Political Socialization Patterns
1
Political Socialization Patterns in Younger and Older American Adolescents
Abstract
Through a survey of more than 1,200 pairs of teenagers and their parents, this study
examined what factors lead to political knowledge and political participation in young children.
We also examined whether these factors changed as children aged. Tweens (12-14 years old)
seemed to rely more on parental political involvement and family political discussion for their
political knowledge, while teens (15-18) relied more on finding knowledge through school and
the media. In diagramming how knowledge moved to participation however, political efficacy or
the belief that their actions made a difference were the largest predictors for tweens and teens.
The study suggests that programs designed to get children interested and participating in politics
should focus on developing self-efficacy instead of simply imparting knowledge or political
opinions.
Political Socialization Patterns
2
Introduction
In the 2008 presidential election, an estimated 23 million 18- to 29-year-olds voted,
representing the second-largest turnout of youth voters in American history (Willis, 2009). More
than 65 percent, in fact, voted for President Obama. But it is unlikely and problematic to ascribe
the record numbers of young votes exclusively on the charismatic candidate seeking to make
history. In fact, political socialization, the process that leads young people to learn about, think
about and participate in a democracy, probably began long before any of them were eligible to
vote.
The goal of this study is to explore when political socialization begins and whether the
causal processes that drive it change over time. Using a study of more than 1,200 children/parent
pairs who filled out a mail survey in the spring of 2008, about six months before the election, we
examine what factors lead children ages 12-18 to participate politically, either online or off, and
how their age affects the process. We define political socialization is a network of responses in
cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions. We focus on the differential impact of structural,
demographic, and cognitive variables on this network of responses while creating two groups of
young respondents: “tweens” (aged 12-14) and “teens” (aged 15-17).
Literature Review
Adolescent development of political self: Influence of family, school and news media
Eveland, McLeod and Horowitz (1998) found age to be a significant predictor for
political knowledge. As children got older, the influence of news media exposure on political
knowledge was greater for older children rather than younger. News media, however, are just
Political Socialization Patterns
3
one factor in political knowledge acquisition. Other developmental aspects of adolescence need
to be examined if we wish to understand the process of political socialization. Foremost among
these are political identity development and a sense of political efficacy.
Early studies in political socialization assumed the political system or society and its
socialization agents were relatively effective in transmitting certain basic political values or
information, and that the individual absorbed these without much personal interpretation
(Torney-Purta, 1995; Easton & Dennis, 1969; Greenstein, 1965; Jennings & Niemi, 1968). These
studies failed to consider the fact that adolescents go through a phase where they critically
question what parents and school teach. Adolescents themselves can play an active role in their
political identity formation once motivated to follow news and participate in conversations,
Kiousis, McDevitt, & Wu (2005) found, thereby refuting the transmission model of political
socialization. Jennings and Niemi (1974) also found the parent-adolescent correlation in terms of
political opinion was low, indicating parents’ political views did not necessarily transmit to their
teenagers.
Erikson’s (1966) theory of development states that an identity search begins in early
adolescence, and internal and external experiences during childhood and adolescence are lead to
a commitment to a particular values and beliefs. Many adolescents go through the stage of
searching for their identity and will question parents’ instructions and seek autonomous decisions.
Marcia (1980) said adolescents identity formation relies on whether they have explored various
alternatives and made firm commitments to an occupation, a religious ideology or political
values. Adolescents’ effort to influence parents, and to outright provoke them in some cases, can
cause a shift in the structure of family communication, reflecting the child’s desire for autonomy
(McDevitt, 2005).
Also, identity search leads to more emphasis on peers. McDevitt and Kiousis (2007)
found that in terms of political activism, family and school acted as socialization agents
Political Socialization Patterns
4
promoting compliant voting, while peer group discussion fostered political activism. Such
results suggest political socialization is not necessarily a process of inculcation and enculturation
controlled by the adults. Once we acknowledge the autonomy seeking of adolescence done
through peer interaction, self-identification with unconventional citizenship and activism can be
promoted.
In addition, early political socialization literature did not address the possibility that the
political voices of adolescents may influence the parents. McDevitt and Chaffee (2002) defined
this as “trickle-up politicization,” and found there are ample possibilities for adolescents to not
merely follow the parents political identification and political behavioral patterns. Socialization,
or re-socialization of the parents is also possible. The environment that makes this ‘trickle-up’
influence possible is school.
