ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 1
Antecedents of political trust in adolescence: Cognitive abilities and perceptions of parents
Jan Šerek & Petr Macek
Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University
serek@fss.muni.cz
Published in Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology:
Šerek, J., & Macek, P. (2014). Antecedents of political trust in adolescence: Cognitive
abilities and perceptions of parents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35(4),
284–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.05.001
This version is an original submission to the journal with revisions after peer review accepted
by the editor.
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 2
Abstract
This study examined the predictors of political trust in late adolescence. Three waves of
longitudinal data (ages 11, 15, and 17) from 1,116 Czech adolescents (346 participated at
least in the first and last wave) were analyzed using structural equation modeling. Results
showed that high verbal cognitive ability in early adolescence predicted greater political trust
in late adolescence. This effect was explained by adolescents’ greater cognitive political
engagements, but not by their more positive relationships with authorities (e.g., school or
parents) during adolescence. Next, early adolescents who perceived more parental warmth
demonstrated greater political trust when they reached late adolescence. These results suggest
that some young people might enter adulthood more skeptical regarding politics based on
their abilities and early nonpolitical experiences.
Keywords: Civic development; Cognitive ability; Cognitive political engagement; Czech
Republic; Parental warmth; Political trust.
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 3
Introduction
Adolescents construct various expectations and beliefs about the world of politics that
affect their civic activities (Sherrod, Torney-Purta, & Flanagan, 2010). Political trust, defined
broadly as the perceived trustworthiness of the political environment and authorities
regarding whether politicians observe the rules and serve the public (Citrin & Muste, 1999),
represents an important part of a young person's worldview. For instance, a lack of political
trust during adolescence can result in low interest in politics and voting (Bynner & Ashford,
1994), or in the development of a preference for nonconventional political activities
(Bandura, 1997; Beaumont, 2010). From a macro-level perspective, citizens’ political trust is
embedded in the broader political culture of a country (Almond & Verba, 1963; Inglehart,
1997), is partially derived from the social norms and interpersonal trust present in that society
(Putnam, 2000), and is associated with citizens’ assessments of the actual performance of
political authorities (Mishler & Rose, 2001). In addition, psychological research has revealed
that political trust can also reflect individual adolescents’ histories. Research has shown that
parental authoritarian practices (Gniewosz, Noack, & Buhl, 2009), adolescents’ cognitive
abilities (Schoon & Cheng, 2011), and educational performance (Bynner & Ashford, 1994)
are associated with levels of political trust or alienation. However, these developmental
hypotheses have not been tested in one comprehensive model that includes early perceptions
of parents, cognitive abilities, and subsequent relations to authorities (school and parents).
This study employed longitudinal data covering a six-year period to study predictors of
political trust in late adolescence.
Political trust refers to the evaluation of individual politicians, governments, or
institutions; however, it can also refer to generalized beliefs about the political environment
as a whole (Citrin & Muste, 1999). In the current study, we drew on the latter concept of
political trust. We understood political trust as being the opposite of political cynicism, which
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 4
is defined as a generalized mistrust not of particular politicians, but of the politicians in
general. According to this definition, people with low political trust perceive political
environment as corrupting its participants and attracting corrupt persons (Cappella &
Jamieson, 1997). The lack of political trust can be also understood as one component of
political alienation (besides the lack of political efficacy or powerlessness), and is sometimes
referred to as political normlessness (Finifter, 1970; Levi & Stoker, 2000). Our understanding
of political trust stems from cognitive conceptions of interpersonal trust that define trust as
the set of personal assumptions, beliefs and expectations that other people behave
beneficially (or at least not detrimentally) to one’s interest (Kramer & Carnevale, 2001).
Particularly in the situations of lacking personal contact, these assumptions, beliefs and
expectations can be generalized to a whole social category such as politicians (Offe, 1999).
Previous studies have reported that people with greater political trust have greater
cognitive abilities. In large-scale longitudinal studies, general cognitive ability in early
adolescence was found to be positively associated with political trust in adulthood (Deary,
Batty, & Gale, 2008; Schoon, Cheng, Gale, Batty, & Deary, 2010; Schoon & Cheng, 2011).
Additionally, researchers have found that political trust is positively associated with openness
to experience (Mondak & Halperin, 2008), which is a relatively stable personality trait that is
linked (although not identical) to verbal cognitive ability (McCrae & Sutin, 2009). Further,
some researchers have considered that attained education level is a manifestation of cognitive
abilities (Rindermann, 2008). In this respect, there is some evidence to support a positive
association between adolescents’ education levels and their political trust (Henn, Weinstein,
& Forrest, 2005); however, other studies on the general population have not found such
support (see Catterberg & Moreno, 2006). To summarize, political trust seems to be
positively associated with cognitive ability, particularly concerning verbal aspects.
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 5
The association between political trust and cognitive ability can have several
explanations. Regarding political trust in adulthood, achieved social status and income level
are potential explanatory mechanisms. More precisely, higher cognitive abilities in childhood
positively predict higher social status and income in adulthood, which are associated with
higher political trust (Schoon & Cheng, 2011). However, this explanation is not sufficient in
explaining the political trust of late adolescents who typically do not have a stable income
and a definite future social status, but already have a relatively stable sense of political trust
(Claes, Hooghe, & Marien, 2012; Hooghe & Wilkenfeld, 2008).
Some scholars have suggested that a basis for social trust in adolescence develops
from everyday nonpolitical experiences in small proximal communities (Flanagan, 2003).
This notion can apply also to political trust as research has shown that, for adolescents, strong
connections to their parents, schools, and neighborhoods predict greater political trust in
young adulthood (Duke, Skay, Pettingell, & Borowsky, 2009). As such, we proposed that
these processes might serve as a link between adolescents’ cognitive abilities and political
trust. Specifically, we hypothesized that adolescents with different levels of cognitive
abilities have different developmental experiences in their schools and families, which can
influence political trust. In other words, the effect of cognitive abilities on political trust can
be mediated through developmental experiences in schools and families.
First, adolescents with greater cognitive abilities are more likely to develop positive
relationships to school during their maturation, which can generalize to other social
institutions, such as politics. This notion is supported by research that has shown that
children and adolescents with higher general cognitive abilities report more positive
relationships to school (Geddes, Murrell, & Bauguss, 2010; Richards, Encel, & Shute, 2003).
