MASARYK UNIVERSITY
Faculty of Social Studies
Youth civic development from the ecological
perspective
Habilitation Thesis
Brno, 2019 Mgr. et Mgr. Jan Šerek, Ph.D.
2
Abstract
This habilitation thesis aims to gain novel insights into the area of civic development in
adolescence. It covers four main topics nested in the general framework of the ecological
approach to human development: (1) how adolescents’ civic activity affects their civic beliefs
and attitudes, (2) how adolescents’ interactions with family and peers reinforce each other to
affect civic development, (3) how adolescents’ personality traits affect their civic
development, and (4) how effects of the broader social context shape civic development in
proximal contexts. These topics are translated into more specific research problems focusing
on concrete developmental outcomes, social environments, and adolescents’ characteristics.
A core of the thesis is represented by seven studies containing original empirical research on
adolescents’ civic development. The studies employ survey-based longitudinal, crossnational,
or cross-cohort data from diverse adolescent samples and perform quantitative
statistical analyses to test research hypotheses.
Overall, the studies extend the current knowledge by providing concrete illustrations that
adolescents are active agents who develop their beliefs and attitudes through their civic
engagement and interactions within multiple contexts, such as families, peer groups, schools,
or civic associations. The presented research also shows that the interactions within family
and peer groups have their irreplaceable roles and form one interconnected system
contributing to adolescents’ civic development. Next, the studies provide concrete examples
of personality traits that young people bring with them into various developmental contexts
and that shape both the form and outcomes of civic development. Finally, the studies show
that the proximal processes of adolescents’ civic development (e.g., the development of civic
beliefs through civic engagement) cannot be taken for granted as universal, but they are codetermined
by the broader sociocultural context in which civic development takes place. In
the concluding section, the thesis draws theoretical and practical implications of the presented
findings and suggests directions for future research.
3
I would like to thank to all my colleagues at the Institute for Research on Children, Youth and
Family and the Department of Psychology of the Faculty of Social Studies at Masaryk
University in Brno for creating such an inspiring and friendly environment. To mention just a
few of them, my thanks go to my postdoc mentor Petr Macek and my former and present
officemates Zuzana Scott, Hana Macháčková, and Lucie Lomičová. I would also like to thank
to my foreign colleagues who co-authored studies included in this thesis, namely Tomo
Umemura, Katharina Eckstein, Peter Noack, and Philipp Jugert.
I am extremely grateful to my father and to my mother who sadly passed away two years ago.
Special thanks go to my wife Renata and our three beautiful daughters for their patience.
4
Table of contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................7
Civic development in youth..............................................................................................7
The ecological approach.................................................................................................10
Key contributions of the presented thesis.......................................................................12
References ......................................................................................................................15
Overview of the studies ...........................................................................................................20
List of the studies............................................................................................................20
Summary of research questions......................................................................................21
Summary of methods......................................................................................................22
Study I: Changes in late adolescents’ voting intentions during the election campaign:
Disentangling the effects of political communication with parents, peers, and media............24
Introduction ....................................................................................................................24
Method............................................................................................................................29
Results ............................................................................................................................31
Discussion.......................................................................................................................33
References ......................................................................................................................38
Tables and figures...........................................................................................................42
Study II: What’s the matter with civil society? The declining effect of civic involvement on
civic identity among Czech adolescents ..................................................................................45
Introduction ....................................................................................................................45
Method............................................................................................................................50
Results ............................................................................................................................53
Discussion.......................................................................................................................55
References ......................................................................................................................60
Tables and Figures..........................................................................................................65
Study III: The chicken or egg question of adolescents' political involvement: Longitudinal
analysis of the relation between adolescents’ political participation, political efficacy, and
interest in politics.....................................................................................................................68
Introduction ....................................................................................................................68
Method............................................................................................................................72
Results ............................................................................................................................75
5
Discussion.......................................................................................................................76
References ......................................................................................................................81
Tables and Figures..........................................................................................................85
Study IV: Who crosses the norms? Predictors of the readiness for non-normative political
participation among adolescents..............................................................................................89
Introduction ....................................................................................................................89
Method............................................................................................................................93
Results ............................................................................................................................96
Discussion.......................................................................................................................97
References ....................................................................................................................101
Tables and Figures........................................................................................................106
Study V: And what about siblings? A longitudinal analysis of sibling effects on youth’s
intergroup attitudes ................................................................................................................108
Introduction ..................................................................................................................108
Methods........................................................................................................................112
Results ..........................................................................................................................115
Discussion.....................................................................................................................119
References ....................................................................................................................125
Tables and Figures........................................................................................................131
Study VI: Young European citizens: An individual by context perspective on adolescent
European citizenship..............................................................................................................135
Introduction ..................................................................................................................135
Method..........................................................................................................................139
Results ..........................................................................................................................142
Discussion.....................................................................................................................145
References ....................................................................................................................151
Tables ...........................................................................................................................154
Study VII: Role of school climate and personality in the development of Czech adolescents’
political self-efficacy .............................................................................................................158
Introduction ..................................................................................................................158
Method..........................................................................................................................164
Results ..........................................................................................................................167
Discussion.....................................................................................................................168
References ....................................................................................................................172
6
Tables and Figures........................................................................................................176
General conclusions...............................................................................................................179
Interpretation of the results...........................................................................................179
Practical implications ...................................................................................................186
Future directions...........................................................................................................187
References ....................................................................................................................189
7
Introduction
Civic development in youth
An active young generation, which is attentive to social issues and has a sense of
social responsibility, is often perceived as an asset valuable for the whole society. Civic
engagement enables young people to take part in decisions that affect their everyday lives and
might potentially have far-reaching consequences their futures. Even though we put aside a
normative perception of civic engagement as something inherently good, youth civic
engagement has its pragmatic benefits. Putnam’s classic studies have shown that citizens’
active involvement in the grassroots-level civic life has a positive impact on the general
wellbeing of the whole society (1993; 2000). In addition, there is an initial evidence that
adolescents’ community-level civic engagement contributes to the improvement of their
mental health (Wray-Lake, Shubert, Lin, & Strarr, 2017) and the lower occurrence of problem
behaviors (Pancer, 2015). This thesis presents a contribution to current research on youth
civic development and aims at investigating the ways in which an active young generation can
emerge.
Civic development can be broadly understood as a set of processes through which
people become engaged in actions aiming to contribute to community and society, both at
local and global levels (Flanagan, Lin, Luisi-Mills, Sambo, & Hu, 2015; Sherrod &
Lauckhardt, 2008). Contemporary approaches to this area typically underscore that the
processes of civic development are inevitably multidimensional. This means that the
development of communal and societal engagement is closely related to the development of
relevant beliefs, attitudes, values, skills, or habits. Thus, the study of civic development must
pay attention not only to behavioral, but also cognitive and affective changes of individuals
(Barrett & Zani, 2015; Sherrod & Lauckhardt, 2009; Torney-Purta, Amadeo, & Andolina,
2010; Wray-Lake, Metzger, & Syvertsen, 2017). In addition, the behaviors constituting civic
development share a common orientation, which is to change or improve something in the
public sphere, but they can take various practical forms. These forms include, for instance,
informal community-level hands-on work and helping, work in civic groups and associations,
donating money, protesting, voting, or participation in formal political institutions. Only by
grasping a broad set of behaviors, including various forms of passivity, a complex picture of
possible trajectories of civic development can be obtained (Amnå & Ekman, 2014; Youniss et
al., 2002; Zukin, Keeter, Andolina, Jenkins, & Delli Carpini, 2006).
