Kahne, Joseph & Ellen Middaugh. (2008). Democracy for some: The civic opportunity gap in high school.
Bartels: those in the highest third of income distribution best predict senator votes, bottom third has no influence.
Gillens: link between policy preferences and outcomes best for high income, worst for low income citizens.
Verba, Schlozman and Brady: more wealth people participate more in a variety of ways, especially making campaign contributions.
Inequality also linked to race, homeownership, age, and education.
There is some evidence that civic education increases civic knowledge, political knowledge, and interest in voting. There are now a set of curricula that are shown to help in this.
Tracking systems in schooling often places socioeconomically disadvantaged, African-American, and Latino kids in lower tracks. There is also a “civic achievement gap” where those same groups have less civic knowledge. These students also participate less in service activities and have less access to activities like student government.
Access to civic learning opportunities:
3 studies assessing the link between demographics and civic education experiences.
study 1:
sample: 2366 students from 12 schools from diverse parts of California.
Survey: asked about civic ed curriculum and demos
Results: African-American students experienced less civic ed than white kids in a number of criteria, Asian kids had more service and simulations, but less open discussion than white children, and Latinos had fewer experiences and opportunities in some areas. (see table 1)
Post high school plans were positively related to all areas of civic ed.
Study 2:
Sample: 898 students from 10 CA schools, 6 schools could identify the tracks of us govt course (AP or college prep).
Results:
AP students had more experience with all the criteria for civic ed, both within schools with both and in an overall comparison.
Study 3:
Data from Civic education study
SES of students and at the school level are positively related to civic ed for most criteria.
Summary of findings:
Academically successful students and those with wealthier parents have more civic ed.\
Schools reinforce inequalities in pol. Participation by unequally distributing civic ed.
Policy options:
Shift to universal or low SES focused civic ed programs, have mandatory programs in all tracks. Bring civic opportunities into classrooms and not just in extracurriculars, ie senior projects.
Increase time and emphasis on social studies, instead of cutting it in favor of math and reading as a result of no child left behind. Either add testing for civics or reduce emphasis on other testing.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Andolina, Jenkins, Zukin,& Ketter. (2003) “Habits from Home, Lessons from School: Influnences on Youth Civic Engagement
Andolina, Molly W. Krista Jenkins, Cliff Zukin, and Scott Ketter. (2003) “Habits from Home, Lessons from School: Influnences on Youth Civic Engagement.”
The authors investigate the lasting effects of teenage activity on civic participation. They demonstrate positive influences of civic training on youth from the home, school, and outside organizations on later civic engagement. Establishing positive attitudes towards civic responsibility early lays groundwork for later civic & political engagement.
Research Design:
Purpose was to create a reliable & replicable instrument for measuring civic engagement--began w/ qualitative investigation of youth political orientations & behavior, then developed quantitative indicators from qualitative findings for the survey instrument—19 measures of civic & cognitive engagement
2 data sources for the study—(1) telephone survey administered by SRBI, Inc-authors used a subset of 15-25 yr olds from the larger sample; (2) a randomly selected group of 15-25 yr olds administered by Knowledge Networks via internet
Flaws in design: reliance on respondent recollection; cross-sectional design limits investigation of long-term consequences
Advantages: large sample size allows for analysis of cohort differences; survey instrument includes wide range of measures
“DotNet” Generation:
15-25 yr olds at the time of the study (2002)
active volunteers, but not habitual voters
low scores on political knowledge, less attentive to politics & government
as likely as population to engage in boycotts & petition signing (low cost actions)
Most significant influence on youth political participation comes from:
Role models at home
Political talk, discussions at home (relates to McIntosh et al 2007)
Active volunteers in family
Skills training at school
Civic instruction—required classes in gov’t, politics, national issues
Open discussions in class—teacher encouraged discussion of political issues, classroom discussions promoting youth involvement
Civic skills training—particularly letter writing & debate skills
The link between civic skills & participation is most significant factor
Schools facilitating volunteer work for students—creating opportunities
School Volunteering
High proportion of high school student engaged in outside orgs stay politically & civically engaged
Content of group matters—political groups foster greater participation—over sports or religious affiliations
College associations are less likely to foster participation
Extra-curricular activities
Direct invitation make critical difference in participation
Religious organizations provide effective training for civic engagement
The authors investigate the lasting effects of teenage activity on civic participation. They demonstrate positive influences of civic training on youth from the home, school, and outside organizations on later civic engagement. Establishing positive attitudes towards civic responsibility early lays groundwork for later civic & political engagement.
Research Design:
Purpose was to create a reliable & replicable instrument for measuring civic engagement--began w/ qualitative investigation of youth political orientations & behavior, then developed quantitative indicators from qualitative findings for the survey instrument—19 measures of civic & cognitive engagement
2 data sources for the study—(1) telephone survey administered by SRBI, Inc-authors used a subset of 15-25 yr olds from the larger sample; (2) a randomly selected group of 15-25 yr olds administered by Knowledge Networks via internet
Flaws in design: reliance on respondent recollection; cross-sectional design limits investigation of long-term consequences
Advantages: large sample size allows for analysis of cohort differences; survey instrument includes wide range of measures
“DotNet” Generation:
15-25 yr olds at the time of the study (2002)
active volunteers, but not habitual voters
low scores on political knowledge, less attentive to politics & government
as likely as population to engage in boycotts & petition signing (low cost actions)
Most significant influence on youth political participation comes from:
Role models at home
Political talk, discussions at home (relates to McIntosh et al 2007)
Active volunteers in family
Skills training at school
Civic instruction—required classes in gov’t, politics, national issues
Open discussions in class—teacher encouraged discussion of political issues, classroom discussions promoting youth involvement
Civic skills training—particularly letter writing & debate skills
The link between civic skills & participation is most significant factor
Schools facilitating volunteer work for students—creating opportunities
School Volunteering
High proportion of high school student engaged in outside orgs stay politically & civically engaged
Content of group matters—political groups foster greater participation—over sports or religious affiliations
College associations are less likely to foster participation
Extra-curricular activities
Direct invitation make critical difference in participation
Religious organizations provide effective training for civic engagement
Niemi, Richard G. and Jane Junn (1998). Civic Education: What Makes Students Learn. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Niemi, Richard G. and Jane Junn (1998). Civic Education: What Makes Students Learn. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Summary: For 30 years, the conventional wisdom about the development of political knowledge holds that school, and civics course in particular, have no effect. Niemi and Junn’s use data from the 1988 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) findings to “debunk” this conventional wisdom. Their results indicate that schools and civics curriculum—including amount and recency of course work, variety of topics studied, and discussion of current events in the classroom—are significant and positively related to overall political knowledge. More specifically, Niemi and Junn find that net of all other influences, having had a civics or American government course in 12th grade gives students a 2 percentage-point edge over those whose last course was earlier, and an additional 2 points over students who have had no civics courses.
Research Problem:
Formal education is the strongest, most consistent correlate (and is widely considered the central causal determinant) of political knowledge, but there is far less certainty about what components of formal education make citizens more knowledgeable. As a result, scholars have also attributed political knowledge to confounding variables, such as intelligence, occupation and interests. Moreover, attitudinal studies have tended to find fewer positive effects than have purely cognitive studies. Conversely, a large number of studies have found that all levels of schooling influence many types of attitudes.
Previous scholars have experienced severe data and methodological limitations; the majority of the results, whether from political scientists or educators, come from small scale, often experimental studies, where Hawthorne effects and generalizability are key concerns, or from cross-sectional samples of the adult population, where there are few measures of either political knowledge or educational experience and background. In short, scholars have generally found it difficult to both assess the validity of competing explanations of educational effects and to isolate the effects of specific elements of the educational experience.
Therefore, Niemi and Junn believe there are reasons to reassess the effects of schooling on knowledge of government and politics. Niemi and Junn are especially pumped because the 1988 NAEP Civics Assessment provides “an unparalleled opportunity” to isolate and sort out these effects because it includes solid indicators of: political knowledge, the civics curriculum, individual achievement and motivation, parental and familial characteristics, and other individual background traits. As a result, Niemi and Junn can “ascertain” the validity of competing explanations of why education has such a large impact on political knowledge.
Methods:
The NAEP is an ongoing, congressionally mandated project that was established in 1969 to obtain comprehensive data on the educational achievement of American students. The core of the assessment is a test given to a nationally representative sample of students in grades 4, 8 and 12. The NAEP Civics Assessment supposedly tests for (1) what students know and (2) students’ ability to understand and apply ideas. There are 4 substantive categories: (1) principles underlying the Constitution, changes in interpretations of concepts and value; (2) principles, structure, and operation of the U.S. government, and organization and functions of state and local governments; (3) how laws are passed implemented, and reviewed, in addition to how conflicts are resolved; and (4) the Bill of Rights, civil and criminal law, responsibilities of citizenship.
