ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 1
The chicken or egg question of adolescents' political involvement: Longitudinal analysis of
the relation between adolescents’ political participation, political efficacy, and interest in
politics
Jan Šerek, Hana Machackova & Petr Macek
Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Published in Zeitschrift für Psychologie:
Šerek, J., Macháčková, H., & Macek, P. (2017). The chicken or egg question of adolescents'
political involvement: Longitudinal analysis of the relation between adolescents’ political
participation, political efficacy, and interest in politics. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 225(4),
347-356. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000297
This version is an original submission to the journal with revisions after peer review accepted
by the editor.
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 2
Abstract
Research on political behavior of young people often approaches psychological factors such
as political efficacy or interest as antecedents of political participation. This study examines
whether efficacy and interest are also outcomes of participation and if this effect differs across
three types of political participation. Data from a two-wave longitudinal survey of 768 Czech
adolescents (aged 14-17 at T1, 54% females) was used. Findings supported the proposition
that psychological factors are affected by participatory experiences. Cross-lagged models
showed longitudinal effects from participation to changes in psychological factors, but not
effects in the opposite direction. Protest participation predicted higher interest and internal
political efficacy, but lower external political efficacy; volunteering predicted higher external
political efficacy; and representational participation had no effects on psychological factors.
Overall, our findings point out the formative role of participatory experiences in adolescence
and the diverse effects of different types of political participation on political development.
Keywords: Political participation; internal political efficacy; external political
efficacy; political interest; adolescence.
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 3
Introduction
Political participation is an integral part of democratic society. Through past decades,
research on political socialization has identified numerous psychological factors, such as
political interest or political efficacy that are related to young people’s involvement in
political activities (e.g., Barrett, 2015; Cicognani & Zani, 2015). The prevailing approach is to
treat these factors as precursors or predispositions of political behavior. Consequently,
analytical strategies conceptualize political beliefs and attitudes as predictors and political
behavior as outcome variables. However, it has been pointed out that the relation between
psychological variables and participatory behavior is not necessarily unidirectional: not only
do these characteristics increase active participation but also the participation itself could be a
factor that enhances these characteristics (Finkel, 1985; Gastil & Xenos, 2010; Quintelier &
Van Deth, 2014). The effect of political participation on psychological variables is
particularly important for young people whose political beliefs and attitudes are still being
formed. Hence, focusing on youth, our study aims to re-examine and further explore the
causal relations between political beliefs or attitudes and political behavior to provide more
knowledge related to political development in adolescence. Such knowledge might bring, for
instance, useful hints for the efforts to stimulate political participation among young people.
Although many studies are not explicit about their theoretical understanding of the
link from political beliefs and attitudes to political behavior, the causal effects of
psychological factors on behavior are elaborated by several well-established psychological
approaches (e.g., drive theories or the theory of planned behavior). For instance, the theory of
planned behavior assumes that person’s positive attitude toward the behavior, perceived
approval of the behavior by significant others, and perceived ease of performing the behavior
result in higher behavioral intentions, which, in turn, increase the likelihood of performing the
behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Applying this theory in the context of political socialization, it has
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 4
been shown that young people’s positive attitudes toward political behavior and their political
efficacy beliefs positively predict their political participation (Eckstein, Noack, & Gniewosz,
2013; Jugert, Eckstein, Noack, Kuhn, & Benbow, 2013).
Despite its intuitive appeal, the causal effect from psychological factors to political
behavior is not the only explanation for the well documented correlations between political
beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. The theory of cognitive dissonance states that people seek to
maintain cognitive consistency between their attitudes or between their attitudes and
behaviors in order to avoid unpleasant mental states (Festinger, 1962). Hence, performing a
behavior can cause changes in one’s beliefs and attitudes in order to make them more
consistent with the behavior (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959; Olson & Stone, 2005). Similarly,
the self-perception theory postulates that people sometimes infer their attitudes or beliefs by
observing their own behaviors. In other words, people might use their own behaviors as a
source of evidence for their beliefs and attitudes that are formed after the behavior is
performed (Bem, 1972). Therefore, in the domain of politics, it is possible that political
participation shapes young people’s political beliefs and attitudes, such as political interest or
efficacy. However, it should be stressed that both views on the relation between psychological
factors and political participation are not in contradiction. Specifically, the relation can be
understood as bidirectional and recursive in the sense that political beliefs and attitudes
motivate political participation and participation, in turn, shapes relevant psychological
factors (Quintelier & van Deth, 2014).
