This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Feb 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
The Civic Parent
Awakening the Civic Parent:
The School and Family in Political Socialization
Michael McDevitt,
University of Colorado at Boulder
Spiro Kiousis,
University of Florida
April 1, 2005
Submitted to the Mass Communication & Society Division,
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
Running head: The Civic Parent
Contact information:
Michael McDevitt
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
1511 University Avenue
478 UCB
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0478
303-735-0460
[log in to unmask]
fax: 303-492-0969
This research is supported by the Center for Information & Research
on Civic Learning
& Engagement and by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
Awakening the Civic Parent:
The School and Family in Political Socialization
Abstract
This paper explores whether schools-through the prompting of
student-parent conversation-can awaken the civic parent of an adult,
a role identity that might otherwise remain dormant. Results validate
a theoretical model in which a school intervention engenders
political involvement directly, but also indirectly through the
long-term cultivation of civic parenting. Results are derived from a
field study of Kids Voting USA as taught to high school students and
parents in Arizona, Colorado, and Florida.
Awakening the Civic Parent:
The School and Family in Political Socialization
Proponents of the school as a site for civic development are fond of
noting that the public school system in the United States was
established to promote active citizenship (Center for Information &
Research on Civic Learning & Engagement, 2003). Parents, by contrast,
were never designed for this purpose. The study of political
socialization is in many respects an attempt to understand how
non-political institutions-most notably the family-act on behalf of
democracy to prepare neophyte citizens. Consequently, the bulk of
theorizing on family processes does not assume that parent influence
is deliberate in the sense of parental duty consistently and
consciously enacted over many years. In response to Hyman's seminal
book, Political Socialization (1959), scholars applied various
psychological theories to explain children's attitudes toward
authority and diffuse support for a political regime (e.g.,
Greenstein, 1965). Freudian and neo-Freudian approaches gave way to
cognitive modeling, social learning, and reciprocal models of
parent-child influence (Dudley & Gitelson, 2002; McDevitt & Chaffee,
2002), but in most cases there was no need for scholars to claim that
the adoption of political attitudes and perceptions required the
sustained and purposeful effort of parents.1
Likewise, political behavior research often views active citizenship
as an indirect consequence of childrearing practices, the social
standing of parents, and household resources such as newspaper
subscriptions and online access. In the standard approach to
predicting adult participation, parental legacy is important, but
mostly because of socioeconomic status (SES). High-SES youth are more
likely to attend college and to acquire jobs that provide them with
resources of time and skills, which are transferable to politics
(Brady, Verba, & Schlozman, 1995). In studies of developmental
psychology, child-rearing practices predict learning outcomes in
social studies and other courses, and parent support for schools is
associated with student achievement (e.g., Dornbusch, Ritter,
Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987), but these benefits are usually
not traced back to parents' specific attempts at civic instruction.
Parenting in these perspectives is functional for family system
dynamics that have a logic all their own apart from any implications
for political socialization. Left mostly unexplored is the
identification of factors that might encourage adults to consider
civic nurturing as a parental responsibility. The question arises as
to whether civic parenting as a behavioral construct is responsive to
situational influence. If so, what theoretical framework can be used
to explicate the causes and consequences of childrearing directed at
civic growth?
Here we will explore whether schools-through the prompting of
student-parent conversation-can awaken the civic parent of an adult,
a role identity that might otherwise remain dormant. We will test the
validity of a conceptual model in which a school intervention
engenders political involvement directly, but also indirectly through
the long-term cultivation of civic parenting. Panel data are drawn
from a field study of effects of the Kids Voting USA curriculum on
students and parents in Arizona, Colorado, and Florida. Respondents
were interviewed following the 2002 election campaign and again one
year later.
Civic Parenting
By civic parenting, we mean the purposeful activity of parents in
encouraging the political curiosity, involvement, and expression of
children. We presume that this effort is most beneficial to an
adolescent when it is explicitly communicated in the family. Existing
theoretical perspectives in communication research suggest that
parents can successfully promote adolescent political involvement
through family media use and discussion. "Parental mediation" of
child television viewing (Austin & Pinkleton, 2001), parent news use
habits and subscriptions (Zerba, 2004), family discussion about the
news (McDevitt & Chaffee, 2003), and parents' comfort with
controversial expression (Saphir & Chaffee, 2002) are associated with
an upward trajectory of child political development. These parenting
orientations and the availability of political stimulation might be
inadvertent or haphazard in many families, as when, for example,
children form impressions of issues based on observing parents
complaining about news bias (Austin & Pinkleton, 2001). Here we view
civic parenting as purposeful communication intended to promote
political awareness and sophistication, but also allowing for
reciprocal influence in the child-parent dyad. Civic parenting should
be manifest in encouraging adolescents to pay attention to news and
to talk about political issues. Furthermore, parents should possess a
feeling of discussion efficacy vis-…-vis their children-i.e., the
ability to get an adolescent to talk about politics. This parenting
influence is, in fact, a major achievement given that many
individuals, regardless of age, are reticent about speaking up on
partisan topics (Dutwin, 2003). If parents can nurture such
expression in the safety of the home, they may go a long way to
preparing young citizens for confident participation in the more
intimidating arena of the public sphere. We should note what we do
not mean by civic parenting. We are not referring to heavy-handed,
partisan indoctrination, as in a father announcing: "We are Democrats
in this family so get used to it!" Civic parenting should have
positive consequences for socialization when the effort is to promote
awareness and reflection rather than to impose a partisan
identification (Saphir & Chaffee, 2002). Taken a step further, civic
parenting should be effective when adolescents are able to influence
parents. A recent study found that student-initiated discussion and
the ability to influence parents' news use are associated with
adolescent political growth (McDevitt, 2004).
Kids Voting USA
Innovations during the Progressive Era offer hints as to how schools
might cultivate civic parenting. The impulse to assimilate immigrants
during this period "reached its greatest flowering in the
kindergarten movement," Putnam writes (2000, p. 395). Reformers set
out to influence parents' child-rearing techniques, and a nexus of
involvement sprung forth in forms such as mother's clubs and sewing
clubs. Progressive reformers understood that they could overcome
cultural barriers to improve education by creating institutions
centered on parenting.