Consequently, based on the public institutional hypothesis, positive relations to school can
generalize to politics. This hypothesis assumes that adolescents’ political attitudes and
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 6
activities are shaped by their experiences with public institutions, such as schools (Amadeo,
Torney-Purta, Lehmann, Husfeldt, & Nikolova, 2002; Amnå & Zetterberg, 2010).
Specifically, schools are usually adolescents’ first opportunities to learn how institutional
systems of authority work and what to expect from them (Estévez & Emler, 2009). These
experiences can shape later perceptions of other institutions in the public realm, including
political authorities. Data from different countries support this notion as middle adolescents’
trust in and positive perceptions of school are associated with their trust in governmental
institutions (Torney-Purta, Barber, & Richardson, 2004).
Second, adolescents with better cognitive abilities tend to have positive relationships
with parents, which can generalize to politics. Research has shown that a child’s language
competency is positively associated with the quality of the parent-child relationship (van
Ijzendoorn, Dijkstra, & Bus, 1995). This relation is probably bidirectional as harmonious
relationships provide opportunity for children to develop verbal skills and better verbal skills
help children make more harmonious social relationships (van IJzendoorn et al., 1995). In
consequence, adolescents’ positive or negative relationship to parental authorities can serve
as a model to foster or undermine their trust in other social authorities, including political
authorities (Duke et al., 2009; Flanagan & Gallay, 1995; Gniewosz et al., 2009). Thus, we
expected that adolescents who have poor relationships with their parents would report lower
political trust.
However, the parent-child relationship is not affected solely by the child’s cognitive
ability; a more important factor is parental behaviors toward the child. If children perceive
their parents as emotionally warm, supportive, and respectful of their dignity, they are likely
to develop more positive relationships with them (Karavasilis, Doyle, & Markiewicz, 2003).
Therefore, we expected that early adolescents who perceive more parental warmth would
report closer ties to (or less alienation from) parents in middle adolescence, which can
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 7
translate to greater political trust in late adolescence (Duke et al., 2009; Flanagan & Gallay,
1995; Gniewosz et al., 2009).
Finally, the association between early cognitive abilities and later political trust can be
explained by factors other than school or family experiences. For example, Denny and Doyle
(2008) found that 11-year-olds with more developed specific cognitive abilities, namely
comprehension, become more interested in politics when they reach adulthood. This finding
is not surprising because adolescents who lack specific cognitive skills might have difficulties
following and understanding politics, which reduces their cognitive engagement in this area
(Rindermann, Flores-Mendoza, & Woodley, 2012). At the same time, lacking or low
cognitive engagement in politics can be associated with lower political trust (Catterberg &
Moreno, 2005) as the individual would create only a shallow view on politics, which may be
distorted in the negative direction (Meffert, Chung, Joiner, Waks, & Garst, 2006). Therefore,
we expected that cognitive ability would have an indirect effect on political trust as mediated
by individuals’ cognitive engagement in politics.
Nevertheless, the association between cognitive abilities and political trust might also
be spurious. For example, living in poor socioeconomic conditions (e.g., poverty, parental
unemployment) adversely affects the development of children’s verbal cognitive abilities
(Sampson, Sharkey, & Raudenbush, 2008). At the same time, people coming from lower
socioeconomic classes tend to have lower political trust because they do not feel that
politicians and political institutions work for their benefit (e.g., Schoon et al., 2010).
Consequently, it is possible that adolescents’ cognitive abilities and political trust are both
correlates of socioeconomic status of adolescents’ families and do not have any mutual
relation. Hence, we considered as necessary to rule out this alternative explanation in our
analyses.
The present study
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 8
Having identified two characteristics of early adolescents that could be associated
with political trust (cognitive ability and perceived parental warmth), our main research
question was whether these two characteristics predict greater political trust in late
adolescence. We differentiated between verbal and nonverbal cognitive abilities and expected
that verbal ability would be more closely related to political trust. Next, we tested whether the
effects of cognitive abilities and perceived parental warmth on political trust could be
explained by more positive relations between schools and parents and by adolescents’ greater
cognitive political engagement. Parental education, understood as an indicator of family’s
socioeconomic status, was controlled for in all analyses.
A vast majority of studies investigating antecedents of political trust in adolescence
come from Western and Northern Europe or from the United States. By contrast, our study
was conducted in the Czech Republic, which is a Central European post-communist country.
Generally, we assumed that basic socio-political conditions of adolescent development do not
differ dramatically across these contexts, considering the fact that the Czech Republic has
become a high-income economy and a member of the European Union in the past decade (see
also Macek, Lacinová, & Polášková, 2011; Macek & Marková, 2004). However, some
contextually specific patterns still might be present. Most importantly, cross-national studies
on adolescents’ political trust suggest that young people from post-communist countries
typically have rather distrustful views on political authorities and institutions (Amadeo et al.,
2002; Torney-Purta et al., 2004). Therefore, we expected that the differences in political trust
between people with low and high cognitive political engagement would be particularly
pronounced in our findings.
Next, it should be acknowledged that previous studies did not employ uniform
conceptualizations of political trust. The key difference lies in whether they focused
exclusively on the domain of politics (e.g., Bynner & Ashford, 1994) or captured broader
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 9
beliefs that included also trust in other social authorities and institutions, such as courts or
police (the authors often refer to institutional trust in these cases; e.g., Torney-Purta et al.,
2004). Our study employed the former, narrower, conceptualization, which means that the
following results pertain to adolescents’ beliefs about the political environment, while their
more general beliefs about social institutions were not explicitly investigated.
Method
Participants and procedure
We analyzed data from the psychological branch of the broader European
Longitudinal Study of Pregnancy and Childhood (ELSPAC), which focused on risks to
healthy and optimum development. The original sample comprised almost all families
(5,549) with a child born between March 1, 1991 and June 30, 1992 in medical institutions in
the Czech city of Brno (400,000 inhabitants). The psychological examinations started at the
age of eight on a subsample of 883 families who were randomly drawn from the original
sample (Ježek, Lacinová, Širůček, & Michalčáková, 2008). Additional participants were
randomly recruited from the original sample during the course of the project to compensate
for attrition. We employed data from three biennial examinations: 2002-03 (age 11; N = 876),
2006-07 (age 15; N = 554), and 2008-09 (age 17; N = 480). Regarding family configuration
(reported at age 15), 74 % participants were living with both biological parents, 15 % with
one parent, and 10 % with one parent and a stepparent.