8
Although civic development is a lifelong process, occurring in all stages of life
(Jones & Gasiorski, 2009), a vast majority of research in this area focuses on adolescents and
young adults. This tendency builds on the finding that adolescent years are characterized by a
considerable openness to civic socialization influences, while the openness (or the
susceptibility to change) decreases later on in life. Consequently, a large number of civic
beliefs, attitudes or habits, formed in adolescence, tend to remain relatively stable in the
following life periods (Eckstein, Noack, & Gniewosz, 2012; Hooghe & Wilkenfeld, 2008;
Krosnick & Alwin, 1989; Prior, 2010; Sears & Levy, 2003; Vollebergh, Iedema, &
Raaijmakers, 2001; Wölfer, Schmid, Hewstone, & van Zalk, 2016). The uniqueness of
adolescence for civic development can be explained by the concurrence of several factors.
Not until adolescence, young people possess cognitive abilities that enable them to understand
abstract social and political concepts (Adelson & Beall, 1970; Adelson, Green, & O’Neil,
1969; Adelson & O’Neil, 1966; Berti, 2005) and perspectives of people from different social
groups (Selman, 2003). Adolescence is also a period when young people form their identity,
of which civic identity is an important component (Hart, Richardson, & Winkelfeld, 2011;
Youniss et al., 2002). Furthermore, young people are typically exposed to a number of
external incentives for civic learning in adolescence, for instance in schools or extracurricular
organizations (Niemi & Hepbur, 1995). Based on these reasons, my research is consistent
with the existing tradition and is primarily focused on adolescence.
What develops in civic development?
Apart from communal and societal engagement, which constitutes a key element of
civic development, scholars pay attention to a variety of other cognitive and affective
constructs that are developing during adolescence and are relevant to adolescents’ civic
activity. I will now briefly summarize those that are investigated in my own research.
Interest in social and political issues. Interest refers to the degree to which social
and political issues arouse adolescents’ curiosity or, in other words, to the degree to which
adolescents pay attention to these issues (Martín & van Deth, 2007). Interest is often
considered as a powerful predictor of civic engagement in both adults and adolescents (Verba,
Schlozman, & Brady, 1995; Zukin et al., 2006), although it is sometimes acknowledged that
interest might also be an outcome of civic engagement (Brady, Verba, & Schlozman, 1995).
Mean levels of interest in social and political issues continually increase over adolescence,
while the growth becomes gradually slower in young adulthood when the overall level of
interest stabilizes (Neundorf, Smets, & García-Albacete, 2013; Russo & Stattin, 2017).
9
Stabilization of interest at the inter-individual level can be observed even earlier as the
differences between young people in their interest tend to be relatively stable already from
middle adolescence (Russo & Stattin, 2017).
Civic identity. Civic identity is a sense of connection and responsibility to one’s
fellow citizens (Atkins & Hart, 2003; Youniss, McLellan, & Yates, 1997). It helps
adolescents to acknowledge the fate, interests and goals shared with others, which, in turn,
facilitates their civic engagement (Atkins & Hart, 2003). Similar to other identity domains,
civic identity is assumed to develop through the process of active exploration during with
young people are exposed to different civic practices and ideologies (Youniss et al., 1997).
Both formal and informal civic associations are typically considered as important venues for
the development of civic identity (Kirshner, 2009; Hansen, Larson, & Dworkin, 2003; Hardy,
Pratt, Pancer, Olsen, & Lawford, 2011; Yates & Youniss, 1998).
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a belief in the personal capacity to achieve desired
results in a certain domain, constructed by a person by selecting, interpreting, and integrating
information about his or her capabilities (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy beliefs in the civic or
political domain are typically understood as important psychological factors boosting one’s
civic engagement (Beaumont, 2010; Caprara, Vecchione, Capanna, & Mebane, 2009;
Manganelli, Lucidi, & Alivernini, 2015; Vecchione & Caprara, 2009; Verba et al., 1995;
Zukin et al., 2006). The other way round, civic and political self-efficacy is theoretically
expected to develop through skill-building mastery experiences, observing successful models
of civic engagement, social encouragement, and positive political outlooks (Beaumont, 2010).
Trust in public institutions. Institutional trust can be broadly defined as a belief that
institutions, such as government or courts, observe the rules and serve the public (cf. Citrin &
Muste, 1999). Although there is no straightforward link from adolescents’ higher or lower
institutional trust to their civic engagement, lacking trust might erode people’s willingness to
comply with public policies (Hetherington, 2007), and increase their preferences for noninstitutionalized
(Kaase, 1999) or illegal civic activities (Dahl & Stattin, 2016; Kuhn, 2004).
Institutional trust reflects, to a considerable extent, adolescents’ perceptions of public
institutions that are close to their everyday lives (e.g., schools) and it seems to be relatively
stabilized already in middle adolescence, that is before most adolescents gain direct
experiences with the performance of the political system (Abdelzadeh, Zetterberg, & Ekman,
2015; Claes, Hooghe, & Marien, 2012).
10
Support for equality and tolerance. Finally, some scholars argue that next to
factors encouraging civic engagement as such, attention must be paid also to development of
adolescents’ societal views that give direction to their civic activity. In particular, support for
social equality (including a low orientation on social dominance or a critical awareness of
social injustice) and tolerance toward different social groups are typically studied as both
determinants and products of prosocial forms of civic engagement (Flanagan, 2003; Flanagan
& Faison, 2001; Sherrod, 2006; Sherrod & Lauckhardt, 2008; Watts, Williams, & Jagers,
2003; Yates & Youniss, 1998).
The ecological approach
The present thesis collects studies that are guided, explicitly or implicitly, by the
ecological approach to civic development. Traditional approaches often conceptualize
adolescents as passive objects who are being formed by external influences, either towards
conformity with the existing society (i.e. the socialization approach), or towards developing a
specific worldview characteristic of their generation (i.e. the generational approach; Zaff,
Hart, Flanagan, Youniss, & Levine, 2010). In contrast, the ecological approach is built on the
holistic idea of dialectical interactions between individual and contextual factors that boost or
weaken adolescents’ civic engagement (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Lerner, 1991; Zaff et al.,
2010). In other words, instead of asking about the ways in which adolescents manage to fit
into the political world of adults or develop a unique generational experience that would be
persistent over their lives, the ecological approach asks what type of experiences of young
individuals with their immediate environments contribute to the growth or the decline of their
engagement.
One of the most influential formulations of the ecological model of human
development comes from Urie Bronfenbrenner (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Bronfenbrenner &
Morris, 2006). According to the latest version of the model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006),
the primary mechanisms producing individual development are proximal processes, that is,
interactions between developing persons and environmental contexts enduring over certain
periods of time. Thus, the first proposition of the model states: “[…] development takes place
through processes of progressively more complex reciprocal interaction between an active
[…] organism and the persons, objects, and symbol in its immediate external environment. To
be effective, the interaction must occur on a fairy regular basis over extended periods of
time” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006, p. 797). The specific nature of proximal processes is
elaborated by the second proposition maintaining that “the form, power, content, and
11
direction of the proximal processes effecting development vary systematically as a joint
function of [1] the characteristics of the developing person, [2] the environment […], [3] the
nature of the developmental outcomes under consideration, and [4] the social continuities
and changes occurring over time through the life course and the historical period”
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006, p. 798). As emphasized by the authors, the characteristics of
the person appear twice in the model – they represent one of the four factors shaping the
processes through which the person develops, but they are also products of development.