Further, the directionality of the effects might differ across different life domains and
developmental stages. As implied by the self-perception theory, the inference of beliefs and
attitudes from one’s behavior occurs predominantly if the internal cues on these beliefs and
attitudes are weak or unclear (Bem, 1972). From the perspective of political socialization,
adolescents and young adults typically do not have stable political orientations yet (Alwin &
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 5
Krosnick, 1991; Krosnick & Alwin, 1989) and their psychological commitments in the
political domain are often not well articulated compared to other life domains, such as
occupation or romantic relationships (McLean, Syed, Yoder, & Greenhoot, 2016;
Solomontos-Kountouri & Hurry, 2008). Hence, even though it seems adequate to assume
generally bidirectional relations between psychological factors and participation, the causal
link from participation to political beliefs and attitudes might be particularly pronounced in
adolescents.
This study focuses on three well-established psychological correlates of political
participation: political interest, internal political efficacy (or political self-efficacy), and
external political efficacy (or perceived system responsiveness). Political interest can be
defined as the degree to which politics arouses people’s curiosity or, more simply, as the
degree to which people pay attention to politics (Martín & van Deth, 2007). Internal political
efficacy indicates a “personal belief regarding the ability to achieve desired results in the
political domain through personal engagement and an efficient use of one’s own capacities
and resources” (Caprara, Vecchione, Capanna, & Mebane, 2009; p. 1002). Thus, higher
internal efficacy captures ones’ feelings of own competences within politics, particularly
one’s ability to actively participate in and achieve goals within this domain. Finally, external
political efficacy captures perceived responsiveness of the political system to citizens’
demands, a belief that politicians and political institutions listen to and react on citizens’
political participation (Caprara et al., 2009; Morrell, 2005; Niemi, Craing, Mattei, 1991).
Internal and external efficacy are not necessarily correlated: e.g., even if people perceive low
responsiveness from government, they still can feel personally efficient to actively participate
(and vice versa).
Both political interest and internal political efficacy are positively linked to political
participation in adult and adolescent populations (Finkel, 1985; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady,
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 6
1995; Zukin, Keeter, Andolina, Jenkins, & Delli Carpini, 2006). If we conceptualize these
variables as psychological precursors of participation, the most straightforward explanation of
their effects would be that both of them provide pro-participatory cognitions (e.g., political
knowledge enhanced by political interest) and regulate people’s motivation to participate in
politics (Bandura, 1997; Barrett, 2015; Cicognani & Zani, 2015). The effect of external
political efficacy on political participation is less straightforward as the lack of external
political efficacy might lead to political passivity as well as looking for alternative ways of
participation. Therefore, the effects of external efficacy are sometimes believed to be different
for participation within traditional political institutions, targeting elected political
representatives, and non-institutionalized protest participation (Gamson, 1968; Pollock,
1983).
Although “political interest and political efficacy, for example, certainly facilitate
political activity, but activity presumably enhances interest and efficacy as well” (Brady,
Verba, & Schlozman, 1995; p. 271), a relatively small number of studies have actually tested
the directionality of their mutual effects. Using adult samples, a longitudinal study by Finkel
(1985) showed that both internal and external political efficacy predicted electoral and
campaign participation and, at the same time, both types of participation positively predicted
external (but not internal) political efficacy. Another study by Gastil & Xenos (2010) found
that political participation focused on political representatives (e.g., attending political
meetings or activity in political groups) was predicted by internal but not external political
efficacy. However, this type of participation had no reciprocal effect on internal efficacy,
while it negatively predicted external political efficacy. At the same time, there were no
relations between both types of efficacy and community-oriented volunteering. Further,
Stenner-Day & Fischle (1992) showed that community-oriented volunteering had a reciprocal
positive association with political interest, a reciprocal negative association with external
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 7
efficacy, and a unidirectional positive effect on internal efficacy. In the same study,
representation-oriented activism had a positive reciprocal association with political interest
and a positive unidirectional effect on internal efficacy. Finally, Christens, Peterson & Speer
(2011) employed a broader construct of psychological empowerment, defined as individuals’
control over their lives, participation in democratic decision-making, and critical awareness of
their sociopolitical environments. They found that changes in psychological empowerment
were predicted by community participation, but psychological empowerment did not predict
changes in community participation. Overall, these results suggest that particularly external
efficacy and political interest are affected by citizen’s political participation, while the results
are less consistent for internal political efficacy.
