This study examines the idea that youth’s perceptions of their political interactions with important others are influenced by their own political interest to a greater extent than the perceived political interactions that influence youth’s political interest. Hence, it was proposed that youth’s perceptions of important others’ (parents’, teachers’, friends’) political views, political interest, political influence, and support, as well as of being susceptible to others’ political communication, are all affected by their own political interest. Community samples of 908 13-year-olds and 869 16-year-olds were followed over 1 year. Latent change models supported the idea that youth’s political interest significantly affected their perceptions of important others’ political views, influence, and support over time in both cohorts. In 11 out of 12 longitudinal analyses, youth’s political interest strongly affected perceptions of their political interactions with others, but none of the 12 analyses showed that the perceptions of political interactions with others strongly predicted a change in youth’s political interest. These results suggest that the political interest of young people is an input in their political development, making politically interested youth active agents in their political interactions with their important others.
AmnåE.EkströmM.KerrM.StattinH. (2009). Political socialization and human agency: The development of civic engagement from adolescence to adulthood. Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 111(1), 27–40.
2.
ArceneauxK.JohnsonM. V.MaesH. H. (2012). The genetic basis of political sophistication. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 15(1), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.15.1.34
3.
Ardèvol-AbreuA.DiehlT.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2019). Antecedents of internal political efficacy incidental news exposure online and the mediating role of political discussion. Politics, 39(1), 82–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395717693251
4.
ArensA. K.WatermannR. (2017). Political efficacy in adolescence: Development, gender differences, and outcome relations. Developmental Psychology, 53(5), 933–948. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000300
5.
BarrettM.Brunton-SmithI. (2014). Political and civic engagement and participation: Towards an integrative perspective. Journal of Civil Society, 10(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2013.871911
6.
BradyH. E.SchlozmanK. L.VerbaS. (1999). Prospecting for participants: Rational expectations and the recruitment of political activists. The American Political Science Review, 93(1), 153–168. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585767
7.
ChouC. P.BentlerP. M. (2002). Model modification in structural equation modeling by imposing constraints. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 41(2), 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9473(02)00097-X
8.
DawesC.CesariniD.FowlerJ. H.JohannessonM.MagnussonP. K. E.OskarssonS. (2014). The relationship between genes, psychological traits, and political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 888–903. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.l2100
9.
Dostie-GouletE. (2009). Social networks and the development of political interest. Journal of Youth Studies, 12(4), 405–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676260902866512
10.
GrusecJ. E.GoodnowJ. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.4
11.
GrusecJ. E.KuczynskiL. (1997). Parenting and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory. Wiley.
12.
HatemiP. K. (2012). The intersection of behavioral genetics and political science: Introduction to the special issue. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 15(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.15.1.1
13.
HatemiP. K.ByrneE.McDermottR. (2012). “What is a ‘gene’ and why does it matter for political science?.”Journal of Theoretical Politics, 24(3), 1157–1171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951629812437752
14.
HatemiP. K.McDermottR. (2012a). The genetics of politics: Discovery, challenges and progress. Trends in Genetics, 28(10), 525–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2012.07.004
JenningsM. K.NiemiR. G. (1968). The transmission of political values from parent to child. American Political Science Review, 62(1), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.2307/1953332
18.
JenningsM. K.NiemiR. G. (1974). The political character of adolescence. Princeton University Press.
19.
JenningsM. K.StokerL.BowersJ. (2009). Politics across generations: Family transmission reexamined. The Journal of Politics, 71(3), 782–799. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609090719
20.
KimY.StattinH. (2019). Parent-adolescent discussions about politics from age 13 to 28. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 62(201), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2019.04.001
21.
KlineR. B. (2016). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford.
22.
KnafoA.SchwartzS. H. (2003). Parenting and adolescents’ accuracy in perceiving parental values. Child Development, 74(2), 595–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.7402018
23.
KnafoA.SchwartzS. H. (2009). Accounting for parent-child value congruence: Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. In SchönpflugU. (Ed.), Cultural transmission: Developmental, psychological, and methodological perspectives (pp. 240–268). Cambridge University Press.
24.
KoskimaaV.RapeliL. (2015). Political socialization and political interest: The role of school reassessed. Journal of Political Science Education, 11(2), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2015.1016033
25.