All students were given a background questionnaire, in addition to a short civics questionnaire, in which they answered questions about their interest in civics and government, their course work, and their participation in student government. Principals or school administrators provided information about the schools.
Sample: 4,275 12th graders; to avoid fatigue, no student given full set of 150 multiple choice questions; very little of test consisted of open-ended response items
Findings:
Schools and Curriculum
Schools and civics curriculum—including amount and recency of course work, variety of topics studied, and discussion of current events in the classroom—are significant and positively related to overall political knowledge. Independent of all other influences, having had a civics or American government course in 12th grade gives students a 2 percentage-point edge over those whose last course was earlier, and an additional 2 points over students who have had no civics courses.
Individual Achievement
The three characteristics of individual achievement—including participation in mock elections or government; “likes to study government;” and “four-year college planned”—contribute strongly and positively to civic knowledge, with interest in studying American government and postsecondary school college plans have the largest effects.
Home Environment
Characteristics of the home environment of students—including: having more reading and reference materials at home; having higher levels of educational attainment among parents; speaking English at home; and living in a two-parent household—are strong, positive contributors to student knowledge.
• Knowledge declines as the amount of time spent watching TV increases.
• No single factor in the home environment is of overwhelming importance.
Race or Ethnicity and Gender
• Boys average 3 more percentage points than girls.
• Percentage of items answered correctly by Hispanics was 11 point less than whites, but the difference is halved in the multivariate model. Niemi and Junn are optimistic Hispanic students’ scores will improve.
• Persistent difference between white and black students; on average, blacks scored 13 percentage points lower than whites. When Niemi and Junn account for factors of curriculum, home environment, and individual achievement, black students still lag behind whites by 9.4 percentage points. Niemi and Junn don’t expect this to change.
Political Knowledge and Race or Ethnicity (pages 127-133)
Niemi and Junn offer three possible explanations for the lower scores of minority students.
• (1) Differences in structural and individual characteristics may encourage political learning or limit exposure or incentives for selection.
• (2) Differential effects of structural and individual characteristics among whites, Hispanics and blacks, e.g. studying civics or watching TV may have a greater or small effect on minorities than on whites.
• (3) White and minorities know more and less about different specific topics.
Gender and Political Knowledge (pages 133-135)
• Amount and recency of civics courses and discussing current events in class have more of an impact on boys than on girls.
• Characteristics of individual motivation are more important for females, and civics knowledge is less dependent on and unresponsive to structural factors in their environment.
• Males appear to react more to their environments in absorbing civic knowledge.
Differential Effects by Dimensions of Knowledge (pages 135-140)
• Discussion of current events contributes as much to knowledge of structures and functions as to other kinds of political knowledge.
Civic Knowledge and Trust in Government (pages 140-142)
• Males more likely than females to agree that government pays attention to people and elections create incentives to do so.
• Minority students are more skeptical than whites about the motives of government by a substantial margin.
• School factors have a positive effect on these two political attitudes.
Postscript: American History Curriculum and Knowledge (pages 142-146)
Niemi and Junn increase validity of the exposure-selection model of political learning by analyzing additional data from 1988 NAEP History Assessment, i.e. a different nationally representative sample of 12th grade students
Summary: For 30 years, the conventional wisdom about the development of political knowledge holds that school, and civics course in particular, have no effect. Niemi and Junn’s use data from the 1988 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) findings to “debunk” this conventional wisdom. Their results indicate that schools and civics curriculum—including amount and recency of course work, variety of topics studied, and discussion of current events in the classroom—are significant and positively related to overall political knowledge. More specifically, Niemi and Junn find that net of all other influences, having had a civics or American government course in 12th grade gives students a 2 percentage-point edge over those whose last course was earlier, and an additional 2 points over students who have had no civics courses.
Research Problem:
Formal education is the strongest, most consistent correlate (and is widely considered the central causal determinant) of political knowledge, but there is far less certainty about what components of formal education make citizens more knowledgeable. As a result, scholars have also attributed political knowledge to confounding variables, such as intelligence, occupation and interests. Moreover, attitudinal studies have tended to find fewer positive effects than have purely cognitive studies. Conversely, a large number of studies have found that all levels of schooling influence many types of attitudes.
Previous scholars have experienced severe data and methodological limitations; the majority of the results, whether from political scientists or educators, come from small scale, often experimental studies, where Hawthorne effects and generalizability are key concerns, or from cross-sectional samples of the adult population, where there are few measures of either political knowledge or educational experience and background. In short, scholars have generally found it difficult to both assess the validity of competing explanations of educational effects and to isolate the effects of specific elements of the educational experience.
Therefore, Niemi and Junn believe there are reasons to reassess the effects of schooling on knowledge of government and politics. Niemi and Junn are especially pumped because the 1988 NAEP Civics Assessment provides “an unparalleled opportunity” to isolate and sort out these effects because it includes solid indicators of: political knowledge, the civics curriculum, individual achievement and motivation, parental and familial characteristics, and other individual background traits. As a result, Niemi and Junn can “ascertain” the validity of competing explanations of why education has such a large impact on political knowledge.
Methods:
The NAEP is an ongoing, congressionally mandated project that was established in 1969 to obtain comprehensive data on the educational achievement of American students. The core of the assessment is a test given to a nationally representative sample of students in grades 4, 8 and 12. The NAEP Civics Assessment supposedly tests for (1) what students know and (2) students’ ability to understand and apply ideas. There are 4 substantive categories: (1) principles underlying the Constitution, changes in interpretations of concepts and value; (2) principles, structure, and operation of the U.S. government, and organization and functions of state and local governments; (3) how laws are passed implemented, and reviewed, in addition to how conflicts are resolved; and (4) the Bill of Rights, civil and criminal law, responsibilities of citizenship.
All students were given a background questionnaire, in addition to a short civics questionnaire, in which they answered questions about their interest in civics and government, their course work, and their participation in student government. Principals or school administrators provided information about the schools.
Sample: 4,275 12th graders; to avoid fatigue, no student given full set of 150 multiple choice questions; very little of test consisted of open-ended response items
Findings:
Schools and Curriculum
Schools and civics curriculum—including amount and recency of course work, variety of topics studied, and discussion of current events in the classroom—are significant and positively related to overall political knowledge. Independent of all other influences, having had a civics or American government course in 12th grade gives students a 2 percentage-point edge over those whose last course was earlier, and an additional 2 points over students who have had no civics courses.
Individual Achievement
The three characteristics of individual achievement—including participation in mock elections or government; “likes to study government;” and “four-year college planned”—contribute strongly and positively to civic knowledge, with interest in studying American government and postsecondary school college plans have the largest effects.
Home Environment
Characteristics of the home environment of students—including: having more reading and reference materials at home; having higher levels of educational attainment among parents; speaking English at home; and living in a two-parent household—are strong, positive contributors to student knowledge.
• Knowledge declines as the amount of time spent watching TV increases.
• No single factor in the home environment is of overwhelming importance.
Race or Ethnicity and Gender
• Boys average 3 more percentage points than girls.
• Percentage of items answered correctly by Hispanics was 11 point less than whites, but the difference is halved in the multivariate model. Niemi and Junn are optimistic Hispanic students’ scores will improve.
• Persistent difference between white and black students; on average, blacks scored 13 percentage points lower than whites. When Niemi and Junn account for factors of curriculum, home environment, and individual achievement, black students still lag behind whites by 9.4 percentage points. Niemi and Junn don’t expect this to change.
Political Knowledge and Race or Ethnicity (pages 127-133)
Niemi and Junn offer three possible explanations for the lower scores of minority students.
• (1) Differences in structural and individual characteristics may encourage political learning or limit exposure or incentives for selection.
• (2) Differential effects of structural and individual characteristics among whites, Hispanics and blacks, e.g. studying civics or watching TV may have a greater or small effect on minorities than on whites.
• (3) White and minorities know more and less about different specific topics.
Gender and Political Knowledge (pages 133-135)
• Amount and recency of civics courses and discussing current events in class have more of an impact on boys than on girls.
• Characteristics of individual motivation are more important for females, and civics knowledge is less dependent on and unresponsive to structural factors in their environment.
• Males appear to react more to their environments in absorbing civic knowledge.
Differential Effects by Dimensions of Knowledge (pages 135-140)
• Discussion of current events contributes as much to knowledge of structures and functions as to other kinds of political knowledge.
Civic Knowledge and Trust in Government (pages 140-142)
• Males more likely than females to agree that government pays attention to people and elections create incentives to do so.
• Minority students are more skeptical than whites about the motives of government by a substantial margin.
• School factors have a positive effect on these two political attitudes.