The environment is expected to consist of several nested structures according the
ecological model. Activities, social roles and interpersonal relationships that are experienced
by the person immediately “face-to-face” are referred to as a microsystem (e.g., family or a
group of peers). A more complex situation when the effects of several microsystems interact
with each other (i.e. a system of two or more microsystems) is called a mesosystem. An
exosystem refers to those contexts that are not experienced immediately by the person, but
influence the person indirectly by influencing the microsystems (e.g., parents’ peer groups).
Finally, all micro-, meso-, and exosystems that are set to the same culture (defined by country,
religion, social class etc.) share certain consistencies that are referred to as the macrosystem
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In addition, the processes and outcomes of human development
might vary as a function of changes in the larger society, which can be referred to as
macrotime or the macrochronological system (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).
Implications of the ecological model for civic development research
The ecological model has several implications that apply to human development in
general as well as civic development in particular. First, the model assumes that development
can occur only if the person engages in an activity that takes place on a regular basis and
becomes increasingly complex (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Hence, civic engagement
should not be conceptualized as a final developmental outcome that suddenly emerges after
the appropriate cognitive and affective basis is formed in the young person (e.g., sufficient
interest, civic identity or self-efficacy). Civic engagement represents also a means of civic
development – a necessary condition without which civic cognitions, emotions and future
behavioral tendencies cannot be formed (cf. Amnå, Ekström, Kerr, & Stattin, 2009; Zaff et al.,
2010).
Second, development consists in person’s reciprocal interactions with a growing
array of microsystems, starting with families and extending to peer groups, schools, mentors
or associations (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Thus, when investigating social
12
environments playing a role in adolescent civic development, it is critical not to focus on one
privileged microsystem, but to consider the roles of all microsystems in which the person is
nested. Moreover, it is essential to consider all relevant mesosystems, that is, how
microsystems relate to each other and how developmental relevance of different microsystems
changes over time (Wilkenfeld, Lauckhardt, & Torney-Purta, 2010; Zaff et al., 2010).
Third, the emphasis on the “ecology” of human development might lead to the
underestimation of the role played by person’s s stable characteristics. That is why the latest
formulation of Bronfenbrenner’s model explicitly acknowledges the person as a factor
codetermining the nature of developmental processes (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).
Consequently, according to the ecological perspective to civic development, adolescents’
individual characteristics (dispositions and abilities) influence how much and how they are
civically engaged (Motti-Stefanidi & Cicognani, 2018).
Finally, the ecological model implies that cross-cultural and historical
(dis)continuities modify the effects of lower-order systems. This means, in other words, that
the outcomes of specific interactions between microsystems and adolescents might
considerably differ across different regions, countries, social classes or generations
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Thus, in the context of civic development, it is necessary to
acknowledge that some types of adolescents’ experiences (e.g. in families, schools or civic
associations) that are known to encourage or deter civic engagement in some cultural contexts
might not work in other contexts or stop working if the cultural context is changed. In the
similar manner, favorable and unfavorable personal characteristics might have more or less
serious consequences for civic development in different contexts (Barrett & Brunton-Smith,
2014; Emler, 2015; Zaff et al., 2010).
Key contributions of the presented thesis
Following the four implications of the ecological model, I will now describe four key
contributions of my research. Although the ecological model cannot be tested all at once due
to high levels of abstraction and complexity, it enables to derive a set of particular hypotheses
for empirical testing (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). The below-mentioned topics represent
such hypotheses on selected research problems in the area of civic development, derived from
the ecological model.
13
Civic engagement as a predictor of developmental changes
Based on the idea of civic engagement as a means of civic development, my research
investigates the time order between adolescents’ civic engagement and related psychological
variables (interest and efficacy). Despite the prevailing tendency to understand interest and
efficacy as antecedents of civic engagement, there is some initial evidence suggesting that
these variables change considerably as a consequence of adolescents’ civic activity (Metzger,
Ferris, & Oosterhoff, 2018; Quintelier & Van Deth, 2014). My research aims to strengthen
this evidence and to broaden the existing knowledge by showing that adolescents’
engagement in specific types of civic activities (e.g., institutionalized versus protest) is
meaningfully related to concrete cognitive changes in developing persons (Study III).
Specifying microsystems and mesosystems relevant to civic development
Previous research on civic development has identified family and peer groups as
microsystems relevant to civic development. However, there is only a limited evidence on
how person’s interactions with these microsystems relate to each other to produce civic
engagement (McDevitt, 2006; McLeod, 2000; McLeod & Shah, 2009; Saphir & Chaffee,
2002). Specifically, I test the idea of a mesosystem in which interactions with peers represent
a primary force contributing to civic engagement in late adolescence (voting), but interactions
with parents serve as a “playground”, based on which adolescents are more prone to start
interactions with peers (Study I). Moreover, I aim to take a closer look at the processes
occurring within the family microsystem. Because previous research has often put an equal
sign between family and parents, there is almost no knowledge on the role of siblings in civic
development (Urbatsch, 2011). Hence, I investigate whether and under which conditions
siblings can influence adolescents’ sociopolitical attitudes (support for equality and tolerance)
over and above the effects of their parents (Study V).
Personal characteristics as powerful explanatory factors
Further, my research provides two examinations of the idea that personal
characteristics of adolescents play important roles in their civic development. Focusing on
factors boosting adolescents’ preferences for normative versus non-normative civic
engagement (i.e. engagement that follows versus violates social norms), I investigate whether
such preferences are meaningful extensions of adolescents’ political beliefs and other stable
characteristics such as optimism, or rather outcomes of problematic relationships with their
close social environments (Study IV). In addition, I study to what extent differences in
14
political self-efficacy between adolescents can be attributed to their stable personality
characteristics versus proximal processes occurring within their schools (Study VII).
The role of macrosystems in civic development
To scrutinize macrosystem (and macrotime) influences on civic development, my
research pays attention to a well-known positive effect of adolescents’ involvement in civic
associations and volunteering on their civic identity (Pancer, 2015). I test whether this effect
is constant across two generations of Czech adolescents or whether the nature and impacts of
associational membership and volunteering have changed over time (Study II). In a similar
manner, I study whether well-known socioeconomic inequalities in institutional trust and
engagement (Verba et al., 1995) are constant for adolescents from different national contexts,
or whether there are country-level characteristics that mitigate or aggravate the inequalities
(Study VI).
15
References
Abdelzadeh, A., Zetterberg, P., & Ekman, J. (2015). Procedural fairness and political trust among
young people: Evidence from a panel study on Swedish high school students. Acta Politica, 50,
253-278.
Adelson, J., & Beall, L. (1970). Adolescent perspectives on law and government. Law & Society
Review, 4, 495-504.
Adelson, J., & O’Neil, R. P. (1966). Growth of political ideas in adolescence: The sense of
community. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 295-306. doi:10.1037/h0023699
Adelson, J., Green, B., & O’Neil, R. P. (1969). Growth of the idea of law in adolescence.
Developmental Psychology, 1, 327-332.
Amnå, E., & Ekman, J. (2014). Standby citizens: Diverse faces of political passivity. European
Political Science Review, 6, 261-281.
Amnå, E., Ekström, M., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2009). Political socialization and human agency. The
development of civic engagement from adolescence to adulthood. Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 111,
27-40.