Another historical era with implications for civic parenting occurred
in the 1970s with the eruptions of school controversies about racial
desegregation, student discipline, and community control and
decentralization. Jennings (1975) documented how students were quite
sensitive to pedagogical encroachments into family matters, alerting
parents when potentially offensive issues arose. Jennings noted,
"Having a child in school sets up a web of relationships tying
school, child, and parent together. No other modern institution
serves as the focal point for such common parent-child interests and
activities as the school" (p. 49).
Intricate relationships of school and home suggest a mediation role
for families in which they are responsive to the exogenous
stimulation provided by schools. This function is consistent with
normative theories of democratic education as advanced by Dewey and
taken up by contemporary scholars (Gutmann, 1987; Angell, 1991).
Dewey stressed the benefits of constant interaction between an open
classroom community and the social spheres with which it overlaps.
The family, then, can be understood in political socialization as a
social nexus shaped by extra-familial forces such as schools, media,
elections, and community controversies (Cook, 1985).
Our expectation that schools can stimulate civic parenting is derived
in part from prior research on the effects of Kids Voting USA. The
program encompasses a multi-pronged approach based on peer-centered
learning, information gathering, and hands-on activity. The
nonpartisan, nonprofit initiative took root on a trial basis in
several Arizona communities in 1988, and has since spread to
affiliates in 29 states, encompassing 4.3 million students and
200,000 teachers in 10,600 schools. The K-12 curriculum is taught
during the final months of an election campaign to coincide with the
beginning of a school year. Within the classroom, the Civics Alive!
curriculum promotes the principle that citizens should study
candidates and issues. This emphasis is particularly important for
deliberative dispositions that might carry over into other social
spheres such as the family and the community. KVUSA also offers
community service in its Destination Democracy events. This extension
of the curriculum into the community is important for older students
as they are offered realistic opportunities to assert themselves in
activities such as get-out-the vote campaigns. The final aspect of
the program is voting on Election Day as students cast ballots
alongside parents.
The authentic experiences provided by Kids Voting contrast with the
rote-instruction and passive learning of conventional civic courses
(Niemi & Junn, 1998). These innovations have attracted a great deal
of scholarly attention, making Kids Voting perhaps the most studied
civic curriculum since the mid 1990s. This research tends to follow
one of two tracks-documentation of increased voting turnout of
parents and former students at the community level (e.g., Merrill,
Simon, & Adrian, 1994), and studies of individual and family-level
processes characterized by stimulated news media use, cognition, and
opinion formation (e.g., McLeod, Eveland, & Horowitz, 1998; McDevitt
& Chaffee, 2000, 2002). The latter research is more pertinent to this
study, and we will highlight some of the key insights from prior
studies that address how schools and parent interact as socializing
agents. McDevitt and Chaffee (2000) documented the phenomenon of
"trickle-up influence" in which KVUSA participation motivated
children and adolescents to initiate conversations at home. Parents
responded by paying more attention to news and strengthening their
opinions in anticipation of future discussion. The authors
subsequently developed a functional model of family political
communication to illustrate how the parent's response reflects her
desire to maintain a leadership role in the family (2002). Family
role relationships are largely based on norms of communicative
competence, and when these expectations are violated-as when students
narrow gaps or surpass parents in civic expertise-tension can arise.
This strain is resolved when parents regain leadership by paying
attention to politics. In a subsequent study of curriculum effects,
McDevitt (2004) illustrated the beneficial consequences of role
strain. He tested a model of "developmental provocation" in which
younger adolescents poked and prodded parents in conversations during
the final weeks of the 2000 election. By generating feedback,
adolescents benefited by comparing their opinions with those of
parents. These studies describe how parents adapt to episodes of
student-initiated conversation, but parent responses are viewed as
essentially inadvertent and reactive.
A Model of Parent Priming
We will test a model of parent priming that begins with a school
intervention prompting students' news attention, discussion, and
opinion formation as immediate effects. Student-parent
discussion should engender the same outcomes for parents, although to
a lesser degree, as was shown in prior KVUSA evaluations (McDevitt &
Chaffee, 2000, 2002). We anticipate that parents should show
curiosity about civic instruction at school as an early indication
that they are becoming interested in the political growth of their
children. This priming of civic parenting will be consequential in
the long run with parents encouraging adolescent development beyond
the progress predicted by the school intervention, according to the model.
Immediate Effects. Once triggered, student-parent discussion bridges
the classroom with the living room, creating possibilities for
immediate growth in three areas.
News relevance. The stark reality is that most American teenagers
most of the time do not pay much attention to politics (CIRCLE,
2003). However, episodes of widespread political discussion increase
the relevance and information utility of news (Atkin, 1981). When
adolescents anticipate that they will be called upon in class to talk
about campaign issues, they turn to media (perhaps more than to
parents) for knowledge and opinions (Kiousis, McDevitt, & Xu, 2004).
The interpersonal demands of political discussion would require that
adolescents actively reflect upon the meaning of news events so that
they comprehend how isolated events and discrete issues are connected
(Kosicki & McLeod, 1990). Thus, motivated media use and concurrent
discussion should entail information integration as a processing
goal. We consequently incorporated measures of news attention,
knowledge, and information integration to evaluate effects of Kid
Voting. We will use these same indicators to document parent
responses to student-initiated discussion and increased news
attention. The anticipation of future conversations with children,
coupled with parents' desire to maintain a leadership role in the
family, should motivate them to fortify their knowledge base.
Deliberative discussion. An intervention such as KVUSA establishes
conditions in which school allowances for open discussion and
partisan expression might conflict with the communication norms in
families, particularly in homes with authoritarian parents (Saphir &
Chaffee, 2002). However, political discussion at school tends to
foster conversations in the home as teenagers become curious about
how parents will respond to the contentious ideas batted around in
the classroom (Jennings, 1975; McDevitt, 2004). In keeping with prior
evaluations, we can expect that Kids Voting influence will translate
into increased frequency of student-parent discussion about politics,
along with more frequent conversations with friends and an expansion
of adolescent networks for political discussion. These interpersonal
outcomes should be detectable among parents also, although to a
lesser extent given the inertia of adult dispositions such as an
aversion to speaking up on touchy topics (Dutwin, 2003).
For adolescents and parents, opportunities to practice political
discussion-and to become more comfortable with it inside and outside
the home-might engender the kinds of dispositions celebrated by
theorists of deliberative democracy. Evidence for this will be
assessed in terms of two indicators: willingness to openly disagree
with others and to listen respectfully to partisan opponents. In the
contexts of school and family life, we would describe this
combination as confident and civil deliberation, acted out in
spontaneous, everyday interaction. And there is good reason to
believe that these outcome are realistic given recent studies showing
that news media use is associated with a willingness to argue (Kim,
Wyatt, & Katz, 1999) and political discussion enhances individuals'
respect for partisan opponents (Voltmer & Lalljee, 2004).