As noted above, adolescents, compared to adults, have less clear and less stable
psychological orientations related to politics. Therefore, if we generalize the findings from
adult samples to adolescents, we might underestimate the actual impact of participation on
political beliefs and attitudes. Unfortunately, studies on the directionality between
adolescents’ political beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors are still lacking. An exception is a
three-wave study on Belgian adolescents (ages 16, 18 and 21) by Quintelier and van Deth
(2014). Results from this study clearly showed that despite common reciprocal effect, the
effects from political participation to political interest and efficacy were stronger than the
effects of interest and efficacy on participation. Two types of participation were considered in
this study: general political participation, including activities such as signing petitions,
participating in protest marches or attending political meetings, and political consumerism
(i.e. boycotting or buying products for political reasons).The effects of political interest and
political efficacy were more pronounced in the case of participation than consumerism.
Despite its contribution, a possible limitation of the study by Quintelier and van Deth
is that it did not distinguish between the types of participation that appeared to be relevant in
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 8
the previous studies on adults (Gastil & Xenos, 2010; Stenner-Day & Fischle, 1992). The
varying effects connected to the diverse types of political participation (as described above)
emphasize the importance of differentiating between participatory activities such as
representational participation or community-oriented volunteering. Hence, the aim of this
study is to elaborate on the findings by Quintelier and van Deth (2014) by distinguishing
between three types of participation: protest participation, participation oriented on political
representatives, and volunteering. The protest participation can be characterized as extrarepresentational,
which means that it does not primarily target representative officials (e.g.,
elected politicians) but it can be directed toward mass media, public opinion or companies.
Addressing specific socio-political issues and causes, it can have a form of attending
demonstrations or signing petitions. On the other hand, representational participation aims to
influence politics through the formal channels of representative democracy, e.g. by working
for political candidates or attending political meetings (e.g., Teorell, Torcal, Montero, 2007).
Especially in youth, the protest activities can be more approachable than the representational
activities, which can have both formal (e.g., young people not having full political rights) and
psychological reasons (e.g., young people’s detachment from formal politics, Cammaerts,
Bruter, Banaji, Harrison, & Anstead, 2016). Finally, community-oriented volunteering,
sometimes labeled as civic engagement, represents activities aiming at achieving a public
good through direct cooperative work with others. These activities are typically situated in
non-governmental organizations, are not linked to formal representative channels (Janoski,
Musick, & Wilson, 1998; Yates & Youniss, 1998; Zukin et al., 2006), and are often viewed
by youth as a more appealing and meaningful alternative to representative politics (Galston,
2004).
To conclude, the goal of our study is to test the directionality of the effects between
three psychological variables (political interest, internal political efficacy, and external
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 9
political efficacy), and three types of participation (protest, representational, and volunteering)
in adolescence. We aim to show that pro-participatory psychological orientations not only
predict participation but also are predicted by it. Moreover, we aim to explore whether these
effects are similar for all forms of participation, or whether different participatory activities
produce different effects on political beliefs and attitudes.
Method
Participants and procedure
Our longitudinal sample comprised 768 high school students from four (out of 14)
regions in the Czech Republic. In May and June 2014 (Time 1), 1,137 high school students
aged 14 to 17 were sampled using random cluster sampling of schools (based on an official
register of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports). All ninth and tenth grade classrooms
available at the time were included. About two thirds of students (N =768) were present for a
follow-up survey after one and half year (Time 2). Statistical analyses showed that students
who participated at both times did not differ from those who did not participate at T2 in terms
of their gender (χ2
1 = 1.73, p = .19), parental university/college education (χ2
1 = 1.88, p = .17),
or school track (χ2
1 = 0.34, p = .56).
Mean age of the sample at T1 was 15.97 (SD = 0.56) and 54% were females. One
third (34%) of students studied at academically oriented high schools, others at vocationally
oriented high schools. One third (32%) had at least one parent with university/college
education. Almost 22% came from small villages (less than 3,000 inhabitants), 37% from
smaller towns (population between 3,000 and 15,000), 28% from bigger towns (population
between 15,000 and 50,000), and 14% from cities (population over 50,000).
Both T1 and T2 data were collected at schools under the supervision of trained
administrators. Based on the preferences of schools, students completed either paper or online
questionnaires.
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 10
Measures
Political participation. We asked our participants whether they participated, in the
past 12 months, in activities linked to some social, local, environmental, or political issues.
Three items represented protest participation: signing printed petition (P1), signing online
petition (P2), and taking part in a demonstration or other public protest (P3). Three other
items captured representational participation: taking part in a rally of some political party or
candidate (P4), helping for free in a political campaign of some political party or candidate
(P5), and contacting a politician to communicate my ideas (P6). Three final items measured
volunteering: working for free to improve the place where I live (P7), helping people in need
(P8), and helping for free in an organization focused on social, local or environmental issues
(P9). Irrespective of the type of political participation, the same response scale was used. The
response scale ranged from “never”, “once”, “twice” to “more than twice”.
