Political Socialization in a Media-Saturated World
Summary
Excerpt
Table Of Contents
- Cover
- Title
- Copyright
- About the author(s)/editor(s)
- About the book
- This eBook can be cited
- Contents
- Introduction: Theorizing Political Socialization in a Media-Saturated World
- The Future Voters Panel Study of 2008–2009: Survey Design and Sampling
- Assumptions and Background of Youth Political Socialization Research
- Organization and Overview of the Book
- Conclusion
- Notes
- References
- Section One: Theories of Political Socialization
- Chapter One: The Role of Media Use Motives in the Classic Structural Model of Youth Political Socialization
- The Motives for Making Media Choices
- Family Communication and Political Socialization
- School and Youth Political Socialization
- Method
- Results
- Discussion
- References
- Chapter Two: A Hierarchy of Political Participation Activities in Pre-Voting-Age Youth
- Political Socialization: A Process Model
- Social/Structural Variables
- Communication Variables
- A Hierarchy of Political Participation
- Structural Variables: Family Influence on Youth Participation
- Media Exposure and Political Participation
- Cognitive Variables in Political Socialization
- Open Talk Attitude
- Participation Measures
- Online Political Activity and Traditional Political Participation
- Method
- Predictor Variables
- Criterion Variables
- Control Variables
- Results
- Discussion
- References
- Chapter Three: Political Advertising and the Hierarchy of Political Socialization in Teens
- A Political Socialization Hierarchy
- The Media Choice Model
- News Voices
- Advertising Voice Influences in the Political Socialization Hierarchy
- Method
- The Survey
- Variable Measures
- Results
- Tests of the Hypotheses
- Mediation Analysis
- Discussion
- References
- Chapter Four: Peer Influence in Adolescent Political Socialization: Deliberative Democracy Inside and Outside the Classroom
- Deliberative Democracy: Definitions and Applications
- Family and Peer Influence in Adolescent Political Socialization
- School Education and Deliberative Democracy
- Method
- Description of Sample
- Predictor Variables
- Dependent Variables
- Results
- Discussion
- References
- Chapter Five: Knowledge Gap in a Media-Saturated Presidential Election
- Knowledge Gap Hypothesis
- Children’s Media Use and Children’s Political Knowledge
- Parental Education and Children’s Political Knowledge
- Media Access at Home and Children’s Political Knowledge
- Parental Political Participation and Children’s Political Knowledge
- Method
- Measurement of the Variables
- Results
- Media Access at Home and Children’s Media Use
- Discussion
- References
- Chapter Six: State Policies for Civic Education
- The Knight Foundation Study
- The National Youth Survey
- The National Civics Teacher Survey
- Limitations
- Do Education Policies Affect School Practices?
- Discussion
- Conclusion
- References
- Section Two: Parents and Children
- Chapter Seven: Parenting Styles in Political Socialization: How the Path to Political Participation Begins at Home
- Literature Review
- Parenting Styles
- Parental Mediation
- Children’s Media Use
- School and Peers
- From Motivation to Action
- Method
- Predictor Variables
- Dependent Variables
- Testing Mediation
- Results
- Indirect Effects on Political Interest
- Indirect Effects on Political Knowledge
- Indirect Effects on Offline Participation
- Indirect Effects on Online Participation
- Indirect Effects on Community Participation
- Discussion
- Conclusion
- References
- Chapter Eight: The Importance of Family Communication Patterns and School Civics Experiences
- Literature Review
- Adolescents’ Media Use for News Information
- School and Adolescent Political Socialization
- Family Communication Patterns
- Indicators of Political Engagement
- Family Communication Patterns and Media Use
- Method
- Dataset
- Measures
- Data Analyses
- Results
- Measurement of Family Communication Patterns (FCP) Dimensions
- Tests of the Hypotheses
- Discussion and Conclusion
- References