Opinion validation. Another benefit of school and family interaction
is increased opportunities for students to compare, contrast, and
integrate perspectives from multiple spheres of interaction. Student
should become more curious about politics, for example, if the views
of teachers conflict with those of peers, siblings, and parents. The
increased attention to news and the efforts at information
integration, described above, should provide a cognitive base for
opinion formation and an awareness of campaign issues that are most
salient at the time. Discussion in various settings, meanwhile,
should allow students to try out tentative opinions and partisan
identities to see how they play out in social relations. The very act
of articulating political views forces a discussant to think more
carefully about the consistency and validity of political opinions,
and the responses from others provide additional information for
shaping attitudes (Dutwin, 2003). With parents more active in media
use and discussion, we can expect some degree of opinion
crystallization among them as well.
Finally, we expect that parents will become interested in classroom
experiences as they observe the civic transformation of children and
wonder where this inspiration is coming from.
H1: Kids Voting will provide immediate stimulation for students' news
media use, discussion, and opinion formation.
H2: Student discussion at home will provide immediate stimulation for
parents' media use, discussion, opinion formation, and interest in
civic instruction.
Long-term Effects. The purpose of KVUSA is to cultivate
communication and participatory skills that are transferable outside
the classroom. The hope is that when adolescents develop curiosity
about election news, and when they achieve civic empowerment by
acquiring opinions and expressing partisan identities, these
orientations will reinforce each other as habits long after the
intervention ends. Episodic attention to election news should allow
adolescents to develop cognitive schema for more efficient
comprehension of news, increasing the chances that news exposure will
become habitual (Kosicki & McLeod, 1990). Likewise, a situational
increase in discussion could take hold as a long-term habit if
adolescents experience a sense of empowerment from expressing an
autonomous civic identity in relation to teachers, peers, and
parents. That is, teenagers would persist in initiating discussions
if they begin to appreciate the social utility of possessing
political views and expressing them.
The cognitive and attitudinal sophistication that results from media
use and interpersonal communication should generate motivation,
efficacy, and skills for civic participation. This follows from
normative conceptions of deliberative democracy, and recent research
confirms a close empirical association between these communication
activities and various participatory behaviors beyond what would be
predicted from demographics and general political interest (Kim,
Wyatt, & Katz, 1999). In applying the deliberative democracy
framework to socialization, we will test whether Kids Voting's
influence as a communication stimulus translates into campus
activism, volunteering, and students' intention to vote in 2004.
H3: KVUSA will predict students' media use, discussion, opinion
formation, and political participation in the long term.
We have used the metaphor of parent awakening to suggest that
schools might indirectly influence students by making a civic
nurturing role more salient to adults in childrearing. If, as we
expect, parents become more interested in civic instruction at
school, they might contemplate what their own duties are in preparing
children for citizenship. For example, this might come about if
parents feel a sense of competition with teachers or if they simply
come to realize that they share responsibility with schools in
preparing their offspring for civic life. This realization might come
about during the school intervention period, but ultimately we are
interested in whether interest in school instruction evolves into
purposeful and sustained efforts at civic parenting. The student
herself should help to bring this about given our understanding of
the student-parent dyad as a nexus for reciprocal influence via media
use and discussion. In light of the upward trajectory of long-range
growth described above for adolescents, students should contribute
political stimulation to the parent via discussion. And if parents
want to maintain a leadership role in the family in terms of
politics, they will have to upgrade their own knowledge and
discussion skills (McDevitt & Chaffee, 2002), providing, in turn,
motivation and resources for civic parenting. Thus, the phenomenon of
civic parenting is really a manifestation of reciprocal influence in
the dyad. Just as the adults in our study should benefit from the
students' long-term political involvement, parents might retain and
refine communication dispositions that promote the continued civic
growth of their children.
H4a: Parent interest in instruction will predict civic parenting in
the long term.
H4b: Civic parenting will predict students' media use, discussion,
opinion formation, and
participation in the long term.
Method
This study explores the influence of Kids Voting in three
communities: Maricopa County, Arizona; El Paso County, Colorado; and
Broward/Palm Beach counties, Florida. The panel design encompasses
interviews of student-parent dyads following the 2002 election and
interviews of the same respondents one year later. Each of the three
sites included the presence of both Kids Voting schools and
non-participating schools. Similar demographics between the two
groups of schools would help us to eliminate extraneous factors as
explanations for Kids Voting effects. To test this assumption, a
multiple regression model was created with the following demographic
variables serving as predictors of Kids Voting exposure: gender,
ethnicity, grades earned in school, family SES, and parental vote
turnout in prior elections. The demographic predictors made no
significant contribution to the variance explained. Nevertheless, the
design does not fit entirely the requirements for a fully controlled
experiment in that we did not randomly assign students to
independent-variable conditions. We consequently characterize this
study as a quasi-experiment, in which the selection to contrasting
conditions appears to be unbiased but is not literally randomized
(Campbell & Stanley, 1963). A particular student's participation in
the curriculum was determined by decisions made by school
administrators and teachers, eliminating self-selection (of students)
as a threat to internal validity.
Kids Voting programs vary from community to community, depending upon
the amount of volunteer support and the discretion of district
administrators and individual teachers. Any given teacher might
decide to use all, some, or none of the Kids Voting lesson plans, and
we accordingly assessed Kids Voting exposure as a continuous
variable. It is also worth noting that many of the curriculum
activities we measured are not necessarily unique to Kids Voting, as
any enterprising teacher might decide to implement similar lesson
plans. Thus, we are not engaged in a conventional curriculum
evaluation of clearly contrasting conditions. However, the presence
of Kids Voting in the three study sites did serve our purposes by
increasing variance in the types and intensity of civic learning
experiences. Ultimately we are interested in observing what happens
to family dynamics in response to any sufficiently intensive school
intervention.
