Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION. THE IMPORTANCE OF PARENTAL LEVEL OF EDUCATION.
Hilde COFFÉ Utrecht University, Department of Sociology/ICS
Marieke VOORPOSTEL University of Lausanne, FORS
Abstract This study looks at the intergenerational transmission of political participation and
investigates which parents are most successful in transmitting such participation.
Using data from the Swiss Household Panel (SHP), our multilevel analyses show that
both mothers and fathers significantly influence their children’s levels of
(anticipated) participation in polls and political activism. Yet, the effect seems
somewhat stronger for voting frequency compared with political activism, and
mothers seem to be slightly more successful in transmitting their voting pattern
compared with fathers. Interaction models reveal that parental influence on voting
does not depend on parental educational level. Yet, higher levels of education – both
of their own and within the family – increase the effect of mothers’ engagement in
political activism on their offspring’s anticipated activism. Fathers are more likely to
influence their offspring’s anticipated activism if they have a higher level of
education compared with their partner. These different effects of parents’ pattern of
political activism according to different measures of their levels of education have
important implications for our understanding of political socialization and
participation.
Key Words
Political Participation, Voting, Activism, Socialization, Parental level of education
– WORK IN PROGRESS –
Paper Prepared for Delivery at the ECPR General Conference 2011
August 25-27, Reykjavik, Iceland
Acknowledgement The authors are grateful to Laura Stoker for her valuable suggestions and the fruitful
discussions.
2
INTRODUCTION
Parents as important prime agents of political socialization have occupied an
important place in the literature (Jennings 2007). In particular, many studies have
looked at political attitudes and partisanship, showing that parents play a prominent
role in youngsters’ attitudinal pattern and partisanship. Less is known, however,
about intergenerational transmission of political participation. Yet, since citizens’
political engagement is considered important for the well-functioning of society and
since political engagement among young adults is known to relate strongly to
participation in later life, it is important to know what enhances political
engagement among young adults. Therefore, in this study we consider two types of
political participation: voting and activism. As such, our study includes a test of
intergenerational transmission of both an institutionalized type of political
participation such as voting, and a less conventional type of participation, namely
activism.
Besides testing socialization theory with respect to these two types of
participation, we also plan to further develop socialization theory by considering
mothers’ and fathers’ influences separately, arguing that both parents may play
different roles. Moreover, we investigate which parents are most successful in
transmitting their pattern of political participation. In particular, we will look at their
levels of education. We will argue that compared with lower educated parents,
higher educated parents have more cultural, social and cognitive resources and are
thus better equipped to educate their children for political participation and to offer
them the necessary resources for such participation. Focusing on the effect of
3
educational level, we will empirically investigate the impact of three different
measures of educational level: mothers’ and fathers’ level of education separately,
the family level of education, measured as the sum of mothers’ and fathers’ level of
education, and the relative level of education, operationalized as the fathers’ level of
education minus the mothers’ level of education. The distinction between these
three different types of measures of the level of education has not been made in
previousempirical work on political socialization. Yet, it allows us to empirically test
whether mothers’ or fathers’ level of education makes respectively some mothers
and fathers more successful in intergenerational transmission of political
participation or whether it is rather in relative sense (thus if they are higher
educated compared with their partner) that they are more successful. Fathers or
mothers with substantially higher levels of education compared with their partner
may be more successful in transmitting their pattern of political participation since
they are considered to have more cultural, social and cognitive resources compared
with their partner. Next to their own level of education and their relative level of
education, we will also test the effect of the sum of mothers’ and fathers’ level of
education. As such, we will investigate to what extent it is the family’s educational
context that makes intergenerational transmission of political participation most
successful.
In sum, our analyses will seek answers to two related questions concerning
the socialization of political participation. (1) To what extent do fathers and mothers
transmit their pattern of voting frequency and political activism? (2) To what extent
does successful intergenerational transmission of political participation depend on
parental levels of education? To answer these related research questions, multilevel
4
analyses will be performed using data of the Swiss Household Panel Survey (1999-
2008). Before turning to a description of the data and results, the next section
introduces relevant theoretical literature and proposes our hypotheses.
THEORY
The social learning perspective is the dominant starting point in research on political
socialization and forms the point of departure of our study. The social learning
theory holds that young people learn from their parents about the political world,
about how they fit into it, and about how they should behave in it (Jennings, Stoker
and Bowers 2009; Verba, Scholzman and Burns 2005). Through a learning process,
young adults adopt various political attitudes, values and patterns of actions from
their families. This learning perspective argues that children and young adults are
taught by their parents what to think and how to act. Hence, children are expected
to copy their parents’ patterns of political participation.