Atkins, R., & Hart, D. (2003). Neighborhoods, adults, and the development of civic identity in urban
youth. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 156–164. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0703_6
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Barrett, M., & Brunton-Smith, I. (2014). Political and civic engagement and participation: Towards an
integrative perspective. Journal of Civil Society, 10, 5-28.
Barrett, M., & Zani, B. (Eds.). (2015). Political and civic engagement: Multidisciplinary perspectives.
Hove: 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.
Berti, A. E. (2005). Children’s understanding of politics. In. M. Barrett, & E. Buchanan-Barrow
(Eds.), Children’s understanding of society (pp. 69-104). Hove: Psychology Press.
Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political
participation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 271-294. doi:10.2307/2082425.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R.
M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 793-828). Hoboken: Wiley.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., Capanna, C., & Mebane, M. (2009). Perceived political self-efficacy:
Theory, assessment, and applications. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(6), 1002–1020.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.604
16
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). School experiences, classroom climate and political trust.
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, 208-224.
Dahl, V., & Stattin, H. (2016). Beyond the limits: Involvement in illegal political activities. European
Political Science Review, 8, 125-145.
Eckstein, K., Noack, P., & Gniewosz, B. (2012). Attitudes toward political engagement and
willingness to participate in politics: Trajectories throughout adolescence. Journal of Adolescence,
35, 485-495.
Emler, N. P. (2015). Explaining political participation: Integrating levels of analysis. In M. Barrett, &
B. Zani (Eds.), Political and civic engagement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 146-161).
Hove: Routledge.
Faison, N., & Flanagan, C. A. (2001). Youth civic development: Implications of research for social
policy and programs. Social Policy Report, 15, 3-15.
Flanagan, C. A. (2003). Trust, identity, and civic hope. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 165–171.
Flanagan, C. A., Lin, C., Luisi-Mills, H., Sambo, A., & Hu, M. (2015). Adolescent civic development
across cultures. In L. A. Jensen (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human development and culture
(pp. 471-484). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hansen, D. M., Larson, R. W., & Dworkin, J. B. (2003). What adolescents learn in organized youth
activities: A survey of self‐reported developmental experiences. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 13, 25-55.
Hardy, S. A., Pratt, M. W., Pancer, S. M., Olsen, J. A., & Lawford, H. L. (2011). Community and
religious involvement as contexts of identity change across late adolescence and emerging
adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 125–135.
Hart, D., Richardson, C., & Wilkenfeld, B. (2011). Civic identity. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V.
L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (735–751). New York, NY: Springer.
Hetherington, M. J. (2007). Why trust matters: Declining political trust and the demise of American
liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
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.
Jones, S. R., & Gasiorski, A. (2009). Service-learning, civic and community participation:
Contributions to adult development. In M. C. Smith, & N. DeFrates-Densch (Eds.), Handbook of
research on adult learning and development (pp. 636-669). New York: Routledge.
17
Kaase, M. (1999). Interpersonal trust, political trust and non-institutionalised political participation in
Western Europe. West European Politics, 22, 1-21.
Kirshner, B. (2009). “Power in numbers”: Youth organizing as a context for exploring civic identity.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19, 414–440
Krosnick, J. A., & Alwin, D. F. (1989). Aging and susceptibility to attitude change. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 416–425.
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.
Lerner, R. M. (1991). Changing organism-context relations as the basic process of development: A
developmental contextual perspective. Developmental Psychology, 27, 27-32.
Manganelli, S., Lucidi, F., & Alivernini, F. (2015). Italian adolescents' civic engagement and open
classroom climate: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 41, 8-18.
Martín, I., & 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.
McDevitt, M. (2006). The partisan child: Developmental provocation as a model of political
socialization. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18, 67-88.
McLeod, J. M., & Shah D. V. (2009). Communication and political socialization: Challenges and
opportunities for research. Political Communication, 26, 1-10.
McLeod, J. M. (2000). Media and civic socialization of youth. Journal of Adolescent Health 27, 45-
51.
Metzger, A., Ferris, K. A., & Oosterhoff, B. (2018). Adolescents' civic engagement: Concordant and
longitudinal associations among civic beliefs and civic involvement. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, Advanced online publication. doi:10.1111/jora.12423
Motti-Stefanidi, F., & Cicognani, E. (2018). Bringing the European Union closer to its young citizens:
Youth active citizenship in Europe and trust in EU institutions. European Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 15, 243-249.
Neundorf, A., Smets, K., & García-Albacete, G. M. (2012). Homemade citizens: The development of
political interest during adolescence and young adulthood. Acta Politica, 48, 92–116.
Niemi, R. G., & Hepburn, M. A. (1995). The rebirth of political socialization. Perspectives on
Political Science, 24, 7-16.
Pancer, S. M. (2015). The psychology of citizenship and civic engagement. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Prior, M. (2010). You’ve either got it or you don’t? The stability of political interest over the life
cycle. Journal of Politics, 72, 747-766.
18
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York,
NY: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
Quintelier, E., & Van Deth, J. W. (2014). Supporting democracy: Political participation and political
attitudes. Exploring causality using panel data. Political Studies, 62, 153–171.
Russo, S., & Stattin, H. (2016). Stability and change in youths’ political interest. Social Indicators
Research, 132, 643–658.
Saphir, M. N., & Chaffee, S. H. (2002). Adolescents’ contributions to family communication patterns.
Human Communication Research, 28, 86-108.
Sears, D. O., & Levy, S. (2003). Childhood and adult political development. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy,
& R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 60-109). Oxford, New York:
Oxford University Press.
Selman, R. L. (2003). The promotion of social awareness: Powerful lessons from the partnership of
developmental theory and classroom practice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Sherrod, L. R., & Lauckhardt, J. (2009). The development of citizenship. In R. M. Lerner & L.
Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Contextual influences on adolescent
development, Vol. 2 (pp. 372–408). Hoboken: Wiley.
Sherrod, L. R. (2006). Promoting citizenship and activism in today’s youth. In S. Ginwright, P.
Noguera, & J. Cammarota (Eds.), Beyond resistance (pp. 287-299). New York: Routledge.
Torney-Purta, J., Amadeo, J.-A., & Andolina, M. W. (2010). A conceptual framework and
multimethod approach for research on political socialization and civic engagement. In L. R.
Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in
youth (pp. 497-524). Hoboken: Wiley.
Urbatsch, R. (2011). Sibling ideological influence: A natural experiment. British Journal of Political
Science, 41, 693–712.
Vecchione, M., & Caprara, G. V. (2009). Personality determinants of political participation: The
contribution of traits and self-efficacy beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 487-492.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in
American politics. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.
Vollebergh, W. A., Iedema, J. & Raaijmakers, Q. A. (2001). Intergenerational transmission and the
formation of cultural orientations in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 63, 1185-1198.
Watts, R. J., Williams, N. C., & Jagers, R. J. (2003). Sociopolitical development. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 31, 185–194.
Wilkenfeld, B., Lauckhardt, J., & Torney-Purta, J. (2010). The relation between developmental theory
and measures of civic engagement in research on adolescents. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, &
19
C. A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 193-220).
Hoboken: Wiley.
Wölfer, R., Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., & Zalk, M. (2016). Developmental dynamics of intergroup
contact and intergroup attitudes: Long‐term effects in adolescence and early adulthood. Child
Development, 87, 1466-1478.
Wray-Lake, L., Metzger, A., & Syvertsen, A. K. (2017). Testing multidimensional models of youth
civic engagement: Model comparisons, measurement invariance, and age differences. Applied
Developmental Science, 21, 266–284.