In school, adolescents are exposed to political values and ideas that may be different from
what they grew up with in their family or from their peers. Schools potentially provide social
interaction that represents a level of political stimulation and communication that may not be
available from parents at home (Kiousis & McDavitt, 2008). School intervention, such as the
Kids Voting USA, was found to not only encourage adolescents to be politically interested and
knowledgeable, but also it helped lead them to a more motivated discussion in school (McDevitt,
2005; McDevitt & Chaffee, 2002). Thus, it is possible to expect that even for a politically active
teenager who follows his parents’ political actions and party identification, school will provide
the public sphere where he can hear about different arguments. Exposure to political diversity,
which may not be available within a family environment, can also act as a motivator for
teenagers to act differently from their parents.
Younger teens or tweens are likely to still be in the stage of asking questions about
political values, or even be at the foreclosure stage, which Marcia (1980) defines as being
Political Socialization Patterns
5
committed to some identity without going through the crisis of deciding what really suits them
best. In addition, they may also feel politics is removed from their everyday lives. By late
adolescence, many young men and women achieve a sense of identity (Shaffer, 2009). Not only
will older adolescents feel more of a need to affiliate, commit and feel responsible to politics
(Sherrod, Flanagan, & Youniss, 2002), but they will also have had ample time to go through all
the possible options in their search for a political identity. They may reach a stage where they
personally commit to the values. In fact, family communication patterns were no longer related
to older adolescents’ level of political interest, or political knowledge (Meadowcroft, 1986),
implying that once children gain adequate skills, they are able to internalize, comprehend fully
and act in ways of their own. If anyone in this age group shows identical political perspective
with their parents, they have most likely chosen to follow their parents’ point of view, instead of
merely doing what they have been told.
The news media play a crucial role for adolescents who actively ask questions about their
political values and identities. Media helps adolescents start to seek autonomy and independence
from their parents and look for sources outside of family. Adoni (1979) argued mass media serve
as socializing agents by providing a direct link to the content adolescents need to develop
political values and contribute to the social contexts where they can exercise value orientations.
Now, the Internet provides a direct outlet that can be used whenever there is a need for
information, and it has been found to be the most often used political news outlet for adolescents
(Gross, 2004).
As the capacity to think about political matters begins in adolescence (Eveland, McLeod,
& Horowitz, 1999), young people start to mentally process the abstract ideas and concepts that
serve as the bases for politics. As the adolescents’ cognitive ability allows them to elaborate on
the news and feel efficacious about their political opinion, they will go through the process of not
only discovering what they believe in terms of politics but also understand what others’
Political Socialization Patterns
6
perspectives are. Initially, the family communication and parental participation will guide the
adolescents to be exposed and build interest in political behavior and later school curricula such
as the Kids Voting program, and the news that they decide to follow can equip the adolescents to
make political decisions which reflect their own attitudes (Meirick & Wackman, 2004). In sum,
the first two research hypothesis can be stated as followed:
H1: For teens, school education and news media use will be significant predictors of
political knowledge, traditional political participation, and online political participation,
while family communication and parental political participation will not.
H2: For tweens, family communication and parental political participation will be
significant predictors of political knowledge, traditional political participation, and online
political behavior, while school and news media use will not.
Development of political efficacy
Another important psychological aspect of political socialization is the development of
political efficacy. Political efficacy is conceptually defined as “the feeling that political and
social change is possible, and that individual citizen can play a part in bringing about the change
(Campbell, Gurin, & Miller, 1954).” Political efficacy is recognized to contain two separate
components: internal efficacy referring to beliefs about one’s own competence to understand and
to participate effectively in politics, and external efficacy which refers to beliefs about the
responsiveness of governmental authorities and institutions to citizen demands (Kenski & Stroud,
2006).
Many studies have tried to find the antecedents of increasing political efficacy. Focus
group interviews by Wells and Dudash (2007) suggested many young voters do not feel they
have enough knowledge to participate, thereby establishing a connection between political
knowledge and political efficacy. Gniewosz, Noack, and Buhl (2009) found that supporting and
transparent parent-child interactions, and an open, transparent and positive classroom climate
Political Socialization Patterns
7
1
was negatively related to adolescents’ political alienation. The type of news media adolescents
used also influenced their level of political efficacy. Late-night TV shows (Hoffman &
Thompson, 2009), campaign messages, political advertising, and debates (Kaid, McKinney, &
Tedesco, 2007) directly targeted to young voters (McKinney & Banwart, 2005) increased
adolescents’ and college students’ political efficacy.