Data Collection & Sampling. The sampling frame is defined as all
families in the three regions with at least one student in the 11th
or 12th grade during the fall of 2002. The total sample includes
students representing more than 150 schools.2 We obtained lists of
students and parents from a major vendor for survey research sample
frames. To maximize the response rate for a self-administered mail
back, Dillman's (2000) Total/Tailored Design Method was used, which
includes follow-up contacts to non-respondents. In addition, we
included small incentives ($5 phone cards) in the initial mailing and
a 1-800 number in case students or parents had questions. We also
provided a Web-based survey, anticipating that this option would be
especially attractive for adolescents. Finally, we conducted
telephone interviews to reach students and parents who failed to
respond initially.3
For the first wave of interviews (T1), the initial questionnaire
mailing took place on November 19, 2002 (after schools had
implemented the curriculum and the election finished). Reminder post
cards were mailed to non-respondents on December 9. Telephone
follow-up began December 17. During this phase, at least 10 attempts
were made before coding a number as unreachable. Web surveys were
completed throughout the field period. Data collection ended on
February 25, 2003. The N for the final sample is 497 student-parent
dyads. The basic demographics for the student sample are as follows:
53% juniors and 47% seniors; 57% female and 43% male; 64% Anglo, 12%
Hispanic, 7% African-American, 3% Asian, 1% Native American, and 13%
"other." In terms of SES, 50% of the parents indicated that they
graduated from college, and 75% said they earn at least $41,000 annually.
The cooperation rate for student-parent dyads represents the ratio of
completed questionnaires/interviews to eligible respondents
contacted. The rates are 58% for Arizona, 62% for Colorado, and 55%
for Florida. These rates are consistent with a recent effort to reach
young adults on matters of civic engagement without the benefit of
school-site administration (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2002).
We refined interview procedures for the second wave (T2) by dropping
the online questionnaire option but increasing substantially our
efforts in the telephone and mail-back modes. We provided the same
response incentive. Interviews were initially attempted by telephone
with all dyads in the sample, beginning on November 6, 2003. Many of
the students had graduated from high school and had to be reached at
new addresses. Telephone calls were first made to the homes of the
parents. If students no longer lived at home, parents were asked for
the new phone numbers. The range of attempts per telephone number was
1 to 35. Often, the student was now in college and reaching them was
difficult. Questionnaires were mailed at two different times to
parents and students not reached by phone. In total 308 parents and
313 students completed the questionnaire at T2, either by phone or by
mail, comprising a total of 288 dyads. This represents a completion
rate of 58 percent from the baseline number of dyads.
The basic demographics for the student sample at T2 are as follows:
59% female and 41% male; 71% Anglo, 8% Hispanic, 7% African-American,
2% Asian, and 12% "other." In terms of SES, 54% of the parents
indicated that they graduated from college, and 76% said they earn at
least $41,000 annually. These breakdowns are similar to those at T1,
particularly with respect to gender and parent income level, although
we do see drop off among the Hispanic respondents, from 12% at T1 to 8% at T2.
Kids Voting Participation. The T1 questionnaire included 10 items
used to prompt recall of Kids Voting experiences. Each item was
standardized and summed to form an index. No single item is
definitive evidence of participation, but responses to the items
collectively provide a probabilistic approach. Reliability of the
scale (_ = .62) was similar to the exposure scale used by Chaffee et
al. (1995) in their study of the program in San Jose, California (_ = .67).
For the first two questions, students used a 1-to-5 scale with 1
meaning "never" and 5 meaning "very often." Respondents were asked,
"In school this fall, how often has the election been discussed in
your classes?" and "How often have your teachers encouraged you to
say what you think about politics, even if the topic is
controversial?" Students then answered "yes" or "no" to questions
about their school experiences from that year. These items asked
whether they took sides in a debate, analyzed political cartoons,
analyzed political ads, participated in a "service learning" program,
worked at a polling site on Election Day, encouraged people to
register to vote, did any homework assignments on the election that
involved family participation, or voted with a parent on Election Day.
Demographics. The following demographic controls, assessed at T1,
were incorporated for both students and parents: gender, ethnicity,
religious group membership, state of origin, and family SES. We also
measured student grade level and grades earned in school. We asked
parents to report voting or non-voting in previous elections, which
represents a variable not controlled for in prior evaluations of Kids
Voting. Item wording and coding are provided in the Appendix.
Civic Involvement. Kids Voting effects for students are evaluated
using measures of media use and cognition, discussion, and opinion
formation at T1 and at T2. Dimensions of civic participation are
measured at T2. For parents, curriculum influence at T1 is measured
in the areas of media use and cognition, discussion, opinion
formation, and interest in civic instruction. The civic parenting
variable is measured at T2. The corresponding measures for student
and parent political involvement are identical or nearly identical.
In most cases the corresponding T1 and T2 indicators are identical.
The Appendix provides item wording, coding, and reliability scores.
Results
We created a stringent test of Kids Voting effects given the many
demographic controls. As shown in Table 1, a hierarchical regression
model controls first for the demographics. The second equation
incorporates the measure of KVUSA exposure. H1 predicted that Kids
Voting would stimulate student media use, discussion, and opinion
formation. The curriculum provided a strong impetus for increased
attention to election news (_ = .33, p < .001) and information
integration (_ = .28, p < .001). To a lesser extent, the curriculum
also promoted knowledge gain and issue salience. We suspect that the
knowledge outcome is mostly an indirect effect of the curriculum via
news processing.
-Table 1 here-
Situational increases in news attention are often accompanied by an
upsurge in political discussion (Atkin, 1972), and this is the case
here as KVUSA also stimulated student-parent conversation (_ = .30, p
< .001). A similar magnitude of effect was evident with size of
discussion network, and KVUSA influence was even stronger for
discussion with friends, accounting for 14 percent of incremental
variance. The dimensions of interpersonal communication represent
three of the strongest effects. While demographics accounted for an
average of 4.3% of variance explained across the three measures,
KVUSA accounted for 12.7%. The curriculum also promoted deliberative
habits of willingness to disagree and willingness to listen to
opponents, although to a lesser degree. KVUSA provided a modest
impetus to partisanship (_ = .11, p < .05). While the result is not
spectacular, opinion formation is accompanied by evidence of news
media use and cognitive processing. We can reasonably presume that
these partisan views are backed up with some contemplation.
