Reinventing conventional participation: A Model to mitigate political disaffection in Lambayeque, Peru

Conventional political participation: definition, models and recent transformations

Political science has reached a broad consensus that citizen participation through institutional channels constitutes a fundamental component of representative democracy. Conventional political participation is understood as the actions that citizens undertake, in an established manner, to influence public decision-making through formalised and legally recognised mechanisms within the political system (Dahl, 1989; Norris, 2011). From the perspective of participatory democracy, Dahl (1989) emphasises that the democratic quality of a system is proportional to the degree of involvement that the population demonstrates in deliberative and decision-making processes, which improves the quality of public governance and strengthens the legitimacy of the system. Thus, conventional participation is expressed through channels such as voting, involvement in political parties, political organisation or activism, attendance at and participation in community assemblies, and involvement in public consultations or hearings (Castellanos, 2020; Garrido & Sáenz, 2020).

Classic models of conventional participation offer a deeper understanding of its role in contemporary democracy. The model of civic voluntarism proposed by Verba et al. (1995) argues that conventional political participation is determined by key factors such as resources (time, money and civic skills), mobilisation (invitations or incentives from organisations and institutions), and motivations (political interest, a sense of civic duty, political efficacy). Within this framework, voting, campaign contributions, party membership, and participation in grassroots organisations constitute characteristic forms of conventional political engagement. Complementarily, Norris (2011) distinguishes between institutional participation (voting, party activity, contact with authorities) and non-institutional or cause-oriented participation (protests, boycotts, digital activism), highlighting that citizens often combine these forms of engagement depending on their levels of trust and value orientations.

Conventional vs. unconventional participation: comparative approaches

Political participation is frequently interpreted along a continuum ranging from conventional to unconventional actions. Research in comparative contexts has shown that conventional participation refers to institutionalised acts directly linked to the political system (for example, voting or participating in parties), whilst unconventional forms encompass extra-institutional activism such as protests, demonstrations, and market-based political actions like boycotts (Bee & Kaya, 2017). This distinction is crucial because unconventional participation often emerges in response to institutional alienation, offering alternative avenues for expressing political demands outside formal channels (Bee & Kaya, 2017). Indeed, research indicates that perceptions of political efficacy and institutional trust influence whether people through conventional or unconventional means, particularly in digitally mediated environments (Valdes, 2026).

These comparative approaches reinforce the view that conventional participation remains fundamental to democratic legitimacy from the outset, whilst unconventional forms take on an increasingly significant role as citizens become disengaged from traditional institutions. Understanding these distinctions helps to justify the analytical focus on conventional participation within contexts marked by political distrust and disengagement.

The reconfiguration of conventional participation in the digital age

Although the core elements of conventional participation (voting, party membership, attending meetings and contacting representatives) have remained relatively stable, their meaning and practice have evolved due to digitalisation and institutional distrust. On the one hand, digital contexts facilitate access to information and the dissemination of political messages, which can strengthen conventional channels by increasing political interest and knowledge. On the other hand, information overload, polarisation and disinformation, combined with a perceived distance from the elites, can erode the motivation to participate through institutional channels, pushing citizens toward alternative activism (Torcal & Montero, 2006).

Recent research on political disaffection and digital participation in Latin America finds that disaffected citizens exhibit distinct patterns of civic behaviour both online and offline, suggesting that digital participation does not simply replace conventional forms but interacts with them in complex ways determined by trust and patterns of engagement (Cazorla-Martín et al., 2022).

Thus, conventional participation exists in a constant state of tension: it remains the legitimate and formal channel for influencing public decision-making, but it competes with alternative modes of participation that may appear more attractive to citizens disenchanted with institutions. This tension is particularly evident in contexts marked by political disaffection, where the relationship between citizens and institutions is increasingly weak.

Political disaffection: concept, components and operationalisation

Political disaffection is conceptualised in this study as a multidimensional construct reflecting the progressive distancing of citizens from democratic institutions and conventional political processes. In line with contemporary research on political behavior, disaffection does not operate as a single attitudinal state, but is expressed through specific and measurable dimensions related to trust and engagement.