- Chapter Nine: Predictors of Youth Voting: Parent-Child Relationships and Young Adult News Use
- Media and Political Engagement
- Socializing Effects of Family Environment
- Contemporaneous Effects
- Method
- Panel Study of Income Dynamics and Transition to Adulthood Study
- Measures
- Analysis
- Results
- Discussion
- Conclusion
- References
- Chapter Ten: Talking Politics at the Dinner Table: The Effects of Family Political Communication on Young Citizens’ Normative Political Attitudes
- Interactional Political Socialization in the Family
- Method
- Participants and Procedures
- Measures
- Results
- Discussion
- References
- Chapter Eleven: Social Media and Social Voting in Latino Families: A Strategic Approach to Mobilizing Youth as Information Leaders
- Information Leaders
- The 2012 Campaign
- Method
- Survey
- Textual Analysis
- Results
- Survey
- Textual Analysis
- Discussion
- Notes
- References
- Appendix
- Survey Items
- Section Three: Interactions With Peers and Others
- Chapter Twelve: Youngsters’ Political Talk With Those Outside School and Family: The Hierarchy of Political Socialization
- Literature Review
- Media Influences on Adolescent Political Elaboration and Efficacy
- The effects of political discussions in family and school on elaboration and efficacy
- The Role of Elaboration and Efficacy to Move Beyond Family and School
- Method
- Results
- Discussion
- References
- Chapter Thirteen: From News to Political Knowledge: The Roles of Elaboration and Discussion
- Literature Review
- News Media and Political Knowledge
- Elaboration of News
- Interpersonal Discussion and the News
- Testing the Cognitive Mediation Model
- Method
- Time 1 Predictors
- Political Knowledge
- Results
- Discussion
- Conclusion
- References
- Chapter Fourteen: Communication Norms, Contexts of Socialization, and Youth Civic Development
- Communication Norms and Youth Socialization
- Social Norms and Communication Norms
- The Contexts of Political Socialization
- Data and Methods
- Results
- Predicting News Consumption and Discussion
- Developmental Considerations and Communication Norms
- Communication Norms and Pathways to Engagement
- Conclusions
- References
- Section Four: Youth and Political Knowledge
- Chapter Fifteen: Measurement of Political Knowledge in American Adolescents
- Measurement of Political Knowledge in American Adolescents
- Three Kinds of Political Knowledge
- Literature Review
- Demographics and Three Types of Political Knowledge
- Parent/Youth Communication
- Adolescents’ News Media Use for Political Information
- School-Based Communication Effects
- Method
- Participants
- Data Analyses
- Measures
- Results
- Discussion
- References
- Chapter Sixteen: Political Knowledge and Participation in Teens During Low and High Political Interest Periods of a Presidential Election
- A Model of Political Socialization
- Parental Impact
- Political Education at School
- News Media
- Cognitive/Attitudinal Variables
- Persuasion Efficacy
- Elaboration
- Response Variables
- Method
- Predictor Variables
- Criterion Variables
- Results
- Discussion
- References
- Chapter Seventeen: Political Socialization Patterns in Younger and Older American Adolescents
- Literature Review
- Adolescent Development of a Political Self: Influence of Family, School and News Media
- Development of Political Efficacy
- Methods
- Results
- Discussion
- References
- Section Five: Media Changes
- Chapter Eighteen: Young Citizens’ Use of Digital and Traditional Political Information
- The Changing Political News and Information Landscape
- Method
- Participants
- Measures
- Analysis
- Results
- RQ1: Young Citizens’ Political Information Factors
- RQ2: Young Citizens’ Political Information Factors, Political Ideology, and Campaign Interest
- RQ3: Young Citizens’ Political Information Factors and Political Efficacy
- Discussion
- Limitations
- Practical Implications
- Conclusion
- Note
- References
- Chapter Nineteen: Developing Media Preferences in a Post-Broadcast Democracy
- Literature Review
- Where Do News Preferences Come From?