Postscript: American History Curriculum and Knowledge (pages 142-146)
Niemi and Junn increase validity of the exposure-selection model of political learning by analyzing additional data from 1988 NAEP History Assessment, i.e. a different nationally representative sample of 12th grade students
Jennings & Stoker (2006) "Another and Longer look at the impact of Higher Education on Political Involvement and Attitudes."
"Another and Longer look at the impact of Higher Education on Political Involvement and Attitudes."
-where do the attitudinal and engagement regularities (for the connection between education and involvement) come from? i.e.... what is the actual effect of education?
-they explore four models/explanations.
1.) The Civic Education Explanation: the straight up "education leads to more involvement" explanation. Individuals acquire political skills and knowledge through education, which lowers the opportunity costs of getting involved.
-explains tolerance/social issues: education exposes individuals to diversity, other people, etc. = direct effect
2.) The Cognitive Proficiency Explanation: higher education results in higher levels of information seeking, processing, and organization.
-explains tolerance/social issues: they are more complex, require more complex cognitive functioning
3.) The Social Allocation/Sorting/Credentialing Hypothesis Explanation: higher education leads to access to higher status and status related social networks that involve political influence.
-explains tolerance/social issues: individuals with higher education have access to social networks that are more involved with civil liberties/rights
4.) (seldom mentioned) Pre-Collegiate Socialization Explanation/Argument: individuals are pre-selected by socialization factors... those that are college-bound ALREADY differ from those that aren't. Higher education REINFORCES previous socialization.
-explains tolerance/social issues: pre-adult liberal stances foster the selection for higher education
-apply to political tolerance and social issues (integrated above)
-rule out cognitive explanation: have no measure, and social allocation, have no post post data
-use their longitudinal study/data to assess the first hypothesis, and the fourth as a counter-hypothesis (research design = cross-sectional analysis of that massive longitudinal survey data he collected)
-POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT
"Thus whether we stratify the high school seniors according to eventual educational status or according to contemporary (1965) indicators of educational achievement and aspirations the implication is the same: supposed gains in political involvement as a result of higher education are at the very least partly illusory."
-civic education = weak
-pre-collegiate socialization = strong explanation for these results
-POLITICAL ATTITUDES
-(fewer and less reliable measures)
"Although limited in number, the results based on issue positions lend support to the civic education (and perhaps cognitive sophistication) accounts of how higher education is associated with more liberal stances on civil liberties and civil rights issues."
-THE MATCHING ANALYSIS METHOD
-ends up supporting the notion that education DOES make a difference directly to involvement
-addresses problem of confound of those who had already intended to go to college vs. those who didn't but still ended up going (are they different... is that skewing the data? etc)
-employed the Genetic Matching procedure "which relies upon the genetic optimization algorithm for achieving covariate balance"
-need to identify a treatment and control (they had three groups, so repeated the procedure)
-uh... i re-read this a couple times and still don't think i fully understand it, so am going to ask him to explain it better tomorrow i think. Sorry!
-results showed that "some college" and then more education makes a difference in terms of attitude and involvement, and tolerance.
conclusion about matching method:
"Matching methods such as those that we have employed, applied to panel data where what is prior and what is subsequent to educational achievement can be reliably distinguished, appear to hold the most promise for making progress on this front. But matching methods are vulnerable too. The loss of cases that accompanies the attempt to produce matched groups may yield low statistical power and results that fail to replicate. It also raises questions about external validity that we have set aside here: just what populations are or are not being represented in the effectively matched samples? Perhaps even more importantly, the question of whether the relevant causal variables have been matched upon is always open"
-however, the conclusion about pre-collegiate socialization also has a lot of strengths
-where do the attitudinal and engagement regularities (for the connection between education and involvement) come from? i.e.... what is the actual effect of education?
-they explore four models/explanations.
1.) The Civic Education Explanation: the straight up "education leads to more involvement" explanation. Individuals acquire political skills and knowledge through education, which lowers the opportunity costs of getting involved.
-explains tolerance/social issues: education exposes individuals to diversity, other people, etc. = direct effect
2.) The Cognitive Proficiency Explanation: higher education results in higher levels of information seeking, processing, and organization.
-explains tolerance/social issues: they are more complex, require more complex cognitive functioning
3.) The Social Allocation/Sorting/Credentialing Hypothesis Explanation: higher education leads to access to higher status and status related social networks that involve political influence.
-explains tolerance/social issues: individuals with higher education have access to social networks that are more involved with civil liberties/rights
4.) (seldom mentioned) Pre-Collegiate Socialization Explanation/Argument: individuals are pre-selected by socialization factors... those that are college-bound ALREADY differ from those that aren't. Higher education REINFORCES previous socialization.
-explains tolerance/social issues: pre-adult liberal stances foster the selection for higher education
-apply to political tolerance and social issues (integrated above)
-rule out cognitive explanation: have no measure, and social allocation, have no post post data
-use their longitudinal study/data to assess the first hypothesis, and the fourth as a counter-hypothesis (research design = cross-sectional analysis of that massive longitudinal survey data he collected)
-POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT
"Thus whether we stratify the high school seniors according to eventual educational status or according to contemporary (1965) indicators of educational achievement and aspirations the implication is the same: supposed gains in political involvement as a result of higher education are at the very least partly illusory."
-civic education = weak
-pre-collegiate socialization = strong explanation for these results
-POLITICAL ATTITUDES
-(fewer and less reliable measures)
"Although limited in number, the results based on issue positions lend support to the civic education (and perhaps cognitive sophistication) accounts of how higher education is associated with more liberal stances on civil liberties and civil rights issues."
-THE MATCHING ANALYSIS METHOD
-ends up supporting the notion that education DOES make a difference directly to involvement
-addresses problem of confound of those who had already intended to go to college vs. those who didn't but still ended up going (are they different... is that skewing the data? etc)
-employed the Genetic Matching procedure "which relies upon the genetic optimization algorithm for achieving covariate balance"
-need to identify a treatment and control (they had three groups, so repeated the procedure)
-uh... i re-read this a couple times and still don't think i fully understand it, so am going to ask him to explain it better tomorrow i think. Sorry!
-results showed that "some college" and then more education makes a difference in terms of attitude and involvement, and tolerance.
conclusion about matching method:
"Matching methods such as those that we have employed, applied to panel data where what is prior and what is subsequent to educational achievement can be reliably distinguished, appear to hold the most promise for making progress on this front. But matching methods are vulnerable too. The loss of cases that accompanies the attempt to produce matched groups may yield low statistical power and results that fail to replicate. It also raises questions about external validity that we have set aside here: just what populations are or are not being represented in the effectively matched samples? Perhaps even more importantly, the question of whether the relevant causal variables have been matched upon is always open"
-however, the conclusion about pre-collegiate socialization also has a lot of strengths
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Nie & Hullygus (2001) Education and Democratic Citizenship
so we know education is a strong predictor of a myriad of facets of democratic citizenship; "yet we know precious little about what goes on inside the educational process that has such a profound effect on so many aspects of democratic citizenship" (30). Most studies focus on the quantity of education, but not its content.
The Sample:
Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study
Mostly white from high educated families, followed every 4 years, for 12 years.
All have the same level (high) of education and are from the same life cycle and birth cohort (held constant)--thus, this study is able to uncover if differences in other area (education quality) make a difference.
Variables:
Independent vars (10, apparently, though I only uncovered the following 8):
quality of university attended
public or private?
GPA
course load
course type-political science, engineering, etc
number of credit hours for each subject
math scores
SAT scores
Dependent vars (measures of democratic citizenship):
(1) Political Participation--campaign volunteering, attending a political rally or meeting, contributing money to a political campaign and writing a matter to a public official.
(2) Presidential Vote
(3) Community Service--nonpolitical voluntary activities
(4) Political Persuasion/political discussion--"In the last 12 months, did you talk to any people and try to show them why they should vote for one of the parties or candidates" (35)
(5) Public v. Private regard
These variables are to answer the question "Are more capable and better-performing college graduates more politically active? Are they more likely vote and/or participate in political discussions? DO they contribute more to community service? And are they more likely to give more regard to public or private issues?
Findings:
-Grades (GPA) are not a strong predictor of any of the dependent variables.
-SAT verbal scores are a very strong predictor of political persuasion, community service, vote, and participation scale."VERBAL PROFICIENCY SHOWS THE STRONGEST relationship of all the many educational variables we examine and is pervasive across the measures of political engagement and persuasion. These findings suggest that it is this kind of aptitude, not overall intelligence itself, that matters" (42).
-Math scores exert a negative relationship with the participation scale dependent variable as well as political persuasion, and no relationship with the other measures of citizenship. "Controlling for all else, including verbal aptitude, those who score better on the math section of the SAT actually perform fewer participatory acts than for others" (41).