The dataset was characterized by a large amount of missing data due to attrition and
the additional recruitment of participants. A total number of 1,116 adolescents (50 % girls)
participated for at least one examination; however, only 255 were present for all three
examinations. Because analyzing all available information is considered as superior to data
deletion (Enders & Bandalos, 2001), we tested our models on all 1,116 cases using the full
information maximum likelihood estimator (FIML) in Mplus 6.1 software. However, small
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 10
proportions of valid data were present for some combinations of variables (covariance
coverage from 14 to 78 %, mean 34 %). Although the data met the Mplus requirement of a
minimum coverage value of 10 % per coverage (Muthén & Muthén, 2010), such amount of
missing data may still yield biased estimates of standard errors (Schlomer, Bauman, & Card,
2010). Therefore, we further re-estimated all models with a subsample of 346 cases (49 %
girls) who participated in at least the first and last waves to obtain more reliable results
(covariance coverage from 43 to 100 %, mean 70 %). Results obtained from this subsample
are presented in square brackets in the following text.
Participants came to the research institute to complete self-report questionnaires and
take part in face-to-face interviews. Perceived parental warmth (age 11) and parental
alienation (age 15) were measured using paper-based questionnaires, and relation to school
(age 15) and political trust (age 17) were measured using computer-based questionnaires.
Tests of cognitive abilities (age 11) were administered by specially trained research
assistants. Measures of cognitive political engagement (age 17) were derived from records of
broader identity interviews. Information on parental education was provided by the
participants’ mothers at the child’s age of 11.
Measures
Political trust (age 17). We assessed adolescents’ perceived trustworthiness of the
political environment in terms of politician’s service to the public and moral qualities. The
scale was previously piloted and used among Czech adolescents (Agger, Goldstein, & Pearl,
1961; Šerek & Macek, 2010). Participants indicated their agreement to six items on a fourpoint
response scale “completely disagree” (=1), “somewhat disagree” (=2), “somewhat
agree” (=3), “completely agree” (=4). The items were as follows: (1) “Although it may seem
they do it differently, politicians pay respect to basic principles of decency and morality;” (2)
“It is a typical feature of politics that it attracts individuals with bad character;” (3) “Those
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 11
who want to advance in politics must learn to hide their true beliefs;” (4) “A decent person
has no chance to succeed in politics;” (5) “Politicians more often fight for the interests of the
whole society than for their own interests;” and (6) “In reality, politics is directed by a couple
of manipulators in the background.” The alpha reliability was .73.
Cognitive abilities (age 11). Two subtests of the Czech translation of the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children, third UK edition were used to assess verbal and nonverbal
cognitive abilities (Wechsler, 1996). Verbal ability, represented by verbal reasoning, was
measured by the subtest Similarities. This subtest captures the capacity for forming concrete,
functional, and abstract concepts, and abilities in generalizing and abstract thinking.
Participants were asked to explain how two different things or concepts were similar (19
items). Responses were scored from 0 to 2 based on quality. Nonverbal ability was
represented by perceptual reasoning and measured by the subtest Block Design. The subtest
captures nonverbal problem-solving skills such as part-to-whole organization, spatial
visualization, nonverbal concept formation, and manipulative abilities. Participants were
asked to replicate two-dimensional geometric patterns using red and white blocks within a
specified time limit (12 items). Performance on both subtests was scored by trained research
assistants in accordance with the standard scoring procedure. Weighted scores were
employed in the analyses.
Perceived parental warmth (age 11). The warmth of parental behavior, as
perceived by the adolescent (parents’ interest in child’s activities, emotional support, sharing
pleasant experiences, and respecting child’s dignity) was assessed by a 10-item subscale from
the Czech Parenting Styles Questionnaire (Čáp & Boschek, 1994). Adolescents assessed their
mothers (alpha = .77) and fathers (alpha = .82) separately using a three-point response scale
“no” (=1), “partially” (=2), “yes” (=3). Sample items included “She/he is friendly toward me”
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 12
or “She/he really cares about my wishes and worries.” Assessments of mothers and fathers
were strongly correlated (r = .62).
Relation to school (age 15). Adolescents’ general attitudes toward school were
captured by the Inventory of Risk Behavior, which measures this construct using two items
(Širůček & Širůčková, 2008). Item 1 was “How would you describe your relationship with
school?” The response scale for this item was “the worst enemy” (=1), “rather an enemy”
(=2), “hard to say” (=3), “rather a friend” (=4), “the best friend” (=5). Item 2 was “I am
satisfied with my school performance.” The response scale was “never” (=1); “rarely” (=2),
“hard to say” (=3), “mostly” (=4), “always” (=5). The correlation between these items was
.38.
Alienation from parents (age 15). Alienation from parents, understood as anger at
and isolation from parents, was measured using the eight-item subscale Alienation from the
Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; Širůček & Lacinová,
2008). All items referred to parents and did not distinguish between mothers and fathers.
Five-point response scales was “never or almost never” (=1), “seldom” (=2), “sometimes”
(=3), “often” (=4), “always or almost always” (=5). A sample item is “I feel angry with my
parents.” The alpha reliability was .78.
Cognitive engagement in politics (age 17). Cognitive engagement, defined as
paying attention to politics, was expected to manifest in adolescents’ following political
news, intention to participate in the political process, and having formed political opinions.
More specifically, following political news was regarded to represent a common way of
collecting political information. Intention to participate in the future was understood as a
manifestation of one’s motivation to occupy oneself with politics, which creates the potential
for further exploration in this area (e.g., Norris, 2000). Having formed political opinions
indicated that a young person was undertaking at least basic cognitive exploration in political
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 13
domain. Hence, answers on three questions were used as a measure of cognitive engagement.
First, participants were asked how often they followed political news. A five-point response
scale was “never” (=1), “a couple times a year” (=2), “a couple times a month” (=3), “a
couple times a week” (=4), “daily” (=5). Second, adolescents were asked whether they
planned to vote in the next parliamentary election (voting intention). This variable was
dichotomous (“no” = 0; “yes” = 1), with answers “don’t know” or “maybe” coded as missing
values. Finally, participants were asked whether they knew which political party they would
support in the election (voting decision), regardless of their voting intention. If participants
mentioned some political party or political orientation (e.g., leftist), they were coded as being
decided (=1), otherwise they were coded as undecided (=0).
Parental education. Parental education was captured by two dummy variables that
referred to two important thresholds present in the Czech educational system: (1) whether at
least one parent had completed secondary education with the graduation exam and (2)
whether at least one parent had completed tertiary education (university or college). Scores
were based on mother’s report at the child’s age of 11.