KruegerJ. (1998). On the perception of social consensus. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 163–240.
26.
LemayE. P.ClarkM. S.Jr.GreenbergA. (2010). What is beautiful is good because what is beautiful is desired: Physical attractiveness stereotyping as projection of interpersonal goals. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209359700
27.
LevinsenK.YndigegnC. (2015). Political discussions with family and friends: Exploring the impact of political distance. The Sociological Review, 63(S2), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12263
28.
LevyB. L. M.AkivaT. (2019). Motivating political participation among youth: An analysis of factors related to adolescents’ political engagement. Political Psychology, 40, 1039–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12578
29.
MagnussonD.StattinH. (2006). The person in the environment: Towards a general model for scientific inquiry. In LernerR. M. (Ed.), Theoretical models of human development (Volume 1 of Handbook of Child Psychology, 6th ed., pp. 400–464). Wiley.
30.
ManerJ. K.KenrickD. T.BeckerD. V.RobertsonT. E.HoferB.NeubergS. L.SchallerM. (2005). Functional projection: How fundamental social motives can bias interpersonal perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.63
31.
McArdleJ. J.NesselroadeJ. R. (1994). Structuring data to study development and change. In CohenS. H.ReeseH. W. (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Methodological innovations (pp. 223–268). Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
McDevittM. (2006). The partisan child: Developmental provocation as a model of political socialization. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh079
33.
McDevittM.ChaffeeS. H. (2000). Closing gaps in political communication and knowledge effects of a school intervention. Communication Research, 27(3), 259–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365000027003001
34.
McDevittM.ChaffeeS. (2002). From top-down to trickle-up influence: Revisiting assumptions about the family in political socialization. Political Communication, 19(3), 281–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/01957470290055501
35.
McIntoshH.HartD.YounissJ. (2007). The influence of family political discussion on adolescent civic development: Which parent qualities matter?PS: Political Science & Politics, 40(3), 495–499. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096507070758
36.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.).
37.
OjedaC.HatemiP. K. (2015). Accounting for the child in the transmission of party identification. American Sociological Review, 80(6), 1150–1174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122415606101
PattersonM. M.BiglerR. S.PhalkeE.BrownC. S.HayesA. R.RamirezM. C.NelsonA. (2019). Toward a developmental science of politics. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 84(3), 334.
40.
PriorM. (2010). You’ve either got it or you don’t? The stability of political interest over the life cycle. Journal of Politics, 72(3), 747–766. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381610000149
41.
PriorM. (2019). Hooked: How politics captures people’s interest. Cambridge University Press.
42.
RussoS.StattinH. (2017a). Self-determination theory and the role of political interest in adolescents’ sociopolitical development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 50, 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.03.008
SchmidC. (2012). The value ’social responsibility’ as a motivating factor for adolescents’ readiness to participate in different types of political actions, and its socialization in parent and peer contexts. Journal of Adolescence, 35(3), 533–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.03.009
47.
ShaniD. (2009). On the origins of political interest [PhD dissertation, Princeton University].
48.
ShehataA.AmnåE. (2019). The development of political interest among adolescents: A communication mediation approach using five waves of panel data. Communication Research, 46(8), 1055–1077. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217714360
StattinH.HusseinO.ÖzdemirM.RussoS. (2017). Why do some adolescents encounter everyday events that increase their civic interest while others do not?Developmental Psychology, 53(2), 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000192
52.
StattinH.KimY. (2018). Both parents and adolescents project their own values when perceiving each other’s values. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 42(1), 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025417713728
53.
StattinH.RussoS.KimY. (2021). Projection bias and youth’s and parents’ perceptions of their common political discussions. Journal of Family Communication, 21(2), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2021.1910513
54.
WarnerB. R.Warner ColanderC. W. (2016). Talking politics at the dinner table: The effects of family political communication on young citizens’ normative political attitudes. In McKinneyM. S.ThorsonE.ShahD. (Eds.), Political socialization of young citizens (pp. 195–211). Peter Lang.
YuanK.-H.BentlerP. M. (2000). Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociological Methodology, 30, 165–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/0081-1750.00078
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
