Beyond Intent to Vote: Examining Measures of Adolescent Political Activity
Civic engagement is a broad concept; however, most measures of adolescent civic engagement are limited to behaviors like volunteerism. Perhaps because adolescents under age 18 are unable to vote, little attention has been paid to consistent measurement of adolescent political activity.
Adolescents have access to fewer means of engagement than older youth and adults; yet, the means by which youth can engage politically are numerous and multidimensional (Beaumont et al., 2006). Many scholars argue that traditional conceptions of participation neglect ways that youth engage (Ginwright, 2006; Kirshner et al., 2003; Smith et al., 2005). As access to advancing technology grows, youth may increasingly contribute to their communities and the broader society in new ways (Keeter et al., 2003).
Among teenagers who are low-income or live in high poverty areas, members of some minority groups, and immigrants, commonly used measures show low levels of civic engagement (Fridkin et al., 2006; Marcelo et al., 2007; Torney-Purta, 2001). Adolescents also often exhibit alienation or apathy from political processes. This paper focuses on capturing and assessing ways that diverse youth engage politically.
Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted with 805 adolescents attending two urban public high schools in a southern state. A survey administered through social studies classrooms sought to better understand antecedents of youth civic behavior. Eighteen distinct civic engagement measures were included, based on the following constructs (Flanagan et al., 2007): engagement in electoral politics; unconventional political engagement, engagement in community issues, and alternative ways of expressing political voice. Items were adapted to enable measurement of both prior acts of engagement and the likelihood of participation in these acts after high school.
A diverse sample enabled examination of civic behavior across Hispanic youth (N=272, 34.1%), African-American youth (N=239, 30.0%), White youth (N=151, 18.9%), and youth indicating another race or ethnicity (N=135, 16.9%). Approximately 18% of the sample was born outside of the U.S.
Findings
While half of prior civic activities were engaged in by fewer than 15% of the sample, substantial percentages of students reported making purchasing decisions based on support for a company’s values (62.03%), persuading people to vote for a specific candidate (36.25%), and signing a petition (29.34%). The mean likelihood of future civic participation ranged broadly across activities, from 1.80 (SD=1.11) for working as a canvasser to 4.04 (SD=1.29) for doing volunteer work. Overall, Hispanic adolescents report a lower likelihood of future participation in these activities, particularly as compared to African-American youth. The paper discusses further comparisons between demographic groups to better understand differences that exist in the types of civic behaviors adolescents engage in.
Implications
Survey measures of adolescent civic engagement often limit their focus to volunteerism and youth leadership, typically neglecting the myriad other ways that youth can affect the policies and practices of local and national institutions. Examination of a more expansive set of civic engagement measures can inform research and practice that seek to empower vulnerable youth to impact their own communities. Specific limitations and implications of the findings will be presented.