Yet, the heyday of socialization research was in the late sixties and early
seventies and focused mostly on partisanship and political attitudes (e.g., Beck and
Jennings 1975). Since then, the structure and dynamics of family life have changed
profoundly and declining levels of participation, mainly ascribed to lower levels of
participation among the younger generations have occurred (e.g., Clarke et al. 2004;
Blais et al. 2004; Putnam 2000; Wattenberg 2007). However, critics have argued that
these concerns about declining engagement among younger generations are
misplaced, showing that political engagement has not declined but changed in
nature (e.g., Dalton 2008). In any case, the notions of lower levels or changing
natures of political participation among the younger generation would suggest that
the reproduction is less straightforward among the current young generation.
5
However, some recent research re-examined political socialization within families
and confirmed the central role of parents in political socialization. For example,
comparing parental influence on different political attitudes and partisanship
between young adults socialized in the 1990s and young adults socialized in the
1960s, Jennings, Stoker and Bowers (2009) conclude that the extent of parental
influence on young adults is similar among both generations.
However, not all parents have been found to be equally successful in
transmitting their political attitudes. Jennings, Stoker and Bowers (2009) show that
parents who are politically engaged and who frequently discuss politics are more
likely to transmit political attitudes. Others have argued that homogeneity and
consistency between and among partners is important for successful transmission of
political and social attitudes and partisanship (e.g., Jaspers, Lubbers and de Vries
2008;Jennings, Stoker and Bowers 2009). Here, we focus on political participation
and aim to advance insights on which parents are most successful in transmitting
such participation. In particular, we consider difference between mothers and
fathers and according to their educational level. There is some evidence that
differences exist between father and mothers in their success of parent-to-child
political socialization. For example, Gidengil, O’Neill and Young (2010) reveal among
a sample of Canadian women that mothers’ influence outweighs the fathers’
influence on political activity. Although women tend to be viewed as less politically
interested and involved, mothers stand at the centre of the household and interact –
on average – more frequently with their children than fathers and have greater
affective attachments (Bao et al., 1999). Hence, mothers are anticipated to be more
successful in transmitting their participatory patterns. Consequently, our first
6
hypothesis reads that there is more similarity in political participation between
mothers and offspring, compared with fathers and offspring (Hypothesis 1).
Next, we expect the magnitude of intergenerational transmission of patterns
of political participation to vary according to parental educational resources. Verba,
Schlozman and Burns (2005: 98) have argued that “education is the engine for
transmission of political activity from generation to generation”. Not only are higher
educated parents more likely to have higher educated children, they are also more
likely to provide a politically stimulating environment. Higher educated parents tend
to be more politically interested and more actively involved in politics compared
with lower educated parents who generally have more distance from politics.
Furthermore, parents with higher levels of education tend to stimulate political
discussion and are cognitively well trained and thus better equipped to educate their
children in politics than less educated people (Verba, Schlozman and Burns 2005;
Roscigno and Ainsworth-Darnell 1999). As a consequence, they will be more likely to
influence their children’s involvement in politics. Moreover, and more generally, it
has been shown that higher educated parents spend more time with their children.
They also invest more time in teaching children, and in activities that stimulate their
cognitive development (Bianchi and Robinson 1997). Hence, higher educated
parents may be anticipated to invest more time in bringing over their political
competencies and engagement compared with lower educated parents. Thus, our
second hypothesis reads as follows: similarity in political participation between
parents and offspring will be larger when mothers and fathers have higher levels of
education compared with mothers and fathers with lower levels of education
(Hypothesis 2). Yet, the influence may not only depend on the mothers’ or fathers’
7
own level of education, but also on the family’s level of education (i.c., the sum of
father’s and mother’s level of education) and the mothers’ and fathers’ relative level
of education (i.c., the difference between the father’s and mother’s level of
education). For the family level of education, the argument goes that within higher
educated families, parents spend more time with their children and offer a more
politically stimulating environment (Sayer, Bianchi and Robinson 2004), which may
result in stronger intergenerational transmission, irrespective of a parent’s own level
of education. In this case, it would be the family context that increases the effect of
parents’ political participation on their offspring’s pattern of political participation
rather than a parent’s own level of education. Next to the parents’ own level and
the family level of education, it seems also possible that it is the relative difference
between fathers’ and mothers’ level of education that interacts with the parental
level of participation. If a parent is substantially higher educated than his/her
partner, he or she may be considered more as a role model, which would result in an
increasing effect of that parent’s political engagement on young adults’ political
participation.
How these different measures of parental level of education interact with
parental political participation differently with mothers’ and fathers’ political
participation is an empirical issue which we will address below. For now, it suffices to
tentatively argue that since women are generally slightly lower educated and have
lower political resources such as political information and interest compared with
men (e.g., Burns 2007; Coffé and Bolzendahl 2010; Verba, Burns and Schlozman
1997), mothers may benefit more from a higher educated family context compared
with fathers. Indeed, it may be assumed that even though mothers themselves may
8
not be as highly educated as their partners, the fact that the fathers are higher
educated may create a politically stimulating environment which may result in more
intergenerational transmission among mothers belonging to such family compared
with mothers who do not belong to a higher educated family. Since men are
generally higher educated than women, the family environment will boost the
intergenerational transmission of their pattern of participation to a lesser extent.