-Institutional quality (ranking and whether its pub or private)--mostly null findings, though it is possible that the effect of "an elite education has simply not had time to take effect. In other words, as these recent gras age, as they settle into their communities, and as some decide to get involved in politics themselves, perhaps the importance of an elite education and the social networks it creates will be magnified" (43).
-Course type--numerous social science course credits has a strong positive relationship with all measures of democratic citizenship; business credits has a negative relationship with all dependent var measures. science and engineering either has a negative or zero relationship, and education has a zero relationship in all cases, and a negative relationship for the voting variable, and humanities courses exert zero relationship for all dep vars (47).
the aptitude scores were registered prior college... and as stated earlier, those with higher verbal scores were more likely to be politically active later in life; it is also the case that these students were likely to be social science majors... this may be one of the reasons why the strongest predictor in the study, for democratic citizenship once a college grad, was social science credits. But social science credits take by bio and engineering majors do indeed benefit these students, in addition to strenthening the mechanisms inducing political behavior for the already politically minded" (49).
The Sample:
Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study
Mostly white from high educated families, followed every 4 years, for 12 years.
All have the same level (high) of education and are from the same life cycle and birth cohort (held constant)--thus, this study is able to uncover if differences in other area (education quality) make a difference.
Variables:
Independent vars (10, apparently, though I only uncovered the following 8):
quality of university attended
public or private?
GPA
course load
course type-political science, engineering, etc
number of credit hours for each subject
math scores
SAT scores
Dependent vars (measures of democratic citizenship):
(1) Political Participation--campaign volunteering, attending a political rally or meeting, contributing money to a political campaign and writing a matter to a public official.
(2) Presidential Vote
(3) Community Service--nonpolitical voluntary activities
(4) Political Persuasion/political discussion--"In the last 12 months, did you talk to any people and try to show them why they should vote for one of the parties or candidates" (35)
(5) Public v. Private regard
These variables are to answer the question "Are more capable and better-performing college graduates more politically active? Are they more likely vote and/or participate in political discussions? DO they contribute more to community service? And are they more likely to give more regard to public or private issues?
Findings:
-Grades (GPA) are not a strong predictor of any of the dependent variables.
-SAT verbal scores are a very strong predictor of political persuasion, community service, vote, and participation scale."VERBAL PROFICIENCY SHOWS THE STRONGEST relationship of all the many educational variables we examine and is pervasive across the measures of political engagement and persuasion. These findings suggest that it is this kind of aptitude, not overall intelligence itself, that matters" (42).
-Math scores exert a negative relationship with the participation scale dependent variable as well as political persuasion, and no relationship with the other measures of citizenship. "Controlling for all else, including verbal aptitude, those who score better on the math section of the SAT actually perform fewer participatory acts than for others" (41).
-Institutional quality (ranking and whether its pub or private)--mostly null findings, though it is possible that the effect of "an elite education has simply not had time to take effect. In other words, as these recent gras age, as they settle into their communities, and as some decide to get involved in politics themselves, perhaps the importance of an elite education and the social networks it creates will be magnified" (43).
-Course type--numerous social science course credits has a strong positive relationship with all measures of democratic citizenship; business credits has a negative relationship with all dependent var measures. science and engineering either has a negative or zero relationship, and education has a zero relationship in all cases, and a negative relationship for the voting variable, and humanities courses exert zero relationship for all dep vars (47).
the aptitude scores were registered prior college... and as stated earlier, those with higher verbal scores were more likely to be politically active later in life; it is also the case that these students were likely to be social science majors... this may be one of the reasons why the strongest predictor in the study, for democratic citizenship once a college grad, was social science credits. But social science credits take by bio and engineering majors do indeed benefit these students, in addition to strenthening the mechanisms inducing political behavior for the already politically minded" (49).
McFarland (2004) Bowling Young: How Youth Voluntary Associations Influence Adult Political Participation
Abstract:
Do the voluntary activities of youth increase political engagement in adulthood? Political part is typically characterized by inertia: reproduced within families, highly correlated with social class, and largely stable after the onset of adulthood. This research illustrates an element of political socialization that occurs just before the transition into full citizenship that mimics adult civic life, and that can be available regardless of family advantage. The authors use two longitudinal national data sets to identify the kinds of voluntary associations that encourage members to be more politically active later in life. They find that general involvement in youth voluntary associations concerning community service, representation, speaking in public forums, and generating a communal identity most encourage future political participation. The authors find these effects net of self-selection and causal factors traditionally characterized in political socialization research. The influence of young voluntary associations on future political activity is nontrivial and has implications for both democratic education and election outcomes.
The authors attempt to bridge the two camps currently concerned with political socialization, into a "nuanced explanation of political socialization" (402). The two camps are:
(1) social reproduction (parents vote, you vote; what more, high socioeconomic kids more likely than those from working class families). This view in its more deterministic nature is best exemplified by Bourdieu (1984, 1977).
(2) social learning (involvement in voluntary associations develop capacities necessary and leading to political part. see Verba 1972). Finds there to be social learning to loosen the class determinism of political participation (403). This includes variables such as political talk in the home, as well as schools etc.
___
The US is a nation of joiners (Tocqueville 1848).
Yet this tendency is found to be on the decline (Putnam 2000 etc.). Thus understanding how citizens become joiners (which leads to political activity, and ideally, representation) is important.
Lit review of predictors of political participation:
The telltale predictor of voting, is past vote (thus voting is habitual). This indicates that the initial activation of political awareness is increasingly important to continued activity--and this initial activation is usually in one's youth.
Most work on membership (aka what joiners join) focuses on adults; and those that focus on kids do us a disservice by characterizing membership in groups too generally (i.e. "sports" or "clubs"). The authors, here, attempt to break about the nuances of group membership to fully understand the impact of particular types of groups, joined as children, and their impact on later adult participation.
Types of groups (*some more political salient than others):
school and community groups
service oriented groups (NHS, debate, frmama, religious organizations)
book clubs, computer clubs (do not predict participation)
sports clubs
"These associations retain an effect because the activities being performed within these organizations (or fields) are collaborative endeavors with trans-individual tasks that spread experiences and resources somewhat equitably across members. Moreover, through these activities youth develop the capacities, motives, and relationships that encourage future political activity..." (405).
*those which are mre politically salient allow kids to acquire skills that have direct applications to adult civic activities (404). Furthermore, those which are more communal (reject competition) are more likely to lead to political skills aquisition.
The authors then combine the importance of the two camps when they recognize that certain group membership enhances skills necessary, in light of what Bourdieu finds (that those childnre with higher class backgrounds will be more likely to be in clubs)--"an indirect effect of social background" (404).
In effect, our empirical quetion concerning political socialization via youth orgs s threefold:
(1) whether youth voluntary associations generate furnre political part by filling up with elites who will be political engaged anyway (Bourdieu),
(2) whether the net of that, thse membrships activate practices and resources that originate in a different field like the family,
(3) whether, net of both priors, these affiliations generate new moives, capacities, and symbolic capitial salient to adult political part.
DATA AND MEASURES:
(1) NELS (national education longitudinal study) 1988-2000
--a stratified random sample of 8th graders followed over a span of 12 years; given surveys.
N=10,827
(2) NLS of Add Health (National longitudinal study of adolescent health) 2003
--Wave 1 occurred in 1994-1995, N=14,738 (7th through 12th graders interviewed in their home); in 2001-2002 around 11,015 of those from Wave 1 are surveyed in their homes, again
ind var: extracurricular experiences (as youth)
(1) school (39 total)
(2) non-school (14 total)*combined data set
(3) non involvement
Control vars:
social background
parenting practices
student-peer practices (measures of popularity; aims to capture whether or not being friends with others leads to joining, mediating/accounting for membership effects)
students own motives (questions about the future)
school characteristics
dep var: adult pol. part. (5 components)
(1) Register--are you?
(2) Vote--do you?
(3) CIvic service--do you volunteer?
(4) Campaign involvement--are you involved?
(5) Political membership--are you a member?
FINDINGS:
(1) yes, the social reproduction of unequal politivcal part. is occurring
(2) it indeed leads to familial response---increased political talk/contact between parents and child, and
(3) once students ARE in politically salient orgs, they learn the skills necessary and route to increased political part as an adult is revealed. w00t.
Page 412...
Do the voluntary activities of youth increase political engagement in adulthood? Political part is typically characterized by inertia: reproduced within families, highly correlated with social class, and largely stable after the onset of adulthood. This research illustrates an element of political socialization that occurs just before the transition into full citizenship that mimics adult civic life, and that can be available regardless of family advantage. The authors use two longitudinal national data sets to identify the kinds of voluntary associations that encourage members to be more politically active later in life. They find that general involvement in youth voluntary associations concerning community service, representation, speaking in public forums, and generating a communal identity most encourage future political participation. The authors find these effects net of self-selection and causal factors traditionally characterized in political socialization research. The influence of young voluntary associations on future political activity is nontrivial and has implications for both democratic education and election outcomes.
