Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-smskv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-06T08:42:22.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk Aversion, Gender, and Constitutional Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2015

Tània Verge ,
Marc Guinjoan  and
Toni Rodon
Tània Verge
Affiliation:
Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Marc Guinjoan
Affiliation:
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Toni Rodon
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Independence movements are today present in several stateless territorially concentrated nations, irrespective of their level of self-government. Among advanced industrial democracies, the stronger secessionist movements are found in Belgium, Canada, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom (Keating 1996; Sorens 2005). In the absence of a secession clause in their respective constitutions, a broad array of political parties and civil society groups have mobilized to demand a self-determination referendum as a means to let the citizenry of their territories express their will (Muñoz and Guinjoan 2013). Canada held a referendum on the secession of Quebec in 1980 and 1995. The United Kingdom called a popular vote on Scotland's independence in September 2014. In the Spanish case, Catalonia convoked a consultation in November 2014, although the central government did not recognize its legality.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 499 - 521
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Iyengar, Shanto. 1995. Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink and Polarize the Electorate. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Arch, Elisabeth C. 1993. “Risk-Taking: A Motivational Basis for Sex Differences.” Psychological Reports 73 (1): 6–11.Google Scholar
Behrens, Timothy E. J., Woolrich, Mark W., Walton, Mark E., and Rushworth, Matthew F. S.. 2007. “Learning the Value of Information in an Uncertain World.” Nature Neuroscience 10 (9): 1214–221.Google Scholar
Bell, Christine, and Mackay, Fiona. 2013. “Women and Constitutional Debates: Engendering Visions of a New Scotland.” In After Independence, ed. Gerry Hassan and James Mitchell. Edinburgh: Luath Press Ltd., 259–71Google Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J. 2006. “American Public Opinion Data in the 1930s and 1940s. The Analysis of Quota-Controlled Sample Survey Data.” Public Opinion Quarterly 70 (4): 499–529.Google Scholar
Booth, Alison L., and Nolen, Patrick J.. 2012. “Salience, Risky Choices and Gender.” Economics Letters 117 (2): 517–20.Google Scholar
Booth, Alison L., Cardona-Sosa, Lina, and Nolen, Patrick. 2014. “Gender Differences in Risk Aversion: Do Single-Sex Environments Affect Their Development?” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 99: 126–54.Google Scholar
Byrnes, James P., Miller, David C., and Schafer, William D.. 1999. “Gender Differences in Risk Taking: A Meta-Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 125 (3): 367–83.Google Scholar
Colino, César. 2009. “Constitutional Change without Constitutional Reform: Spanish Federalism and the Revision of Catalonia's Statute of Autonomy.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 39 (2): 262–88.Google Scholar
Croson, Rachel, and Gneezy, Uri. 2009. “Gender Differences in Preferences.” Journal of Economic Literature 47 (2): 448–74.Google Scholar
Cutter, Susan L., Tiefenbacher, John, and Solecki, William D.. 1992. “En-gendered Fears: Femininity and Technological Risk Perception.” Industrial Crisis Quarterly 6 (1): 5–22.Google Scholar
Dawson, Jeremy F., and Richter, Andras W.. 2006. “Probing Three-Way Interactions in Moderated Multiple Regression: Development and Application of a Slope Difference Test.” Journal of Applied Sociology 91 (4): 917–26.Google Scholar
Dion, Stéphan. 2010. “The Reemergence of Secessionism: Lessons from Quebec.” In Nationalism and Rationalism, ed. Albert Breton, Gianluigi Galeotti, Pierre Salmon, and Ronald Wintrobe. New York: Cambridge University Press, 116–42.Google Scholar
Dohmen, Thomas, Falk, Armin, Huffman, David, Sande, Uwe, Schupp, Jürgen, and Wagner, Gert G.. 2011. “Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants and Behavioural Consequences.” Journal of the European Economic Association 9 (3): 522–50.Google Scholar
Eckel, Catherine C., and Grossman, Philip J.. 2008. “Differences in the Economic Decisions of Men and Women: Experimental Evidence.” In The Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, ed. Plott, Charles R. and Smith, Vernon L., 509–19. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fagley, Nancy S., and Miller, Paul M.. 1990. “The Effect of Framing on Choice Interactions with Risk-Taking Propensity, Cognitive Style, and Sex.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 16 (3): 496–510.Google Scholar
Finucane, Melissa L., Alhakami, Ali, Slovic, Paul, and Johnson, Stephen M.. 2000. “The Affect Heuristic in Judgments of Risks and Benefits.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13 (1): 1–17.Google Scholar