Yet, if fathers are substantially higher educated than their wives, they may be seen
more as a politically role model compared with fathers who have a similar or lower
level of education compared with their wives. Hence, the difference between
fathers’ and mothers’ level of education may increase the likelihood that children
will copy their fathers’ pattern of political participation. The same may hold for
mothers who are substantially higher educated than their partner. While we do not
anticipate clear gender differences in the extent to which each parent’s own level of
education affects the influence of parental political participation on young adults’
political engagement, some research (Sayer, Bianchi and Robinson 2004) finds that
American higher educated fathers differ more from lower educated fathers
regarding engagement in child care compared with higher/lower educated mothers.
In such case, it could be that education influences the effect of parental political
participation on young adults’ participation stronger among fathers than among
mothers.
DATA AND MEASUREMENT
Data
The hypotheses and tentative expectations presented above were tested using data
from the Swiss Household Panel (SHP). The SHP is a yearly panel study collecting
9
data from all household members in randomly selected households in Switzerland.
Because the Swiss Household Panel collects data from all household members and
includes several questions about political attitudes, it is especially well suited for
examining the inter- generational transmission of political participation. Most
studies on socialization rely on family-level estimates obtained from young
respondents, and no information is available directly from the parents. In the
present study, however, we can rely on the parents’ own answers regarding their
political participation.
In each wave all respondents aged 18 to 25 who claimed Swiss nationality and
whose parents both responded, were selected, yielding 3,006 observations.
Dependent Variables
To measure political participation, two different types of political participation are
considered: voting and activism. As such, we will explore to what extent
intergenerational transmission varies between an institutionalized type of political
participation and a less mainstream type of political participation. Voting
frequencywas measured by asking respondents: “Let’s suppose there are 10 federal
polls in a year. How many do you usually take part in?” Activism was assessed by
asking on an 11-point scale (0–10, with the end points on the scale labeled as 0 =
never and 10 = certainly): “To what extent, in the future, are you prepared to a) take
part in a boycott, b) take part in a strike, c) take part in a demonstration.” Hence, our
measurement refers to anticipated activism rather than actual behavior.
Unfortunately, the SHP does not include a measure of actual participation in these
types of activities and is admittedly unable to determine if intentions translate into
actual behavior. Hence, our results may not be indicative of actual participatory
10
behavior but are instead indicative of intentions for becoming involved in political
activism in the future. The scores on the three variables (boycott, strike, and
demonstration) were averaged and collapsed in one indicator of political activism
(Cronbach’s Alpha=.87).
Independent Variables
The main explanatory variables of our study are mothers’ and fathers’ political
participation. Voting frequency and anticipated activism are operationalized in the
same way as the dependent variables described above and are centered around
their mean.
We further included mothers’ and fathers’ political interest. Growing up with
parents who are politically interested may shape young adults’ levels of
participation. The question asked was “Generally, how interested are you in politics”,
where respondents could answer on a scale of 0 (not at all interested) to 10 (very
interested).The variable was introduced as a continuous variable and centered
around its mean. Furthermore, we introduced the parents’ levels of education.
Parents’ levels of education may directly influence youngsters’ level of participation
and may thus mediate the effect of parental participation on youngsters’
participation. Moreover, we anticipate the extent of intergenerational transmission
to differ according to the level of education. In our main model, we included the
level of education of fathers and mothers separately. The level of education was
measured in 11 categories (0=incomplete compulsory school; 1=compulsory school;
2=domestic science course (1 year school); 3=general training school,
4=apprenticeship; 5=fulltime vocational school; 6=bachelor (maturité); 7=vocational
high school with master certificate; 8=technical or vocational school; 9=higher
11
vocational education; 10=university). The variable was introduced as a continuous
variable and centered around the middle category (level 4: apprenticeship).
Besides parental characteristics, we also introduced different attributes of
the respondent. Children often resemble their parents via status inheritance and a
shared social milieu. Children whose parents are advantaged in socioeconomic terms
are thus not only likely to grow up in a family with much resources and in a politically
rich context, but are also likely themselves to attain a higher socioeconomic status
(e.g., Jennings, Stoker and Bowers 2009; Verba, Schlozman and Burns 2005). Hence,
it is important to control for these socioeconomic characteristics of the young adults
if we want to know the net effect of parental political participation. Educational level
was operationalized in the same way as for the parents. In addition, we included a
dummy for whether the child was still enrolled in school. This dummy reflects the
institutional or social integration of the children and controls for the fact that young
people’s educational level at school is obviously influenced by the fact that they are
still completing their education. Occupational status was measured using the
Erikson-Goldhorpe-Portocarero classification (EGP), which is based on employment
status and occupation (Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992). The scale of originally 11
categories was recoded into three dummy variables. The low status group included
semi- and unskilled manual employees, farm labor and self- employed farmers, the
medium status group contained self-employed with and without employees, manual
supervisors, skilled manual employees and routine non- manual employees, and the
high status group was made up of higher controllers and low controllers. The
medium status group functioned as the reference category.