In operational terms, political disaffection is not treated as an abstract variable but is measured through two internal dimensions: institutional distrust and political-social distancing, which together capture the cognitive and behavioural manifestations of disengagement.

Institutional distrust as an internal dimension of political disaffection

Institutional distrust refers to negative perceptions regarding the integrity, effectiveness, and legitimacy of public institutions. In this study, it is operationalised through citizens’ assessments of three institutional spheres.

Perception of corruption in democratic institutions

Trust in the judicial system

Trust in the political system

Together, these indicators reflect the extent to which people perceive institutions as untrustworthy or self-serving, constituting a central cognitive component of political disaffection.

Political-social distancing

Political-social disengagement captures the emotional and behavioural separation between citizens and mainstream political life. It is operationalised through:

Level of electoral participation

Degree of political interest

Perceived relevance of elections

This dimension reflects the gap between political awareness and effective civic engagement, indicating a withdrawal from institutional participation despite exposure to information.

Perceived political efficacy as a mediating variable

Perceived political efficacy can theoretically be incorporated as a mediating variable between political disaffection and conventional participation, as disaffection expresses not only an emotional distancing from politics, but also a diminished sense of agency and influence within the political system. In a study on Chile, Disi and Mardones (2019) argue that political disaffection is a construct comprising distrust of actors and institutions, disinterest in politics, internal and external ineffectiveness, and democratic dissatisfaction; furthermore, they show that higher levels of disaffection are associated with lower levels of both conventional and non-conventional political participation. In a similar vein, Pinkleton et al. (1998) found that cynicism towards the political system reduces political efficacy, whilst Pinkleton and Austin (2001) reported that cynicism is negatively associated with efficacy and that efficacy is positively related to political engagement. These findings suggest that part of the inhibitory effect of disaffection on participation operates not only directly, but also through the deterioration of perceived political efficacy.

In the literature on participation, political efficacy has been conceptualised as a key attitudinal resource for civic action, insofar as it increases the perception that participation can be understood, exercised and have an impact within the political system. A multilevel meta-analysis of 48 studies, 184 effects and 51,860 participants from 28 countries concluded that political efficacy has a positive relationship with both online and offline political participation, with no substantial differences in the magnitude of either association. Similarly, Reichert (2016), using data from the German Longitudinal Election Study, found that internal political efficacy indirectly increases the likelihood of participation and that its direct effects are particularly evident in conventional participation. Complementarily, Alaminos-Fernández, Francés García and Santacreu-Fernández (2024), using structural models applied to data from the CIS in Spain, found an effect of political efficacy on electoral participation. Taken together, this evidence supports the idea that, when citizens perceive themselves as politically effective, their willingness to engage in institutionalised forms of participation increases.

In summary, it is reasonable to suggest that political disaffection reduces conventional participation not only because it weakens the subjective link with politics, but also because it erodes the perception of competence and influence that citizens attribute to their own actions within the system. Under this reasoning, perceived political efficacy functions as an intermediate explanatory mechanism: the greater the disaffection, the lower the perceived political efficacy; and the lower the perceived political efficacy, the lower the conventional participation.

Therefore, the following mediation hypothesis can be proposed: H: Perceived political efficacy mediates the relationship between political disaffection and conventional participation. Specifically: H1: political disaffection is negatively associated with perceived political efficacy; H2: perceived political efficacy is positively associated with conventional participation; and H3: political disaffection exerts a negative indirect effect on conventional participation via perceived political efficacy.

Type, design, and scope of the research

This research adopts a quantitative, applied approach, with a non-experimental, cross-sectional design. Its scope is explanatory, as it seeks to analyse the relationship between political disaffection and conventional political participation, as well as to examine the role of perceived political efficacy as a mediating variable and the effect of contextual variables such as digital literacy/digital access and area of residence as moderating variables.

The study does not deliberately manipulate the variables, but rather observes and analyses their behaviour in the real social context. However, by incorporating mediation and moderation models, the research goes beyond a merely descriptive level and aims to assess direct, indirect and conditional effects between the study variables. Due to its cross-sectional nature, the findings should be interpreted in terms of statistical association and not as definitive evidence of causality.