Political efficacy is also an important predictor of adolescents’ current and future political
participation. Hoffman and Thompson (2009) found political efficacy significantly mediated the
effects of late-night TV viewing on civic participation, such as joining student government,
debate club, and similar youth organizations or volunteering for any neighborhood or civic group.
Vecchione and Caprara (2009) argued efficacy predicted engagement in political manifestations,
donation to the political associations, contacting politicians or working for a political party.
Similarly, the Rock the Vote campaign on MTV increased college students’ intention to vote
(McKinney & Banwart, 2005). While civic and political participation as a teenage is not the
same as voting as an adult, these behaviors in early adolescence not only predicted participation
in late adolescence, but also the level of civic engagement in young adulthood, after they reached
the age to vote (Zaff, Malanchuk, & Eccles, 2008).
On the other hand, political cynicism reflects low external efficacy (Baumgartner &
Morris, 2006; Hoffman & Thompson, 2009). Cynicism and decreased external political efficacy
has been found to detract from current and future political activities, especially for adolescents
(Kaid, et al., 2007; Rodgers, 1974). Studying what could influence the political efficacy and
cynicism of black children, Rodgers (1974) found increased political knowledge correlated
positively with political cynicism and decreased political efficacy. Bandura (2006) said people
who generally believe they can achieve desired changes through their collective voice and view
Political alienation is defined as citizens’ subjective feelings about their abilities to affect the political system’s
performance at the individual level. Four dimensions political alienation was defined to be (a) political
powerlessness, (b) political meaninglessness, (c) political normlessness, and (d) political isolation (See Gniewosz, et
al., 2009)
1
Political Socialization Patterns
8
their governmental system as trustworthy tend to participate actively in conventional political
activities, whereas the apathetic are more likely to be disaffected. While Rodgers’ study did not
examine whether these African American adolescents showed high voting rates in the future, he
did try to explain the lower political participation rate of young African Americans through their
low political efficacy and high political cynicism.
Studies examining the role of political efficacy in terms of political socialization have not
answered the question asking ‘when’ efficacy about one’s role in politics starts to develop. That
is one of the main research question this study examines. It can be inferred from the studies
linking political knowledge and political efficacy that teens who have a better understanding of
and enough information about politics would feel more efficacious compared to tweens.
However, based on the political cynicism research, it is also possible that teens have learned that
the political activities they participate or the future votes they cast might not make much
difference, resulting in increased political cynicism and leading them to feel less efficacious.
Some studies do show that the naïve belief and admiration towards politicians that was found to
be high in early elementary school years diminished by the time children went to middle school
(Easton & Dennis, 1969; Greenstein, 1965). Because of the mixed results on the age difference
in political efficacy, we propose the following hypotheses.
H3: Political efficacy will be a stronger predictor of political participation, both online
and off, for teens than tweens.
On the other hand, it can be inferred from the literature that the level of political efficacy
that teens or tweens feel will mediate the relationship between education from socialization
agents and their participation in political activities.
H4: Political efficacy will mediate the influence of family communication, parental
political participation and school education on political socialization (traditional
participation, and online political participation).
Methods
Political Socialization Patterns
9
The authors obtained a nationwide sample of teenagers and their parents between May
20 and June 25, 2008 using Synovate, a commercial survey research firm. Synovate employs a
stratified quota sampling technique to recruit respondents. Initially, the company acquires
contact information for millions of Americans from commercial list brokers, who gather
identifying information from drivers’ license bureaus, telephone directories, and other
centralized sources. Large subsets of these people are contacted via mail and asked to indicate
whether they are willing to participate in periodic surveys. Small incentives are offered, such as
pre-paid phone cards, for participation.
Rates of agreement vary widely across demographic categories. For example, five to ten
percent of middle class recruits typically consent, compared to less than one percent of urban
minorities. It is from this pre-recruited group of roughly 500,000 people that demographically
balanced samples are constructed for collection. To achieve a representative pool of respondents,
Synovate created a stratified sample that reflected the properties of the population within each of
nine census divisions in terms of household income, population density, age, and household size.
