer, 2022: 9.The persistent gender gap in IPE over time and across countries is puzzling from a traditional resource-based model of political action. One of political science’s most stable findings is that those with more political resources, such as the highly educated, participate more politically. Likewise, a mastery of political skills is one of the main pathways to developing IPE (Beaumont, 2010: 526). Such a standard theory posits that education increases knowledge and skills, and directly causes a higher chance of political participation (Willeck and Mendelberg, 2022). However, women nowadays outperform men in high school and university (Voyer and Voyer, 2014; van Hek et al, 2016), yet the gender inequalities in political action and IPE remain stable even in politically resourceful environments.
Even more worrying are recent studies on young people showing larger gender gaps in IPE in the most politically resourceful environments and how the gender gap intensifies when youngsters receive more citizenship education (García-Albacete and Hoskins, 2022; Matthieu, 2022; Matthieu et al, 2022). The lower IPE levels of women and girls contradict the traditional resource-based model to explain gender differences and urge us to broaden our scope to understand these persistent gender gaps. Recent studies into ‘gendered political socialisation processes’ help to understand these persistent gender differences (see, for example, Bos et al, 2022: 3). Gendered political socialisation combines insights from the established gender socialisation and political socialisation literatures. It is argued that gender and political socialisation processes happen simultaneously and intersect. This process ‘is likely to communicate to children that boys are compatible with political leadership roles and that girls are not’ (Bos et al, 2022: 3). The theory of gendered political socialisation helps to understand why gender inequalities in IPE persist even in the most politically resourceful environments. While children learn about the political world, they also implicitly learn that politics is a masculine field.
The persistence of the gender gap in IPE and the limitations of the resource model should also inform future research and policy. Although we can quite convincingly inform policymakers that a lack of traditional resources, such as formal education, does not decrease the gender gap in IPE, we need more research into these gendered political socialisation processes at work when children grow up to be political actors. To close the gender gap in IPE and inform policymakers how to do so, we need a better understanding of how gender differences in IPE emerge during children’s political socialisation process (Fraile and de Miguel Moyer, 2022), of the intersectionality of inequalities regarding IPE (Levy and Akiva, 2019; Matthieu, 2022) and how educational interventions moderate inequalities in IPE (Arens and Watermann, 2017; Matthieu et al, 2022). Both quantitative and qualitative research can inspire future evidence-based practices.
Future research might investigate other pathways in how children develop their IPE besides skill building. Beaumont (2010: 526) proposes additional pathways to developing IPE, such as having role models and social encouragement. First, it would be interesting to test the gender role hypothesis by studying if female political role models change how young girls and women perceive politics (Wolbrecht and Campbell, 2007), and how this impacts their IPE levels. This can be tested in multiple ways, such as by examining political gender stereotyping within the content of the curriculum (Lay et al, 2021). Second, educational scholars studied gender-stereotypical behaviour and interactions between teachers and students in classroom practices by using innovative research methods, such as observations with video-stimulated recall sessions (Consuegra et al, 2016). A similar approach could be used to study gendered social encouragement when students learn about politics and how students receive different treatment based on their gender. An experimental study has already showed how positive feedback to female students increases their efficacy levels (Preece, 2016).
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author biography
Joke Matthieu is currently a senior researcher affiliated with the research group M2P of the Department of Political Sciences at the University of Antwerp and holds a Ph.D. from the VUB. Her primary expertise is situated in inequalities in political socialization processes. She is currently involved in a research project on developing political knowledge and attitudes amongst youngsters during the 2024 election campaign and will study the effects of Voting Advice Applications (VAAs). In this project, panel data and experimental data are collected among youngsters.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Arens, A.K. and Watermann, R. (2017) Political efficacy in adolescence: development, gender differences, and outcome relations, Developmental Psychology, 53(5): 933–48, doi: 10.1037/dev0000300.
Beaumont, E. (2010) Political agency and empowerment: pathways for developing a sense of political efficacy in young adults, in L.R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta and C.A. Flanagan (eds) Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp 525–58.
Bos, A.L. et al. (2022) This one’s for the boys: how gendered political socialization limits girls’ political ambition and interest, American Political Science Review, 116(2): 484–501, doi: 10.1017/S0003055421001027.