In analytical terms, the theoretical model considers political disaffection as the independent variable, conventional political participation as the dependent variable, perceived political efficacy as the mediating variable, and digital literacy/digital access and area of residence as moderating variables in the model.

Population and sample

The target population consisted of adult citizens registered on the electoral roll in the study area.

For sample selection, non-probabilistic purposive quota sampling was employed, with the aim of approximating the demographic structure of the electoral register based on previously defined control variables. The recruitment process was carried out using a pre-existing panel of potential participants comprising citizens registered on the electoral roll who had previously expressed their willingness to participate in social research. From this panel, individuals who met the established inclusion criteria were invited to participate, respecting quotas by gender and area of residence.

Invitations were distributed via email and instant messaging platforms, including a brief description of the study and a link to the online questionnaire. Data collection continued until 506 valid responses were obtained.

Regarding the characteristics of the sample, 65.4% were male and 34.6% were female. Furthermore, 82.6% of participants lived in rural areas and 17.4% in urban areas.

Procedure

Techniques and instruments for data collection

The technique employed was a survey, conducted collectively using a structured questionnaire administered online. The purpose of the instrument was to measure the core variables of the model: political disaffection, perceived political efficacy, conventional political participation, digital literacy/digital access, and sociodemographic control variables.

The questionnaire was organised into thematic modules

Political disaffection

Political disaffection was measured using a set of items designed to capture citizens’ subjective distancing from the political system. This variable comprised two dimensions: institutional distrust and political-social distancing.

The institutional distrust dimension comprised indicators related to perceptions of corruption, trust in the judicial system and trust in the political system. The political-social distancing dimension included indicators linked to electoral participation, political interest and the importance attributed to electoral processes.

The items were rated on a five-point Likert scale. Higher scores reflected greater levels of political disaffection, following the recoding of items formulated in reverse.

Perceived political efficacy

Perceived political efficacy was incorporated as a mediating variable in the model. It was measured to capture the extent to which participants perceive that they understand politics, that they have the capacity to participate in it, and that their actions can influence public decisions. Conceptually, this variable encompasses both internal political efficacy and external political efficacy.

It was measured using items formulated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from low to high levels of agreement or identification with statements relating to political competence, the capacity to influence, and the political system’s responsiveness to citizens.

Conventional political participation

Conventional political participation was measured using items that assessed the degree of involvement or willingness of participants towards institutionalised and socially accepted forms of political participation, such as voting, attending community or neighbourhood meetings, contacting authorities, signing petitions, participating in forums for public deliberation, or engaging in formal civic activities.

Responses were recorded using a five-point Likert scale. Higher scores indicated a greater level of conventional political participation.

Moderating variables

Two moderating variables were considered

The first was digital literacy/digital access, understood as the level of internet access, availability of devices, and perceived ability to use digital resources related to public information, civic communication, or citizen participation. It is recommended that this variable be measured using a specific module in the questionnaire, employing Likert-scale items or indicators of frequency and access. Its inclusion allows us to assess whether the relationships in the model vary according to participants’ level of digital competence or access.

The second moderating variable was area of residence, recorded as a dichotomous categorical variable: rural and urban. This variable is relevant due to the territorial gaps that may influence how political disaffection and political efficacy translate into participatory behaviours.

Control variables

In addition, sociodemographic and contextual control variables were considered, such as gender, age, educational level and other variables available in the database that might influence conventional political participation. Their inclusion was intended to estimate more accurately the specific effect of the model’s main variables.

Measurement scale and interpretation criteria

The questionnaire items were predominantly assessed using five-point Likert-type scales, which allowed for the quantification of participants’ perceptions, attitudes and behaviours. For variables constructed by aggregation, scores were obtained by averaging or summing the corresponding items, following verification of the theoretical direction of each.

For descriptive purposes, scores could also be classified into low, medium and high levels, using equivalent ranges or technically defined cut-off points. However, for mediation and moderation analysis, continuous scores were preferred, as this approach preserves greater variability and statistical power.