Data analysis
Before the main analysis, we computed a set of t-tests and χ2
-tests to determine
whether adolescents who did and did not participate in all three waves significantly differed
in the measured variables. Next, bivariate correlations between scale means were computed
and a measurement model that assumed no directional associations between latent variables
was tested.
Several structural equation models were computed to test our hypotheses (Mplus 6.1
software; full information maximum likelihood estimator). Most constructs were treated as
fully latent variables (political trust, relation to school, alienation from parents, perceived
parental warmth, and cognitive political engagement). If not stated otherwise, error terms of
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 14
the indicators were not allowed to correlate. Alienation from parents was measured by a well
established scale with known one-dimensionality (in the present study, standardized factor
loadings from exploratory factor analysis ranged from .42 to .68). Therefore, the eight
indicators were reduced to four parcels using an item-to-construct balance procedure, which
distributes the items according to their exploratory factor loadings (Little, Cunningham,
Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). Because perceived warmth of mothers and fathers strongly
correlated, we treated these variables as representing a single latent construct (exploratory
standardized factor loadings ranged from .48 to .59 for mothers’ warmth and from .47 to .62
for fathers’ warmth). Ten items that represented the perceptions of each parent were
transformed into two parcels (item-to-construct balance procedure) and perceived parental
warmth was estimated from the resulting four indicators. Finally, both verbal and nonverbal
cognitive abilities and parental education were treated as manifest variables.
Initially, we estimated a model that directly predicted political trust (age 17) from
adolescents’ early characteristics (i.e., parental education, perceived parental warmth, and
both cognitive abilities) at age 11 to test whether our basic expectations were supported.
Next, we added general relation to school (age 15), alienation from parents (age 15), and
cognitive political engagement (age 17) to the model. We scrutinized whether the effect of
early characteristics on political trust remained direct or became indirect (i.e., mediated by
the added variables). Indirect effects were assessed by bias-corrected bootstrapped (1,000
random samples with replacement) confidence intervals (Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Shrout &
Bolger, 2002). Finally, all non-significant paths were removed and the final model was
estimated. Using a multiple group analysis, we tested whether the structural paths in the final
model differed between boys and girls.
Model fit was assessed using the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and the χ2
statistic. A good model fit is indicated
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 15
by CFI > .95, RMSEA < .06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999), and a non-significant χ2
-test. However,
since the χ2
-test can be too strict in larger samples (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993), we also
accepted models with significant χ2
-tests if the ratio between χ2
and degrees of freedom was
smaller than two.
Results
Missing data analysis
A comparison between participants who did (n = 255) and did not take part in all
waves showed that the level of participation was not associated with the level of the
measured variables (see Table 1). The only exception occurred with the first item that
measured relation to school and parental secondary education. The analysis showed that
participants who took part in all waves indicated slightly more positive relation to school (M
= 3.19, SD = 0.90 compared to M = 3.04, SD = 0.83) and their parents had more often
completed secondary education (93 % compared to 87 %). Because the differences were
rather small, we did not consider them to be a serious limitation.
--- Table 1 about here ---
Correlations between scale means
Bivariate correlations (see Table 1) indicated that political trust (age 17) was
weakly, but significantly associated with verbal reasoning (age 11), alienation from parents
(age 15), and some measures of perceived parental warmth (age 11), relation to school (age
15), and cognitive political engagement (age 17). No association between political trust and
perceptual reasoning (age 11) was found.
Measurement model
Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that hypothesized latent constructs were well
represented by the measures. A model that included all latent variables and their indicators
was a good fit (χ2
140 = 208.66, p < .01; CFI = .97; RMSEA = .02). One correlation between
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 16
the errors of two items that measured political trust had to be allowed (r = .34). Similarly, the
errors of parcels that measured perceived mother’s (r = .41) warmth had to be allowed to
correlate. Standardized factor loadings of items that measured political trust ranged from .39
to .72; standardized loadings of parcels that measured parental warmth ranged from .56 to
.90; standardized factors loadings of items that measured relation to school were .51 (Item 1)
and .74 (Item 2); standardized factor loadings of parcels that measured alienation from
parents ranged from .65 to .75; and standardized factor loadings of items that measured
cognitive political engagement were .60 (following news), .48 (voting intention), and .35
(voting decision). In line with our expectations, all measures captured one-dimensional latent
constructs.
Predicting political trust from early characteristics
A model that predicted political trust (age 17) from early characteristics and parental
education was estimated (Figure 1). The results indicated that political trust was positively
predicted by verbal reasoning (age 11) and perceived parental warmth (age 11). Parental
education (completed secondary education or completed university or college) was a weak
predictor of political trust. Finally, perceptual reasoning (age 11) was independent from
political trust.
--- Figure 1 about here ---
Full model
In the next step, relation to school (age 15), alienation from parents (age 15), and
cognitive political engagement (age 17) were added to the model and set to predict political
trust (age 17). Based on the previous results, perceptual reasoning (age 11), which was
independent from political trust, was omitted from the model. Parental secondary education
and parental university or college education were allowed to correlate with perceived parental
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 17
warmth (age 11) and verbal reasoning (age 11), and predict relation to school, cognitive
political engagement, and political trust (see Figure 2).
--- Figure 2 about here ---
The results showed that while greater perceived parental warmth still predicted
greater political trust, the effect of verbal reasoning on political trust disappeared. Next,
alienation from parents was predicted by less-perceived parental warmth and lower verbal
reasoning; this variable did not predict political trust. Further, relation to school was
positively predicted by verbal reasoning; the variable did not predict political trust. Finally,
cognitive political engagement was positively predicted by verbal reasoning; cognitive
political engagement, in turn, positively predicted political trust.
Mediation analysis
The positive effect of verbal reasoning (age 11) on political trust (age 17) was fully
mediated by cognitive political engagement (age 17). After removing the non-significant
direct effect of verbal reasoning on political trust (Δχ2
1 = 1.00, p = .31 [Δχ2
1 = 0.25, p = .62]),
indirect effects were scrutinized. Bootstrap estimates of 95% bias-corrected standardized
confidence intervals showed a significant indirect effect of verbal reasoning on political trust
as mediated by greater cognitive political engagement (.01; .22 [.03; .24]). On the other hand,
alienation from parents (-.03; .05 [-.04; .07]) and relation to school (-.04; .12 [-.05; .17]), both
measured at the age of 15, did not mediate the effect of verbal reasoning because these
variables did not predict political trust.