The promotion of student-parent conversation is a particularly
important finding as student discussion acts as a lynchpin in our
model of family political activation. According to H2, student
discussion will stimulate parents' media use, discussion, opinions,
and interest in civic instruction. In the regression model used for
Table 2, the demographic block is entered in the first equation,
followed by Kids Voting, and finally student-parent discussion in a
third equation. The effects of Kids Voting on parents in aggregate
are less pronounced than those on the adolescents. This is not
surprising given that parents were not directly exposed to the
curriculum, as KVUSA influence is mostly mediated by the prompting of
student discussion in the home (McDevitt & Chaffee, 2000). Even so,
Kids Voting generated significant effects on parents' frequency of
political conversations with friends, size of discussion network,
partisanship, and interest in civic instruction.
-Table 2 here-
Student discussion at home generated significant effects with respect
to all four measures of parent media use and cognition, conversations
with friends, and willingness to disagree. Adolescent-parent
conversations probably involved a fair amount of disagreement, given
the electoral backdrop, and thus the students appear to be
socializing their parents to be more assertive in expressing partisan
views inside and outside the home. Finally, student-parent discussion
accounted for 11% of incremental variance in parents' interest in
civic instruction. This last finding might help to explain why KVUSA
was so effective in the immediate stimulation of students' political
involvement (Table 1). As evident in the operationalization of this
variable, interest in instruction is quite evident to the students as
parents ask children about homework assignments, talk to them about
classes, and encourage them to express opinions at school. Parent
interest should heighten the relevance of Kids Voting lesson plans
for students as they come to understand that parents believe these
topics to be worthy of discussion at home.
We now consider the possibility of long-term effects of Kids Voting
on students, as well as indirect effects via the stimulation of civic
parenting. The hierarchical regression model used in Table 3 reflects
our theoretical expectation of sequential processes that culminate in
civic parenting. Demographics are entered in the first equation,
followed by KVUSA exposure at T1. We then added the T1 student
outcome measure as an additional control to help us evaluate the
strength of civic parenting as a predictor of gains beyond the T1
levels. Civic parenting as measured at T2 is entered in the final equation.
-Table 3 here-
KVUSA influence endured as shown in every indicator. All told this
pattern provides impressive evidence for the assertion that the
intervention would promote habits of news media use, cognition,
discussion, and participation (H3). Both the curriculum and the
election campaign had ended in the fall of 2002, and yet students
continued to pay attention to news and to participate in political
conversations with parents and friends. Convincing evidence for the
induction of news attention and discussion as long-term habits is
found in the knowledge effect. The most intriguing results probably
involve knowledge, the two deliberative dispositions, and
partisanship. In all four cases, KVUSA influence is stronger at T2
than at T1.
Implied but not shown directly in Table 3 are influences of Kids
Voting and student-parent discussion on civic parenting. Parent
interest in instruction, once stimulated by student-parent
conversation, should provide motivation and cognitive resources for
civic parenting in the long term, according to our theoretical model.
We traced this process in path modeling in which we controlled for
the demographics and assumed a causal ordering in which KVUSA would
prompt student-parent discussion at T1, leading to parent interest in
instruction at T1, with civic parenting as the final outcome at T2.
The results confirmed that student exposure to KVUSA did not exert
any direct influence on civic parenting, but student discussion in
the home predicted civic parenting at T2. This influence was mostly
indirect, mediated by parent interest in civic instruction. These
findings support the assertion that parent interest in civic
instruction is consequential as a mechanism for cultivating parent
commitment to civic nurturing (H4a).
With these mediating processes confirmed, we can consider
consequences of civic parenting for student growth in the long run
(H4b). Civic parenting effects are most consistent in the area of
media use and cognition, with increments to variance of 2% to 4%.
Civic parenting also predicted adolescent-parent discussion at T2.
Our previous analyses suggest that students contributed to initiating
conversations at home at T1, but here we are controlling for the T1
measure of student-parent discussion. As shown in Table 3, civic
parenting helped to sustain this activity. Civic parenting also
accounted for incremental variance in the T2 indicators of student
discussion with friends, willingness to disagree, listening to
opponents, and partisanship, but failed to predict participation.4
Discussion
The results in aggregate support our model of parent priming in which
a school intervention engenders students' news attention, discussion,
and opinion formation as immediate effects. Student-parent discussion
fosters the same outcomes for parents, although to a smaller extent.
Parents then become curious about instruction at school as an early
indication that they are developing a commitment to the civic
nurturing of children. This priming of civic parenting is meaningful
in the long run as parents encourage adolescent development beyond
the progress originally set in motion by the school intervention. We
take from the findings that effects of civic education must be
understood beyond patterns of direct influence, as systematic as they
may be in the case of an intervention such as Kids Voting.
Student-parent discussion, once initiated, seems to transform the
family environment, making the home more hospitable for habitual news
use and political conversation.
The results provide insights as to how schools, students, and
parents each contribute to the activation of civic parenting as a
mechanism of political socialization. While the three sources of
influence appear to be synergistic in relationship to each other, it
is worth noting the unique contributions of each. Judging by the
incremental variances reported in Table 3, KVUSA is particularly
adept at fostering discussion, and this makes intuitive sense given
that the home cannot compete in terms of opportunities for peer
interaction. The public, secular environment of schools might also
make a civic curriculum more effective than parents in preparing
adolescents for political participation. This was shown clearly in
Table 3. Parents did contribute to media use and cognition, and this
also fits with what we know of the home as the primary site for
spontaneous and habitual media access. But parents also helped to
promote the deliberative dispositions of willingness to disagree and
listening to opponents. The home can provide a relatively safe domain
for practicing opinion expression, and thus parents can play an
important role in preparing children for participation in discursive
venues outside the home. As for the adolescent's role, she is the one
who must make the effort to grow, of course, but she also plays a
crucial role by initiating discussions that allow for the integration
of school and parent influence.
Limitations & Future Research. Our documentation of curriculum
effects is based on a careful accounting of student, parent, and
family demographic traits that would normally predict levels of civic
involvement. Numerous demographic controls, along with the panel
design, strengthen internal validity with respect to curriculum
effects on students. While prior evaluations of KVUSA effects
incorporated standard demographics, this study included an additional
control in the form of parents' prior voting. We can also address
concerns about social desirability in interview responses with our
tests for student and parent knowledge, which were not subject to
fake answers or exaggerated claims. Response set is another concern
of questionnaire data, but data were obtained from different
respondents; we were careful to interview students and parents
separately. Our analyses involved use of student measures to predict
parent outcomes, and parent measures to predict student outcomes.