This starting sample is then adjusted within a range of subcategories that include race, gender,
and marital status in order to compensate for expected differences in return rates (see Shah, Cho,
Eveland & Kwak, 2005; Shah et al., 2007 for details).
For the purposes of this study, this technique was used to generate a sample of
households with children age 12-17. A parent in the selected households was contacted via mail,
asked to complete an introductory portion of they survey and then to pass the survey to the 12-17
year old child in the household who most recently celebrated a birthday. This child answered a
majority of the survey content and then returned the survey to the parents to complete and return.
This sampling method was used to generate the initial sample of 4,000 respondents for the 2002
Life Style Study. Of the 4,000 mail surveys distributed, 1,325 responses were received, which
represents a response rate of 33.1 percent against the mailout. A small number of these responses
Political Socialization Patterns 10
were omitted to do incomplete or inconsistent information, resulting in a slightly smaller final
sample. In all, the study examines 1,291 teens between the ages of 12 and 17. We divided
respondents into two age groups: tween, with 614 participants, and teens, with 617.
To begin, we used confirmatory factor analysis to create scales to measure independent
and dependent variables. We measured political knowledge with three questions that asked
participants the following political questions: Which political party is more conservative? Which
political party controls the House of Representatives? Which political party did Ronald Reagan
belong to when he was president? A correct answer was scored 1, while incorrect responses were
0. On a scale of 0-3, tweens had a mean score of less than 1, while teens’ mean was 1.11.
We measured efficacy with two questions that asked how influential the respondents
thought they were among their friends and how often their friends sought their opinions. The
questions had a statistically significant correlation at the p<.01 level.
Online political participation combined questions about how often the young participants
used the following Internet features to discuss politics: social networking sites, news Web sites,
political blogs, e-mail, text messages and online videos (Cronbach’s =.860). Offline political
participation was an aggregation of questions about how frequently they did volunteer work,
contributed money to a campaign, attended rallies or speeches, worked for candidates or
displayed a candidate’s button or sticker (Cronbach’s =.818).
Results
The main question this study asked was what difference exists, if any, between tweens, or
those 12-14, and teens, those 15-17, in the political socialization process. To begin to answer this,
our analysis began with an independent samples t test to identify possible differences between
tweens and teens (See Table 1). Statistically significant mean differences existed in four areas:
Internet news use, learning about politics in school, political knowledge and online political
Political Socialization Patterns 11
participation. In all four, teens were more likely to participate in those areas than tweens.
Teens in the study used the Internet more for news and said they learned more about politics in
school than tweens, which supported H1.They also had significantly greater political knowledge
and much higher online political participation. Tweens also scored lower on parental political
involvement and family talk, but neither of these differences was statistically significant. This
could suggest that H2: Tweens’ knowledge and participation would be predicted more by family
communication and parental political involvement. However, the t tests do not predict any of the
dependent variables in the study.
To do that, we set up linear regressions for tweens and teens separately to see which of
the demographic, school and family communication variables would predict our three
socialization measures. For knowledge (see Table 2), the most significant predictors for tweens
and teens were income (=.1, .144, p<.01), parent’s education (=.16, .18, p<.01), and talking
about politics with the family (=.21, .2, p<.01). This suggests partial support for H2, but not for
H1. The literature suggests family talk would be a significant predictor for tweens and not
necessarily for teens. It also suggests teens’ political discussion at school and media use would
also significantly predict their knowledge.
When looking at online political participation (see Table 3), we found partial support for
H2 and H1. Newspaper use (=.14, p<.01), Internet news use (=.1, , p<.05), and family talk
(=.12, p<.01) were all significant predictor for tweens, along with learning about politics in
school (=.2, p<.01), which was contrary to what we supposed in H1. For teens, learning about
politics in school was the most significant predictor (=.23, p<.01), which supported H1, but
family talk was also statistically significant at the p<.01 level with a =.17.
The pattern of partial support for H1 and H2 continued when examining offline political
participation (see Table 4). Tween participation was predicted most strongly by parental political
Political Socialization Patterns 12
involvement (=.436, p<.01), which supported H2. But learning about politics in school
(=.25), was also significant at the p<.01 level along with Internet news use (=.11), which did
not support the hypothesis. For teens TV news use (=.1), Internet news use (=.15), and
learning about politics in school (=.22) were significant predictors at the p<.01 level, which
supported H1. But parent political involvement was the most significant predictor at =.4, p<.01.