On the contrary, the effect of perceived parental warmth on political trust was direct
and not mediated. The direct effect of perceived parental warmth at the age of 11 was
significant, although alienation from parents at age 15 was present in the model. In other
words, earlier perceived parental warmth was a better predictor of political trust than was
later alienation from parents.
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 18
Final model and gender differences
Final model without non-significant paths is shown in Figure 3. This model
represented the data adequately and was not a worse fit than the full model (Δχ2
3 = 7.06, p =
.07 [Δχ2
3 = 5.56, p = .14]).
Previous studies have reported that adolescent males and females can have different
approaches to politics in terms of their political interest or developmental identity status
(Amadeo et al., 2002; Goossens, 2001; Solomontos-Kountouri & Hurry, 2008). Therefore we
tested whether our final model applied equally to both groups. A multiple group analysis
showed that the assumption of identical structural effects in boys and girls did not yield a
worse model fit (Δχ2
18 = 16.04, p = .59 [Δχ2
18 = 16.97, p = .53]) compared to the model
where the structural effects were freely estimated for both groups. Hence, our analysis
suggested no differences between boys and girls regarding the effects in our final model.
--- Figure 3 about here ---
Discussion
The results of this study show that young people who have better developed verbal
abilities and perceive greater parental warmth in early adolescence report greater political
trust when they reach late adolescence. The positive association between verbal abilities and
political trust is explained by the fact that adolescents with better developed verbal abilities
pay more attention to politics, which is related to greater political trust. At the same time,
young adolescents with more developed verbal abilities also have more positive relations to
school and parents; however, this does not explain their higher levels of political trust.
Overall, these findings support our initial assumptions that some early characteristics play a
role in the formation of political trust.
The finding that greater verbal abilities enable adolescents to become more
cognitively engaged in politics, which is associated with greater political trust, is in line with
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 19
our expectations. Because politics is a complex and abstract topic that many young people
perceive as distant from everyday life (Henn et al., 2005; Šerek & Macek, 2010), deeper
comprehension may require a higher level of verbal abilities on the part of adolescents.
Additionally, having low political trust is a norm in many of today’s democratic societies
including the Czech Republic (Linek, 2010; Norris, 2011). Therefore, we suppose that only
those young people who are able to explore, understand, and discuss political issues can
replace the generalized political mistrust inculcated by society with a more nuanced view that
would allow for the existence of both positive and negative aspects of the political
environment. As a result, the political trust of these young people is higher compared to those
who do not engage in deeper exploration of political issues and may rather accept the social
norm of mistrust. Moreover, because the association between cognitive engagement and
political trust is likely to be bidirectional, adolescents’ exploration of political issues can be
further motivated by their greater political trust.
However, the finding that greater political trust is predicted by greater cognitive
political engagement should be generalized to other sociopolitical contexts with caution.
According to cross-national comparisons, Czech adolescents show relatively low political
trust (Amadeo et al., 2002) and they reject uncritical loyalty to political authorities
(Klicperová-Baker et al., 2007). Their views of the politicians reflect a broader political
culture of the Czech Republic because political distrust and low satisfaction with politics
have diffusively spread among the whole population in the last decade (Linek, 2010).
Historically, this feature of Czech political culture may stem from democratic traditions (the
Czechoslovak Republic in the 1920s–1930s or the “Prague Spring” in the late 1960s),
combined with a long period of authoritarian communist rule, involving violent
totalitarianism in 1950s and untrustworthy corrupted “gerontocracy” in 1980s (KlicperováBaker,
1999). Hence, we suppose that young Czechs tend to accept this wide-spread norm of
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 20
political distrust unless they actively seek and understand additional political information. On
the other hand, this effect might not be present in countries with different political cultures
where adolescents have generally high trust in their political leaders (e.g., Nordic countries,
see Amadeo et al., 2002). Moreover, the association between cognitive political engagement
and political trust might be even reverse in countries with unstable or really untrustworthy
institutions. As shown by Torney-Purta et al. (2004) in Bulgaria, adolescents with greater
political knowledge (which is likely associated with greater cognitive political engagement)
can be less naïve regarding political authorities and have lower political trust compared to
their less knowledgeable peers. Therefore, further investigation in countries with diverse
political cultures is strongly recommended.
Our finding that a more positive relation to school (held by adolescents with higher
verbal abilities) does not transform to higher political trust is seemingly inconsistent with the
public institutional hypothesis, which suggests that experiences with public institutions shape
adolescents’ political beliefs and behaviors (Amnå & Zetterberg, 2010). Related research has
shown that political trust among adolescents is enhanced by some specific characteristics and
practices that are present in the school environment such as open classroom climates and
school democracy (Claes et al., 2012; Gniewosz et al., 2009; Torney-Purta, et al. 2004).
Unfortunately, these aspects were not distinguished in our study; rather we focused solely on
general attitudes toward school. Therefore, it is possible that specific school practices (e.g.,
democratic functioning) not the general evaluation of school by adolescents, have a positive
impact on the development of their political trust. This explanation could be the reason why
we found only small effects of school. Another important implication of our results is that
the correlation between political trust and positive relation to school might be spurious in
studies that do not control for verbal ability. Adolescents with higher verbal ability tend to
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 21
have more positive relation to school and higher political trust, although the two are
independent from each other.
In addition, we found that political trust relates to verbal reasoning, but not to other
types of cognitive ability, such as perceptual reasoning. This finding helps explain why older
research studies that have focused mostly on a general one-factor cognitive ability, found
only a small impact on adolescents’ political socialization (for a review, see Gallatin, 1980).
Moreover, our results support and expand those by Hillygus (2005) who found that verbal
ability (measured by Scholastic Aptitude Test) predicts conventional political participation by
college students, but math proficiency does not. Our study shows that not only conventional
political participation, but also political trust (an important predictor of adolescents'
conventional political participation; Bynner & Ashford, 1994; Torney-Purta et al., 2004) is
related to verbal ability. Therefore, further studies on political socialization should carefully
differentiate between various cognitive abilities because only verbal abilities seem to be
substantially related to political development during adolescence.
Next, our results revealed that early adolescents who experience more parental
warmth report higher political trust when they reach late adolescence. Thus, positive
perceptions of parental authorities, regarding their respect and support, seem to shape
adolescents' generalized trust to other social and political authorities during late adolescence.
These longitudinal results corroborate the cross-sectional findings of Gniewosz et al. (2009)
who found that authoritarian parenting, characterized by parental rigorousness and the
absence of parental warmth toward children, predicts the political alienation of adolescents.