Future research is needed, however, to shore up assumptions of
causality in the model of parent priming. For example, the results
seem to suggest a symbiotic relationship between KVUSA and parents as
socializing agents for students, with schools and parents reinforcing
each other. However, we do not possess direct evidence that parents'
interest in instruction at T1 heightens the impact of civic
instruction by making the curriculum more relevant to students. The
causal or reciprocal relationship between student curriculum
participation and parent interest in instruction is difficult to
assess in that both variables were measured at T1.
Implications for Civic Education. Debate on the role of public
schools in civic education is often framed in dichotomous terms: Do
schools or parents have responsibility for certain areas of
instruction, as in the teaching of "values" that might intersect
religion and politics? This conflict schema is potentially
misleading. Parents and schools are potentially linked via student
discussion, as we have shown here. The resulting flow of idea should
reduce tension as the parent's traditional role of asserting family
values is activated while the adolescent is exposed to a larger
universe of secular views in school. The adolescent benefits by
comparing and integrating perspectives from multiple sources:
parents, teachers, friends, and news media. Unfortunately, social
studies instructors are often leery about allowing for partisan
discussion in class, particularly when topics might ruffle parents
(CIRCLE, 2003).
From our perspective, teachers should actively encourage students to
talk about how their parents' views inform their beliefs, rather than
skirting this topic as taboo. But parent organizations, political
parties, and local journalists must be tolerant of this kind of
instruction rather than contributing to inflammatory rhetoric about
teachers upstaging parents. In a worst-case scenario, the goal of
political identity exists as a kind of secret project of the
adolescent, who must figure out on her own how to integrate
perspectives. By contrast, when schools promote civic parenting, they
create opportunities for students to express political identities
that bridge family and school life.
Notes
1. Scholars have recognized that many parents do express their
partisan preferences to children. For example, Tedin (1974, p. 1581)
concluded that some parents "convey to their children quite early
that `we' are Democrats or `we' are Republicans." But party
identification stands out from other attitudes in its salience to
parents and visibility to children.
2. Cooperation of school officials is often sought because of the
reduced costs of administering questionnaires to students. However,
the logistics of working with school districts typically results in
researchers gathering data from just one or several schools, bringing
up concerns about external validity. The design of this study,
however, called for interviews of parents as well, and we did not
want to restrict data collection to just a few schools. But there are
certainly limitations to the sample obtained in terms of an upward
tilt in family SES. We can point out that the narrowed SES range
works against us in statistical tests given that prior studies showed
that KVUSA is most effective for low-income families (McDevitt &
Chaffee, 2000).
3. The distribution of respondents for each data collection mode was
54% for telephone, 36% for mail, and 10% for Web. A preliminary
analysis showed that collection mode is not significantly correlated
with KVUSA exposure or with the outcome variables.
4. We explored possible interaction effects of Kids Voting X civic
parenting to predict long-term outcomes but the results were not
statistically significant.
References
Angell, A. V. (1991). Democratic climates in elementary classrooms: A
review of theory and
research. Theory and Research in Social Education, 19 (3), 241-266.
Atkin, C. (1972). Anticipated communication and mass media
information seeking. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 36, 188-199.
Atkin, C. (1981). Communication and political socialization. In D.
Nimmo & K. Sanders (Eds.),
Handbook of political communication (pp. 299-328). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Austin, E. W., & Pinkleton, B. (2001). The role of parental mediation
in the political
socialization process. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45
(2), 221-240.
Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A
resource model of
participation. American Political Science Review, 89, 271-294.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and
quasi-experimental designs for
research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement
(2003). The civic mission of schools. CIRCLE and Carnegie Corporation
of New York.
Chaffee, S. H., Moon, Y., McDevitt, M., Pan, Z., McLeod, J. M,
Eveland, W. P., & Horowitz,
E. (1995). Stimulation of communication: Reconceptualizing the study
of political
Socialization. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication,
Washington, D.C.
Cook, T. E. (1985). The bear market in political socialization and
the costs of misunderstood
psychological theories. American Political Science Review, 79, 1079-1093.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design
method. New York: John
Wiley.
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., &
Fraleigh, M. (1987). The
relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child
development, 58, 1244-1257.
Dudley, R. L., & Gitelson, A. R. (2002). Political literacy, civic
education, and civic
engagement: A return to political socialization? Applied
Developmental Science, 6 (4), 175-182.
Dutwin, D. (2003). The character of deliberation: Equality, argument,
and the formation of
public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15, 239-264.
Gutmann, A. (1987). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Greenstein, F. (1965). Children and politics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hyman, H. H. (1959). Political socialization. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Jennings, K. M. (1975). Discontent with schools: Some implications
for political socialization
and behavior. Youth & Society, 7 (1), 49-68.
Kiousis, S., McDevitt, M., & Wu, X. (2004). The genesis of civic
awareness: Agenda-setting
in political socialization. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the International
Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
Kim, J., Wyatt, R. O., & Katz, E. (1999). News, talk, opinion,
participation: The part played by
conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16, 359-360.
Kosicki, G., & McLeod, J. (1990). Learning from political news:
Effects of mass media images
and information-processing strategies. In S. Kraus (Ed.), Mass
communication and political information processing (pp. 69-83).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McDevitt, M. (2004). Poking and prodding parents: The child's
assertion of political identity.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International
Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
McDevitt, M., & Chaffee, S. H. (2000). Closings gaps in political
communication and
knowledge: Effects of a school intervention. Communication Research,
27 (3), 259-292.
McDevitt, M., & Chaffee, S. H. (2002). From top-down to trickle-up
influence: Revisiting
assumptions about the family in political socialization. Political
Communication, 19, 281-301,
McLeod, J. M., Eveland, W. P. Jr., & Horowitz, E. M. (1998). Going
beyond adults and voter
turnout: Evaluating a socialization program involving schools, family
and media. In T. J. Johnson, C. E. Hays, & S. P. Hays (Eds.),
Engaging the public: How government and the media can reinvigorate
American democracy (pp. 217-234). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Merrill, B. D., Simon, J., & Adrian, E. (1994). Boosting turnout:
The Kids Voting program,
1990. Journal of Social Studies Research, 18, 3-7.
McLeod, J. M. (2000). Media and civic socialization of youth. Journal
of Adolescent Health,
27 (2), 45-51.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2002). The NSSE 2002 report:
From promise to
progress: How colleges and universities are using student engagement
results to
improve collegiate quality. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for
Postsecondary Research and Planning.