We further controlled for church attendance in order to account for the
12
effects of religious organizational participation on political participation. Religious
involvement may help to develop civic skills and expose young adults to requests to
get involved in political activities. Frequency of church attendance ranged from 0
(never) to 8 (several times a week). We made additional adjustments for the role of
individual characteristics through the inclusion of age as a continuous variable and
gender with the value 0 for male and 1 for female respondents as control variables.
We also introduced the youngsters’ political interest. Political interest was coded
similarly to the parental political interest as presented above. Finally, two dummy
variables were included, one for French and one for Italian to contrast against the
German speaking respondents.
Analytical Strategy
In the analyses below, we examine the effect of parental political participation on
young people’s level of political participation. Since we use panel data, we have
multiple observations within persons who are nested within parents and thus non-
independent observations, making ordinary regression models unsuitable. Rather
than losing information by using only one observation per respondent and one child
per parent, we chose to use all observations available. To control for the clustered
structure of the data, we apply a multilevel model with observations nested within
individuals (Snijders and Bosker, 1999). Multilevel analysis models responses in
different waves within and between individuals by estimating regression equations
on both levels simultaneously. Multilevel models therefore take account of the
nested structure of the data and use the right number of cases. Preliminary analyses
indicated that the variance on the family level was not significant in most models
(the group sizes are small, and many families have only one adult child in the data).
13
Hence, we present the more parsimonious two-level models. The models on voting
frequency have 1,022 Level 2 observations (individuals) and 2,759 Level 1
observations (observations for different years within individuals). For the models on
activism the analytical sample sizes are 1,092 and 2,989 respectively.
Since both our dependent variables (voting frequency and anticipated
activism) are continuous variables, linear regressions were performed. For each
dependent variable, four models are presented. The first model is the base model
and includes mothers’ and fathers’ political participation in addition to all control
variables. To investigate the potential that the effect of mothers’ and fathers’
political participation matters differently according to parental level of education,
three interaction models were run. These models include interactions between
mothers’ and fathers’ political participation and three different measures of parental
level of education. The first interaction model includes interaction terms between
mothers’ and fathers’ participation and their separate educational level
opartionalized as described above. In a second interaction model, interaction effects
between mothers’ and fathers’ participation and the family level of education. The
family level of education is measured as the sum of fathers’ and mothers’ level of
education. Finally, the third interaction model adds interaction effects between
mothers’ and fathers’ participation and the relative level of education. The latter
measurement of education was calculated by subtracting mothers’ level education
of fathers’ level of education. Hence, the more positive the relative measure of
educational level, the higher fathers’ level of education compared with mothers’
level of education. Note that the main effects of the measures of parental education
introduced in the different interaction models obviously differ between the different
14
models. The first interaction model which includes the interaction effect between
mothers’ and fathers’ participation and their separate level of education includes
mothers’ and fathers’ level of education as in the base model. The second
interaction model, which adds the interaction between mothers’ and fathers’
participation and the family level of education, only includes the effect of the family
level of education. The third interaction model only includes the relative parental
level of education as main effect.
Descriptive statistics for all variables included in our analyses are provided in
the Appendix.
RESULTS
Table 1 presents the results of our base models for both voting frequency and
anticipated activism.
[Insert Table 1 about here]
As can be seen from Table 1, both mothers’ and fathers’ patterns of political
participation substantially influence both young adults’ voting frequency and
anticipated activism. Hence, generational transmission of political participation
seems to occur equally for institutionalized and less mainstream types of political
participation. The statistically significant and positive effect of parental participation
even once parental level of education and political interest and an array of young
adults’ characteristics are controlled for, indicates strong processes of political
reproduction for both voting and anticipated political activism. Regarding voting,
mothers’ voting frequency seems to have a slightly stronger impact on young adult’s
voting frequency compared with fathers, supporting our first hypothesis. Yet, our
results do no reveal such gender difference for anticipated activism.
15
Looking at the other parental characteristics, we find limited significant
effects. This lack of statistical significant effects of parental characteristics once
parental participation and young adults’ characteristics are accounted for, suggests
little association between other family socioeconomic characteristics and political
engagement of young adults. Political participation among parents do clearly better
at predicting political participation among young adults than parental level of
education and political interest. Only fathers’ level of education has a substantial
impact on young adults’ anticipated activism once parental activism is included.