Confirmatory factor analysis employing a matrix of polychoric correlations
(weighted least squares estimator with adjusted means and variances in Mplus 7.4 software)
was used to test whether the nine activities represented three distinct participatory dimensions.
A three-factor model assuming no correlations between residuals or loadings on multiple
factors gave an acceptable fit both at T1 (χ2
24 = 51.24; CFI = .96; TLI = .94; RMSEA = .04;
standardized factor loadings from .57 to .84; inter-factor correlations from .22 to .48) and T2
(χ2
24 = 102.48; CFI = .94; TLI = .91; RMSEA = .07; standardized factor loadings from .59 to
.87; inter-factor correlations from .35 to .70). In contrast, the fit of a model assuming that all
nine items represented single participatory dimension was considerably worse both at T1 (χ2
27
= 275.71; CFI = .65; TLI = .54 RMSEA = .11) and T2 (χ2
27 = 309.29; CFI = .78; TLI = .70
RMSEA = .12).
Political interest. Political interest was measured using a two-item scale created for
the purposes this study (rT1 = .75; rT2 = .79): “I am interested in politics (I1)” and “I try to
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 11
keep up with what is happening in politics (I2)”. The response scale ranged from “absolutely
disagree” (=1) to “absolutely agree” (=4).
Internal political efficacy. The scale was created based on general guidelines for
self-efficacy scales (Bandura, 2006) and other measures of political self-efficacy (Caprara et
al., 2009; Sohl & Arensmeier, 2015). Using four items (αT1 = .86; αT2 = .86), participants
assessed whether they believed they were able to carry out four local political activities: “If I
wanted, I think I would be able to organize a local demonstration (IE1)”, “negotiate with local
politicians (IE2)”, “organize a petition (IE3)”, and “lead a group of people that stands up for
some local cause (IE4)”. The response scale ranged from “absolutely disagree” (=1) to
“absolutely agree” (=4).
External political efficacy. Participants assessed whether they believed that local
political authorities were responsive to citizens. Three items (αT1 = .66; αT2 = .65) were
adapted from a broader political efficacy scale (Šerek, 2012): “When people in my town try to
enforce certain cause, they are usually turned down by local authorities (EE1)”, “In my town,
there are set ways of how things work and it is pointless to try to make a difference (EE2)”,
and “People have no opportunity to influence the decision of local politicians (EE3)”. The
response scale ranged from “absolutely disagree” (=4) to “absolutely agree” (=1). The higher
values indicated higher external efficacy.
Analysis
To collect our data, we used cluster sampling of schools. This could result in biased
estimates of standard errors if there were considerable between-cluster differences and thus
the observations were not independent. Therefore, as a first step, we checked that there was
no substantial between-school variation in political attitudes. Specifically, we were looking
for non-significant school-level variances (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002), low intra-class
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 12
correlations, and design effects lower than two (Heck & Thomas, 2015; Muthén & Satorra,
1995) that would have indicated that the independence of observations was retained.
The main analysis was conducted using structural equation modelling in the Mplus
7.4 software (weighted least squares estimator with adjusted means and variances; pairwise
deletion of missing data). For each political attitude, we estimated a cross-lagged structural
model that included predictions of this variable at T2 from all three types of participation at
T1, predictions of all three types of participation at T2 from a political attitude at T1, and
autoregressive paths for all variables. All inter-correlations between these variables at T1 and
all inter-correlations between their residuals at T2 were allowed.
In all models, nine indicators of participation (P1-P9) were treated as ordinal and the
links between them and corresponding latent variables were estimated using probit
regressions. Indicators of attitudes were treated as continuous. Measurement invariance over
time was established by fixing all unstandardized factor loadings and (for attitudes) intercepts
of particular items to be the same from T1 to T2. Residuals of the same item at T1 and T2
could freely correlate. At the same time, no correlations between residuals of different items
were allowed.
All models controlled for the effects of gender (0= males, 1= females) and school
track (0= vocational, 1= academic). These manifest variables were allowed to correlate with
participation and attitudes at T1 and predict them at T2.
Results
Initial analyses
Descriptive statistics. Overall, the absolute levels of participation were similar from
T1 to T2. Helping people in need was the most frequent and working for or contacting
politicians were the least frequent forms of participation (Table 1). While there was certain
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 13
increase in political interest over time, absolute levels of internal and external political
efficacy remained practically the same (Table 2).