Burns, N. et al. (2018) What’s happened to the gender gap in political participation?, in H.J. McCammon and L.A. Banaszak (eds) 100 Years of the Nineteenth Amendment: An Appraisal of Women’s Political Activism, New York: Oxford University Press, pp 69–104.
Campbell, A., Gurin, G. and Miller, W.E. (1954) The Voter Decides, Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.
Caprara, G.V. et al. (2009) Perceived political self-efficacy: theory, assessment, and applications, European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(6): 1002–20, doi: 10.1002/ejsp.604.
Consuegra, E., Engels, N. and Willegems, V. (2016) Using video-stimulated recall to investigate teacher awareness of explicit and implicit gendered thoughts on classroom interactions, Teachers and Teaching, 22(6): 683–99, doi: 10.1080/13540602.2016.1158958.
Fox, R. and Lawless, J. (2014) Uncovering the origins of the gender gap in political ambition, American Political Science Review, 108(3): 499–519, doi: 10.1017/S0003055414000227.
Fraile, M. and de Miguel Moyer, C. (2022) Risk and the gender gap in internal political efficacy in Europe, West European Politics, 45(7): 1462–80, doi: 10.1080/01402382.2021.1969146.
García-Albacete, G. and Hoskins, B. (2022) The gender gap in political efficacy: the role of an open classroom climate in the development of inequalities, European Conference on Politics and Gender, University of Ljubljana, 6 – 8 July 2022.
Gidengil, E., Giles, J. and Thomas, M. (2008) The gender gap in self-perceived understanding of politics in Canada and the United States, Politics & Gender, 4(4): 535–61, doi: 10.1017/S1743923X08000469.
Lay, J.C. et al. (2021) TIME for Kids to learn gender stereotypes: analysis of gender and political leadership in a common social studies resource for children, Politics & Gender, 17(1): 1–22, doi: 10.1017/S1743923X19000540.
Levy, B.L.M. and Akiva, T. (2019) Motivating political participation among youth: an analysis of factors related to adolescents’ political engagement, Political Psychology, 40(5): 1039–55, doi: 10.1111/pops.12578.
Matthieu, J. (2022) On The Intersection of Gender and Class(Room): Explaining Larger Gender Inequalities In Internal Political Efficacy in Politically Stimulating Home Environments and Academic Tracks, Belgium: State of the Federation Conference 2022, 22 December 2022 at Brussels.
Matthieu, J., Erzeel, S. and Caluwaerts, D. (2022) Gendered Political Socialization: why Girls (Sometimes) do not Gain as Much Internal Political Efficacy from Citizenship Education as Boys, European Conference on Politics and Gender, University of Ljubljana, 6 – 8 July 2022.
Preece, J.R. (2016) Mind the gender gap: an experiment on the influence of self-efficacy on political interest, Politics and Gender, 12(1): 198–217, doi: 10.1017/S1743923X15000628.
Thomas, M. (2012) The complexity conundrum: why hasn’t the gender gap in subjective political competence closed?, Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, 45(2): 337–58, doi: 10.1017/S0008423912000352.
Van Hek, M., Kraaykamp, G. and Wolbers, M.H.J. (2016) Comparing the gender gap in educational attainment, Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(5–6): 260–82, doi: 10.1080/13803611.2016.1256222.
Voyer, D. and Voyer, S.D. (2014) Gender differences in scholastic achievement: a meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 140(4): 1174–204, doi: 10.1037/a0036620.
Wängnerud, L. (2009) Women in parliaments: descriptive and substantive representation, Annual Review of Political Science, 12(1): 51–69, doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.123839.
Willeck, C. and Mendelberg, T. (2022) Education and political participation, Annual Review of Political Science, 25(1): 89–110, doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-014235.
Wolak, J. (2020) Self-confidence and gender gaps in political interest, attention, and efficacy, The Journal of Politics, 82(4): 1490–501, doi: 10.1086/708644.
Wolbrecht, C. and Campbell, D.E. (2007) Leading by example: female members of parliament as political role models, American Journal of Political Science, 51(4): 921–39, doi: 10.1111/J.1540-5907.2007.00289.X.