These regressions suggest that another mediating variable may better explain the
differences in political involvement between tweens and teens. We added our efficacy measure
to the regressions to test H3: Efficacy will predict participation more for teens than tweens. In
two regressions of online and offline participation we found only partial support for this
hypothesis. For both tweens and teens efficacy was a statistically significant predictor of online
(=.16, .12, p<.01) participation (see Table 6) and offline (=.11, .15, p<.01) participation (see
Table 7). The strongest predictor for tweens and teens of online use was Internet news use
(=.24, .30, p<.01), and for offline it was parental political involvement (=.43, .4, p<.01). To
understand why, we predicted efficacy for tweens and teens (see Table 5) and found that tweens
relied on newspaper use (=.14, p<.01), family talk (=.12, p<.01) and learning about politics in
school (=.2, p<.01), while teens relied only on family talk (=.17, p<.01) and learning about
politics in school (=.23, p<.01) to predict efficacy. This suggested that adding efficacy to the
model changes the dynamic of the other variables.
To test H4: whether efficacy mediates the political socialization process for tweens and
tweens, we added set up path analysis models in Amos, a structural equation modeling software
package from SPSS, placing knowledge and efficacy between parental influence, school and
family discussion. We adjusted the models for the best fit (see Figures 1 and 2) and found that
for both tweens and teens, efficacy had the largest standardized regression weight (=.32, .26,
p<.01). The Chi square divided by degrees of freedom (CMIN) statistic was 32.905 for tweens
Political Socialization Patterns 13
and 26.887 for teens. Although high, both were less than the CMIN for the independence
model, which accounts for all paths equally. The RMSEA statistic was .230 for tweens and .207
for teens, which was also high, but both numbers were once again less than the independence
model and suggested a good fit.
The path models suggested a political socialization pattern toward offline or real world
participation, such as campaigning for a candidate or donating money. Parent’s political
involvement, family political talk and learning about politics in school were highly correlated
and seemed to work together to predict a child’s political knowledge. Knowledge by itself did
not predict participation. The path between knowledge and participation was not significant in
either model. Knowledge and learning about politics in school, however, worked together to
predict efficacy, which was the greatest predictors of offline participation.
Discussion
The goal of this study was to test a model that accounts for many of the factors leading to
political socialization. As the literature suggests, there is no single issue that will lead youth to
become politically active, especially before they can even vote. A discussion of socialization
needs to include demographic, media, school, and psychological variables. It also cannot
discount the importance of a child’s age. The maturation process affects how much young people
learn and trust the sources of their knowledge. It also impacts how successful they think they will
be in applying their political knowledge.
First, our study suggests that age helps determine how children learn about politics and
what media sources they will choose. Teens, or those 15-17, are more likely to turn to the media
for information about politics, as the literature suggests, because they are trying to find their own
way in the world. They are also more likely to use the Internet to participate politically, our study
Political Socialization Patterns 14
suggests. Younger children or tweens will rely more on family, especially as they try to learn
about the political process.
As children apply their knowledge, the influence of family and even school is not enough.
They have to believe their actions will make a difference, that they or the candidates they choose
to support will be successful. Political self-efficacy mediates the effect that parents, school, and
even the media can have on whether they participate. Efficacy, in fact, is such a strong mediating
variable that it might determine the political socialization process. Translating knowledge to
action requires this belief which is a product of school, family, and media.
We believe efficacy is the reason we found only partial support for many of the
hypotheses the literature suggested. The path models suggested that teens and tweens follow a
similar path to action. Almost everyone starts by following in the parents’ political footsteps.
This can lead to talking as a family about politics and can inform political discussions at school.
All three work together to inculcate in tweens and teens the desire to gain political knowledge.
But simply learning facts and talking about politics at school and at home is not enough. That
knowledge must lead tweens and teens to believe in the system and to think they can make a
difference. Strong political education programs, such as Kids Voting USA, helped instill this
belief in young people. This study suggests it is important for political education in schools and
at home to revolve around self-efficacy if the goal is to create children who will get actively
involved. Even online, where participation is as easy as clicking a button or adding something to
a Facebook page, self-efficacy determines a person’s likelhood to act.