Fujita, Frank, Diener, Ed, and Sandvik, Ed. 1991. “Gender Differences in Negative Affect and Well-Being: The Case for Emotional Intensity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 (3): 427–34.Google Scholar
Grabe, Maria E., and Kamhawi, Rasha. 2006. Hard Wired for Negative News? Gender Differences in Processing Broadcast News. Communication Research 33 (5): 346–69.Google Scholar
Guinjoan, Marc, and Rodon, Toni. 2014. “Beyond Identities: Political Determinants of Support for Decentralisation in Contemporary Spain.” Regional and Federal Studies 24 (1): 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafsod, Per E. 1998. “Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives.” Risk Analysis 18 (6): 805–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, Sara B. 2006. “How Parties Affect Vote Choice in European Integration Referendums.” Party Politics 12 (5): 623–47.Google Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, Tingley, Dustin, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2011. “Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning about Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies.” American Political Science Review 105 (4): 765–89.Google Scholar
Jianakoplos, Nancy A., and Bernasek, Alexandra. 1998. “Are Women More Risk Averse?” Economic Inquiry 36 (4): 620–30.Google Scholar
Johns, Robert, Bennie, Lynn, and Mitchell, James. 2012. “Gendered Nationalism: The Gender Gap in Support for the Scottish National Party.” Party Politics 18 (4): 581–601.Google Scholar
Keating, Michael. 1996. Nations against the State. The New Politics of Nationalism in Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kenny, Meryl. 2014. “Engendering the Independence Debates.” Scottish Affairs 23 (3): 323–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopasker, Daniel. 2014. “The Role of Threat and Economic Uncertainty in Support for Scottish Independence.” Scottish Affairs 23 (1): 103–24.Google Scholar
Mandrik, Carter A., and Bao, Yeqing. 2005. “Exploring the Concept and Measurement of General Risk Aversion.” Advances in Consumer Research 32: 531–39.Google Scholar
Muñoz, Jordi, and Guinjoan, Marc. 2013. “Accounting for Internal Variation in Nationalist Mobilization: Unofficial Referendums for Independence in Catalonia (2009–11).” Nations and Nationalism 19 (1): 44–67.Google Scholar
Muñoz, Jordi, and Tormos, Raül. 2015. “Economic Expectations and Support for Secession in Catalonia: Between Causality and Rationalization.” European Political Science Review 7 (2): 315–41.Google Scholar
Muro, Diego. 2009. “Territorial Accommodation, Party Politics, and Statute Reform in Spain.” South European Society & Politics 14 (4): 453–68.Google Scholar
Nadeau, Richard, Martin, Pierre, and Blais, André. 1999. “Attitudes towards Risk-taking and Individual Choice in the Quebec Referendum on Sovereignty.” British Journal of Political Science 29 (3): 523–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niederle, Muriel, and Vesterlung, Lise. 2007. “Do Women Shy Away from Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 122 (3): 1067–101.Google Scholar
Ormston, Rachel. 2013. Why Don't More Women Support Independence? Findings from the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey. Edinburgh: ScotCen Social Research. http://www.natcen.ac,.uk/media/270731/ssa-2012-gender-and-independence.pdf (accessed June 17, 2014).Google Scholar
Saalfeld, Thomas. 2006. “Deliberate Delegation or Abdication? Government Backbenchers, Ministers and European Union Legislation.” In The Europeanisation of Parliamentary Democracy, ed. Auel, Katrin and Benz., Arthur New York: Routledge, 40–69.Google Scholar
Schubert, Renate. 2006. “Analyzing and Managing Risks—On the Importance of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes.” Managerial Finance 32 (9): 706–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serrano, Ivan. 2013. “Just a Matter of Identity? Support for Independence in Catalonia.” Regional & Federal Studies 23 (5): 523–45.Google Scholar
Slovic, Paul. 1999. “Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield.” Risk Analysis 19 (4): 689–701.Google Scholar
Sorens, Jason. 2005. “The Cross-Sectional Determinants of Secessionism in Advanced Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 38 (3): 304–26.Google Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N. 2014. Negativity in Democratic Politics. Causes and Consequences. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Schie, Els C. M., and Van Der Pligt, Joop. 1995. “Influencing Risk Preference in Decision Making: The Effects of Framing and Salience.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 63 (3): 264–75.Google Scholar
Verge, Tània. 2013. “Party Strategies on Territorial Reform: Statewide Parties and the State of Autonomies in Spain.” West European Politics 36 (2): 333–53.Google Scholar
Wenzel, James P., Bowler, Shaun, and Lanoue, David J.. 2000. “Citizen Opinion and Constitutional Choices: The Case of the UK.” Political Behavior 22 (3): 241–65.Google Scholar