The described effect can be explained in the context of attachment theory, which assumes
that a person's expectations about broader social relationships (internal working models) are
formed in childhood, based on the mental representations as modeled by caregivers (Bowlby,
1973; Bretherton & Munholland, 1999). Consequently, these internal working models of
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 22
parental authorities might be activated when adolescents form views concerning other types
of social authorities, particularly those that are not encountered personally, such as political
figures. Another postulate of attachment theory states that the internal working models are
formed early in the life and remain relatively stable into adulthood (Fraley, 2002; Waters,
Merrick, Treboux, Crowell, & Albersheim, 2000). This idea is consistent with our findings
because perceived parental warmth in early adolescence was a better predictor of political
trust than was alienation from parents in middle adolescence. Hence, it is possible that early
attachment to parents sets the general expectations regarding authorities and is reflected in
later political trust.
Limitations
A number of limitations need to be noted regarding the present study. First, we
measured relation to school and alienation from parents on a very general level. Additionally,
our measure of relation to school was only a two-item measure. Although these generalized
attitudes are important, future studies should focus on more particular aspects of adolescents’
school and family perceptions that might be more directly related to political trust (e.g., open
classroom, as suggested above). Second, parental sociopolitical beliefs were not measured in
our study. Because both parenting practices and political beliefs shared in a family might
stem from some parental social beliefs (e.g., regarding obedience to authority), their inclusion
could shed more light on the investigated processes. Third, our analysis was not fully
longitudinal (Cole & Maxwell, 2003); all variables were measured only at one time point and
cognitive engagement and political trust were measured at the same age. Therefore, any
interpretation must be cautious regarding causality. On the other hand, the predictions from
the ages 11 to 17 allow for stronger interpretations than would a mere cross-sectional study.
Fourth, socioeconomic status was operationalized as parental education in this study, which
provides only limited information on the actual situation of the family. Fifth, it must be
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 23
considered that our finding that warm parenting predicts adolescents’ political trust and the
similar finding by Gniewosz et al. (2009) both come from post-communist areas where the
role of state has become weakened, which shifted the responsibility for socialization between
family and state to families (Tomasik & Silbereisen, 2012). Therefore, further studies are
needed to confirm whether the association has the same strength in other sociopolitical
contexts.
Conclusions
Taken together, the present findings enhance our understanding of the origins of
political trust in adolescence. Specifically, the findings reveal that cognitive abilities and
parent-child relationships are indispensable factors in adolescents’ political socialization. In
one comprehensive model, we showed that early adolescents who have lower verbal ability
and who perceive less warmth from their parents become less trusting of politics in late
adolescence. These young people enter adulthood more cynical about political processes than
do their peers. We acknowledge that political mistrust is not necessarily negative and can be
beneficial when facing corrupt or authoritarian politicians. Nevertheless, the generalized form
of political mistrust targeted in our study could turn into political apathy (Bynner & Ashford,
1994) and prevent young people from engaging in a political life before it actually starts.
More seriously, generalized political mistrust in adolescence is also correlated with support
for extremist political parties (Kuhn, 2004). Therefore, we suggest that research pay greater
attention to these young people and their political development. In addition, seemingly “nonpolitical”
developmental experiences must be considered to understand adolescents’
approaches to the political sphere.
Our finding that the level of adolescents’ verbal cognitive abilities can boost or
hinder their abilities to pay attention to politics is important particularly from the perspective
of civic education. This finding suggests that teachers should be aware that students with
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 24
lower verbal abilities may need extra assistance to follow and understand political events.
According to our results, the level of verbal cognitive ability at the age of 11 is already
predictive of cognitive political engagement in late adolescence; hence students who might
have difficulties with comprehending politics can be identified relatively early. Naturally, the
purpose of these efforts is not to make political activists of all students. Recently, Amnå &
Ekman (2013) have showed that many young citizens linger in a “standby” mode. Although
they do not participate very often, they are attentive to politics, trust institutions, have
positive feelings about politics, and are prepared to participate if needed. Our analysis shows
that two important aspects of standby citizenship – cognitive political engagement and
political trust – are positively associated with verbal cognitive ability. Therefore, we believe
that civic education that is better suited to individual cognitive needs of adolescents can
increase the number of young citizens who prefer standby citizenship to political
disengagement.
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 25
References
Agger, R. E., Goldstein, M. N., & Pearl, S. (1961). Political cynicism: Measurement and
meaning. Journal of Politics, 23, 477-506.
Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in
five nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Amadeo, J.-A., Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R. H., Husfeldt, V., & Nikolova, R. (2002). Civic
knowledge and engagement among upper secondary students. Citizenship and
education in sixteen countries. Amsterdam: IEA.
Amnå, E., & Ekman, J. (2013). Standby citizens: diverse faces of political passivity.
European Political Science Review. doi:10.1017/S175577391300009X
Amnå, E., & Zetterberg, P. (2010). A political science perspective on socialization research:
Young Nordic citizens in a comparative light. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C.
A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 43-66).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment:
Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in
adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427-454. doi:10.1007/BF02202939
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Beaumont, E. (2010). Political agency and empowerment: Pathways for developing a sense
of political efficacy in young adults. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. A.
Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 525-558).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol.2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York:
Basic Books.
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 26
Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment
relationships: A construct revisited. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of
attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 89-111). New York:
Guilford Press.
Bynner, J., & Ashford, S. (1994). Politics and participation: Some antecedents of young
people's attitudes to the political system and political activity. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 24, 223-236. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420240202
Čáp, J., & Boschek, P. (1994). Dotazník pro zjišťování způsobu výchovy v rodině
[Questionnaire on family parenting style]. Brno: Psychodiagnostika.
Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good.
New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Catterberg, G., & Moreno, A. (2006). The individual bases of political trust: Trends in new
and established democracies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18, 31-
48. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh081
Citrin, J., & Muste, C. (1999). Trust in government. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S.
Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of political attitudes (pp. 465-532). San Diego, London:
Academic Press.
Claes, E., Hooghe, M., & Marien, S. (2012). A two-year panel study among Belgian late
adolescents on the impact of school environment characteristics on political trust.
International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24, 208-22.
doi:10.1093/ijpor/edr031
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data:
Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 112, 558-577. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 27
Deary, I. J., Batty, G. D., Gale, C. R. (2008). Bright children become enlightened adults.
Psychological science, 19, 1-6. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02036.x
Denny, K., & Doyle, O. (2008). Political interest, cognitive ability and personality:
Determinants of voter turnout in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 291-
310. doi:10.1017/S000712340800015X
Duke, N. N., Skay, C. L., Pettingell, S. L., & Borowsky, I. W. (2009). From adolescent
connections to social capital: Predictors of civic engagement in young adulthood.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 44, 161-168. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.07.007
Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information
maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models.