Validity and reliability

The instrument underwent a process of expert validation, involving professionals with experience in social research, quantitative methodology and political analysis. The experts assessed the clarity, relevance and consistency of the items in relation to the theoretical dimensions outlined. Based on their observations, adjustments were made to the wording and conceptual precision prior to the final application.

The reliability of the instrument was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and, where possible, using complementary coefficients such as McDonald’s omega, particularly for those scales comprising more than one dimension. Although a preliminary overall assessment of the instrument yielded an acceptable reliability value, methodologically it is appropriate to interpret internal consistency by subscale, that is, separately for political disaffection, perceived political efficacy, conventional political participation and digital literacy/digital access.

This approach is more appropriate because the instrument does not follow a strictly unidimensional structure, but rather a model with related yet conceptually distinct constructs.

Data analysis

Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 26 and the PROCESS macro for SPSS to estimate mediation, moderation, and conditional mediation models.

In the first stage, a descriptive analysis of all variables was conducted, including frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations, according to the measurement level of each variable. Subsequently, the reliability of the scales was assessed, and compliance with the statistical assumptions relevant to multivariate analysis was verified, such as approximate normality, absence of multicollinearity, linearity, and homoscedasticity.

In the second stage, bivariate associations between the main variables were examined using appropriate correlation coefficients. Next, the simple mediation model was tested, in which perceived political efficacy acted as a mediating variable between political disaffection and conventional political participation. To this end, the indirect effect was estimated using bootstrapping procedures with 95% confidence intervals, which allowed determining whether the mediation was statistically significant.

In the third stage, the moderating role of digital literacy/digital access was assessed using interaction models. To this end, the continuous variables were centred on the mean beforehand in order to reduce multicollinearity issues in the interaction terms. Furthermore, the moderating effect of area of residence was examined using two complementary strategies: interaction analysis with a dichotomous variable and multi-group analysis between participants from rural and urban areas.

Finally, moderated mediation or conditional process models were estimated to determine whether the indirect effect of political disaffection on conventional political participation, via perceived political efficacy, varied according to digital literacy/digital access or area of residence. The results were interpreted using beta coefficients, standard errors, confidence intervals, significance levels, effect size, and changes in explained variance.

Ethical component

The research was conducted in accordance with the principles of intellectual honesty, transparency, respect for the dignity of participants, confidentiality of information and scientific responsibility. All participants provided their informed consent before completing the questionnaire, having received clear information regarding the study’s objectives, the voluntary nature of their participation, the confidential treatment of data and the possibility of withdrawing at any time without any consequences.

The ethical conduct of the study complied with the César Vallejo University Code of Research Ethics, version 02, approved by University Council Resolution RCPU No. 0659–2024-UCV. Furthermore, the research was approved by the institution’s Research Ethics Committee, ensuring that the methodological process met the standards required for the protection of participants and the scientific integrity of the study.

Descriptive analysis and internal consistency

The analysis was carried out on a sample of 506 citizens. As presented in Table 1, the scales showed adequate levels of internal consistency. Political disaffection had a mean of 2.92 (SD = 0.78; α = .910), perceived political efficacy a mean of 3.01 (SD = 0.75; α = .914), conventional political participation a mean of 2.64 (SD = 0.67; α = .815) and digital literacy/access a mean of 2.96 (SD = 0.73; α = .847). In terms of correlations, political disaffection was negatively associated with perceived political efficacy (r = −.535) and with conventional political participation (r = −.324), whilst perceived political efficacy was positively related to conventional political participation (r = .492). Digital literacy also showed positive associations with perceived political efficacy (r = .403) and with conventional political participation (r = .321).

OLS regressions for direct effects and mediation

As presented in Table 2, a series of OLS regressions were conducted to test the main hypotheses. All models included age, gender, marital status, educational attainment and income as covariates. First, the effect of political disaffection on perceived political efficacy was estimated. The results showed that political disaffection was negatively and significantly associated with perceived political efficacy (b = −0.457, SE = 0.037, p < .001), supporting the hypothesis that higher levels of disaffection are linked to lower perceptions of political efficacy.