Wray-Lake, L., Shubert, J., Lin, L., & Starr, L. R. (2017). Examining associations between civic
engagement and depressive symptoms from adolescence to young adulthood in a national U.S.
sample. Applied Developmental Science, Advanced online publication.
doi:10.1080/10888691.2017.1326825
Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1998). Community service and political identity development in
adolescence. Journal of Social issues, 54, 495-512.
Youniss, J., Bales, S., Christmas-Best, V., Diversi, M., McLaughlin, M., & Silbereisen, R. (2002).
Youth civic engagement in the twenty-first century. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12, 121-
148.
Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., & Yates, M. (1997). What we know about engendering civic identity.
American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 620-631.
Zaff, J. F., Hart, D., Flanagan, C. A., Youniss, J., & Levine, P. (2010). Developing civic engagement
within a civic context. In M. E. Lamb, & A. M. Freund (Eds.), The Handbook of Life‐Span
Development, Vol. 2 (pp. 590-630). Hoboken: Wiley.
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.
20
Overview of the studies
List of the studies
There are seven original studies included in this thesis. I have created six of them as
the first author and one of them as the second author. All studies have been published in
foreign academic journals with impact factor. The order of the studies is chronological, based
on the year of publication. Overall, the studies provide novel insights into adolescent civic
development from the ecological perspective. Analyses are based on either longitudinal data,
or data from large cross-cohort and cross-national surveys.
Study I: Šerek, J., & Umemura, T. (2015). Changes in late adolescents' voting intentions
during the election campaign: Disentangling the effects of political communication with
parents, peers, and media. European Journal of Communication, 30, 285-300.
Study II: Šerek, J. (2017). What’s the matter with civil society? The declining effect of civic
involvement on civic identity among Czech adolescents, Youth & Society, 49, 879-901.
Study III: 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, 347-356.
Study IV: Šerek, J., Macháčková, H., & Macek, P. (2018). Who crosses the norms?
Predictors of the readiness for non-normative political participation among adolescents.
Journal of Adolescence, 62, 18-26.
Study V: Eckstein, K., Šerek, J., & Noack, P. (2018). And what about siblings? A
longitudinal analysis of sibling effects on youth's intergroup attitudes. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 47, 383-397.
Study VI: Šerek, J., & Jugert, P. (2018). Young European citizens: An individual by context
perspective on adolescent European citizenship. European Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 15, 302-323.
Study VII: Šerek, J., & Macháčková, H. (in press). Role of school climate and personality in
the development of Czech adolescents' political self-efficacy. Applied Developmental Science,
Advanced online publication (http://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2017.1364163).
21
Author’s contributions
In Studies I, II, III, IV, VI and VII, I drafted initial outlines of the studies,
coordinated writing first drafts of the manuscripts, and led all revisions based on reviewers’
and editors’ comments. I also conducted 100% of statistical analyses in these six studies. My
contributions to final texts, expressed quantitatively, are: Study I – 90%, Study II – 100%,
Study III – 80%, Study IV – 80%, Study VI – 80%, Study VII – 90%.
In Study V, I helped the first author to conceive the study and had contributions of
about 30% to the analysis and the final text. This study illustrates my collaboration with a
foreign research team.
Studies III, IV and VII employ data from the same research project. I coordinated
development of research design and measures, and co-supervised data collection in this
project. I also processed and cleaned collected data. Next, I developed all measures used in
Study I. Studies II, V and VI are secondary analyses of previously collected data.
Summary of research questions
Study I investigated how first-time voters’ intentions to vote and actual voting
behaviors changed as a consequence of interactions with different environments – parents,
peers, and media. The study examined whether changes in voting intention and voting were
predicted by political discussions with parents or with peers, whether political discussions
with parents preceded discussions with peers, or vice versa, and whether exposure to political
news predicted political discussions. Study II examined the effect of youth involvement in
civil society on their civic identity and whether this effect had changed in different social
contexts (between 1990s and the present). An additional aim was to examine whether the
impact of adolescents’ economic background on their involvement in civil society had
changed between the social contexts. Study III tested the directionality of the effects between
three psychological variables (political interest, internal political efficacy, and external
political efficacy), and three types of participation (protest, representational, and volunteering)
in adolescence. Study IV asked whether adolescents’ readiness to violate social norms for
political reasons could be explained by their interpersonal problems in family and school, or
more stable characteristics such as optimism, political efficacy and institutional trust. Study V
examined whether adolescents’ sociopolitical attitudes (intolerance towards immigrants and
social dominance orientation) were affected by their siblings’ attitudes. The study further
investigated how these effects were moderated by age and gender constellations of sibling
22
dyads. Study VI aimed to identify individual, school, and country level predictors of
adolescents’ institutional trust and civic participation (both at the national and the European
level). A special focus was on the question whether country-level characteristics moderated
the effects of individual and school variables. Study VII examined the link from adolescents’
self-reported learning of civic skills at school to their higher political efficacy at the
community level. The study primarily focused on the question whether higher levels of civic
learning and political efficacy were predicted by school climate or adolescents’ personality.
Summary of methods
Data
Study I used data from a larger panel study of Czech high school students aged 18 to
19 (N = 223). Longitudinal data from three time points were selected for the analysis (T1 =
February 2010; T2 = May 2010; T3 = June 2010). Participants completed online
questionnaires at their homes at every time point. Study II employed data from two crosssectional
samples of Czech adolescents collected in 1995 (N = 1,127) and 2010 (N = 976).
Both samples comprised eight- and tenth-graders (Mage1995 = 16.04; Mage2010 = 15.43) who
completed paper questionnaires at school (1995) or at home (2010). Study III and Study IV
used the same two-wave longitudinal sample of Czech adolescents (N = 768). Participants
were mostly tenth-graders (Mage = 15.97) surveyed in May/June 2014 (T1) and again in
November/December 2015 (T2). Data was collected at school where participants completed
paper or online questionnaires (based on school’s preferences). Study V employed two-wave
longitudinal data from 362 sibling dyads, and their mothers and fathers. Younger siblings
were aged 12 to 17 (Mage = 13.61) and older sibling were aged 13 to 26 (Mage = 17.77) at T1.
Mean age difference between siblings was 4.1 years. Data was collected in Germany in
Summer/Autumn 2003 (T1) and approximately one year later (T2) at participants’ homes.
Study VI utilized cross-sectional survey data from the International Civic and Citizenship
Education Study (ICCS). A subset of data from 22 European Union member states was
selected for the analyses (N = 72,466). Data was collected from eight-graders who had on
average 14 years and completed paper questionnaires at schools. Study VII employed data
from the same research as Studies III and IV, but it focused only on data collected at T1,
complemented by additional cross-sectional data from ninth-graders. Hence, the study
analyzed a cross-sectional sample of ninth- and tenth-graders (N=1,954; Mage = 15.60)
collected in May/June 2014 at school using paper or online questionnaires.
23
Measures and analyses
All studies used self-report questionnaires in which participants indicated their
answers on presented questions. A vast majority of constructs was measured using scales with
multiple items. Predictive statistical models were used to analyze the data. Studies II, III, IV
and V employed structural equation modelling in which the variables of interest were treated
as latent constructs, indicated by manifest questionnaire items. Study I employed path
modelling of manifest items. Study VI employed multilevel regression of standardized scales
that were estimated using item response modelling. Study VII utilized multilevel path
modelling of manifest summary scores.