The authors attempt to bridge the two camps currently concerned with political socialization, into a "nuanced explanation of political socialization" (402). The two camps are:
(1) social reproduction (parents vote, you vote; what more, high socioeconomic kids more likely than those from working class families). This view in its more deterministic nature is best exemplified by Bourdieu (1984, 1977).
(2) social learning (involvement in voluntary associations develop capacities necessary and leading to political part. see Verba 1972). Finds there to be social learning to loosen the class determinism of political participation (403). This includes variables such as political talk in the home, as well as schools etc.
___
The US is a nation of joiners (Tocqueville 1848).
Yet this tendency is found to be on the decline (Putnam 2000 etc.). Thus understanding how citizens become joiners (which leads to political activity, and ideally, representation) is important.
Lit review of predictors of political participation:
The telltale predictor of voting, is past vote (thus voting is habitual). This indicates that the initial activation of political awareness is increasingly important to continued activity--and this initial activation is usually in one's youth.
Most work on membership (aka what joiners join) focuses on adults; and those that focus on kids do us a disservice by characterizing membership in groups too generally (i.e. "sports" or "clubs"). The authors, here, attempt to break about the nuances of group membership to fully understand the impact of particular types of groups, joined as children, and their impact on later adult participation.
Types of groups (*some more political salient than others):
school and community groups
service oriented groups (NHS, debate, frmama, religious organizations)
book clubs, computer clubs (do not predict participation)
sports clubs
"These associations retain an effect because the activities being performed within these organizations (or fields) are collaborative endeavors with trans-individual tasks that spread experiences and resources somewhat equitably across members. Moreover, through these activities youth develop the capacities, motives, and relationships that encourage future political activity..." (405).
*those which are mre politically salient allow kids to acquire skills that have direct applications to adult civic activities (404). Furthermore, those which are more communal (reject competition) are more likely to lead to political skills aquisition.
The authors then combine the importance of the two camps when they recognize that certain group membership enhances skills necessary, in light of what Bourdieu finds (that those childnre with higher class backgrounds will be more likely to be in clubs)--"an indirect effect of social background" (404).
In effect, our empirical quetion concerning political socialization via youth orgs s threefold:
(1) whether youth voluntary associations generate furnre political part by filling up with elites who will be political engaged anyway (Bourdieu),
(2) whether the net of that, thse membrships activate practices and resources that originate in a different field like the family,
(3) whether, net of both priors, these affiliations generate new moives, capacities, and symbolic capitial salient to adult political part.
DATA AND MEASURES:
(1) NELS (national education longitudinal study) 1988-2000
--a stratified random sample of 8th graders followed over a span of 12 years; given surveys.
N=10,827
(2) NLS of Add Health (National longitudinal study of adolescent health) 2003
--Wave 1 occurred in 1994-1995, N=14,738 (7th through 12th graders interviewed in their home); in 2001-2002 around 11,015 of those from Wave 1 are surveyed in their homes, again
ind var: extracurricular experiences (as youth)
(1) school (39 total)
(2) non-school (14 total)*combined data set
(3) non involvement
Control vars:
social background
parenting practices
student-peer practices (measures of popularity; aims to capture whether or not being friends with others leads to joining, mediating/accounting for membership effects)
students own motives (questions about the future)
school characteristics
dep var: adult pol. part. (5 components)
(1) Register--are you?
(2) Vote--do you?
(3) CIvic service--do you volunteer?
(4) Campaign involvement--are you involved?
(5) Political membership--are you a member?
FINDINGS:
(1) yes, the social reproduction of unequal politivcal part. is occurring
(2) it indeed leads to familial response---increased political talk/contact between parents and child, and
(3) once students ARE in politically salient orgs, they learn the skills necessary and route to increased political part as an adult is revealed. w00t.
Page 412...
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Bengston et al. (2002) Chapter 1
Families, Generations & Achievement Orientations
Independent variables:
-demographic factors
-social structures
-sociohistorical conditions
"We want to understand how important families are today in influences the aspirations and orientations of youth--compared with several decades ago, when Baby Boomers were growing up" (2).
Social Order:
"The characteristics of individuals that enable social order--their values, aspirations, and self-concepts--are both created and maintained by family socialization through processes of inheritance, influence, and transmission across generations" (3).
-how does social order arise
-how is it sustained
What is transmitted?
(1) socio economic characteristics
(2) social learning mechanisms
(3) solidarity
Objectives (6):
The purpose of this study is to investigate family influences on youths' developmental outcomes across recent generations, ooking at their education, and career aspirations, their self-esteem,
Independent variables:
-demographic factors
-social structures
-sociohistorical conditions
"We want to understand how important families are today in influences the aspirations and orientations of youth--compared with several decades ago, when Baby Boomers were growing up" (2).
Social Order:
"The characteristics of individuals that enable social order--their values, aspirations, and self-concepts--are both created and maintained by family socialization through processes of inheritance, influence, and transmission across generations" (3).
-how does social order arise
-how is it sustained
What is transmitted?
(1) socio economic characteristics
(2) social learning mechanisms
(3) solidarity
Objectives (6):
The purpose of this study is to investigate family influences on youths' developmental outcomes across recent generations, ooking at their education, and career aspirations, their self-esteem,
Thursday, April 17, 2008
McIntosh, Hart & Youniss (2007) The Influence of Family Political Discussion on Youth Civic Development: WHich Parent Qualities Matter?
The development f civic competence in children--what are the crucial factors?
-discussion?
A number of studies (i.e. Verba, Schlozman & Brady 1995) have found a correlation between discussion of politics young in life with higher levels of political participation as adults; this study asks whether certain characteristics or qualities among parents enhance the likelihood of that happening, or not.
Discussion Nuances:
-the discussion of current events
-the level of the parents knowledge expressed
Data:
NHES 1996
Sample: 3,662 students and their parents
Research Design:
Measures of Civicness:
(1)monitoring national news
(2)political ken
(3)public communication skills
(4)community service
Parental Characteristics measured:
income
ethnicity
civic skills
behaviors
knowledge
attitudes
Discussion measurement:
4-point scale
"hardly ever" to "almost everyday"
First Step of Analysis: OLS Regression to determine which parent qualities predict civicness among children; next, the authors used interaction analysis to uncover which qualities matter, most, in regard to the discussion itself that lead to civicness (not sure yet how this is a different question?)...
IMPORTANT PARENT QUALITIES:
discussion, in general leads to higher levels of all four civicness variables.
"The findings that family political discussion is broadly linked to youth civic development conform to cognitive developmental theory, which argues that young persons construct meaning and knowledge about the political world through social interaction--in this instance, with their parents. The give-and-take of family political discussion, the data suggest, provides opportunity for youth to construct their own political understanding from the civic and raw material at hand" (497).
discussion was correlated with the parents' level of education, income and knowledge, indicating parents with higher resources engage in more discussion.
PARENT QUALITIES THAT MATTER FOR FAMILY DISCUSSION
interaction between parent political knowledge and parent-child discussion interact to predict level of child political knowledge; the higher the parents' level of poltiical knowledge, the more often there is discussion between the child and parent.
One more important finding is that although who the parents are (demographics etc) matter, what matters more to the development of their child's political ken is what they do with their child (bottom of 497).
-discussion?
A number of studies (i.e. Verba, Schlozman & Brady 1995) have found a correlation between discussion of politics young in life with higher levels of political participation as adults; this study asks whether certain characteristics or qualities among parents enhance the likelihood of that happening, or not.
Discussion Nuances:
-the discussion of current events
-the level of the parents knowledge expressed
Data:
NHES 1996
Sample: 3,662 students and their parents
Research Design:
Measures of Civicness:
(1)monitoring national news
(2)political ken
(3)public communication skills
(4)community service
Parental Characteristics measured:
income
ethnicity
civic skills
behaviors
knowledge
attitudes
Discussion measurement:
4-point scale
"hardly ever" to "almost everyday"
First Step of Analysis: OLS Regression to determine which parent qualities predict civicness among children; next, the authors used interaction analysis to uncover which qualities matter, most, in regard to the discussion itself that lead to civicness (not sure yet how this is a different question?)...
IMPORTANT PARENT QUALITIES:
discussion, in general leads to higher levels of all four civicness variables.
"The findings that family political discussion is broadly linked to youth civic development conform to cognitive developmental theory, which argues that young persons construct meaning and knowledge about the political world through social interaction--in this instance, with their parents. The give-and-take of family political discussion, the data suggest, provides opportunity for youth to construct their own political understanding from the civic and raw material at hand" (497).
discussion was correlated with the parents' level of education, income and knowledge, indicating parents with higher resources engage in more discussion.