- A National Election Environment
- Measures
- Relative Entertainment Preference
- Predictor Variables
- Results
- The Malleability of Youth Preferences
- The Uptake of News
- Discussion
- References
- Chapter Twenty: Is Dangerous News Use Dangerous? The Impact of Safe and Dangerous News Use on Political Socialization
- Literature Review
- Biased News
- Elaboration of News
- Method
- Predictor Variables
- Dependent Variables
- Results
- Discussion
- References
- Chapter Twenty-One: The Origins of Media Perceptions: Judgments of News Accuracy and Bias Among Adolescents
- Evaluating News Credibility
- Parent-Child Communication
- School Curriculum
- The “Echo Chamber”
- Mass Media
- Reflection
- Methods
- Survey Design and Sampling
- Measurement: Independent Variables
- Results
- Cross-Sectional Models for News Accuracy
- Cross-Sectional Models for News Bias
- Change Model for News Accuracy
- Change Model for News Bias
- Discussion and Conclusions
- References
- Chapter Twenty-Two: The Impact of News “Voice” on Adolescent Political Efficacy
- Literature Review
- Self-Efficacy and Media Use
- Adolescents and News Use: A Uses and Gratifications Framework
- Elaboration
- The Media Choice Model
- Voice
- Method
- Survey Data Collection
- Measures and Analyses
- Results
- Discussion
- References
- Chapter Twenty-Three: Environmental Political, Civic Engagement and Political Consumerism Among Youth
- Literature Review
- Environmentalism
- Dominant Social Paradigm (DPS) versus New Environmental Paradigm (NEP)
- Research Questions
- Dependent Variables
- Independent Variables
- Method
- Measures
- Results
- Civic Engagement
- Political Engagement
- Political Consumerism
- Summary of Findings
- Discussion
- Imminent Concerns
- Recommendations
- References
- Contributors
Theorizing Political Socialization in a Media-Saturated World
ESTHER THORSON, MITCHELL S. McKINNEY, AND DHAVAN SHAH
Political socialization is the developmental process whereby children and youth learn to relate to their polity—to democratic principles, to political parties, and to the ideas and values associated with the political realm. This book brings together a unique cluster of recent studies examining youth political development during a critical time for such socialization. Specifically, the chapters that follow explore a rapidly changing period when digital communication channels and devices continue to emerge almost on a daily basis, where political content is now available 24/7 thanks to these omnipresent channels and devices, and with political communication content now far more diverse than in the days when only network television, radio and television news, and news magazines constituted our dominant political media.
Also during the period of time when the studies found in this book were conducted (from 2007–2014), the American electorate witnessed the rapid growth of a generation of citizens called Millennials (those individuals born between 1980 and 1997), who represent the first generation to come of age in the new millennium and our very first generation of “digital natives” who have been completely immersed in digital technologies throughout their entire lives. As Palfrey and Gasser (2008) pointed out, “These kids are different. They study, work, write, and interact with each other in ways that are very different from the ways that [other generations] did growing up” (p. 7). In fact, at 53.5 million strong, this peer group—those 18 to 34 years of age—now constitutes our largest cohort of voters; and in 2015 this burgeoning group even surpassed the once-dominant Baby ← ix | x → Boom generation in size (Fry, 2015). The portrait of Millennials that is just now beginning to emerge suggests they are distinctly different from other generations in many important ways, including their political attitudes and civic behaviors (Fingerhut, 2016; Kiley & Dimock, 2014; Thompson, 2014). The collection of research studies found in this book provides crucial understanding of this increasingly influential generation of citizens by offering the very first and most comprehensive investigation of the Millennial generation’s politically formative period, a close examination of the adolescent years during which these youth were being socialized politically.
Another important contribution of the present volume is that many of its chapters examine data that include the parent/child dyad, a study design that greatly enriches our understanding of youth political socialization, but, surprisingly, an approach that has been seldom employed in the current political socialization literature. Investigating the attitudes and behaviors of both parents and their children provides a unique opportunity to examine different demographic variables as well as how the classic variables of political socialization—social structures that include the family, peers, school, and media—affect the socialization process across different generations. As noted, the youth examined in these studies are among the Millennials—that wholly “digital” generation fully immersed in digital devices since the moment they were born. In contrast, their parents are “digital immigrants” (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008) who somewhat later in life have come to adopt such technologies as smartphones and tablets, social media including Facebook and Twitter, hundreds, if not thousands, of cable channels, live-streaming content of all sorts, as well as numerous other digital innovations as they have appeared. Thus, the political socialization of the parents and children that we examine in this book provides a pairing of perhaps the most radically different media experiences of any generation.