179
General conclusions
My research presented in this thesis employs the principles of the ecological model
of human development to gain novel insights into the processes of civic development in
adolescence. The aim is not provide a comprehensive test the model as a whole, but to derive
more specific research hypothesis about selected developmental outcomes, social
environments, and adolescents’ personal characteristics. As described in the introduction,
adolescence is a sensitive life period for civic development because it is characterized by an
increased openness to civic learning, which is followed by a gradual stabilization of civic
beliefs, attitudes or habits later in life. That is why I consider as important that research on
civic development pays attention to this particular stage of life. Overall, my studies show
young people as active agents who develop their individual approaches to citizenship through
their active engagement in multiple contexts such as families, peer groups, schools, or civic
associations. At the same time, however, there are considerable differences between young
people, given by their personality dispositions, stable political beliefs, or socioeconomic
resources available to them. These differences, which young people bring with them into
various developmental contexts, shape both the form and the outcomes of civic development.
Moreover, the form and the outcomes of adolescents’ civic development in proximal contexts
is determined by broader societal influences, causing that factors boosting or hindering civic
engagement in one societal context might working differently in the other (cf. Motti-Stefanidi
& Cicognani, 2018). In the following sections, I will summarize and discuss a number of
more specific conclusions stemming from my studies. After that, I will briefly discuss
practical implications and possible directions for future research.
Interpretation of the results
Civic engagement as an antecedent of civic beliefs and attitudes
Results of Study III suggest that civic engagement precedes changes in adolescents’
beliefs and attitudes, but it is less clear whether beliefs and attitudes precede changes in civic
engagement. Specifically, engagement in protest activities (e.g. demonstrations) predicted
positive changes in one’s political interest and perceived capability to participate in politics
(political self-efficacy). At the same time, evidence for the opposite effects, that is greater
interest or efficacy predicting greater engagement, was not found. These findings cast doubts
on the common idea that if we manage to instill favorable beliefs and attitudes in adolescents
(e.g., high interest in politics), their greater civic engagement will appear as a natural
180
consequence. Such an idea is, for instance, built in civic education programs that aim at
increasing youth civic engagement, but cannot or do not want to provide adolescents with
opportunities for actual participation. Unfortunately for these programs, it seems that the link
from beliefs and attitudes to civic behavior is less straightforward than one might expect.
Certainly, it would be premature to conclude that there is no effect of interest and
efficacy on adolescents’ civic engagement because the evidence on their causal relations is
still limited (Quintelier & van Deth, 2014). Moreover, there is one very recent study
suggesting the presence of effects in both directions (Metzger, Ferris, & Oosterhoff, 2018).
As a more appropriate and modest conclusion, I propose that we should acknowledge that
existing correlational evidence on the relations between civic beliefs or attitudes and behavior
has two equally plausible interpretations. Next to the traditional and the most common
approach, according to which civic beliefs and attitudes explain civic behavior, the
correlational findings might equally well indicate that civic behavior explains the formation
of beliefs and attitudes. Hence, it is possible that a large number of existing studies needs to
be reinterpreted in a way acknowledging a more central role of adolescents’ civic
engagement. Additional longitudinal and experimental evidence is needed to specify to what
extent and under which conditions civic beliefs and attitudes affect adolescents’ civic
behaviors, and vice versa.
The idea that adolescents form their civic beliefs and attitudes through their civic
engagement has a solid theoretical basis. As anticipated in the introduction, the idea is
directly implied by the first proposition of the ecological model, according to which
development occurs as a product of interactions between active persons and their
environments (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). A crucial role of personal activity is also
acknowledged by Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy, which assumes that people form their
efficacy beliefs based on mastery experiences, that is, when they confront and successfully
deal with tasks in a specific domain (Beaumont, 2010; Bandura 1997). Next, the idea is in
line with theories suggesting that people seek consistency between their attitudes and
behaviors – the cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1962) and the self-perception theory
(Bem, 1972). A general expectation stemming from these approaches is that adolescents infer
their civic self-concept and attitudes, among other things, from their knowledge that they
have been previously engaged in some civic activity. Hence, young people might reason that
their own civic engagement indicates a high interest in social and political issues or a strong
belief in own personal capacity for engagement (self-efficacy), and accordingly
181
accommodate their beliefs and attitudes. The most intriguing component of this theoretical
view is that we can expect civic engagement to change one’s beliefs and attitudes regardless
the initial motivations driving the engagement. Thus, civic engagement might influence
adolescents’ civic development even though it is driven, for instance, by a mere habit,
conformity, or self-interest.
A role of the content of civic engagement
When studying the outcomes of adolescents’ civic engagement, attention must be
paid to its form, because it is not the case that any civic engagement would contribute to
adolescents’ civic development in a pro-participatory way. Results from Study III indicated,
for instance, that while adolescents’ engagement in protest activities predicted increases in
their political interest, it also predicted a decreased perception of the political system as open
to citizens. In order to change their perceptions of system openness in a positive way,
adolescents had to engage in volunteering, not protest, according to the results. A similar
conclusion that diverse forms of civic engagement have different consequences for changes
in adolescents’ civic beliefs and attitudes comes from the study comparing outcomes of
adolescents’ engagement in online versus offline civic activities (Macháčková & Šerek, 2017;
not included in this thesis).
Based on these results, it might be tempting to start listing civic activities that are
“favorable” or “recommendable” for adolescents’ civic development (i.e. those for which we
have evidence that they contribute to positive changes in adolescents’ pro-participatory
characteristics such as interest or civic identity). I believe, however, that this is not actually
possible. The varying consequences of engagement in different civic activities (e.g., protest
versus volunteering, online versus offline) is probably not given by the form of activity per
se, but rather by the content of adolescents’ experiences when being engaged in the activity.
Thus, I assume, for instance, that there is nothing inherent to political protests that would
hamper adolescents’ beliefs in the openness of the political system. Instead, it is likely that
protest activities, compared to volunteering, are more often characterized by the absence of
immediate and visible successes (e.g., due to their confrontational nature), which can be a
true reason for adolescents’ increased doubts about the system openness (cf. Bandura, 1997).
In this context, it seems useful to apply the concept of quality of participation experience,
coming from the area of citizenship education. The concept refers to the assumption that civic
learning through “action” is successful only if the activities have certain qualities, such as
opportunities for students’ personal integration and reflection of the participation experience,
182
or interactions with people with different worldviews (Menezes, 2003). I believe that it would
be an extremely useful step to extend this concept also to adolescents’ participation
experiences in non-educational settings and to develop a comprehensive classification of
those dimensions of adolescents’ civic experience that are relevant to their civic
development.
The content of civic engagement, and thus the quality of adolescents’ participation
experiences, does vary not only across different activities but also as a function of broader
social contexts (i.e. macrosystems and macrotime). Study II showed that while adolescents’
volunteering positively predicted their stronger civic identity in the era of early postcommunism,
the effect was missing 15 years later in the era of established democracy. Based
on the literature on the transformation of Czech civil society and some indirect indicators
(e.g., a stronger economic determination of adolescents’ volunteering and associational
membership in the later era), I suggested that the explanation for the missing effect could lie
in the professionalization of Czech civil society, and thus a changed context in which
adolescents volunteered. Specifically, volunteering in more professionalized contexts can be
expected to involve more limited opportunities for friendly interactions between young
people, increased inequality between them, and a more homogeneous environment in terms
of people’s worldviews – in sum, the qualities that are unfavorable to the processes of
building adolescents’ civic identity (cf. Youniss, McLellan, & Yates, 1997). Thus,
volunteering, just as any other civic activity, cannot be approached as a universal generator of
adolescents’ civic identity because broader macrosystems, and their changes over time, shape
the specific contents of adolescents’ participatory experiences.
