This study aims to contribute new insights into the way ‘political labour’ is divided in the household. I use data from a large-scale panel study, the Parent–Child Socialization Study 2012–2013, conducted among adolescents and both their parents in Belgium, to analyse the different ways in which family members engage in politics and influence each other’s political preferences. First, I analyse differences in political engagement between fathers, mothers and adolescents. Second, I present a full triadic structural equation model to measure the political influence that fathers, mothers and adolescent children exert on one another. The findings suggest that fathers are (still) more engaged in politics, but when it comes to preferences for political parties, both parents influence their partners and their adolescent children in equal measure.
AchenChristopher H (2001) Why Lagged Dependent Variables Can Suppress the Explanatory Power of Other Independent Variables. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Political Methodology Section (APSA). Retrieved from: https://www.princeton.edu/csdp/events/Achen121201/achen.pdf
2.
AlfordJohn RHatemiPeter KHibbingJohn RMartinNicholas GEavesLindon J (2011) The Politics of Mate Choice. The Journal of Politics73(2): 362–379.
3.
BanduraAlbert (1977) Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.
4.
BennettLinda L MBennettStephen E (1989) Enduring Gender Differences in Political Interest The impact of socialization and political dispositions. American Politics Research17(1): 105–122.
5.
BerelsonBernard RLazarsfeldPaul FMcPheeWilliam N (1954) Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
6.
BochslerDanielSciariniPascal (2010) So Close but So Far: Voting propensity and party choice for left-wing parties. Swiss Political Science Review16(3): 373–402.
7.
BoonenJorisHoogheMarc (2014) Do Nationalist Parties Shape or Follow Sub-National Identities? A panel analysis on the rise of the Nationalist Party in Flanders (Belgium), 2006–2011. Nations and Nationalism20(1): 56–79.
8.
BurnsNancySchlozmanKay LehmanVerbaSidney (2001) The Private Roots of Public Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
CampbellAngusConversePhilipMillerWarrenStokesDonald (1960) The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
CofféHildeNeedAriana (2010) Similarity in Husbands and Wives Party Family Preference in the Netherlands. Electoral Studies29(2): 259–268.
11.
CollinsAndrew WRusselGraeme (1991) Mother–Child and Father–Child Relationships in Middle Childhood and Adolescence: A developmental analysis. Developmental Review11: 99–136.
12.
CoxGary W (1997) Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
DassonnevilleRuthDejaeghereYves (2014) Bridging the Ideological Space: A cross-national analysis of the distance of party switching. European Journal of Political Research53(3): 580–599.
14.
DeschouwerKris (2009) The Politics of Belgium: Governing a Divided Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
15.
FlanaganConstance A (2013) Teenage Citizens. The Political Theories of the Young. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
FillerNicoleJenningsM Kent (2015) Familial Origins of Gender Role Attitudes. Politics & Gender11(1): 27–54.
17.
FiorinaMorris P (1978) Economic Retrospective Voting in American National Elections: A micro-analysis. American Journal of Political Science22(2): 426–443.
18.
GlassJenniferBengtsonVern LDunhamCharlotte Chorn (1986) Attitude Similarity in Three-Generation Families: Socialization, Status Inheritance or Reciprocal Influence?American Sociological Review51(5): 685–698.
19.
HoogheMarcBoonenJoris (2015) The Intergenerational Transmission of Voting Intentions in a Multiparty Setting: An analysis of voting intentions and political discussion among 15-year-old adolescents and their parents in Belgium. Youth & Society47(1): 125–147.
20.
HoogheMarcQuintelierEllenMeeusenCecilVerhaegenSoetkinBoonenJorisSmetsAurélie (2013) Parent-Child Socialization Study (PCSS) 2012–2013. Technical Report. Leuven: KU Leuven.
21.
InglehartRonald (1997) Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
JenningsM Kent (1983) Gender Roles and Inequalities in Political Participation: Results from an eight-nation study. The Western Political Quarterly36(3): 364–385.
23.
JenningsM KentLangtonKenneth P (1969) Mothers Versus Fathers: The formation of political orientations among young Americans. Journal of Politics31(2): 329–358.
24.
JenningsM KentNiemiRichard G (1971) The Division of Political Labor Between Mothers and Fathers. American Political Science Review65(1): 69–82.
25.