Young adults who grow up in a family with a higher educated father are more likely
to be prepared to take part in a boycott, strike, or demonstration in the future than
those who are not raised in such family.
Focusing on the young adults’ characteristics, we see that both voting
frequency and activism decrease with age. Thus, first time voters of 18 years are
more likely to participate in polls and to consider to participate in boycotts, strikes or
demonstrations compared to older young adults. Not unexpectedly, being politically
interested is a potent predictor and increases the likelihood to participate in
elections and activism. Furthermore, women and higher educated young adults are
slightly more likely to participate frequently in polls. Young adults of the higher
occupation group are less likely to be involved in political activism in the future
compared with those of the middle group of occupations. Church attendance also
decreases the probability to be involved in political activism. Finally, Italian speaking
young adults participate more frequently at polls compared with their German
speaking counterparts. French speaking young adults’ are more likely to consider
engagement in political activism compared with German speaking young adults.
16
To further illustrate the effect of mothers and fathers pattern of political
participation on their offspring’s political engagement, we calculated predicted
scores. Figure 1 presents the predicted scores for young adults’ voting frequency
according to their mothers’ and fathers’ voting frequency. Figure 2 illustrates the
predicted scores for anticipated activism. In each illustration, all other characteristics
are held constant, meaning that the figure presents the results for young adults of 18
years old, with apprenticeship as level of education (i.c., the mean level of
education), mean level of political interest, medium level of occupation, male,
German-speaking, who finished school and do not attend church, and whose parents
have mean levels of political interest and whose level of education is apprenticeship.
[Insert Figure 1 and Figure 2 about here]
The figures show an increase in young adults’ voting frequency and
anticipated activism with increasing levels of such participation of their parents. At
least for our reference group, the increase seems stronger for voting than for
anticipated activism. Moreover, the figures clearly illustrate that whereas the lines
for mothers’ and father’s anticipated activism are parallel, they are not for voting
frequency. Figure 1 shows nicely how young adults’ voting frequency changes more
substantially according to mothers’ voting frequency compared with fathers’.
Comparing Figure 1 and 2, young adult’s voting frequency seems to increase more
with increasing level of parental participation compared with young adult’s
anticipated activism, indicating that parental influence is stronger for a more
mainstream type of participation such as voting compared with a less institutional
type of participation such as political activism.
17
After having described the results of our base model for electoral and non-
electoral (anticipated) participation, we now extend the analyses to consider to what
extent the parental level of education influences the effect of parental political
participation. Table 2 contains the interaction models which include interactions
effects between fathers’ and mothers’ political participation and our three different
measures of parental level of education level (mothers’ and fathers’ level of
education separately, family level of education, and relative level of education).
[Insert Table 2 about here]
Focusing first on the interaction terms of parental participation and mothers’ and
fathers’ separate levels of education, we see that higher education increases the
positive effect of mothers’ anticipated political activism on young adults’ likelihood
to consider political activism. In other words, higher educated mothers are more
likely to transfer their pattern of political activism compared with lower educated
mothers, supporting our second hypothesis. We do not find such boosting effect of
education among fathers, nor for the more conventional type of political
participation, namely voting frequency. Mothers also seem to benefit from a higher
family level of education (i.c. sum of mothers’ and fathers’ level of education) as we
had tentatively anticipated. Indeed, an interaction term between mothers’ activism
and family level of education has a positive and significant impact on young adults
activism. Note also that the main effect of mothers’ activism ceases to be significant
once the interaction term is introduced, indicating that among the reference group,
family’s with an average level of education (apprenticeship) – mothers’ activism does
not significantly influence the anticipated activism of young adults. We do not find a
significant effect of the interaction between fathers’ anticipated activism and family
18
level of education. Hence, only mothers benefit from a higher level of education
within the family as a whole. Hence, the family educational context seems only to be
relevant for mothers’ effect on participation. The extent that fathers model their
offspring’s participation is irrespective of this family context. Our findings also
suggest that the impact of fathers’ and mothers’ voting pattern does not depend on
the family level of education.
Finally, shifting to the analyses including interactions between parental
political participation and the relative level of education (i.c. fathers’ level of
education minus mothers’ level of education), we find – as was the case in the other
interaction models – no significant effect of the interaction terms for the electoral
form of participation. Hence, at least for voting, parental influence does not seem to
significantly differ according to level of education. Yet, we do find a significant and
positive interaction term between fathers’ anticipated activism and the relative level
of education. The higher fathers’ level of education compared with mothers’ level of
education, the more successful fathers’ intergenerational transmission of their
pattern of political activism. Hence, fathers who are higher educated in comparison
with their partner are more likely to influence their offspring’s anticipated
engagement in political activism compared with fathers who are similarly or lower
educated than their partners. We do not find a similar boosting effect for mothers.