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 430-457. doi:
10.1207/s15328007sem0803_5
Estévez, E., & Emler, N. (2009). Individual differences in attitude to school and social
reputation among peers: Implications for behavioural adjustment in educational
settings. In J. E. Larson (Ed.), Educational psychology: Educational Psychology:
Cognition and learning, individual differences and motivation (pp. 342-365).
Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers.
Finifter, A. W. (1970). Dimensions of political alienation. The American Political Science
Review, 64, 389-410.
Flanagan, C. A. (2003). Trust, identity, and civic hope. Applied Developmental Science, 7,
165-171. doi:10.1207/s1532480xads0703_7
Flanagan, C. A., & Gallay, L. S. (1995). Refraining the meaning of “political” in research
with adolescents. Perspectives on Political Science, 24, 34-41.
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 28
Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and
dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 6, 123-151. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_03
Gallatin, J. (1980). Political Thinking in Adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of
adolescent psychology (pp. 344-382). New York: Wiley.
Geddes, J. D., Murrell, A. R., & Bauguss, J. (2010). Childhood learning: An examination of
ability and attitudes toward school. Creative Education, 1, 170-183.
doi:10.4236/ce.2010.13027
Gniewosz, B., Noack, P., & Buhl, M. (2009). Political alienation in adolescence:
Associations with parental role models, parenting styles, and classroom climate.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33, 337-346.
doi:10.1177/0165025409103137
Goossens, L. (2001). Global versus domain-specific statuses in identity research: A
comparison of two self-report measures. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 681-699. doi:
doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0438
Henn, M., Weinstein, M., & Forrest, S. (2005). Uninterested youth? Young people’s attitudes
towards party politics in Britain. Political Studies, 53, 556-578. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9248.2005.00544.x
Hillygus, D. S. (2005). The missing link: Exploring the relationship between higher education
and political engagement. Political Behavior, 27, 25-47. doi:10.1007/s11109-005-3075-
8
Hooghe, M., & Wilkenfeld, B. (2008). The stability of political attitudes and behaviors across
adolescence and early adulthood: A comparison of survey data on adolescents and
young adults in eight countries. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 155-167.
doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9199-x
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 29
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic and political
change in 41 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Ježek, S., Lacinová, L., Širůček, J., & Michalčáková, R. (2008). The psychological branch of
the ELSPAC study: A survey of 15-year-old respondents. In L. Lacinová & S. Ježek
(Eds.), Fifteen-year-olds in Brno: A slice of longitudinal self-reports (pp. 7-11). Brno:
Masaryk University. Retrieved from
http://is.muni.cz/repo/806682/chapter01Intro.pdf/publication/806682
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural equation modeling with the
Simplis command language. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Karavasilis, L., Doyle, A. B., & Markiewicz, D. (2003). Associations between parenting style
and attachment to mother in middle childhood and adolescence. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 27, 153-164. doi:10.1080/0165025024400015
Klicperová-Baker, M. (Ed.) (1999). Ready for democracy? Civic culture and civility with a
focus on Czech society. Prague: Institute of Psychology, Academy of Sciences of the
Czech Republic.
Klicperová-Baker, M., Feierabend I. K., Kovacheva S., Titarenko L., Košťál J., & Hofstetter
C. R. (2007). Demokratická kultura v České republice [Democratic culture in the
Czech Republic]. Prague: Academia.
Kohoutek, T., Mareš, J., & Ježek, S. (2008). Coping in adolescence. In L. Lacinová & S.
Ježek (Eds.), Fifteen-year-olds in Brno: A slice of longitudinal self-reports (pp. 55-64).
Brno: Masaryk University. Retrieved from
http://is.muni.cz/repo/806692/chapter07Coping.pdf/publication/806692
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 30
Kramer, R. M., & Carnevale, P. J. (2001). Trust and intergroup negotiation. In R. Brown & S.
L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp.
431-450). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Kuhn, H. P. (2004). Adolescent voting for right-wing extremist parties and readiness to use
violence in political action: Parent and peer contexts. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 561-
581. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.06.009
Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political
Science, 3, 475-507.
Linek, L. (2010). Zrazení snu? Struktura a dynamika postojů k politickému režimu a jeho
institucím a jejich důsledky [Betrayal of the dream? The structure and dynamics of
attitudes toward the political regime and its institutions and their consequences].
Prague: SLON.
Little, T.D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to
parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 151-173. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
Macek, P., Lacinová, L., & Polášková, E. (2011). Czech Republic. In J. J. Arnett (Ed.),
Adolescent psychology around the world (pp. 243-256). New York, London:
Psychology Press.
Macek, P., & Marková, I. (2004). Trust and distrust in old and new democracies. In I.
Marková (Ed.), Trust and democratic transition in post-communist Europe (pp. 173-
194). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Sutin, A. R. (2009). Openness to experience. In M. R. Leary, & R. H.
Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 257-273).
New York, London: Guilford Press.
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 31
Meffert, M. F., Chung, S., Joiner, A. J., Waks, L., & Garst, J. (2006). The effects of
negativity and motivated information processing during a political campaign. Journal
of Communication, 56, 27-51. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00003.x
Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (2001). What are the origins of political trust? Testing institutional
and cultural theories in post-communist societies. Comparative Political Studies, 34,
30-62. doi:10.1177/0010414001034001002
Mondak, J. J., & Halperin, K. D. (2008). A framework for the study of personality and
political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 335-362.
doi:10.1017/S0007123408000173
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide. Sixth edition. Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
Norris, P. (2000). A virtuous circle: Political communications in postindustrial societies.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Offe, C. (1999). How can we trust our fellow citizens? In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy
and trust (pp. 42-87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
Methods, 40, 879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Richards, J., Encel, J., & Shute, R. (2003). The emotional and behavioural adjustment of
intellectually gifted adolescents: A multi-dimensional, multi-informant approach. High
Ability Studies, 14, 153-164. doi:10.1080/1359813032000163889
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 32
Rindermann, H. (2008). Relevance of education and intelligence for the political
development of nations: Democracy, rule of law and political liberty. Intelligence, 36,
306-322. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2007.09.003
Rindermann, H., Flores-Mendoza, C., & Woodley, M. A. (2012). Political orientations,
intelligence and education. Intelligence, 40, 217-225. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2011.11.005
Sampson, R. J., Sharkey, P., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2008). Durable effects of concentrated
disadvantage on verbal ability among African-American children. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Science of the USA, 105, 845-852. doi:10.1073/pnas.0710189104
Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010). Best practices for missing data
management in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 1-10.
doi:10.1037/a0018082
Schoon, I., & Cheng, H. (2011). Determinants of political trust: A lifetime learning model.