PARENT QUALITIES THAT MATTER FOR FAMILY DISCUSSION
interaction between parent political knowledge and parent-child discussion interact to predict level of child political knowledge; the higher the parents' level of poltiical knowledge, the more often there is discussion between the child and parent.
One more important finding is that although who the parents are (demographics etc) matter, what matters more to the development of their child's political ken is what they do with their child (bottom of 497).
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Easton & Dennis (1973) The Child's Image of Government
Political socialization refers to the way in which a society trnsmits poltiical orientations--knowledge, attitudes or norms and values--from generation to generation (59).
The major objects toward which support is directed:
authority figures (government)
the regime
How does each gen. born into the American political system come to accept (or reject) the previous?
"The childs marginal intersts in things political combined with the complexities of the object itself discourages a clear perception of the overall nature of gov. This enormously complicates the task of isolating the specfic image and attitudes that children do acquire" (62).
DATA: 2nd-8th graders in metropolitian cities.
Tabula rasa conception of children... though the political marks, thereupon, begin early (62).
The Crystallization of "government"
2nd grade uncertainty: 27%
8th grade uncertainty: 10%
Smybolic accociation of government (authors use pictures):
younger children associate presidents with government--the more personal, personable, charismatic options.
as children age they move from a "personalized" conception to one better characterized as "legal-rational" plus gov becomes depersonalized (68).
the concept of government and the lawf-making function (ask question; given 4 options--pres, cong, SC, and IDK):
as children age they are better able to recognize congress as the law making body; the youngest group says president.
Differentiating govenmental from non governmental objects (milkman, police officer, etc--all individs):
page 73 here
The major objects toward which support is directed:
authority figures (government)
the regime
How does each gen. born into the American political system come to accept (or reject) the previous?
"The childs marginal intersts in things political combined with the complexities of the object itself discourages a clear perception of the overall nature of gov. This enormously complicates the task of isolating the specfic image and attitudes that children do acquire" (62).
DATA: 2nd-8th graders in metropolitian cities.
Tabula rasa conception of children... though the political marks, thereupon, begin early (62).
The Crystallization of "government"
2nd grade uncertainty: 27%
8th grade uncertainty: 10%
Smybolic accociation of government (authors use pictures):
younger children associate presidents with government--the more personal, personable, charismatic options.
as children age they move from a "personalized" conception to one better characterized as "legal-rational" plus gov becomes depersonalized (68).
the concept of government and the lawf-making function (ask question; given 4 options--pres, cong, SC, and IDK):
as children age they are better able to recognize congress as the law making body; the youngest group says president.
Differentiating govenmental from non governmental objects (milkman, police officer, etc--all individs):
page 73 here
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Greenstein (1965) Children and Politics
Chapter 3 Children's Feelings About Political Authority
We know that adults are somewhat inconsistent in their support of political leaders; in general they distrust leaders, yet when asked specifically about the office of governor, or senators, they in fact do respect those in these positions. This chapter focuses on the antecedent to these oscillating opinions and leadership assumptions adults hold by looking at children.
Sample: 659 kids in New Haven, CT; questionnaire.
three classes of New Haven findings (1) children's ranking of the importance of political leaders; (2) their evaluations of the incumbent president, gov, or mayor; (3) and their spontaneous statements.
(1) ranking of the importance of political leaders: in order...
children's views of political leaders are substantially more favorable than their parents'.
President, Mayor, Doctor, Police Chief, Judge, School Teacher, Religious leader, School Principal.
Although children are emphatic in the response when asked in the President is important, very young children are unable to actually say what the president does.
(2) ...the benevolence of leaders
six open ended items asking for descriptions of political duties uncovered several classes of answers:
(a) services to children--i.e. the mayor makes parks and swings
(b) normative role--the mayor does "good" things
(c) general benevolence--the mayor is belpful, a protector, etc. As children age, their opinion that political leaders are benevolent goes down considerably.
Back to the beginning...
must look not just at the socialization agents, but also the (socialized) children themselves--their characteristics that make them vulnerable/sponge-like, or not.
What is the source of the child's view of authority? Where does political learning take place?
-civic instruction (from family activities)
*children overhear political conversations between their parents
*parents talk to their kids about politics--but they sugar coat it. ...almost as if politics is "bad" for kids
-schools
*reciting the pledge and other rituals
national heros are discussed
-the media
*willy nilly exposure, since children do not generally watch political news
lastly, though not specifically derived from an agent, is this idea put for originally by Lasswell (!948) that says children associate political leaders (adults) with the adults they already know simply bc they are just both adults! and on the whole, the adults the child interacts with on a daily basis are their friends/protectors. these good feelings, then, are projected onto political leader, by kids.
...most of the former socialization agents and the particular function they serve for children (i.e. sugar coated political talk with parents) leads children to lack political cynicism (46). This begins to subsides as the child reaches preadolescence.
What are the consequences of this view of authority held by children?
"learning which takes place early in life should have especially great influence on pasting personality characteristics" (53).
the authors suggest the impact is so strong that when an adult is conflicted between a positive and negative assessment of a leader, they will rely on the more longest held belief--that form childhood, and thus the more positive perspective.
This leads to stability of the system. (kind of a weak conclusion at this point... i imagine greenstein goes into more detail, as the book progresses... but this is the conclusion drawn, in a paragraph, from this chapter).
We know that adults are somewhat inconsistent in their support of political leaders; in general they distrust leaders, yet when asked specifically about the office of governor, or senators, they in fact do respect those in these positions. This chapter focuses on the antecedent to these oscillating opinions and leadership assumptions adults hold by looking at children.
Sample: 659 kids in New Haven, CT; questionnaire.
three classes of New Haven findings (1) children's ranking of the importance of political leaders; (2) their evaluations of the incumbent president, gov, or mayor; (3) and their spontaneous statements.
(1) ranking of the importance of political leaders: in order...
children's views of political leaders are substantially more favorable than their parents'.
President, Mayor, Doctor, Police Chief, Judge, School Teacher, Religious leader, School Principal.
Although children are emphatic in the response when asked in the President is important, very young children are unable to actually say what the president does.
(2) ...the benevolence of leaders
six open ended items asking for descriptions of political duties uncovered several classes of answers:
(a) services to children--i.e. the mayor makes parks and swings
(b) normative role--the mayor does "good" things
(c) general benevolence--the mayor is belpful, a protector, etc. As children age, their opinion that political leaders are benevolent goes down considerably.
Back to the beginning...
must look not just at the socialization agents, but also the (socialized) children themselves--their characteristics that make them vulnerable/sponge-like, or not.
What is the source of the child's view of authority? Where does political learning take place?
-civic instruction (from family activities)
*children overhear political conversations between their parents
*parents talk to their kids about politics--but they sugar coat it. ...almost as if politics is "bad" for kids
-schools
*reciting the pledge and other rituals
national heros are discussed
-the media
*willy nilly exposure, since children do not generally watch political news
lastly, though not specifically derived from an agent, is this idea put for originally by Lasswell (!948) that says children associate political leaders (adults) with the adults they already know simply bc they are just both adults! and on the whole, the adults the child interacts with on a daily basis are their friends/protectors. these good feelings, then, are projected onto political leader, by kids.
...most of the former socialization agents and the particular function they serve for children (i.e. sugar coated political talk with parents) leads children to lack political cynicism (46). This begins to subsides as the child reaches preadolescence.
What are the consequences of this view of authority held by children?
"learning which takes place early in life should have especially great influence on pasting personality characteristics" (53).
the authors suggest the impact is so strong that when an adult is conflicted between a positive and negative assessment of a leader, they will rely on the more longest held belief--that form childhood, and thus the more positive perspective.
This leads to stability of the system. (kind of a weak conclusion at this point... i imagine greenstein goes into more detail, as the book progresses... but this is the conclusion drawn, in a paragraph, from this chapter).
Adleson & O'Neil (1966) Growth of Political Ideas in Adolescence: The Sense of Community
This research aims to assess the growth of political ideas from childhood to adolescence with respect to the development of the sense of community--which incorporates government in its organized forms as well as the social and political collectivity more generally ("the people").
Method: Interviews; a number of hypothetical issues. 1-1.5 hours long. Topics: (1) the scope and limits of political authority, (2) the reciprocal obligations of citizens an state, (3) utopian views of man and society, (4) conceptions of law and justice, (5) the nature of the political process.
Sample:
120 children (60 men, 60 women); 5, 6, 7, 8th grades (30 from each); 2/3 from each grade were of average I.Q.; 1/3 from each grade were of superior I.Q.; interviews in Ann Arbor, MI.
Results:
reported by age group (sex and intelligence were not significant predictors of a development of a sense of community)
11 and 13 year olds:
Cannot transcend a purely personal approach to address matters that require a sociocentric perspective.