Niemi, R. G., & Junn, J. (1998). Civic education: What makes students
learn. New Haven:
Yale University Press
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of
American community. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Saphir, M. N. & Chaffee, S. H. (2002). Adolescents' contribution to
family communication
patterns. Human Communication Research, 28, 86-108.
Tedin, K. L. (1974). The influence of parents on the political
attitudes of adolescents. The
American Political Science Review, 68 (4), 1579-1592.
Voltmer, K. & Lalljee, M. (2004). Communication and political
disagreement: The effects of
deliberation on attitudes toward others. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the
International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
Zerba, A. (2004). Growing up with parents who read and watch the
news: What is the effect on
college students? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for Education
in Journalism and Mass Communication.
Appendix
Student demographics
These measures were assessed during the first year of data collection (T1).
Grade level. A single item determined year in school:
What grade are you in at school? Coded: 11th=1, 12th=2.
Grades earned. A single item measured grades received in school.
Would you say your grades are mostly A's, B's, C's or D's? mostly
A's=4, mostly B's=3, mostly C's=2, mostly D's=1.
Gender. A single item determined gender.
What is your gender? female=1, male=2.
Ethnicity. An item asked about ethnic background.
Of what ethnic group do you consider yourself? Hispanic (including
Chicano and Spanish), Native American, African American, Asian, and
other= dummy 1; white=dummy 2.
Religious group membership. One item assessed membership.
Are you a member of a religious group or club?" no=0, yes=1.
Parent demographics
Gender, ethnicity, and religious group membership were identical to
the student measures. Data for these measures were also assessed at T1.
SES. A two-item scale measured family socioeconomic status based on
the parent's report of income and education. We standardized the
coded values for each item and summed the scores. The correlation is
.36 (p <. 001).
For statistical purposes, we need to estimate household income before
tax. Indicate the category that fits you. less than $15,000=1,
$16,000 to $25,000=2, $26,000 to $40,000=3, $41,000 to $60,000=4.
Indicate your level of formal education completed. some high
school=1, graduated from high school=2, some college=3, graduated
from college=4, attended graduate school=5.
Prior voting. A summed, three-item scale assessed frequency of prior voting.
Did you vote in this year's election (2002)? Coded no=0, yes=1. The
alpha is .79.
Did you vote in the 2000 presidential election between Al Gore and
George W. Bush? no, don't recall=0, yes=1.
Did you vote in the 1996 presidential election between Bill Clinton
and Bob Dole?
Political involvement at T1 & T2
News attention. Students and parents were asked how much attention
they paid to the election campaign at T1 and to politics in general
at T2. They used a 1-to-5 response scale with 1 meaning "none" and 5
"a great deal."
Information integration. Two items comprised a summed scale at T1.
Students and parents were asked to assess how well the following
statements described them. The response options and coding were as
follows: not at all like me/not sure=1; somewhat like me=2; a lot
like me=3. The correlation is .43 (p < .001) for students and .47 for
parents (p < .001).
When I came across election stories, I found myself tying the stories
to ideas I had before.
When I join in political conversations, I find myself tying the
arguments to ideas I had before.
Four items comprised the student measure at T2. The alpha is .67.
When I join in political conversations, I find myself tying the
arguments to ideas I had before.
When I see or read a news story about an issue, I try to figure out
if it is biased.
News about people running for office makes me wonder how they might
change things.
When I hear news about politics, I try to figure out what is REALLY going on.
For parents, the items about people running for office and about
conversations were dropped to improve reliability. The remaining
items were correlated at .42 (p <. 001).
Political knowledge. For students at T1, four questions were used to
create a summed scale. Answers were coded 0 for incorrect, 1 for
don't know (DK), and 2 for correct. The alpha is .60.
Which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives?
Which party controls the U.S. Senate?
What is the party affiliation of Matt Salmon/Bill Owens/Jeb Bush?
What is the party affiliation of Janet Napolitano/Rollie Heath/Bill McBride?
For parents, the questions above and two additional items were used.
The alpha is .61.
Which party would you say is more in favor of school vouchers?
Which party has been more supportive of privatizing Social Security
investments?
For students at T2, seven questions were used to create a summed
scale. Answers were coded 0 for incorrect, 1 for don't know (DK), and
2 for correct. The alpha is .60.
Which party do you consider more liberal?
Which party is more in favor of tax cuts to help stimulate the economy?
Which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives?
Which party controls the U.S. Senate?
What is the party affiliation of General Wesley Clark?
What is the party affiliation of Richard Cheney?
What is the party affiliation of Howard Dean?
For parents at T2, the questions above were used along with two
additional items. The alpha is .72.
Which party would you say is more in favor of school vouchers?
Which party is more in favor of reducing government regulations to
help stimulate the economy?
What is the party affiliation of Tom Daschle?
Frequency of student-parent discussion. A summed two-item measure was
used. Students and parents answered with a 1-to-5 scale with 1
meaning "never" and 5 meaning "frequently." The correlation is .47
(p < .001) at T1 and .38 (p < .001) at T2.
T1: How often did you talk about the election campaign with your child/parents?
T2: How often do you talk about politics with your child/parents?
Frequency of discussion with friends. Students and parents answered
using a 1-to-5 scale with 1 meaning "never" and 5 meaning "very often."
T1: How often did you talk about the election campaign with your friends?
T2: How often do you talk about politics with your friends?
Size of discussion network. We used the original number provided by
students and parents for this measure.
How many friends do you have who like to talk about politics?
Willingness to disagree. A single item was used. Students and
parents answered with a 1-to-5 scale with 1 meaning "never" and 5
meaning "frequently."
In conversations, how often do you openly disagree with people about politics?
Listening to opposing views. A single item was used; students and
parents answered with the same scale.
How often do you listen to people talk about politics when you know
that you already disagree with them?
Issue salience. In each study site, voters considered a state
amendment. Colorado voters contemplated whether to restrict bilingual
education, Florida voters decided whether to limit class-size, and
Arizona voters chose whether to expand casino gambling. At T1, a
single item was used to measure the salience of the ballot issue, and
at T2 a question referred to the economy. Students and parents
answered with a 1-to-5 scale with 1 meaning "not important" and 5
meaning "very important."
T1: How important is the issue of expanding gambling/restricting
bilingual education/limiting class size in Arizona/Colorado/Florida?
At T2: How important is the issue of the economy?