The studies that comprise this book provide a unique perspective on youth political socialization during a pivotal period in which the U.S. political climate and electoral system have experienced momentous change. In 2008, the US elected its first African American president, a victory by Barack Obama that was fueled, in part, by a large number of young voters whose engagement in the electoral process was largely facilitated through digital technologies and social media. As McKinney and Banwart (2011) documented, approximately 51% of young citizens (18- to 29-year-olds) cast their ballot in 2008, representing the third highest rate of participation by young voters in a presidential election since 1972.1 Also worth noting, at the same time that young voters increased their 2008 turnout, the rate of older citizens voting (those 30 and over) actually declined from their 2004 level of participation; and this was the very first time since 1972, when 18-year-olds first voted in a presidential election, that young voter participation increased while older citizens’ participation decreased (McKinney & Banwart, 2011, p. 2). While ← x | xi → the youth vote declined slightly in the 2012 presidential election (with an approximately 48% turnout, down from their 51% participation in 2008), voting across all ages in 2012 actually declined (with 62% of all eligible voters participating in the November 2012 election, down from 64% in 2008) (Rill & McKinney, 2014).
With our youngest voters now sustaining more than a decade of improved electoral engagement in U.S. presidential elections, McKinney and Bolton (2016) pointed out that this period of increased voting by young citizens “also coincides with the decade in which political candidates and their campaigns have increasingly adopted new communication technologies and digital media as important tools of campaign communication” (p. 152). Indeed, we find it no coincidence that our youngest citizens—those representatives of the Millennial generation who have been the earliest adopters of all things digital—have become increasingly engaged in the electoral process during this same period. In many of the following studies, a careful examination of youth and their parents’ media use and the influence of media on political attitudes and behaviors provides a comprehensive understanding of the role that so-called “new” and more traditional media play in the political socialization process.
Yet another noticeable change in the U.S. political climate that has intensified throughout the past decade is the rise of a hyperpartisan politics and a markedly polarized electorate (e.g., Abramowitz, 2010; Iyengar, Sood, & Lelkes, 2012). In their examination of political campaign communication, McKinney and Bystrom (2014) described our nation’s growing political alienation and ever-widening political fault lines characterized by a political “discourse of division, difference, and separation” that seeks to:
Construct a political enemy or suggest some other segment of society must be opposed and defeated to protect one’s own interest or values in order to gain or maintain power. Consider just this partial inventory of our many political divides: from red versus blue states; conservatives versus liberals; and young versus older voters; the Occupy movement’s 99% versus the 1% (much like Mitt Romney’s 47% of those “who pay no taxes” vs. those who “take personal responsibility and care for their lives”); or, perhaps the well-established gender gap in American politics pitting female versus male voters; or our regular versus irregular and even non-church-attending neighbors; to our nation’s growing number of ethnic and racial minorities versus Bill O’Reilly’s longed for “traditional white establishment.” Clearly, we have no shortage of differences, divisions, and separations in contemporary American politics. (p. 4)
Particularly during a time of such significant changes in our political landscape, a political-socialization perspective is most helpful in revealing how our current condition may not persist indefinitely. We are beginning to understand, for example, that Millennials’ citizenship norms differ from those of earlier generations, with findings related to this point developed in a number of the studies that make up this book. First, among all citizens, Millennials are least likely to identify with ← xi | xii → political parties, as half of all these young citizens describe themselves as politically independent (compared to approximately one third of the citizens of other generations). Also, perhaps reflecting their willingness to reject political party affiliation, Millennials have great disdain for the hyperpartisanship they believe characterizes contemporary politics, and they particularly dislike the political polarization of today’s “either/or” politics (“Young voters supported Obama less,” 2012, p. 5). In describing this generation’s general view and approach to politics, Kiesa et al. (2007) pointed out that Millennials feel “the political system is full of unnecessary conflict [and] they seek more middle ground with regard to both policies and political parties” (p. 24). Perhaps, therefore, as Millennials become the replacement voters for older generations, we could find that our current condition of political divisions and polarization might well dissipate. Again, a starting point for comprehending what the future of our political culture and electoral processes may be like is to understand the political socialization of our future voters—the very basis of this book.