Secondly, the total effect of political disaffection on conventional political participation was assessed. As shown in Table 1, political disaffection was negatively and significantly associated with conventional participation (b = −0.268, SE = 0.036, p < .001). Subsequently, upon incorporating perceived political efficacy as a mediator into the model, it was positively and significantly associated with conventional political participation (b = 0.378, SE = 0.041, p < .001), whilst the direct coefficient of political disaffection on participation was reduced to b = −0.095 (SE = 0.039, p = .014). This reduction in the direct effect suggests the presence of partial mediation.

As also reported in Table 2, the perceived political efficacy model explained 34.2% of the variance, whilst the conventional political participation model explained 18.3% in the total effect equation and 30.3% when the mediating variable was included. This implies an increase of approximately 12 percentage points in the explained variance following the inclusion of perceived political efficacy, reinforcing its explanatory relevance within the proposed model.

Indirect effects: mediation by perceived political efficacy

Before formally testing the indirect effect, the reduction in the direct effect of political disaffection on conventional participation was examined descriptively. As shown in Table 2, the coefficient fell from −0.268 to −0.095, representing an approximate 64.5% reduction in the initial effect, which is consistent with substantive mediation.

To formally test the mediation, a bootstrap procedure equivalent to PROCESS Model 4 was estimated. The results showed that the total indirect effect of political disaffection on conventional political participation, via perceived political efficacy, was significant and negative (effect = −0.173, bootstrap EE = 0.024, 95% CI [−0.223, −0.128]). Given that the confidence interval did not include zero, it is concluded that perceived political efficacy significantly mediates the relationship between political disaffection and conventional political participation. However, as the direct effect remained significant in the final model, the mediation should be interpreted as partial rather than total. In substantive terms, these results indicate that greater political disaffection not only directly reduces conventional participation, but also diminishes citizens’ perception of political efficacy, which in turn restricts their involvement in institutionalised forms of participation.

Moderation by digital literacy/access

In response to the peer reviewer’s observation, digital literacy/access was incorporated as a moderator of the relationship between political disaffection and perceived political efficacy. To this end, an interaction model equivalent to PROCESS Model 7 was estimated, using mean-centred variables to reduce multicollinearity.

As presented in Table 3, political disaffection maintained a significant negative effect on perceived political efficacy (b = −0.438, SE = 0.035, p < .001), whilst digital literacy was positively associated with perceived political efficacy (b = 0.280, SE = 0.043, p < .001). Importantly, the interaction between the two variables was significant (b = 0.136, SE = 0.047, p = .004), indicating that digital literacy moderates the strength of the relationship between political disaffection and perceived political efficacy.

As also reported in Table 3, the inclusion of the interaction term increased the explained variance of the perceived political efficacy model from R² = .395 to R² = .405, i.e. a ΔR² ≈ .010. Although the increase is moderate, it was statistically significant and theoretically interpretable.

The simple slope análisis, also presented in Table 3, showed that the negative effect of political disaffection on perceived political efficacy was strongest when digital literacy was low (b = −0.538, SE = 0.048, p < .001), of intermediate magnitude at the average level (b = −0.438, SE = 0.035, p < .001) and less intense when digital literacy was high (b = −0.339, SE = 0.051, p < .001). Consequently, digital literacy acts as a moderating factor: it does not eliminate the negative effect of disaffection, but it does weaken it.

Moderation by area of residence

We also examined whether area of residence (0 = rural; 1 = urban) moderated the relationship between perceived political efficacy and conventional political participation. To this end, a model equivalent to PROCESS Model 14 was estimated.

As presented in Table 3, perceived political efficacy was positively associated with conventional political participation (b = 0.339, SE = 0.043, p < .001) and that the interaction between perceived political efficacy and area of residence was significant (b = 0.253, SE = 0.094, p = .007). This implies that the effect of perceived political efficacy on conventional participation varies by region and is stronger in urban areas.