The effect of mothers’ anticipated activism does not differ according to the
difference in their level of education compared with their husbands’ level of
education.
19
CONCLUSION
The aim of this study was to investigate family socialization into voting and political
activism. The results based on data collected independently from young adults and
their parents from the Swiss Household Panel Survey (1999-2008) show a clear
pattern of intergenerational transmission. Mothers’ and fathers’ political
participation have a substantial positive effect on their offspring’s (anticipated)
participation in political activities that take place both inside and outside the
electoral political arena, though the effect seemed more substantial for voting
frequency compared with anticipated activism. The effects of parental patterns of
participation are robust and hold even after controlling for other parental and young
adult socioeconomic attributes. Hence, our findings reinforce the social learning
theory and support findings in the research stream of political family socialization. In
fact, our analyses reveal limited effect of parental level of education and political
interest, indicating that what parents do in terms of political participation is more
important than who they are. Yet, differences in the extent of intergenerational
transmission occurred according to who the parents are. First, mothers seemed
slightly more likely to influence the voting frequency of the young adults compared
with fathers. Second, differences in the success of intergenerational transmission of
patterns of political participation were found among family settings, and more
precisely according to parental levels of education. In order to form a comprehensive
picture of such differences according to the parental levels of education, we
considered three different measures of the level of education: mothers’ and fathers’
separate level of education, the family level of education and the difference
between fathers’ and mothers’ level of education. Such a distinction proofed highly
20
relevant. In particular, mothers who are higher educated or who belong to higher
educated families are more successful in transmitting their pattern of activism
compared with mothers who are lower educated or belong to a lower educated
family. This does not hold for fathers. Thus, the own educational level and the family
educational environment is especially important for women. Yet, the higher fathers
are educated compared with their partners, the more likely they are to influence
their offspring’s anticipated activism compared with fathers who have a similar level
of education than their partners. Mothers do not profit from a possible difference
with their partners’ level of education. Furthermore, we find evidence that
intergenerational transmission of the voting pattern does not depend on any
measure of education. This is true of mothers and fathers alike.
We trust that these results make an interesting contribution to the study on
political socialization. Indeed, by considering mothers and fathers separately and by
looking at variation in intergenerational transmission according to different
measures of the parental level of education, we have been able to show which
parents are most successful in transmitting their pattern of participation under
which circumstances. This has not been given enough attention in previous studies.
The exciting next step is to further understand the reason why parental level of
education matters (at least partly) for anticipated activism but not for voting
frequency, and why mothers seem to benefit most from a higher level of education,
both of their own and within the family, whereas a greater difference between
fathers’ and mothers’ level of education boosts fathers’ success in intergenerational
transmission of anticipated activism. The fact that mothers are on average lower
educated and politically less interested and active may result in a stronger effect of
21
their education. Next to more cognitive and political skills and capacities between
higher and lower educated mothers, issues such as the quality of the relationship
and frequency of interaction may also differ more among lower and higher educated
mothers compared with lower and higher education fathers, resulting in a more
boosting effect of education among mothers. This also brings us to another
interesting endeavor in future research. Indeed, whereas our focus was on variety in
intergenerational transmission according to parental level of education, the
likelihood of reproduction of political participation may also vary by young adults’
characteristics and the relationship between young adults and their parents. Hence,
an interesting further step would be to test which children are most likely to adapt
their parents’ pattern of political participation. Furthermore, future research may
test how young adults influence their parents’ pattern of political participation.
Indeed, although the causality implied among the variables in our models is
consistent with the literature related to the social learning theory, an argument can
be made for reverse causality in the models (e.g., McDevitt 2005) and thus consider
how young adults may affect their parents’ pattern of political participation.
To conclude, there is clear evidence that parents model young adults’
political participation in both conventional and less mainstream types of
participation. At the same time, our results add to the conventional wisdom of the
social learning theory. We have made clear that the fashion in which patterns of
political participation are transmitted across generations differs partially along
parental gender lines in interaction with parental levels of education. The finding
that some indicators of higher education have a boosting effect on the parents’
pattern of political participation on their offspring’s level of engagement, has
22
important implications for both political socialization and participation. Indeed, since
higher educated parents are more likely to engage in political activism and seem
somewhat more likely to transmit this pattern to their offspring, political
socialization may lead to further strengthen inequality in participation between
educational groups.
REFERENCES
Bao, W.-N., Whitbeck, L.B., Hoyt, D.R., Conger, R.D. 1999.“Perceived Parental
Acceptance as a Moderator or Religious Transmission among Adolescent Boys
and Girls.”Journal of the Marriage and the Family 61: 362-374.
Beck, P.A., Jennings, M.K. 1975. “”Middlepersons” in Political Socialization.” Journal
of Politics 37: 83-107.