Microsystem and mesosystems contributing to civic development
The proposition that civic development takes place through person’s increasingly
complex active interactions with the environment cannot be reduced solely to civic
engagement. In microsystems such as family, peer groups or schools, the active interactions
typically occur through everyday discussions about social and political issues, during which
young people are exposed to others’ beliefs and attitudes or new information, and can be
forced to formulate and justify their own views (e.g., McIntosh, Hart, & Youniss, 2007).
Results presented in this thesis have three important implications for our understanding of
these proximal processes.
183
First, findings from Study I provide evidence that interactions with particular
microsystems can be structured in a specific order, giving every microsystem its distinctive
role. More precisely, the study has found that first-time voters’ (i.e. late adolescents’) voting
intentions and actual voting were boosted if young people discussed about politics with their
peers in a pre-election period, while political discussions with parents did not have such
effects. However, more frequent political discussions with parents predicted an increase in
the frequency of political discussions with peers; thus, there was an indirect effect of
adolescents’ political discussions with parents on their voting, mediated by discussions with
peers. A likely explanation is that late adolescents’ political behavior, at least in a short-term
perspective, is affected more by their peers than parents, which is consistent with an
assumption that parental influence on youth’s attitudes decreases during the transition to
adulthood while there is an opposite trend for peer influence (Arnett, 2006; Vollebergh,
Iedema, & Raaijmakers, 2001). At the same time, discussions with parents can serve as a
“playground” – a safe environment where young people practice political talk before they
start discussions in less private settings (Kiousis, McDevitt, & Wu, 2005; McDevitt &
Chaffe, 2002). From the ecological point of view, these results indicate that interactions
within peer groups and families form a mesosystem, in which the peer and the family
microsystem have their irreplaceable roles and jointly contribute to adolescents’ civic
development. An important implication is that a full account of how adolescents develop their
voting intentions cannot be grasped if both microsystems are studied separately as two
mutually independent explanatory factors.
Second, results from Studies VI and VII suggest that adolescents are affected by
their interactions within microsystems (schools) primarily if the content of these interactions
is explicitly linked to the concrete developmental outcome in question. Next to families and
peer groups, schools represent another microsystem playing a role in young people’s civic
development. In this context, classroom openness to discussions on various social and
political topic, promoted by teachers, is traditionally considered as an important characteristic
of school environment positively contributing to students’ civic development (cf. Campbell,
2008). Therefore, it came as a surprise that there were only limited between-classroom
differences in studied civic outcomes, namely political self-efficacy, institutional trust and
civic engagement, in Studies VI and VII. On top of that, classroom openness to discussion
did not predict these differences in civic outcomes. I believe that a possible interpretation of
these findings is that school discussions affect primarily the development of those civic
184
beliefs, attitudes or behaviors that are thematized in the discussions. One illustration of this
point comes from Study VI in which students’ civic engagement at European level was
positively linked to opportunities for learning about Europe in school, while there was no
relation between learning about Europe and civic engagement at national level. Hence, it
seems that discussions of social and political issues within school – and likely also within
other microsystems – contribute primarily to those aspects of civic development that can be
explicitly related to the content of those discussions by adolescents. On the other hand, the
assumption that the involvement of adolescents in any kind of discussion on social and
political issues will affect, all at once, their civic development in multiple cognitive, affective
and behavioral domains is rather doubtful.
Third, results from Study V show that the outcomes of interactions within
adolescents’ microsystems are substantially co-determined by age and gender characteristics
of adolescents and their interaction partners. Specifically, this study focusing on mutual
influences within sibling dyads found that only younger sisters but not younger brothers were
influenced by intolerant attitudes of their older siblings. Also younger siblings were able to
have certain influence of on their older siblings’ attitudes, but only if younger siblings were
old enough, and thus, the relationship between the siblings was more likely to be more equal.
Although this study did not explicitly investigate a means of sibling influence, based on the
ecological model it can be assumed that active interactions between siblings, that is
discussions between them, play a prominent role. The finding that the interactions within the
family microsystem are structured by adolescents’ age and gender can be easily integrated
into the ecological model. The first proposition of the model maintains that proximal
processes of adolescents’ civic development become progressively complex with age,
involving a growing array of interactions. This is consistent with the finding that the scope of
mutual influences between siblings increases (i.e. younger siblings start having influence) as
the dyad becomes older. In addition, consistent with the second proposition expecting effects
of the macrosystem on microsystems, the familial interactions appear to be influenced by
gender-based normative expectations embodied in the broader social context, regarding, for
instance, girls’ general submissiveness or boys’ greater competence in politics.
The effects of stable individual differences
The role of individual characteristics in civic development is not exhausted by
structuring adolescents’ interactions within their microsystems. Results of my research
suggest that some civic outcomes are directly linked to adolescents’ relatively stable and
185
general personality characteristics. Adolescents’ readiness to participate in normative civic
activities was linked to a greater optimism (controlling for political self-efficacy) in Study IV,
while political self-efficacy was associated with a greater need for cognition and a smaller
shyness in Study VII. These findings on personality determinants of civic engagement and
political self-efficacy are consistent with previous research on adults, employing personality
traits taken from the five-factor model (Mondak, 2010). My research extends this knowledge
by analyzing individual dimensions coming from different conceptualizations of personality
and by showing that the links between personality and civic outcomes are identifiable as early
as in middle adolescence. Although adolescents’ personality is only one of a number of
factors contributing to civic development (cf. Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), its role
should not be neglected as, for instance, shyness was the most powerful predictor of political
self-efficacy across different contexts in Study VII.
What remains an open question is how exactly personality translates into civic
outcomes. The ecological model implies that personality has effects on civic development
because it shapes proximal processes in one’s social environment. Thus, for instance, we can
expect shyness to hinder the development of adolescents’ political self-efficacy because it
prevents adolescents from discussing politics or having participatory experiences that would
boost their political self-efficacy. However, there is also an alternative explanation assuming
that personality traits reported by adolescents are reflected in their self-concepts.
Consequently, we can expect that adolescents seek consistency of their self-concepts across
different domains, and thus, for instance, shy adolescents might tend to adjust self-related
beliefs in the civic domain, such as political self-efficacy, to their more general self-concept
involving their own shyness (cf. Bandura, 1997). Study VII provided an initial attempt to test
these mechanisms, showing that the effects of shyness and need for cognition on political
efficacy cannot be explained by the fact that adolescents with different personalities learn in
school different amount of civic skills. At the same time, Study IV comprised an indirect
evidence that adolescents gradually tend towards consistency among their civic beliefs
(specifically, adolescents’ readiness for non-normative civic engagement, i.e. activities
violating social norms including law, increased over time if adolescents had a low trust in
institutions). Nevertheless, proper tests of the above-mentioned hypotheses are still missing.
Macrosystem as a moderator of t socioeconomic effects
Finally, two of my studies show a moderation effect of the broader social context on
socioeconomically determined inequalities in adolescents’ civic development. I have already
186
suggested that broad social contexts can affect the quality of adolescents’ participation
experience. In addition to that, results from Studies II and VI show that the impact of
adolescents’ socioeconomic background on civic development differs across social contexts.