The models tested in this study do not account for all of the variables that lead to selfefficacy. The low fit statistics suggest that other factors are at play. The models also do not
account for demographics, such as income, which the regressions suggest are significant. Further
studies should adjust the model to determine what other factors influence knowledge and
Political Socialization Patterns 15
efficacy formation. These factors could include previous experience or success and the impact
of other models, such as peers or people in the media.
However, we think the significant path between efficacy and participation and the large
adjusted R2 scores of the regression equations suggest that efficacy plays an important role in
political socialization. Schools and parents could help young people to get interested and
participate in building their nations if they focus their efforts on helping them believe they can
make a difference. This belief might be just enough, and in that case, age does not matter.
Political Socialization Patterns 16
References
Adoni, H. (1979). The functions of mass media in the political socialization of adolescents.
Communication Research, 6(1), 84-106.
Bandura, A. (2006). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In F. Pajares & T. C.
Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents: Information Age Publishing.
Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Easton, D., & Dennis, J. (1969). Children in the political system. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Eveland Jr, W. P., & McLeod, J. M. (1998). Communication and age in childhood political
socialization: An interactive model of political development. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, 75(4), 699-718.
Gniewosz, B., Noack, P., & Buhl, M. (2009). Political alienation in adolescence: Associations
with parental role models, parenting styles and classroom climate. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 33(4), 337-346.
Greenstein, F. I. (1965). Children and politics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gross, E. F. (2004). Adolescent Internet use: What we expect, what teens report. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 25(6), 633-649.
Haas, C. (2008). The Obama campaign- Social media. Retrieved December 10th, 2009 from
http://www.barackobama.com.
Hoffman, L. H., & Thompson, T. L. (2009). The effect of television viewing on adolescents'
civic participation: Political efficacy as a mediating mechanism. Journal of Broadcasting
and Electronic Media, 53(1), 3-21.
Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1968). The transmission of political values from parent to child.
The American Political Science Review, 62(1), 169-184.
Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1974). Political character of adolescence: The influence of
families and schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kaid, L. L., McKinney, M., S., & Tedesco, J., C. (2007). Introduction: Political information
efficacy and young voters. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(9), 1093-1111.
Kenski, K., & Stroud, N. J. (2006). Connections Between Internet Use and Political Efficacy,
Knowledge, and Participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 173 192.
Kiousis, S., McDevitt, M., & Wu, X. (2005). The genesis of civic qwareness: Agenda setting in
political socialization. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 756-774.
Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent
psychology. New York: Wiley.
Political Socialization Patterns 17
McDevitt, M. (2005). The partisan child: developmental provocation as a model of political
socialization. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(1), 67-88.
McDevitt, M., & Chaffee, S. (2002). From top-down to trickle-up influence: revisiting
assumptions about the family in political socialization. Political Communication, 19,
281-301.
McDevitt, M., & Kiousis, S. (2007). The red and blue of adolescence: Origins of the compliant
voter and the defiant activist. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(9), 1214-1230.
McKinney, M., S., & Banwart, M. C. (2005). Rocking the youth vote through debate: Examining
the effects of a citizen versus journalist controlled debate on civic engagement.
Journalism Studies, 6(2), 153-163.
Meadowcroft, J. M. (1986). Family communication patterns and political development.
Communication Research, 13(4), 603-624.
Meirick, P. C., & Wackman, D. B. (2004). Kids Voting and political knowledge: Narrowing gaps,
informing votes. Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited), 85(5), 11611177.
Rodgers, H. R., Jr. (1974). Toward explanation of the political efficacy and political cynicism of
black adolescents: An exploratory study. American Journal of Political Science, 18(2),
257-282.
Shaffer, D. R. (2009). Social and personality development (9th ed.). Wadsworth: Cengage
Learning.
Sherrod, L. R., Flanagan, C., & Youniss, J. (2002). Dimensions of citizenship and opportunities
for youth development: The what, why, when, where, and who of citizenship
development. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4), 264–272.
Torney-Purta, J. (1995). Psychological theory as a basis for political socialization research.
Perspectives on Political Science, 24(1), 23.
Vecchione, M., & Caprara, G. V. (2009). Personality determinants of political participation: The
contribution of traits and self-efficacy beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 46,
487-492.