Bianchi, S.M., Robinson, J., 1997. “What Did You Do Today? Children’s Use of Time,
Family Composition, and the Acquisition of Social Capital.” Journal of
Marriage and the Family 59: 332-344.
Blais, A., Gidengil, E., Nevitte, N., Nadeau, R. 2004. “Where Does turnout Decline
Come From?” European Journal of Political Research 43, 221-236.
Burns, N. (2007). Gender in the Aggregate, Gender in the Individual, Gender and
Political Action. Politics & Gender3, 104–124.
Clarke H.D., Sanders, D., Stewart, M.C., Whiteley, P. 2004. Political Choice in
Britain.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coffé, H., Bolzendahl, C. 2010. “Same Game, Different Rules? Gender Differences in
Political Participation.” Sex Roles 62: 318-333.
Dalton, R. 2008. The Good Citizen. How a Younger Generation is Reshaping American
Politics. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
23
Erikson, R., Goldthorpe, J.H., 1992. The Constant Flux: A Study of Class Mobility in
Industrial Society.Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gidengil, E., O’Neill, B., Young, L. 2010. “Her Mother’s Daughter? The Influence of
Childhood Socialization on Women’s Political Engagement.” Journal of
Women, Politics & Policy 31: 334-355.
Jaspers, E., Lubbers, M., de Vries, J. 2008. “Parents, Children, and the Distance
between Them: Long Term Socialization Effects in the Netherlands.” Journal
of Comparative Family Studies 39(1): 39-58.
Jennings, M.K. 2007. “Political Socialization” In Dalton, R.J., Klingemann, H.-D. (Eds.)
The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 29-44.
Jennings, M.K., Stoker, L., Bowers, J. 2009. “Politics Across Generations: Family
Transmission Reexamined.” Journal of Politics 71: 782-799.
McDevitt, M. 2005. “The Partisan Child: Developmental Provocation as a Model of
Political Socialization.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 18(1):
67-88.
Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community. New York: Touchstone.
Roscigno, V. J., Ainsworth-Darnell, J.W. 1999. “Race and Cultural/Educational
Resources: Inequality, Micro-Political Processes, and Achievement Returns.”
Sociology of Education 72:158-178.
Sayer, L.C., Bianchi, S.M., Robinson, J.P. 2004.“Are Parents Investing Less in Children?
Trends in Mothers’ and Fathers’ Time with Children.” American Journal of
Sociology 110: 1-43
24
Snijders, T.A.B., Bosker, R.J. 1999. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and
Advanced Multilevel Modeling. London: Sage.
Verba, S., Burns, N., &Schlozman, K. L. (1997). “Knowing and Caring about Politics:
Gender and Political Engagement.”The Journal of Politics 59: 1051–1072.
Verba, S., Scholzman, K.L., Burns, N. 2005. “Family Ties: Understanding the
Intergenerational Transmission of Political Participation.” In Zuckerman, A.S.
(Ed.) The Social Logic of Politics: Personal Networks as Contexts for Political
Behavior. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, pp. 95-114.
Wattenberg, M.P. 2007. Is Voting for Young People? New York: Longman.
25
Table 1. Results multilevel regression analyses for voting and anticipated activism
among young adults.
Voting frequency
Anticipated activism
B Std.
Error
B Std.
Error
Parents’ characteristics
Mother voting .211 *** .025
Father voting .138 *** .026
Mother activism .104 *** .017
Father activism .113 *** .018
Mother pol. interest .018 .026 -.030 .024
Father pol. interest .001 .028 -.009 .027
Mother education -.002 .033 .017 .033
Father education .046 .031 .082 ** .031
Young adults’ characteristics
Education .050 * .025 -.010 .024
In school .062 .099 -.047 .095
Occupation (ref. medium status
occupation)
No occupation .090 .114 .049 .110
Low status occupation .069 .176 -.079 .168
High status occupation .151 .130 -.334 * .127
Church attendance .067 .034 -.073 * .034
Age -.096 *** .024 -.053 * .023
Female .292 * .146 .229 .146
Political interest .044 *** .024 .184 .023
Language (ref. German)
French .266 .499 .594 *** .169
Italian 1.421 ** .499 .167 .463
Constant
8.652
***
.545
5.675
.528
N
Level 1
2,759
2,989
Level 2 1,022 1,092
Log likelihood -6,101.176 -6,628.515
Source: Swiss Household Panel (1999-2008)
*P<.05 **P<0.01 ***P<0.001 (two-tailed)
26
Table 2. Results multilevel regression analyses for voting and anticipated activism among young adults (interaction models with different measures of
parental education)
Voting frequency Anticipated activism Voting frequency Anticipated activism Voting frequency Anticipated activism
B Std.
Error
B Std.
Error
B Std.
Error
B Std.
Error
B Std.
Error
B Std.