Readers of the following chapters should not be surprised, given the uniqueness and vast changes that marked the period during which these studies were conducted, to find the application of a number of new and developing theories as well as the introduction of a number of new variables to guide exploration of adolescents’ political attitudes and behaviors and analysis of cross-generational differences. The conceptual, theoretical, and methodological innovations that characterize this scholarship are particularly valuable for those interested in understanding how today’s youth develop their ideas of the political, how they become part of political environments and electoral processes, and what this socialization may portend for our nation’s politics in future years.
THE FUTURE VOTERS PANEL STUDY OF 2008–2009: SURVEY DESIGN AND SAMPLING
Many of the following chapters report analyses of data from a three-wave national survey collected among parents and youth measuring political interest, attitudes, communication behaviors, and media use during the 2008 U.S. presidential election. The collection of these data was coordinated by a consortium of communication and political science faculty from six major universities throughout the U.S., and the shared dataset is referenced throughout this book as the Future Voters Study.2 Each chapter utilizing one or more of the three waves of survey responses from the national panel study will note that its data were drawn from the Future Voters Study; and to limit repetition throughout these chapters, particularly to save space within the various chapters’ Method sections, we provide here as part of the book’s Introduction a detailed description of the national survey’s study design ← xii | xiii → and sampling method. This general description of the Future Voters Study should be used to supplement each chapter’s more detailed methodological description and explanation of analysis.
The Future Voters Study survey data were collected from a single panel of respondents in two waves during 2008 and a third wave in 2009. The first wave was gathered between May 20 and June 25, 2008, by Synovate, a commercial survey research firm, using a four-page mailed questionnaire. The second wave was gathered from these same respondents between November 5 and December 10, 2008, immediately after the presidential election and again using a four-page mailed questionnaire. The third wave was collected between May and June 2009, 6 months following the presidential election.
Synovate employs a stratified quota-sampling technique to recruit its respondents. Initially, the survey firm 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, 5% to 10% of middle class recruits typically consent, compared with less than 1% of urban minorities. It is from this pre-recruited group of roughly 500,000 people that demographically balanced samples are constructed for collection of data. To achieve a representative pool of respondents, stratified quota sampling procedures are employed. That is, the sample is drawn to reflect the properties of the population within each of the 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 (for details see Shah, Cho, Eveland, & Kwak, 2005; Shah et al., 2007).
For the purposes of our Future Voters Study, this technique was used to generate a sample of households with children age 12–17. A parent in each selected household was contacted via mail and asked to complete an introduction portion of the survey, and then to pass the survey to the 12–17-year-old child in the household who had most recently celebrated a birthday. This child answered a majority of the survey content and then returned the survey to the parents to complete. Of the 4,000 mail surveys distributed, 1,325 responses were received in Wave 1, which represents a response rate of 33.1% against the mailout. A handful of responses was omitted due to incomplete or inconsistent information. As a result of these omitted responses, 1,255 questionnaires were mailed November 4 (Wave 2). Of the re-contact surveys distributed, 738 were returned, for a panel retention rate of 55.7% and a response rate against the mailout of 60.4%. Due to some mismatches ← xiii | xiv → in the age of the child within the household who completed the first and second survey, 163 surveys were dropped (and about a third of the mismatches were due to the adolescent respondents failing to provide information on their age). Thus, the final sample for the 12–17-year-old Wave 2 panel was N = 575. Finally, the third panel of the study was fielded in May and June of 2009, 6 months after Barack Obama’s election. Of the recontact surveys distributed, 305 were returned, for an overall panel retention rate of 41%.
Assumptions and Background of Youth Political Socialization Research
This volume of scholarship is grounded on the primary assumption that research must extend beyond a sole focus on the adolescence life stage and consider how dynamics between generations occur if reliable and actionable models of civic and political socialization are developed. Almost all chapters in this book focus on the political interest, perceptions, knowledge, media use, and participation of youth 11–18 years of age, and also of their parents, during the 2008 presidential, 2010 mid-term, and 2012 presidential elections. Throughout these studies, the broader view of political socialization research developed over the last 40 years is integrated, at times questioned, and updated based on the findings of the research presented in the following chapters. In fact, this book—containing work by several of our most noted political communication scholars—represents the authoritative statement on our current understanding of political socialization research.