Independence of observations. The observations seemed to be relatively
independent. School-level variances in political attitudes were not significantly different from
zero. Intra-class correlations were low (7% or less). With an exception of political interest at
T2, all design effects were lower than two (Table 2). Although the design effect for political
interest at T2 was still small and close to two, significance tests of its predictions should be
interpreted with caution.
Main analysis
All models showed that protest, representational participation and volunteering
represented three correlated but clearly distinguishable dimensions of participation. The
correlation between protest and representational participation was strong but the correlations
between the two and volunteering were only moderate (Figures 1-3). The levels of
participation in all three types of activities were relatively stable over time.
Political interest. The structural cross-lagged model had an acceptable fit (χ2
212 =
394.82; CFI = .94; TLI = .92; RMSEA = .03). Political interest had a large stability over time
and did not predict changes in protest, representational participation, or volunteering.
However, protest positively predicted changes in political interest. Representational
participation and volunteering had no effects on political interest (see Figure 1).
Internal political efficacy. A fit between the model and the data was acceptable
(χ2
312 = 587.39; CFI = .93; TLI = .91 RMSEA = .03). Internal efficacy had a medium stability
over time and it did not predict changes in any form of participation. On the contrary, protest
participation predicted positive changes in internal efficacy. Representational participation
and volunteering had no effects on internal efficacy (see Figure 2).
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 14
External political efficacy. Again, our model had an acceptable fit (χ2
260 = 467.38;
CFI = .93; TLI = .91 RMSEA = .03). External efficacy had a medium stability over time and
predicted no changes in participation. In contrast, protest predicted negative changes, while
volunteering predicted positive changes in external efficacy. The effect of representational
participation on external efficacy was not significant (see Figure 3).
Discussion
Our study examined the mutual effects between psychological orientations related to
politics and political participation in youth. Our investigation brought up two main findings
and implications. First, we found support for the claims emphasizing that in youth, active
participation has effects on political beliefs and attitudes, while effects in the opposite
direction are less pronounced (Quintelier & van Deth, 2014). Specifically, our examination
revealed that political participation affected the development of internal and external political
efficacy and political interest. However, effects in the opposite direction were not found:
when controlling for the level of prior participation, psychological characteristics of
adolescents did not affect changes in their political participation. Second, our findings
emphasized the need to differentiate between diverse types of political participation. Our data
showed that while protest participation had its effects on the development of all studied
psychological characteristics, volunteering contributed only to changes in external political
efficacy, and representational participation had no consequences for political beliefs or
attitudes.
Although the assumption that political participation shapes political beliefs and
attitudes is still not common in the research on youth political behavior, it corresponds well
with the propositions formulated within the cognitive dissonance theory and the selfperception
theory (Bem, 1972; Festinger, 1962). These theories presume that people are
motivated to change their beliefs and attitudes in order to make them consistent with the
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 15
previous behavior. In our study, adolescents’ political participation was associated with
subsequent changes in their political efficacy and interest. Moreover, the assumption that
political participation shapes ones’ beliefs and attitudes matches with current views on the
development of adolescents’ internal political efficacy, which emphasize the positive effects
of mastery experiences (i.e. political participation) on adolescents’ sense of confidence and
competence in politics (Bandura, 1997; Beaumont, 2010; 2011). It seems that through their
own political participation, young people form and clarify their political beliefs and attitudes.
In particular, they build the confidence to be actively involved in politics and become more
attentive towards this domain. Besides, through participation, adolescent form their opinions
about the responsiveness of the political system and modify their expectations towards
political representatives and institutions.
Nevertheless, two cautions must be made with regard to these conclusions. First,
while supporting the link from participation to psychological factors, our results do not
suggest that the effects from political interest or political efficacy to participation are
completely absent. The data used in this study captured only a relatively short period (one and
half year), and it is possible that the effects of psychological factors on participation manifest
only slowly and within a broader time frame. Moreover, some political activities (e.g., taking
part in a demonstration or helping in a political campaign) cannot be done instantly, but they
depend on the opportunities present in one’s surroundings. These might be the reasons why
bidirectional effects between psychological variables and participation were not observed in
our study. Second, we focused on youth in middle and late adolescence, which is a period
characterized by relatively unstable and less crystalized political beliefs and attitudes (Alwin
& Krosnick, 1991). Thus, it is possible that the effects from psychological factors to political
participation become stronger later in life when the individual levels of political interest and
efficacy stabilize. Consistent with this expectation, the effects from beliefs and attitudes to
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 16
participation tend to be more evident in studies on adult populations (Finkel, 1985; Gastil &
Xenos, 2010; Stenner-Day & Fischle, 1992) than in studies on adolescents (Quintelier & van
Deth, 2014; and this study).