Developmental Psychology, 47, 619-631. doi:10.1037/a0021817
Schoon, I., Cheng, H., Gale, C. R., Batty, G. D., & Deary, I. J. (2010). Social status, cognitive
ability, and educational attainment as predictors of liberal social attitudes and political
trust. Intelligence, 38, 144-150. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2009.09.005
Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1995). Stress, coping, and relationships in adolescence. Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Šerek, J., & Macek, P. (2010). Proč se politicky (ne)angažovat: Obsah a struktura
přesvědčení u adolescentů [Why (not) to become politically engaged: Content and
structure of beliefs in adolescents]. Československá psychologie, 54, 160-174.
Sherrod, L. R., Torney-Purta, J., & Flanagan, C. A. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of research on
civic engagement in youth. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 33
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies:
New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445.
doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422
Solomontos-Kountouri, O., & Hurry, J. (2008). Political, religious and occupational identities
in context: Placing identity status paradigm in context. Journal of Adolescence, 31,
241-258. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.11.006
Širůček, J., & Lacinová, L. (2008). Relationship with parents from the perspective of
attachment theory. In L. Lacinová & S. Ježek (Eds.), Fifteen-year-olds in Brno: A slice
of longitudinal self-reports (pp. 123-130). Brno: Masaryk University.
Širůček, J., & Širůčková, M. (2008). Risk behavior. In L. Lacinová & S. Ježek (Eds.),
Fifteen-year-olds in Brno: A slice of longitudinal self-reports (pp. 25-38). Brno:
Masaryk University.
Tomasik, M. J., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2012). Social change and adolescent developmental
tasks: The case of postcommunist Europe. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 326-
334. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00228.x
Torney-Purta, J., Barber, C. H., & Richardson, W. K. (2004). Trust in government-related
institutions and political engagement among adolescents in six countries. Acta Politica,
39, 380-406. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500080
van IJzendoorn, M. H., Dijkstra, J., & Bus, A. G. (1995). Attachment, intelligence, and
language: A meta‐analysis. Social Development, 4, 115-128. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9507.1995.tb00055.x
Wechsler, D. (1996). Wechslerova inteligenční škála pro děti III [Wechsler Intelligence Scale
for Children III]. Brno: Psychodiagnostika.
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 34
Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment
security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child
Development, 71, 684-689. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00176
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 35
Table 1. Correlations and descriptive statistics of measured variables, and missing data analysis (analysis of variance).
Correlations Descriptives Missing
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. M SD Range N t(df)
1. Political trust (17) .18** .05 .11 .16** .13* .08 -.15** .13* .15** .03 .13* .09 2.15 0.51 1-3.67 442 1.30(440)
2. Verbal reasoning (11) .38** .16** .11** .11* .25** -.13* .14* .29** .17* .17** .26** 12.18 3.97 2-19 758 -1.39(756)
3. Perceptual reasoning (11) .02 -.01 .06 .09 -.02 -.02 .27** .00 .17** .24** 11.67 3.19 1-19 758 -1.63(756)
4. Perc. mother’s warmth (11) .62** .15** .12* -.17** .03 -.03 .13 .03 .05 2.71 0.29 1.20-3 871 -1.27(869)
5. Perc. father’s warmth (11) .05 .06 -.25** .11 .05 .17* .05 .06 2.61 0.35 1.10-3 813 0.91(811)
6. Rel. to school – item 1 (15) .38** -.19** .04 .01 -.08 .02 .08 3.11 0.87 1-5 540 -2.10(538)*
7. Rel. to school – item 2 (15) -.30** .02 .09 -.20** .02 -.02 3.51 0.84 1-5 541 -1.38(539)
8. Alienation from parents (15) -.12 -.05 .04 -.02 .09 2.38 0.64 1-5 552 0.58(550)
9. CPE – following news (17) .28** .20** .04 .19** 3.68 1.21 1-5 369 -0.95(367)
10. CPE – voting intention (17) .12 .09 .22** 68 % yes 0-1 334 0.59(1)
11. CPE – voting decision (17) .07 .17* 50 % yes 0-1 311 0.00(1)
12. Parental secondary educ. .37** 89 % yes 0-1 826 4.90(1)*
13. Parental university/college 51 % yes 0-1 790 0.28(1)
Note. Higher scores mean more extreme answers in the direction of the constructs (more positive relation to school). If the variable is dichotomous, Pearson χ2
test
is computed instead of t-test. CPE = cognitive political engagement. Numbers in parentheses after variable names indicate the ages of measurement. * p <
.05. ** p < .01.
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 36
Figure 1. Model predicting political trust from early characteristics.
Completely standardized full information maximum likelihood parameter estimates are reported. WM/WF = A five-item parcel representing perceived
mother’s/father’s warmth. PT = an item measuring political trust. Model fit: χ2
64 = 99.99, p < .01; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .02 [χ2
64 = 86.39, p = .03; CFI = .97;
RMSEA = .03.]. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 37
Figure 2. Full model predicting political trust.
Completely standardized full information maximum likelihood parameter estimates are reported. WM/WF = A five-item parcel representing perceived
mother’s/father’s warmth. PT = an item measuring political trust. AP = a four-item parcel representing alienation from parents. RS = an item measuring relation
to school. For greater clarity, paths regarding parental education are presented separately. Model fit: χ2
188 = 294.36, p < .01; CFI = .96; RMSEA = .02 [χ2
188 =
256.01, p < .01; CFI = .95; RMSEA = .03.]. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
ANTECEDENTS OF POLITICAL TRUST 38
Figure 3. Final model predicting political trust.
Completely standardized full information maximum likelihood parameter estimates are reported. WM/WF = A five-item parcel representing perceived
mother’s/father’s warmth. PT = an item measuring political trust. AP = a four-item parcel representing alienation from parents. RS = an item measuring relation
to school. For greater clarity, paths regarding parental education are presented separately. Model fit: χ2
191 = 301.42, p < .01; CFI = .96; RMSEA = .02 [χ2
191 =
261.57, p < .01 CFI = .94; RMSEA = .03.]. * p < .05. ** p < .01.