An updating of previously accepted models of political socialization is particularly needed as our once “traditional” environment of official news sources for political information has drastically changed. For example, with a strong tendency toward televised entertainment, youth—and their parents—are now exposed to high doses of political and campaign messaging that appear in the form of celebrity endorsements, TV dramas, movies, soap operas, talk shows, political satire, and other entertainment programming. Such ubiquitous political communication may well spur further information-seeking behaviors and activities, including political conversation with peers and also political discussion in the classroom and at home. Indeed, our media-saturated world is one saturated with political messages of all types and forms.
The broad model of socialization that helps organize the work represented in this book is a learning process that traverses from social structural variables through media, communication, and psychological variables to responses that have been included under the general rubric of “political.” Whereas becoming “political” involves a myriad of responses, we consider socialization into the political as a hierarchy of responses, with some youth traversing to the highest levels of the hierarchy (e.g., high levels of behavioral participation in campaigns and elections), ← xiv | xv → while others remain uninterested in politics and fairly ignorant of political processes such as elections, political issues and policies, and democratic political values. Within this overall view of the political socialization process, the following chapters introduce a number of theories and many new and important variables.
Organization and Overview of the Book
Section I: Theories of political socialization. The first of the book’s five sections features chapters that focus on various theories that guide our understanding of political socialization processes, including a newly advanced Hierarchy Model of Political Socialization, theories employing notions of deliberative democracy, knowledge gap theory, and meta-level theory that explores the links between state requirements for civic education in high schools and youth political activity. Five of the six chapters included in Section I study socialization processes at the level of the individual; that is, looking at parental and/or child variables. Chapter 6, however, explores socialization in terms of sociological variables; that is, an examination of state policies guiding the teaching of civics education in public schools. Several of the chapters found in Section I also develop the importance of both interpersonal and mediated communication in the socialization process, exploring how these variables interact with one another and with other variables.
Chapters 1, 2, and 3 advance a new theoretical perspective on political socialization, the Hierarchy Model of Political Socialization. Chapter 1 posits that because “being political” can express itself in so many ways (e.g., talking to others about politics, sharing political opinions via social media, attending political events), these various activities need to be conceptually organized. The “hierarchy” model of socialization posits that the political expressions of youth responsiveness and participation in politics can be measured in terms of how much time and effort different activities may involve. At the “least effortful” level, youth are exposed in the home to family-produced and media-produced information and attitudes about politics. While it is clear that different families have very different practices of interpersonal and mediated communication, the child enters a familial environment and becomes a participant in this ongoing system (see, for example, Chapter 10 of this volume for greater description of this process). Of course, the familial environment now contains many digital media opportunities, and clearly some of these activities may involve more effort, such as creating a political meme and sharing it with friends in a social network. Still, the everyday participation in familial communication and the mediated communication that the family is exposed to are relatively low-effort events.
At a next level of effort, the child may engage in school-based activities. Like any other kind of classroom activity, this behavior involves talking with teachers and others in class, doing civics homework, and, in many cases, having experiences ← xv | xvi → that involve such special activities as classroom debates or working at the polls on voting day (see, for example, Chapters 4 and 8 of this volume). These activities require more of an “intentional” or “effortful” focus by youth on the political realm, and such activities may also increase the amount of within-family political communication (e.g., McDevitt & Chaffee, 2000, 2002). Finally, school civics education may also increase the likelihood that youth will pay attention to political media content such as news, and the likelihood of engaging in greater political talk with peers. Thus we expected—and found—an interaction between school political activities and the influence of family and media variables (see, for example, Chapters 4 and 12 of this volume).
Further, within the hierarchy of political activities, the meaning of “political” is broadened to include not just political campaign and electoral behaviors such as engagement with political parties and candidates but also attention to such politicized social issues as the environment, police violence, or immigration. Finally, at perhaps one of the highest levels of effort, youth may develop their own self-motivated political activities. They may, for example, run for office at school, engage in political reporting at their school newspaper, volunteer for social and political causes, attend political events, or raise money for a campaign; and they may even create their own political content on Twitter or Facebook. When one undertakes these types of activities, effort is high, as is self-initiation of that effort.