In Study II, family economic hardship had an effect on adolescents’ volunteering and
associational involvement in one generation of Czech adolescents, but not in the other. In
Study VI, adolescents’ socioeconomic background was related to European-level civic
engagement more strongly in some European countries than others, the relation being
stronger in less wealthy and more economically unequal countries. These results illustrate
that even the well-known tendency of disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds to limit
people’s civic engagement (Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995) can be relative to broader
social settings – the macrosystem. The specific mechanisms through which the macrosystem
moderates the effects of socioeconomic background on youth civic development are likely to
be manifold. For instance, I have proposed above that one moderating factor (attenuating or
amplifying the consequences of socioeconomic inequality) might be general characteristics of
the civil society, in which a young person is involved. Another factor can be how and how
much the society addresses socioeconomic inequalities in general, for instance, how much are
high education tracks accessible to all young people. Thus, it must be assumed that the exact
nature and outcomes of proximal processes involving socioeconomic factors cannot be taken
for granted, even within the same society over time or across culturally close countries.
Although such ideas are hardly new in the scholarship on civic development, a number of
concrete empirical illustrations, alike those presented in Studies II and VI, is rather limited
because a cross-national or a cross-cohort research is a necessary requirement.
Practical implications
Before I move to implications for future research, first I would like to highlight
several practical recommendations that can be drawn from the presented studies. There is a
strong indication that one of the most powerful forms of civic learning is learning by doing.
Hence, it is advisable that civic education, in both formal and informal settings, is structured
in a way providing young people with an abundance of easily accessible opportunities for
real-life civic engagement. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that some
participation experiences contribute to young people’s civic development more than others
do. Previous research has underscored that participation experiences should involve
interactions with people having diverse backgrounds and worldviews, opportunities for
personal reflection of the participation experience, or equal interpersonal relationship. The
187
presented research indirectly supports these notions and points out the importance of other
factors such as opportunities for discussions with peers or opportunities for learning new
information about specific social and political issues. Finally, civic educators should be aware
that students’ personality dispositions play a role in civic development and might advantage
or disadvantage young persons from the very beginning of any educational process.
Future directions
The ecological model turned out to be a useful general framework for generating
research hypotheses and integrating research findings on adolescents’ civic development.
However, while the model consists of general propositions, hypotheses tested in the presented
studies are inevitably limited to specific developmental outcomes, environments, or
adolescents’ personal characteristics. Hence, it would be beneficial to direct future research
towards systematic investigation whether the processes described by the presented studies are
general to civic development as such, or rather specific to given outcome, environment, or
personal characteristic. For example, future research should investigate whether the
mesosystem, in which political discussions with parents serve as a “playground” stimulating
discussions with peers that, in turn, increase adolescents’ voting intentions, also applies to
other forms of civic engagement or the development of sociopolitical attitudes. As an another
example, it would be beneficial to test whether the age- and gender-related patterns of
influence identified between siblings do apply to comparable extra-familial contexts such as
peer groups. Research done in this direction would help not only to generate new knowledge
on adolescents’ civic development, but also to further asses the usefulness of the ecological
model in the civic domain.
In addition, there is still a number of expectations that stem from the ecological
model but still wait for testing in the area of civic development. One of these expectations is
that active interactions between the person and the environment must proceed on a regular
basis over extended periods of time in order to contribute to one’s development. Hence, the
regularity and permanency of adolescents’ civic engagement or discussing social and
political issues might be an important factor intervening in the developmental processes.
Unfortunately, measures of civic engagement and discussing are usually very rough,
inquiring too long periods of time, and thus making it difficult to determine whether the
activities were done regularly or not. Next, there is an expectation that youth development is
influenced by exosystems, that is, environments that do not contain the developing person but
influence person’s microsystems. Classic examples of exosystems are groups of parents’
188
friends or their workplace. To my knowledge, there are no direct tests of family-related
exosystem effects on adolescents’ civic development so far (cf. Wilkenfeld, Lauckhardt, &
Torney-Purta, 2010), even though it is likely that parents’ everyday experiences have an
impact on subsequent interactions between parents and adolescents. In other words, if we
believe that parents have a not negligible influence on their children’s civic development, it is
only natural to ask by whom parents themselves are influenced.
Methodologically speaking, it is advisable to employ longitudinal designs with a
high number of measurement time points in the future research on civic development.
Although the majority of studies included in this thesis provide longitudinal evidence that is
substantially stronger than cross-sectional, the analyses typically utilize cross-lagged designs
with two measurement time points. Such designs are common in current developmental
research, but it has been argued recently that they might provide biased results if very stable,
trait-like constructs are analyzed (Hamaker, Kuipers, & Grasman, 2015). Although my
research does not involve constructs with these characteristics as outcome variables, still, to
be on the safe side, an alternative analytical approach proposed by Hamaker et al. (2015)
would mean more stringent tests of the studied hypotheses. Because this approach requires a
minimum of three measurement time points, future studies would surely benefit from more
extensive research designs.
189
References
Arnett, J. J. (2006). Socialization in emerging adulthood: From the family to the wider world, from
socialization to self-socialization. In J. E. Grusec & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of
socialization: Theory and research (pp. 208-231). New York, London: Guildford Press.
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.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in experimental social psychology, 6, 1-62.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R.
M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 793-828). Hoboken: Wiley.
Campbell, D. E. (2008). Voice in the classroom: How an open classroom climate fosters political
engagement among adolescents. Political Behavior, 30, 437–454.
Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford: Stanford university press.
Hamaker, E. L., Kuipers, R. M., & Grasman, R. P. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model.
Psychological Methods, 20, 102-116.
Motti-Stefanidi, F., & Cicognani, E. (2018). Bringing the European Union closer to its young citizens:
Youth active citizenship in Europe and trust in EU institutions. European Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 15, 243-249.
Kiousis, S., McDevitt, M., & Wu, X. (2005). The genesis of civic awareness: Agenda setting in
political socialization. Journal of Communication, 55, 756-774.
Macháčková, H., & Šerek, J. (2017). Does ‘clicking’ matter? The role of online participation in
adolescents’ civic development. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on
Cyberspace, 11(4), article 5.
McDevitt, M., & Chaffe, S. (2002). From top-down to trickle-up influence: Revisiting assumptions
about the family in political socialization. Political Communication, 19, 281-301.
McIntosh, H., Hart, D., & Youniss, J. (2007). The influence of family political discussion on youth
civic development: Which parent qualities matter? Political Science and Politics, 40, 495-499.
Menezes, I. (2003). Participation experiences and civic concepts, attitudes and engagement:
Implications for citizenship education projects. European Educational Research Journal, 2, 430-
445.
Metzger, A., Ferris, K. A., & Oosterhoff, B. (2018). Adolescents' civic engagement: Concordant and
longitudinal associations among civic beliefs and civic involvement. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, Advanced online publication. doi:10.1111/jora.12423
Mondak, J. J. (2010). Personality and the foundations of political behavior. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
190
Quintelier, E., & Van Deth, J. W. (2014). Supporting democracy: Political participation and political
attitudes. Exploring causality using panel data. Political Studies, 62, 153–171.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in
American politics. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.
Vollebergh, W. A., Iedema, J. & Raaijmakers, Q. A. (2001). Intergenerational transmission and the
formation of cultural orientations in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 63, 1185-1198.
Wilkenfeld, B., Lauckhardt, J., & Torney-Purta, J. (2010). The relation between developmental theory
and measures of civic engagement in research on adolescents. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, &
C. A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 193-220).
Hoboken: Wiley.
Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., & Yates, M. (1997). What we know about engendering civic identity.
American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 620-631.