The second goal of this study was to identify if and how different types of
participatory activities (protest, representational participation and volunteering) vary in their
effects. Political interest and internal political efficacy turned out to be positively affected
only by the involvement in protest activities but not representational participation or
volunteering. This finding is in line with the idea that young people prefer the extrarepresentational
activities, which go beyond traditional political institutions and are focused
on specific social issues and causes, over representational activities such as working for
political parties or contacting politicians (e.g., Cammaerts et al., 2016; Zukin et al., 2006).
According to our data, the representational participation is not only very rare in adolescents,
but it also has negligible effects on their political beliefs and attitudes. Compared to political
protest, young people probably tend to perceive the representational activities as dull, which
limits their potential to ignite political interest or to boost internal political efficacy. Further,
our findings suggest that participatory experiences in more prototypical political activities,
such as demonstrations, are more effective in boosting political beliefs and attitudes.
Although volunteering is known to have numerous beneficial effects on the formation of
adolescents’ confidence and competences (Lerner et al., 2005), its impact on adolescents’
perceptions of politics seems to be rather limited.
Additionally, protest participation was found to have negative consequences for
external political self-efficacy, while the effect of volunteering on this variable was positive.
A decline in external efficacy, resulting from the participation in political protests, can be due
to disappointing outcomes, in which the demands of the protesting citizens were not fulfilled.
Hence, although it seems that protest participation helps adolescents to develop beliefs in their
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 17
own capabilities to effectively participate in politics, many young people perceive,
simultaneously, a growing skepticism towards the state and its institutions. In contrast, the
positive effect of volunteering on external efficacy suggests that community-based voluntary
activities might serve as a “safer” venue for gaining positive experiences regarding the system
responsiveness. Because these activities are typically not confrontational and have less
controversial goals, young people might get a stronger impression that the political change is
feasible based on volunteering compared to protest participation.
Our data were collected in May/June 2014 (T1) and November/December 2015 (T2).
In that period, the political context of the Czech Republic provided several incentives for
young people to participate in both representative and protest political activities. Three types
of election (European, local, and Senate) were prominent political issues in 2014. Similar to
other European countries, the so-called immigration or refugee crisis became an important
part of political debate in 2015. For instance, several anti-immigration protests and counterprotests,
widely covered by the media, took part across the country. Considering that protest
activities appeared to have the greatest impact on the formation of adolescents’ psychological
orientations in our study, it would be extremely beneficial to find out to what extent and in
what way the content of protest activities matter. For instance, further research should address
the question whether adolescents’ participation in protests promoting intolerance has the same
impact on political efficacy and interest as their participation in protests with the opposite
political goals. Furthermore, it would be important to study the extent to which youth
participation in activities promoting intolerance further reinforces their intolerant and
extremely conservative attitudes.
Before we describe more general implications of our study, we should mention
several limitations. First, although the study employs longitudinal data, both participation and
psychological factors were measured at only two time points and it is possible that some long-
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 18
term effects were not captured. Second, we measured only the frequency of political
participation but not its “quality” in terms of the level of adolescents’ personal involvement or
perceived personal importance. Such information could provide better insights into the
processes through which political participation affects political beliefs and attitudes. Third,
our measures of political efficacy focused mainly on local politics (all items in the external
efficacy scale and most items in the internal efficacy scale), while our measures of
representative and protest participation were formulated in a more general way. Although we
believe that young people are greatly concerned with local politics, it is possible that some
effects between political efficacy and participation were underestimated in our study. Finally,
only a limited set of psychological variables and types of political participation was
considered. Future studies should assess variables such as support for democracy or social
trust and also illegal political activities in order to get a more complex picture of the mutual
effects between attitudes and participation. Moreover, further research should consider
participation through social media because a substantial part of young people’s civic lives
takes place in this environment (Bennett, 2008; Loader, Vromen, & Xenos, 2014).
Despite these limitations, our findings can be beneficial for the efforts to increase
political participation among youth. While these efforts (performed for example by parents or
school) are often aimed at the change of attitudes towards politics, based on our findings, we
would also recommend to encourage and support youths’ own engagement in participatory
activities. A positive message for parents and civic educators is that adolescents’ political
participation is not contingent on their political interest or political efficacy. Instead, it seems
to be political participation that fosters political development in youth: in the political domain,
experiences from participation seem to have an impact on adolescents’ beliefs concerning
their own capabilities to participate in politics as well as on their interest in public affairs.