Not only does Chapter 1 describe and test the hierarchical model of political socialization, it demonstrates that two of the lower-effort levels of the hierarchy, political interest and political knowledge, are differentially related to demographics that define family life (e.g., age, gender, race, parental education, and parental party affiliation). Findings in this chapter also point to a different influence of print and TV political news exposure, along with different motivations for the link between self and politics (with motivations including the desire to connect with others, to gain information, and to be entertained). Finally there are different effects of school political experiences and interpersonal talk with family members about politics.
Chapter 2 also employs the hierarchical model of socialization, and consistent with the results reported in Chapter 1, this chapter demonstrates that the causes of the different “levels” of the hierarchy themselves vary. For example, a youth’s self-reported interest in political civics education increases political interpersonal communication with peers, seeing oneself as more involved in civics class activities, and being involved in local charities. However, interest in politics does not relate to online political activities, or more general political participation. The contribution of this study is to provide further supportive evidence that the part of the hierarchy of political effort that we look at; that is, just what youth are actually doing in the political realm, determines what the socialization causal process will look like. Not all “political activity” is equivalent; and what one views as “political” will determine the political socialization model of causes and effects. ← xvi | xvii →
Chapter 3 combines the Hierarchy Model of Political Socialization with a media choice model, a theoretical perspective that belongs to the family of uses and gratifications approaches. Variables such as demographics, school, and interpersonal interaction affect three levels of the hierarchy—political interest, political knowledge, and political talk—differently. Again, the predictors of these kinds of responses to politics vary across the three levels. Also importantly, this chapter introduces the concept of news “voice,” which was originally theorized as part of the media choice model. In this context, “voice” is a function of the nature of the news “speaker.” Authoritative voice comes from news as traditionally defined. Opinionated voice was measured as conservative and liberal political blogs and conservative talk radio. Advertising voice was measured in terms of youth exposure to political candidates’ websites, presidential candidate attack ads, and ads that provide the viewer with reasons to vote for a candidate. Interestingly, only the authoritative voice was a significant predictor of one of the three levels of political responses, and it strongly predicted political interest.
Chapter 4 focuses its attention on the role of interpersonal and mediated political communication. This chapter theorizes that both types of political communication involvement are important to socialization, but again it suggests that the role of the two types of communication will vary depending on what measure of “socialization” is employed—although it does not posit a hierarchy among these responses. The measures of political responses explored in this chapter include three relatively new ones. First, political consumerism is measured in terms of boycotting and buycotting as indexed by youth agreement that they boycotted products or companies that offended their values and bought products from companies whose values aligned with the youth’s values. Political tolerance was measured in terms of how much youth agreed that it is important to hear others’ ideas even when they are different from one’s own. And finally, the concept of “Trying Out Opinions” was measured in terms of youth agreement that they talked about politics and public issues with those who disagreed with them and talked about politics and public issues with adults outside their family. The results of this study provide clear evidence that interpersonal and mediated political communication differently affected these three newer measures of youth political socialization.
Chapter 5 employs the frequently used theoretical concept of knowledge gap. This longstanding concept suggests that individuals with lower socio-economic backgrounds will differentially respond to all kinds of communication inputs and certainly to the input of political information. The results reported in this chapter show clear support for “gap” processes. For example, youth with parents who actively participated in politics used television news far more to obtain all kinds of information, and they also made much greater use of newspapers to gather information. This chapter demonstrates strongly how important it is to take account of ← xvii | xviii → key demographic and parental behavior differences when considering what youth political socialization may look like.