Wells, S. D., & Dudash, E. A. (2007). Wha'd'ya know?: Examining young voters' political
information and efficacy in the 2004 election. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(9),
1280-1289.
Zaff, J. F., Malanchuk, O., & Eccles, J. S. (2008). Predicting positive citizenship from
adolescence to young adulthood: The effects of a civic context. Applied Development
Science, 12(1), 38-53.
Political Socialization Patterns 18
Political Socialization Patterns 19
Tables
Table 1
Independent samples T-test between tweens (12-14) and teens (15-18) on
perceived news bias, political knowledge, online political participation, and
offline political participation.
Tween
N
Household Size
Teen
Mean
614
4.1547
N
617
(1.26588)
Income
614
45.5163
613
2.8858
617
611
1.486
615
608
2.1069
616
610
.7852
614
611
3.4239
615
614
5.0627
611
611
3.3307
617
614
.8893
615
613
2.6436
617
609
1.4828
614
609
1.8440
1.565
.833
1225
2.5277
2.621
1220
1.0439
2.336**
1223
3.4464
.220
1220
5.1783
1.124
1229
3.6697
3.157**
1224
1.1135
3.918**
1229
2.7695
2.374
1225
3.300**
1221
1.218
1221
(.94475)
614
(.90327)
Offline Political Participation
1226
(1.05533)
(.91365)
Online Political Participation
.092
(1.94501)
(.94934)
Political Efficacy
2.8911
(1.82666)
(1.81179)
Political knowledge scale
1229
(1.79454)
(1.78097)
Learned about politics in school
2.283
(2.05059)
(1.77325)
Family Talk
46.2934
(2.82988)
(1.81621)
Parental Polical Involvement
1229
(1.7102)
(2.78146)
Internet news use
-1.414
(.98374)
(1.6309)
Newspaper use
df
(5.91222)
(1.01621)
TV News use (local and network)
4.0535
t
(1.24658)
(6.03083)
Parent's mean education
Mean
1.6661
(1.03492)
614
(1.01646)
Note: * = p < .05, *** = p < .01.
Standard Deviations appear in parentheses below means.
1.9153
(1.03100)
Political Socialization Patterns 20
Table 2
Linear regression analysis predicting knowledge for tweens (12-14) and teens
(15-17). (N = 1,291)
Variable
Tweens
SE(B)
B
β
Teens
SE(B)
B
β
Household Size
.006
.029
.007
-.002
.033
-.002
Income
.016
.007
.100*
.026
.008
.144**
Parent's mean
.149
.041
.160**
.195
.046
.182**
-.004
.025
-.008
.003
.025
.005
Newspaper use
.018
.015
.052
-3.405E-5
.015
.000
Internet news
.004
.022
.007
.021
.021
.042
-.013
.022
-.025
-.021
.025
-.035
Family Talk
.112
.023
.209**
.114
.027
.196**
Learned about
.067
.023
.128
.039
.024
.071
education
TV News use
(local and
network)
use
Parental Polical
Involvement
politics in school
R2
Adjusted R2
.154
.141
.165
.152
Note: *=p<.05, **= p < .01.
Table 3
Linear regression analysis predicting online political participation for tweens (1214) and teens (15-17). (N = 1,291)
Variable
Household Size
Tweens
SE(B)
B
β
Teens
SE(B)
B
β
-.008
.026
-.011
.025
.030
.030
.004
.006
.026
-.004
.007
-.025
-.032
.036
-.036
-.024
.043
-.023
.048
.021
.085*
.051
.023
.083*
Newspaper use
.025
.013
.077*
-.013
.014
-.035
Internet news
.131
.020
.252**
.144
.020
.286**
.082
.019
.160**
.095
.023
.164**
Family Talk
.034
.020
.067
.058
.024
.102*
Learned about
.115
.020
.229**
.092
.022
.172**
Income
Parent's mean
education
TV News use
(local and
network)
use
Parental Polical
Involvement
politics in school
R2
Adjusted R2
Note: *=p<.05, **= p < .01.