JenningsM KentNiemiRichard G (1974) The Political Character of Adolescence: The Influence of Families and Schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
JenningsM KentNiemiRichard G (1981) Generations and Politics: A Panel Study of Young Adults and Their Parents. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
JenningsM KentStokerLauraBowersJake (2009) Politics across Generations: Family Transmission Reexamined. Journal of Politics71(3): 782–799.
28.
KlofstadCasey AMcDermottRoseHatemiPeter K (2012) Do Bedroom Eyes Wear Political Glasses? The role of politics in human mate attraction. Evolution and Human Behavior33(2): 100–108.
29.
KrohMartinSelbPeter (2009) Inheritance and the Dynamics of Party Identification. Political Behavior31(4): 559–574.
30.
KulikLiat (2002) Like-Sex Versus Opposite-Sex Effects in Transmission of Gender Role Ideology from Parents to Adolescents in Israel. Journal of Youth and Adolescence31(6): 451–457.
31.
MarienSofieHoogheMarcQuintelierEllen (2010) Inequalities in Non-institutionalised Forms of Political Participation: A multi-level analysis of 25 countries. Political Studies58(1): 187–213.
32.
MarshallJanineThomasMelaneeGidengilElisabeth (2007) The Efficacy Enigma: Explaining the gender gap in internal political efficacy in Canada and the United States. Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, 30 May to 1 June, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon. Retrieved from: https://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2007/Marshall.pdf.
33.
McCloskyHerbertDahlgrenHarold E (1959) Primary Group Influence on Party Loyalty. The American Political Science Review53(3): 757–776.
34.
McDevittMichaelChaffeeSteven (2002) From Top-Down to Trickle-Up Influence: Revisiting Assumptions About the Family in Political Socialization. Political Communication19(3): 281–301.
35.
NiemiRichard GJenningsM Kent (1991) Issue and inheritance in the formation of party identification. American Journal of Political Science35(4): 970–988.
36.
NieuwbeertaPaulWittebroodKarin (1995) Intergenerational Transmission of Political Party Preference in The Netherlands. Social Science Research24(3): 243–261.
37.
NorrisPippa (2002) Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38.
PlümperThomasTroegerVera EManowPhilip (2005) Panel Data Analysis in Comparative Politics: Linking method to theory. European Journal of Political Research44(2): 327–354.
39.
RoestAnnette M CDubasJudith SemonGerrisJan R M (2010) Value Transmissions between Parents and Children: Gender and developmental phase as transmission belts. Journal of Adolescence33(1): 21–31.
40.
VaiseyStephenMilesAndrew (2014) What You Can – and Can’t – Do with Three-Wave Panel Data. Sociological Research Methods: 1–33.
41.
Van der BrugWouter (2010) Structural and Ideological Voting in Age Cohorts. West European Politics33(3): 586–607.
42.
Van der EijkCeesVan der BrugWouterKrohMartinFranklinMark (2006) Rethinking the Dependent Variable in Voting Behavior. On the measurement and analysis of electoral utilities. Electoral Studies25(3): 424–447.
43.
VerbaSidneySchlozmanKay LBradyHenry E (1995) Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
WatsonDavidKlohnenEva CCasillasAlexSimmsEricka NusHaigJeffreyBerryDiane S (2004) Match Makers and Deal Breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples. Journal of Personality72(5): 1029–1068.
45.
WeisbergHerbert F (1999) Political Partisanship. In RobinsonJohn PShaverPhillip RWrightsmanLawrence S (eds) Measures of Political Attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 681–729.
46.
WeisbergHerbert F (1980) A Multidimensional Conceptualization of Party Identification. Political Behavior2(1): 33–60.
47.
ZuckermanAlan S (ed.) (2005) The Social Logic of Politics. Personal Networks as Contexts for Political Behavior. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
48.
ZuckermanAlan SDasovićJosipFitzgeraldJennifer (2007) Partisan Families: The Social Logic of Bounded Partisanship in Germany and Britain. New York: Cambridge University Press.
49.
ZuckermanAlan SFitzgeraldJenniferDasovićJosip (2005) Do Couples Support the Same Political Parties? Sometimes: Evidence from British and German household panel surveys. In ZuckermanAlan S (ed.) The Social Logic of Politics. Personal Networks as Contexts for Political Behavior. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 75–94.
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.