Error
Parents’ characteristics
Mother voting .211 *** .025 .168 * .067 .197 *** .029
Father voting .112 *** .031 .079 .071 .131 *** .028
Mother activism .088 *** .018 -.000 .048 .118 *** .020
Father activism .101 *** .024 .141 ** .048 .097 *** .020
Mother pol. interest .017 .026 -.028 .024 .017 .026 -.029 .024 .023 .026 -.018 .024
Father pol. interest -.001 .028 -.007 .027 .002 .028 -.009 .027 .004 .028 .005 .027
Mother education -.005 .033 .013 .033
Father education .046 .031 .082 ** .031
Total education .021 .018 .050 ** .018
Relative education .027 .026 .046 .026
Interaction terms
Mother voting*m. ed. -.000 .010
Father voting*f. ed. .017 .010
Mother activism*m. ed. .016 * .007
Father activism*f. ed. .004 .007
Mother voting*tot. ed. .004 .006
Father voting*tot. ed. .006 .007
Mother activism*tot. ed. .009 * .004
Father activism*tot. ed. -.003 .004
Mother voting*rel. ed. .008 .009
Father voting*rel. ed. .008 .009
Mother activism*rel. ed. -.008 .006
Father activism*rel. ed. .014 * .007
27
Table 2 continued
Voting frequency Anticipated activism Voting frequency Anticipated activism Voting frequency Anticipated activism
B Std.
Error
B Std.
Error
B Std.
Error
B Std.
Error
B Std.
Error
B Std.
Error
Young adults’
characteristics
Education .047 .025 -.011 .024 .048 .025 -.010 .024 .051 .025 -.001 .024
In school .056 .099 -.053 .095 .055 .099 -.054 .095 .071 .098 -.019 .095
Occupation (ref. medium
status occupation)
No occupation .083 .114 .054 .110 .083 .114 .049 .110 .104 .113 .081 .110
Low status occup. .066 .175 -.081 .168 .061 .176 -.090 .168 .069 .175 -.056 .168
High status occup. .150 .130 -.329 ** .127 .151 .130 -.330 ** .127 .161 .130 -.316 * .127
Church attendance .068 * .034 -.074 * .034 .068 * .034 -.074 * .034 .065 .034 -.077 * .034
Age -.095 *** .024 -.054 * .023 -.096 *** .024 -.054 * .023 -.095 *** .024 -.056 * .023
Female .302 * .146 .234 .146 .304 * .146 .227 .146 .304 * .146 .246 .146
Political interest .446 *** .024 .184 *** .023 .446 *** .024 .185 *** .023 .448 *** .023 .190 *** .022
Language (ref. German)
French .280 .169 .613 *** .169 .259 .169 .595 *** .169 .294 .169 .634 *** .169
Italian 1.457 ** .499 .175 .462 1.415 ** .498 .156 .463 1.415 ** .500 .115 .464
Constant
8.612
***
.545
5.656
***
.527
8.504
***
.580
5.533
***
.562
8.680
***
.542
5.840
***
.524
N
Level 1
2,759
2,989
2,759
2,989
2,759
2,989
Level 2 1,022 1,092 1,022 1,092 1,022 1,092
Log likelihood -6,099.765 -6,625.541 -6,100.643 -6,626.638 -6,100.738 -6,629.692
Source: Swiss Household Panel (1999-2008)
*P<.05 **P<0.01 ***P<0.001 (two-tailed)
28
Figure 1. Predicted scores for voting frequency according to mothers’ and fathers’ voting frequency
Figure 2. Predicted scores for anticipated activism according to mothers’ and fathers’
anticipated activism
29
Appendix. Descriptive statistics for all variables (3,006 observations from 1,092
respondents).
Range Mean SD
Dependent Variables
Voting 7.368 3.069 0-10
Anticipated activism 4.865 2.843 0-10
Independent Variables
Parents’ Characteristics
Mother voting 8.266 2.579 0-10
Father voting 8.564 2.247 0-10
Mother anticipated activism 4.020 3.285 0-10
Father anticipated activism 4.056 3.105 0-10
Mother political interest 5.932 2.474 0-10
Father political interest 6.962 2.129 0-10
Mother education 5.016 2.446 0-10
Father education 6.528 2.621 0-10
Young adults’ Characteristics
Education 3.849 2.632 0-10
In school 0.644 0.479 0-1
No occupation 0.327 0.469 0-1
Low status occupation 0.094 0.292 0-1
Medium status occupation 0.355 0.479 0-1
High status occupation 0.224 0.417 0-1
Church attendance 2.198 1.646 0-7
Age 20.942 2.404 18-26
Female 0.483 0.500 0-1
Political interest 5.446 2.508 0-1
French speaking 0.248 0.432 0-1
Italian speaking 0.024 0.153 0-1
German speaking 0.721 0.449 0-1
Source: Swiss Household Panel (1999-2008)