Chapter 6 takes a very different theoretical perspective on socialization, emphasizing causes at a group level; that is, effects on youth living in states with differing curriculum policies about civic education. The chapter provides ample evidence that school experiences are critically important for youth socialization, but its analysis goes beyond the individual level to explore what happens across the states. Interestingly, states’ civics course requirements, civics tests, standards, and the content of state social studies tests had no detectable impact on likelihood of voting and political knowledge. To further explore why state policies did not significantly explain youth socialization, the authors surveyed 8000 high school civics teachers, a sample of almost half of all such teachers. The results showed that the content of civics courses differs greatly depending on whether they are honors/advanced placement courses, or more typical graduation-requirement courses. The honors classes were more likely to involve discussing current events and critical analysis of news stories. The authors indicate that the honors classes typically covered more contemporary and controversial issues and taught core civics skills such as deliberation. The overall conclusion of this study suggests that it matters less what your state requires in terms of high school civics education, and much more the level of content and pedagogy employed in civics courses.
Section II: Parents and children. The five chapters that comprise Section II are no less theoretical in their approach than those found in Section I, yet they do share a close focus on the parent-child relationship. From the very beginning of the study of youth political socialization, there has been a strong and consistent focus on the influence of parents. The most simplistic conception of this perspective is that there will be a direct transmission of parental politics onto youth. As will be seen in the chapters found in Section II, however, this is no longer the case. Theorizing about parental impact on political socialization starts with the bedrock finding that “adolescents look to their parents for advice, typically hold similar values to those of their parents on political, social, and religious issues, and report that they admire their parents” (Smetana, 2010, p. 30). This fundamental principle notwithstanding, there are still many interesting questions to ask about how, and to what extent, political orientations of children come from their parents and how long they last.
Chapter 7 further develops our understanding of the particular parent-child interaction termed evaluative parental mediation (Hively & Eveland, 2009; Valkenburg et al., 1999). Evaluative parental mediation is a way of sharing the experience of media with a child so as to encourage attention and to foster discussion, even if the child does not agree with the parent. This concept is measured with five items that include: “I talk with my child to help him/her understand what is on the news”; “I often encourage my child to follow the news”; “I suggest ← xviii | xix → to my child that he/she learn more about the political issues seen in the news”; “I often encourage my child to talk about politics”; and “I tell my child when I see something I don’t like in the news.” Consistent with previous studies, findings reported in this chapter indicate that higher levels of evaluative parental mediation had salutary effects on youth political interest, knowledge, communicating with others in person, communicating with others via digital channels, and being active politically in one’s community. What the chapter adds to our understanding of evaluative parental mediation is that it operates both directly on these dependent variables but is also mediated through other variables we know to be important, including political talk with others, news use, and school civic activities. Yet, as we have learned to expect in terms of the Hierarchy Model of Political Socialization, the mediated relationships between evaluative parental mediation vary depending on what indicator or level of youth political socialization is being examined.
Chapter 8 explores the classic measures of parent-child communication first articulated more than 40 years ago by McLeod and Chaffee (1972). When what they called a “concept orientation” occurs within the family, youth are mostly influenced by their parents’ ideas and concepts in formation of the child’s information-processing and subsequent decision-making. These families prefer open discussions even when family members offer differing opinions. In contrast, where “socio-orientation” occurs, families are more likely to prefer harmonious parent-child relationships, and they avoid conversations where parents and children disagree with each other. This chapter extensively controls other causal variables before determining if a child’s family scores on concept and socio-communication orientations affect political interest and political knowledge. For political interest, higher scores on both types of communication produce an increase. For political knowledge, however, neither of the two parent-child orientations are found to be significant. It is intriguing that both communication styles positively affect political interest, although concept orientation’s effects are greater. The chapter also explores the question of whether parent-child communication styles interact with other socialization variables to impact interest and knowledge.
Details
- Pages
- XXVIII, 472
- ISBN (ePUB)
- 9781433135712
- ISBN (MOBI)
- 9781433135729
- ISBN (PDF)
- 9781453917633
- ISBN (Hardcover)
- 9781433125720
- ISBN (Softcover)
- 9781433125713
- DOI
- 10.3726/978-1-4539-1763-3
- Language
- English
- Publication date
- 2016 (October)
- Keywords
- political socialization; adolescence; political interest; digital media; television news; newspapers; political knowledge; parenting styles; political discussion; media choice; social media; political efficacy; peers; youth political engagement
- Published
- New York, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main, Oxford, Wien, 2016. XXVIII, 472 pp.
- Product Safety
- Peter Lang Group AG