Later in adulthood, both political efficacy and political interest, strengthened by participation
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 19
in adolescence, might, in turn, increase one’s political participation (Finkel, 1985; Gastil &
Xenos, 2010; Stenner‐Day & Fischle, 1992). However, these efforts should also consider that
the effects might differ across different types of participation. Parents and civic educators
should be aware that some political activities are beneficial, reinforcing beliefs in own
competencies, while some do not impact youth substantially, or even reinforce negative views
on the political system.
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 20
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human
decision processes, 50(2), 179-211. doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Alwin, D. F., & Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Aging, cohorts, and the stability of sociopolitical
orientations over the life span. American Journal of Sociology, 97(1), 169–195.
doi:10.1086/229744
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan
(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing.
Barrett, M. (2015). An integrative model of political and civic participation: Linking the
macro, social, and psychological levels of explanation. In M. Barrett & B. Zani (Eds.),
Political and civic engagement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 162-188). London,
New York: Routledge.
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.
Beaumont, E. (2011). Promoting political agency, addressing political inequality: A
multilevel model of internal political efficacy. The Journal of Politics, 73, 216-231.
doi:10.1017/S0022381610000976
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in experimental social psychology, 6, 1-
62. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60024-6
Bennett, W. L. (Ed.). (2008). Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth.
Cambridge: The MIT Press.
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 21
Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of
political participation. American Political Science Review, 89(02), 271-294. doi:
10.2307/2082425.
Cammaerts, B., Bruter, M., Banaji, S., Harrison, S. & Anstead, N. (2016). Youth participation
in democratic life: Stories of hope and disillusion. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., Capanna, C., & Mebane, M. (2009). Perceived political selfefficacy:
Theory, assessment, and applications. European Journal of Social Psychology,
39(6), 1002–1020. doi:10.1002/ejsp.604
Christens, B. D., Peterson, N. A. & Speer, P. W. (2011). Community participation and
psychological empowerment: Testing reciprocal causality using a cross-lagged panel
design and latent constructs. Health Education & Behavior, 38, 339-347.
doi:10.1177/1090198110372880
Cicognani & Zani (2015). Social and psychological factors influencing political and civic
participation: A psychological perspective. In M. Barrett & B. Zani (Eds.), Political and
civic engagement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 124-145). London, New York:
Routledge.
Eckstein, K., Noack, P., & Gniewosz, B. (2013). Predictors of intentions to participate in
politics and actual political behaviors in young adulthood. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 37(5), 428–435. doi:10.1177/0165025413486419
Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford: Stanford university
press.
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203–210. doi:10.1037/h0041593
Finkel, S. E. (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A panel
analysis. American Journal of political science, 29(4), 891. doi:10.2307/2111186
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 22
Galston, W. A. (2004). Civic education and political participation. PS: Political science and
politics, 37(2), 263-266.
Gamson, W. A. (1968). Power and discontent. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Gastil, J., & Xenos, M. (2010). Of Attitudes and Engagement: Clarifying the Reciprocal
Relationship Between Civic Attitudes and Political Participation. Journal of
Communication, 60(2), 318–343. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01484.x
Heck, R. H., & Thomas, S. L. (2015). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques:
MLM and SEM approaches using Mplus. New York, London: Routledge.
Janoski, T., Musick, M., & Wilson, J. (1998). Being volunteered? The impact of social
participation and pro-social attitudes on volunteering. Sociological Forum, 13(3), 495-
519.
Jugert, P., Eckstein, K., Noack, P., Kuhn, A., & Benbow, A. (2013). Offline and Online Civic
Engagement Among Adolescents and Young Adults from Three Ethnic Groups. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 42(1), 123–135. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9805-4
Krosnick, J. A., & Alwin, D. F. (1989). Aging and susceptibility to attitude change. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 416–425. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.416
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., ... &
Smith, L. M. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth
development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents:
Findings from the first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17-71. doi:10.1177/0272431604272461
Loader, B. D., Vromen, A., & Xenos, M. (2014). The networked citizen: Social media,
political participation and civic engagement. Information, Communication and Society,
17, 143-150. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.871571
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 23
Martín & van Deth, J. W. (2007). Political involvement. In J. W. Van Deth, J. R. Montero, &
A. Westholm, (Eds.), Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies: A
Comparative Analysis(pp. 303-333). London, New York: Routledge
McLean, K. C., Syed, M., Yoder, A. and Greenhoot, A. F. (2016). The role of domain content
in understanding identity development processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
26, 60-75. doi:10.1111/jora.12169
Morrell, M. E. (2005). Deliberation, Democratic Decision-Making and Internal Political
Efficacy. Political Behavior, 27(1), 49–69. doi:10.1007/s11109-005-3076-7
Muthen, B. O., & Satorra, A. (1995). Complex Sample Data in Structural Equation Modeling.