..296
.285
.260
.249
Political Socialization Patterns 21
Table 4
Linear regression analysis predicting offline political participation for tweens
(12-14) and teens (15-17). (N = 1,291)
Variable
Tweens
SE(B)
B
β
Teens
SE(B)
B
β
Household Size
.019
.027
.024
.031
.028
.037
Income
.001
.006
.006
.007
.007
.039
-.060
.037
-.060
-.061
.041
-.058
.057
.022
.090*
.059
.022
.097**
Newspaper use
.026
.014
.070
.009
.013
.026
Internet news
.067
.021
.116**
.075
.019
.149**
.250
.020
.436**
.231
.022
.399**
Family Talk
.005
.021
.008
-.022
.023
-.039
Learned about
.142
.021
.252**
.116
.021
.218**
Parent's mean
education
TV News use
(local and
network)
use
Parental Polical
Involvement
politics in school
R2
Adjusted R2
.398
.389
.328
.318
Note: *=p<.05, **= p < .01.
Table 5
Linear regression analysis predicting political efficacy for tweens (12-14) and
teens (15-17). (N = 1,291)
Variable
Tweens
SE(B)
B
β
Teens
SE(B)
B
β
Household Size
-.008
.028
-.011
.000
.030
-.001
Income
-.001
.007
-.009
-.009
.007
-.055
Parent's mean
-.045
.039
-.050
.022
.043
.023
.002
.023
.003
-.013
.023
-.024
Newspaper use
.046
.014
.140**
.007
.014
.020
Internet news
.053
.021
.105*
.015
.020
.032
.046
.021
.090*
-.025
.023
-.047
Family Talk
.063
.022
.121**
.090
.024
.174**
Learned about
.102
.022
.202**
.112
.022
.231**
education
TV News use
(local and
network)
use
Parental Polical
Involvement
politics in school
R2
Adjusted R2
Note: *=p<.05, **= p < .01.
.182
.170
.116
.103
Political Socialization Patterns 22
Table 6
Linear regression analysis predicting online political participation for tweens
(12-14) and teens (15-17) while adding efficacy to the model (N = 1,291)
Variable
Household Size
Tweens
SE(B)
B
β
Teens
SE(B)
B
β
-.007
.025
-.010
.015
.029
.018
.004
.006
.027
-.004
.007
-.021
-.026
.036
-.029
-.025
.042
-.024
.048
.021
.085*
.046
.023
.076*
Newspaper use
.018
.013
.055
-.018
.014
-.051
Internet news
.123
.020
.235**
.151
.019
.301**
.074
.019
.145**
.100
.023
.173**
Family Talk
.025
.020
.048
.046
.024
.081
Learned about
.099
.020
.198**
.077
.022
.146**
.037
.156**
.132
.040
.121**
Income
Parent's mean
education
TV News use
(local and
network)
use
Parental Polical
Involvement
politics in school
Efficacy
R2
Adjusted R2
.155
Note: *=p<.05, **= p < .01.
.316
.304
.281
.269
Political Socialization Patterns 23
Table 7
Linear regression analysis predicting offline political participation for tweens
(12-14) and teens (15-17) while adding efficacy to the model (N = 1,291)
Variable
Tweens
SE(B)
B
β
Teens
SE(B)
B
β
Household Size
.020
.026
.025
.028
.028
.033
Income
.001
.006
.008
.008
.007
.046
-.055
.037
-.055
-.065
.040
-.063
.057
.022
.090**
.057
.022
.095**
Newspaper use
.021
.014
.057
.007
.013
.019
Internet news
.060
.021
.103**
.074
.018
.148**
.244
.020
.426**
.232
.022
.404**
-.003
.021
-.004
-.033
.023
-.059
.130
.021
.231**
.096
.021
.182**
.039
.106**
.161
.039
.147**
Parent's mean
education
TV News use
(local and
network)
use
Parental Polical
Involvement
Family Talk
Learned about
politics in school
Efficacy
R2
Adjusted R2
.119
.408
.398
.341
.330
Political Socialization Patterns 24
Figure 1
Path analysis model examining the mediation effects of knowledge and efficacy
on offline political participation for tweens (N=607) showing only significant
paths
e1
parent
e3
.26
knowledge
.25
.38
family
.24
-.26
.14
offline
.32
efficacy
.41
.23
school
e2
Figure 2
Path analysis model examining the mediation effects of knowledge and efficacy
on offline political participation for teens (N=604) showing only significant paths
e1
parent
e3
.39
knowledge
.27
.32
family
.30
-.21
.08
.26
efficacy
.47
.23
school
e2
offline