Conclusions drawn by authors:
(1) Personalism--(a) the tendency of the child to treal institutions and processes upon the model of persons and personal relationships--government, community and society are abstract ideas; refer to government as "he" or "she." (b) child cannot achieve a socio-centric orientation (aka politics has social as well as personal consequences). governments, then, serve the individual, not the collective, according to the youngest group of children interviewed.
(2) Parts and Wholes
do not conceive of government in a general sense... but in a particular?
(3) Negatives and Positives
11 year olds acknowledge the negative/coercive functions of government; 13 year olds stress the positive functions.
(4) The Future
This idea of the future--that present choices determine the future--is an idea that asserts itself with increasing affect as the child ages (55). As the child ages that envision her or himself in the future, as well. As children age, there are most likely to agree with a minimum education law (i.e. a law requiring all children to stay in school up until 16). As kids age they also become more aware of the communal function of education (57).
(5) Claims of Community--assessing the overlap of "individual freedoms" and "public welfare and safety."
As children age they become more concerned with the community needs (over the individual) (59). Older children, what more, rationalize their decisions, unlike those whom are 11 etc. Two styles of reasoning that begin to make their appearance around the age of 15 are: (1) long range implications of actions (cost-effectiveness approaches) and (2) a readiness to deduce specific choices from general principles (for example, the sanctity of property right or individual rights, both general principles that contain specific issues) (60).
(6) The Force of Principle
"Once principles and ideals are firmly established, the child's approach to political discourse is decisively altered. When he ponders a political choice, he takes into account not only the personal consequences and pragmatic social consequences, but also its consequence in the realm of value" (61). To test this, the authors put a "good" up against a "value."
Discussion:
Adolescent's sense of community is determined by a number of factors that are related to age:
(1) the decline of authoritarianism
--younger kids more likely to accept hierarchy.
(2) a sense of communal needs
--older children have a better understanding of the structure and functioning of the social order as a whole, and the institutions there-in.
(3) the absorption of knowledge and consensus
--as children age they understand consensus
(4) cognitive capacities
--older kids' cog capacity is higher.
(5) the birth of ideology
--as cog capacity increases, ideology arises.
Method: Interviews; a number of hypothetical issues. 1-1.5 hours long. Topics: (1) the scope and limits of political authority, (2) the reciprocal obligations of citizens an state, (3) utopian views of man and society, (4) conceptions of law and justice, (5) the nature of the political process.
Sample:
120 children (60 men, 60 women); 5, 6, 7, 8th grades (30 from each); 2/3 from each grade were of average I.Q.; 1/3 from each grade were of superior I.Q.; interviews in Ann Arbor, MI.
Results:
reported by age group (sex and intelligence were not significant predictors of a development of a sense of community)
11 and 13 year olds:
Cannot transcend a purely personal approach to address matters that require a sociocentric perspective.
Conclusions drawn by authors:
(1) Personalism--(a) the tendency of the child to treal institutions and processes upon the model of persons and personal relationships--government, community and society are abstract ideas; refer to government as "he" or "she." (b) child cannot achieve a socio-centric orientation (aka politics has social as well as personal consequences). governments, then, serve the individual, not the collective, according to the youngest group of children interviewed.
(2) Parts and Wholes
do not conceive of government in a general sense... but in a particular?
(3) Negatives and Positives
11 year olds acknowledge the negative/coercive functions of government; 13 year olds stress the positive functions.
(4) The Future
This idea of the future--that present choices determine the future--is an idea that asserts itself with increasing affect as the child ages (55). As the child ages that envision her or himself in the future, as well. As children age, there are most likely to agree with a minimum education law (i.e. a law requiring all children to stay in school up until 16). As kids age they also become more aware of the communal function of education (57).
(5) Claims of Community--assessing the overlap of "individual freedoms" and "public welfare and safety."
As children age they become more concerned with the community needs (over the individual) (59). Older children, what more, rationalize their decisions, unlike those whom are 11 etc. Two styles of reasoning that begin to make their appearance around the age of 15 are: (1) long range implications of actions (cost-effectiveness approaches) and (2) a readiness to deduce specific choices from general principles (for example, the sanctity of property right or individual rights, both general principles that contain specific issues) (60).
(6) The Force of Principle
"Once principles and ideals are firmly established, the child's approach to political discourse is decisively altered. When he ponders a political choice, he takes into account not only the personal consequences and pragmatic social consequences, but also its consequence in the realm of value" (61). To test this, the authors put a "good" up against a "value."
Discussion:
Adolescent's sense of community is determined by a number of factors that are related to age:
(1) the decline of authoritarianism
--younger kids more likely to accept hierarchy.
(2) a sense of communal needs
--older children have a better understanding of the structure and functioning of the social order as a whole, and the institutions there-in.
(3) the absorption of knowledge and consensus
--as children age they understand consensus
(4) cognitive capacities
--older kids' cog capacity is higher.
(5) the birth of ideology
--as cog capacity increases, ideology arises.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Conover (1991) Political Socialization: Where's the Politics
Political Socialization and Political Learning--how do they relate to one another?
PL-> learning politically relevant material
PS->the process of becoming incorporated--a member of a given group, organization, or society
Poltiical Educ->the deliberate effort to transmit poltiical INFORMATION or to create affective political orientations
Civic Educ-> Both socialization and educ; the deliberate teaching of attitudes and valies that are compatible with support for the existing political regime (132).
PL-> learning politically relevant material
PS->the process of becoming incorporated--a member of a given group, organization, or society
Poltiical Educ->the deliberate effort to transmit poltiical INFORMATION or to create affective political orientations
Civic Educ-> Both socialization and educ; the deliberate teaching of attitudes and valies that are compatible with support for the existing political regime (132).
Suyah, Kalmoe & M. McDermott (2007) Why Twin Studies are Problematic for the Study of Political Ideology
AFH (2005) violate the equal environments assumption.
Mzs receive/share more similar treatment, experiences, prenatal environment and mutual influences than Dzs.
"In sum, these examples illustrate the fact that heritibility (H) and environment (E) statistics ignore genetic and environmental forces that affect all members of a population equally" (21).
Further, AFHs model is additive; not multiplicative or interactive. "AFH cite Carmines and Stimson (1980) work on "easy" and "hard" issues, but they misinterpret these authors' work in two respects. First C and S argue that ALL issues have simple (easy) and complex (hard) facets (81); thus there is not room in their theory for some issue instances to be more heritable than others. Second, C & S say that the E/H distinction reflects not the social/economic distinction but rather the extent to which members of the public can may their preferences to those of the major parties and candidates.
Mzs receive/share more similar treatment, experiences, prenatal environment and mutual influences than Dzs.
"In sum, these examples illustrate the fact that heritibility (H) and environment (E) statistics ignore genetic and environmental forces that affect all members of a population equally" (21).
Further, AFHs model is additive; not multiplicative or interactive. "AFH cite Carmines and Stimson (1980) work on "easy" and "hard" issues, but they misinterpret these authors' work in two respects. First C and S argue that ALL issues have simple (easy) and complex (hard) facets (81); thus there is not room in their theory for some issue instances to be more heritable than others. Second, C & S say that the E/H distinction reflects not the social/economic distinction but rather the extent to which members of the public can may their preferences to those of the major parties and candidates.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Alford, Funk & Hibbing (2005)Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmittied?
What are some of the variables that explain political attitudes and behaviors?
AFH argue that it is a combination of environmental factors (CW) as well as genetics.
The socialization literature has overwhelmingly focused on proximate events and early childhood experiences.
Yet AFH acknowledge a role for heritability in politics. In order to test this theory the authors engage in twin studies.
The authors find that shared genes, shared environment and parental socialization each play a role in determining political ideology and identification.
Twin studies look at similarities between twins; this differs from traditional socialization studies, which look at similarities between parent and child.
this paper is applicable to my research in this respect:
"Acknowledging a role for heritability in politics affects our understanding of first, political issues, second, political learning, and third political cleavages. Inherited attitudes seem to be demonstratably different than acquired attitudes. Tesser (1993) provides evidence that attitudes higher in heritability are manifest more quickly, are more resistant to change, and increase the likelihood that people will be attracted to those who share those particular attitudes. It has long been known that certain politicla issues seem "hard: to people and others seem "easy" presumably because some issues trigger "gut responses," while others do not (Carmines & Stimson 1980, 79), but no explanation has yet been offered why given issues do or do not elicit gut responses. Why do socialm more than economic, issues tend to hit people in the gut, even though both constitute ongoing and equally complex societal concerns? In light of the new findings, one distinct possibility is that easy "gut" issues tend to be those that are more heritable" (164).
heritable a synonym for abstract/confusing/unknown/limited environmental impacts due to limited public discourse?!?! heritability, then, as a default?!!? INTERESTING QUESTION.
AFH argue that it is a combination of environmental factors (CW) as well as genetics.
The socialization literature has overwhelmingly focused on proximate events and early childhood experiences.