Partisanship. We created this measure by summing responses to a party
identification item and a political ideology question. Party ID was
coded so that "Republican," "Democrat" = 2; "independent," "not a
member of another party," and "don't know" = 1. Ideology was coded so
that "conservative," "liberal" = 2; "no, I'm moderate or middle of
the road," "no, I don't think of myself that way," "don't know" = 1.
For students, the correlation is .18 (p < .001) at T1 and .26 (p <
.001) at T2. For parents, the correlation is .24 (p < .001) at T1
and .18 (p < .01) at T2.
Do you think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, or something like that?
When it comes to politics, do you consider yourself as liberal or
conservative?
Parent interest in civic instruction. Six items were used for this T1
measure. For the first four items, parents answered with a 1-to-5
scale with 1 meaning "never" and 5 meaning "frequently." For the
final two items, respondents answered with a 1-to-5 scale with 1
meaning "not like me" and 5 meaning "a lot like me." The alpha is .72.
During this school year, how often have you asked your child about
homework assignments?
How often have you visited the school to volunteer for activities?
How often have you asked your child about a civic or government class?
How often have you told your child that he or she should express an
opinion during a civic class?
I am interested in what my child is learning in a civic class.
I want my child to express his or her political views in a civic class.
Political involvement at T2
Campus politics. We used a branching question to first identify
whether a respondent was still a student in high school or in
college. If so, the student was asked:
At your campus this year, have you participated in any political
activities such as protests or demonstrations? Coded: yes=1, no=0.
Volunteering. A single item measured students' political volunteering
(same coding).
Have you volunteered this year for any political organizations or causes?
Intention to vote. Students were asked how well the following
statement described them:
I DEFINITELY plan to vote in the 2004 presidential election. Coded:
not at all like me/not sure, DK=1; somewhat like me=2; a lot like me=3.
Civic parenting. Two items were combined to form this index. Parents
were asked to assess how well two statements described them. The
response options and coding was as follows: not at all like me=1;
somewhat like me=2; a lot like me=3. The correlation is .37 (p < .001).
I frequently encourage a child to pay attention to news events.
It's easy for me to get a child to talk about politics.
Table 1: Immediate Effects of Kids Voting on Students (Hierarchical
Regression)
Demographics
R2
Kids Voting
_R2
beta
Total R2
T1 Outcomes
Media use & cognition
News attention
.03
.10***
.33***
.13***
Information integration
.06**
.07***
.28***
.13***
Knowledge
.13***
.02**
.14**
.15***
Issue salience
.01
.03***
.18***
.04***
Discussion
With parents
.10***
.09***
.30***
.19***
With friends
.05**
.14***
.39***
.19***
Size of discussion network
.02
.12***
.36***
.14***
Deliberative habits
Willingness to disagree
.05**
.07***
.27***
.12**
Listening to opponents
.03
.02**
.14**
.05**
Partisanship
.07***
.01*
.11*
.08***
* p < .05; ** p <.01; *** p < .001. N = 497 dyads.
Note. The first column reports the amount of variance accounted for
by ethnicity, gender, grade in school at T1, grades earned, religious
group membership, SES, and the parents' voting history, which were
entered simultaneously in the first equation. The second column
reports the incremental variance attributed to Kids Voting exposure,
which was entered in the second equation. The third column reports
the beta produced by Kids Voting in the second equation. The fourth
column reports the total variance explained.
Table 2: Immediate Effects of Kids Voting and Student Discussion on Parents
(Hierarchical Regression)
Demographics
R2
Kids Voting
_R2
Student-parent
discussion
_R2
Total R2
T1 Outcomes
Media use & cognition
News attention
.07**
.00
.10***
.17***
Information integration
.12***
.00
.06***
.18***
Knowledge
.22***
.00
.08***
.30***
Issue salience
.02
.00
.02**
.04**
Discussion
With friends
.04*
.03***
.14***
.21***
Size of discussion network
.04#
.02*
.00
.06*
Deliberative habits
Willingness to disagree
.03#
.00
.04***
.07***
Listening to opponents
.03
.01#
.01
.05#
Partisanship
.08***
.01**
.01#
.10***
Interest in instruction
.05*
.02**
.11***
.18***
# p < .10; * p < .05; ** p <.01; *** p < .001. N = 497 dyads.
Note. The first column reports the amount of variance accounted for
by parent ethnicity, gender, SES, religious group membership, voting
history, student grade in school at T1, and student grades earned,
which were entered simultaneously in the first equation. The second
column reports the incremental variance attributed to student
exposure to Kids Voting, which was entered in the second equation.
The third column reports the incremental variance attributed to
student-parent discussion, which was entered in the third equation.
The fourth column reports the total variance explained.
Table 3: Long-term Effects of Civic Parenting on Students
(Hierarchical Regression)
T1 Measures
Demographics
R2
Kids Voting
_R2
Student outcome
_R2
T2 Measure
Civic parenting _R2
Total R2
T2 Outcomes
Media use & cognition
News attention
.03
.06***
.12***
.03**
.24***
Information integration
.06#
.07***
.13***
.04**
.30***
Knowledge
.10**
.04**
.07***
.02*
.23***
Issue salience
.01
.05***
.02*
.03*
.11***
Discussion
With parents
.06#
.04***
.17***
.04***
.31***
With friends
.09**
.06***
.14***
.03**
.32***
Size of network
.05
.10***
.07***
.00
.22***
Deliberative habits
Willingness to disagree
.09**
.10***
.19***
.03**
.41***
Listening to opponents
.09**
.04**
.05***
.03**
.21***
Partisanship
.09**
.03*
.19***
.01*
.32***
Civic participation
Campus politics
.03
.02*
--1
.00
.05*
Volunteering
.07*
.02*
--
.00
.09*
Intention to vote
.12***
.02*
--
.00
.14***
# p < .10; * p < .05; ** p <.01; *** p < .001. N = 288 dyads.
Note. The first column reports the amount of variance accounted for
by student ethnicity, gender, grade in school at T1, grades earned at
T1, religious group membership, SES, and the parents' voting history,
which were entered simultaneously in the first equation. The second
column reports the incremental variance attributed to Kids Voting
exposure at T1, which was entered in the second equation. The third
column reports the incremental variance attributed to the T1
dependent variable. The fourth column reports the incremental
variance attributed to civic parenting at T2. The fifth column
reports the total variance explained.
1 Not measured at T1.
|