The simple slopes análisis, aslo reported in Table 3, confirmed this pattern. In the rural population, perceived political efficacy significantly predicted conventional participation (b = 0.339, SE = 0.043, p < .001). In the urban population, the effect was considerably greater (b = 0.592, SE = 0.090, p < .001). Therefore, area of residence acts not only as a descriptive covariate, but as a genuine contextual condition that alters the strength of the relationship between perceived efficacy and participatory behaviour.

Moderated mediation and conditional indirect effects

Given that the model incorporates a moderation in the first path of the indirect process (disaffection → efficacy) and another in the second path (efficacy → participation), conditional indirect effects equivalent to a conditional process framework were estimated.

The results showed that the indirect effect of political disaffection on conventional participation via perceived political efficacy was significant in all scenarios, albeit to varying degrees. When digital literacy was low and residence was rural, the indirect effect was −0.182 (95% CI [−0.240, −0.128]); when digital literacy was low and residence was urban, the effect increased in magnitude to −0.321 (95% CI [−0.440, −0.213]). In contrast, with high digital literacy, the indirect effect decreased in both rural (−0.115, 95% CI [−0.163, −0.073]) and urban areas (−0.202, 95% CI [−0.293, −0.125]).

These findings point to two complementary patterns. First, higher levels of digital literacy reduce the strength of the negative indirect effect of political disaffection, confirming its protective role. Second, the component of perceived political efficacy translates more strongly into conventional participation in urban areas, meaning that the total indirect effect is greater in that group.

Multi-group comparison by area of residence

Following the reviewer’s suggestion, an exploratory multi-group comparison was also carried out by area of residence. In the rural group (n = 418), the model—which included political disaffection, perceived political efficacy and covariates—explained 28.1% of the variance in conventional participation (R² = .281). In this group, perceived political efficacy was a positive and significant predictor (b = 0.335, SE = 0.044, p < .001) and political disaffection maintained a significant negative direct effect (b = −0.101, SE = 0.042, p = .016).

In the urban group (n = 88), the model explained 45.4% of the variance (R² = .454). Here, perceived political efficacy had an even stronger effect on conventional participation (b = 0.642, SE = 0.109, p < .001), whilst the direct effect of political disaffection ceased to be significant (b = −0.067, SE = 0.100, p = .502). This pattern reinforces the interpretation that the link between perceived political efficacy and conventional political participation is stronger in an urban context, whilst in a rural context political disaffection retains greater direct influence.

With regard to the proposal presented in the article, it is an integrated model of conventional participation designed specifically to address political disaffection in Lambayeque. Its main objective is to reduce the medium and high levels of disaffection revealed by the study’s findings, capitalising on the high political interest observed in these populations to promote their political engagement. The model pursues this objective through three components: regulatory and institutional reform, a comprehensive mechanism for conventional participation, and the strengthening of civic education and digital literacy, which work together to address different dimensions of political disaffection.

Firstly, axes 1 and 2 focus on the institutional dimension, proposing the updating and effective implementation of participation regulations, active transparency, citizen observatories and hybrid public hearings. This axis addresses institutional mistrust and perceptions of corruption through mechanisms that increase transparency and improve the visibility of public actions. Secondly, axis 3 proposes a multi-channel framework for conventional participation that integrates in-person channels (assemblies and participatory budgeting) and digital channels (online consultations, live-streamed sessions and virtual forms), with differentiated criteria for inclusion and accessibility for urban and rural areas. In this way, the model addresses the political and social alienation identified in the study by overcoming the geographical, technological and socio-economic barriers that currently hinder participation.

Finally, axis 4 focuses on building civic culture, civic education, digital literacy, leadership training and advocacy campaigns that emphasise the importance of voting and citizen oversight. This axis is underpinned by empirical evidence showing that, although there is genuine political interest, this does not translate into participation or the use of conventional mechanisms. In essence, the proposal is not a mere t of participation and disengagement; it is anchored in prescriptive models from the literature, particularly Dahl’s participatory democracy and Verba’s civic voluntarism. In this way, the article moves from a general discussion to an operational model that directly links the empirical findings with a normative, institutional and pedagogical framework aimed at rebuilding the relationship between citizens and political institutions.