Yet AFH acknowledge a role for heritability in politics. In order to test this theory the authors engage in twin studies.
The authors find that shared genes, shared environment and parental socialization each play a role in determining political ideology and identification.
Twin studies look at similarities between twins; this differs from traditional socialization studies, which look at similarities between parent and child.
this paper is applicable to my research in this respect:
"Acknowledging a role for heritability in politics affects our understanding of first, political issues, second, political learning, and third political cleavages. Inherited attitudes seem to be demonstratably different than acquired attitudes. Tesser (1993) provides evidence that attitudes higher in heritability are manifest more quickly, are more resistant to change, and increase the likelihood that people will be attracted to those who share those particular attitudes. It has long been known that certain politicla issues seem "hard: to people and others seem "easy" presumably because some issues trigger "gut responses," while others do not (Carmines & Stimson 1980, 79), but no explanation has yet been offered why given issues do or do not elicit gut responses. Why do socialm more than economic, issues tend to hit people in the gut, even though both constitute ongoing and equally complex societal concerns? In light of the new findings, one distinct possibility is that easy "gut" issues tend to be those that are more heritable" (164).
heritable a synonym for abstract/confusing/unknown/limited environmental impacts due to limited public discourse?!?! heritability, then, as a default?!!? INTERESTING QUESTION.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Easton & Dennis (1969) A Political Theory of Political Socialization
in "Children in the Political System"
Chapter 3
stability AND change are potentially outcomes of socialization.
A political system: those interactions through which valies are authoritatively allocated for a society, that is, through whuch binding decisions are made and implemented. Concretely a political system is a is a set of structures and processes through which demands of the "politically relevant" members are converted into binding decisions and related actions" (48).
converts inputs into outputs (see conceptualization on page 48). "open, self-regulating, goal directed, and self-transforming units of behavior" (49).
The political system in the US has been adaptive--which is why it has prevailed.
*Relevance of socialization for persistence theory (49)
-system change as well as persistence are both potential goals of the political system
-political socialization needs to be understood in relation to a broader theory of political systems
Thus, the question to ask is: what part, if any, does socialization play in enabling a political system to persist even in the face of a variety of stresses and strains on the essential system variables to which most systems are exposed" (51).
*System Stress (51)
"Socialization plays a vital part in enabling some kind of political system to persist" (51)."the persistence of some kind of political system would therefore depend upon the way in which it handles typical stresses" (52).
Where does stress come from?
outputs: outputs are those decisions and actions taken by the political authorities.
demand-input: too many demands at once--devices include rules as well as individual restraints built into the system.
input-support: feelings of trust, confidence, or affection and their opposites, that persons may direct to some object.
the meaning of support -- if support is positive a person favors an object; if support is negative, he withholds or withdraws his favor from the object. support will vary.
the object of support --
the political community: that aspect of a political system that we can identify as a collection of persons who share a division of political behavior.
regime: part of the political system that we may calls its constitutional order in the very broadest sense of the term.
authorities: those members of a system in whom the primary responsibility is lodged for taking care of the daily routines of a political system.
types of support-- (1) specific, (2) diffuse (the generalized trust and confidence that members invest in the various objects of the system as ends in themselves) (63).
NOTES FORM CLASS: jennings
the value of this approach is:
(1) forces us to look at the micro/macro linkages
(2) its concern with the political system is good--study individuals for the sake of understanding the functioning of the system.
Chapter 3
stability AND change are potentially outcomes of socialization.
A political system: those interactions through which valies are authoritatively allocated for a society, that is, through whuch binding decisions are made and implemented. Concretely a political system is a is a set of structures and processes through which demands of the "politically relevant" members are converted into binding decisions and related actions" (48).
converts inputs into outputs (see conceptualization on page 48). "open, self-regulating, goal directed, and self-transforming units of behavior" (49).
The political system in the US has been adaptive--which is why it has prevailed.
*Relevance of socialization for persistence theory (49)
-system change as well as persistence are both potential goals of the political system
-political socialization needs to be understood in relation to a broader theory of political systems
Thus, the question to ask is: what part, if any, does socialization play in enabling a political system to persist even in the face of a variety of stresses and strains on the essential system variables to which most systems are exposed" (51).
*System Stress (51)
"Socialization plays a vital part in enabling some kind of political system to persist" (51)."the persistence of some kind of political system would therefore depend upon the way in which it handles typical stresses" (52).
Where does stress come from?
outputs: outputs are those decisions and actions taken by the political authorities.
demand-input: too many demands at once--devices include rules as well as individual restraints built into the system.
input-support: feelings of trust, confidence, or affection and their opposites, that persons may direct to some object.
the meaning of support -- if support is positive a person favors an object; if support is negative, he withholds or withdraws his favor from the object. support will vary.
the object of support --
the political community: that aspect of a political system that we can identify as a collection of persons who share a division of political behavior.
regime: part of the political system that we may calls its constitutional order in the very broadest sense of the term.
authorities: those members of a system in whom the primary responsibility is lodged for taking care of the daily routines of a political system.
types of support-- (1) specific, (2) diffuse (the generalized trust and confidence that members invest in the various objects of the system as ends in themselves) (63).
NOTES FORM CLASS: jennings
the value of this approach is:
(1) forces us to look at the micro/macro linkages
(2) its concern with the political system is good--study individuals for the sake of understanding the functioning of the system.
Jennings & Niemi (1974) Political Learning, Individual Behavior, and The Pol Syste
CHAPTER 1
the political character of adolescence
a socialized person: one who has successfully internalized the prevailing norms of behavior modes (5). plus socialization experiences (5). plus natural disasters, technological innovations, military conquest, and drastic altercations to the legal system (6).
compliance systems:
family
arms of the state
religious institutions
educational institutions
experiences
the media
political learning
Reiss; an institutional supremacy view:
"if change were simple a function of incremental alterations generated within the family, the societal change would be slow indeed and individual behavior would remain relatively constant" (8; Reiss).
Greenstein: political behavior is a joint function of situational stimuli and psychological predispositions.
AN APPROACH TO POLITICAL LEARNING
needs to take into account the needs of individuals as well as system structures
-observational learning (social learning theory)
the person, especially the young one, learns by observing the behaviors of others (especially the family); done so by comparing comparing child and parent. (but also child and teachers and child and peers).
-reinforcement theory
behavior that is positively rewarded will be sustained; that which is negatively rewarded will be discontinued.
-cognitive theory
socializee as active; recognizes discontinuities not as just reactions to larger societal structural changes, but also a reflection of individually desired outcomes.
-resource availability
"Children born into families of different social status have differential opportunities for acquiring certain predispositions and skills generally valued in society" (22). --the major difficultly with the social stratification approach is that it deals with cayses at a second or third remove...and a great deal of noise enters the analysis because the relationship between class and child-rearing practices is extremely variable through time and space" (22).
Agents (pre-adult environment)--sources of observational learning--
-family and school
-peer groups
-media
-secondary groups
-political events
"overall then the job of sorting out the differential nd joint effects of socialization agents is a difficult task. But this is a problem that must be attacked if we are to understand how people come to be the way they are politically" (25).
the political character of adolescence
a socialized person: one who has successfully internalized the prevailing norms of behavior modes (5). plus socialization experiences (5). plus natural disasters, technological innovations, military conquest, and drastic altercations to the legal system (6).
compliance systems:
family
arms of the state
religious institutions
educational institutions
experiences
the media
political learning
Reiss; an institutional supremacy view:
"if change were simple a function of incremental alterations generated within the family, the societal change would be slow indeed and individual behavior would remain relatively constant" (8; Reiss).
Greenstein: political behavior is a joint function of situational stimuli and psychological predispositions.
AN APPROACH TO POLITICAL LEARNING
needs to take into account the needs of individuals as well as system structures
-observational learning (social learning theory)
the person, especially the young one, learns by observing the behaviors of others (especially the family); done so by comparing comparing child and parent. (but also child and teachers and child and peers).
-reinforcement theory
behavior that is positively rewarded will be sustained; that which is negatively rewarded will be discontinued.
-cognitive theory
socializee as active; recognizes discontinuities not as just reactions to larger societal structural changes, but also a reflection of individually desired outcomes.
-resource availability
"Children born into families of different social status have differential opportunities for acquiring certain predispositions and skills generally valued in society" (22). --the major difficultly with the social stratification approach is that it deals with cayses at a second or third remove...and a great deal of noise enters the analysis because the relationship between class and child-rearing practices is extremely variable through time and space" (22).
Agents (pre-adult environment)--sources of observational learning--
-family and school
-peer groups
-media
-secondary groups
-political events
"overall then the job of sorting out the differential nd joint effects of socialization agents is a difficult task. But this is a problem that must be attacked if we are to understand how people come to be the way they are politically" (25).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