Sociological Methodology, 25, 267-316. doi:10.2307/271070
Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in the
1988 National Election Study. The American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1407.
doi:10.2307/1963953
Olson, J. M., & Stone, J. (2005). The influence of behavior on attitudes. In D. Albarracín, B.
T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 223-271). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pollock, P. H. (1983). The participatory consequences of internal and external political
efficacy: A research note. Western Political Quarterly, 36(3), 400-409.
doi:10.1177/106591298303600306.
Quintelier, E., & Van Deth, J. W. (2014). Supporting Democracy: Political Participation and
Political Attitudes. Exploring Causality using Panel Data. Political Studies, 62, 153–
171. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12097
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data
analysis methods (Vol. 1). London, New Delhi: Sage.
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 24
Šerek, J. (2012). Psychosocial antecedents of political beliefs in adolescence (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Masaryk University, Brno.
Sohl, S., & Arensmeier, C. (2015). The school’s role in youths’ political efficacy: can school
provide a compensatory boost to students’ political efficacy? Research Papers in
Education, 30(2), 133–163. doi:10.1080/02671522.2014.908408
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
Stenner-Day, K., & Fischle, M. (1992). The effects of political participation on political
efficacy: A simultaneous equations model. Australian Journal of Political Science,
27(2), 282-305.doi:10.1080/00323269208402195
Teorell, J., Torcal, M., & Montero, J. R. (2007). Political participation. In J. W. Van Deth, J.
R. Montero, & A. Westholm (Eds.), Citizenship and Involvement in European
Democracies: A Comparative Analysis (pp. 334-357). London, New York: Routledge
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in
American politics. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.
Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1998). Community service and political identity development in
adolescence. Journal of Social issues, 54(3), 495-512. doi: 10.1111/0022-
4537.791998079
Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2006). A new
engagement? Political participation, civic life, and the changing American citizen.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 25
Tables and Figures
Table 1. Frequency of participation (%).
Time 1 Time 2
never once twice > twice never once twice > twice
Signing printed petition (P1) 69 22 6 3 69 22 6 3
Signing online petition (P2) 70 18 5 8 67 18 7 8
Taking part in demonstration (P3) 89 7 2 2 90 7 2 1
Taking part in political rally (P4) 92 6 2 1 92 6 2 1
Working in political campaign (P5) 96 3 1 0 96 4 1 0
Contacting a politician (P6) 96 3 1 1 94 3 2 1
Working for the place of living (P7) 58 18 6 19 62 16 8 14
Helping people in need (P8) 40 26 9 25 43 23 13 22
Helping an organization (P9) 80 12 3 4 79 14 3 4
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 26
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the summary scores.
Time 1 Time 2
M SD ICC Deff M SD ICC Deff
Political interest 1.85 0.84 2% 1.30 2.12 0.86 6% 2.08
Internal efficacy 2.30 0.75 1% 1.15 2.29 0.73 0% 1.06
External efficacy 2.60 0.60 0% 1.02 2.64 0.56 4% 1.80
Note. Summary scores were created by averaging the items. M = mean. SD = standard deviation. ICC = intra-class correlation (school). Deff =
design effect (school).
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 27
Figure 1. Structural cross-lagged model of the relations between political interest and participation.
Note. Standardized coefficients are presented. Correlations between latent variables at T2 are residual correlations. For the sake of clarity, we do
not display cross-time residual correlations of the items and the effects of control variables. *p < .05. **p < .01.
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 28
Figure 2. Structural cross-lagged model of the relations between internal political efficacy and participation.
Note. Standardized coefficients are presented. Correlations between latent variables at T2 are residual correlations. For the sake of clarity, we do
not display cross-time residual correlations of the items and the effects of control variables. *p < .05. **p < .01.
ADOLESCENTS’ POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, EFFICACY, AND INTEREST 29
Figure 3. Structural cross-lagged model of the relations between external political efficacy and participation.
Note. Standardized coefficients are presented. Correlations between latent variables at T2 are residual correlations. For the sake of clarity, we do
not display cross-time residual correlations of the items and the effects of control variables. *p < .05. **p < .01.