Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Political Behavior
Erschienen in: Political Behavior 4/2020

19.02.2019 | Original Paper

The Resistance as Role Model: Disillusionment and Protest Among American Adolescents After 2016

verfasst von: David E. Campbell, Christina Wolbrecht

Erschienen in: Political Behavior | Ausgabe 4/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

We examine whether the unprecedented 2016 presidential election led to political disillusionment among young people, whether that disillusionment led to a withdrawal from politics or an intention to be more politically active, and if those effects vary by gender and partisan identity. Using a nationally-representative panel study of adolescents and their parents, we find that Democratic girls became more pessimistic about the responsiveness of the American political system in the wake of 2016. Democratic girls in general became substantially more interested in engaging in political protest after 2016, especially Democratic girls who became disillusioned with American politics. In addition, having a parent who became more likely to engage in protest after 2016 also encouraged more interest in protest among adolescents. We view these outcomes as evidence of the gendered character of the 2016 election (including the first woman nominee and the sexist language and behavior of her opponent) and the impact of activists in girls’ communities and families who served as role models for responding to the current political moment.
Vorheriger Artikel It’s Who’s on the Inside that Counts: Campaign Practitioner Personality and Campaign Electoral Integrity
Nächster Artikel Religion, Sectarianism, and Democracy: Theory and Evidence from Lebanon

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
Unfortunately, our data do not include measures of emotional responses to politics, so we cannot gauge the presence and impact of feelings such as anger among young people in our study (see Valentino et al. 2011), but acknowledge we may be capturing some of the impact of emotional responses.
 
2
Baxter and Lansing (1980, p. 51) note that “Instead of interpreting the difference [in personal political efficacy] as an inadequacy of women, we suggest that given the very limited number of issues that citizens can affect, the lower sense of political efficacy expressed by women may be a perceptive assessment of the political process. Men, on the other hand, express irrationally high rates of efficacy.”
 
3
Sixty percent is the rate for completed interviews with both parents and teens. Owing to partially completed surveys, in some models the number of cases is slightly higher.
 
4
The demographic profiles of Wave 1 and Wave 2 are very similar, suggesting that panel attrition has not introduced bias. Because the demographics of the two waves are so similar, we have opted to present models for 2016 (Wave 1) with all of the Wave 1 respondents. The appendix includes 2016 models that include only those respondents who were re-interviewed in 2017 (Tables 6, 7, 8 in Online Appendix). Not surprisingly, results are substantively unchanged from those presented in the paper.
 
5
Substantive results are identical with the 5-category scale as a dependent variable.
 
6
Party identification was coded using the standard 7-point scale. Partisans include “independent learners.”
 
7
This conclusion is drawn from the authors’ analysis of the Monitoring the Future surveys. Details available upon request.
 
8
The coefficient for Female × Democrat drop slightly in magnitude, from − 0.647 to − 0.547. Its significance level goes from p = 0.037 to p = 0.097.
 
9
We estimated a model for which the parental measure of democratic disillusionment in 2017 is the dependent variable, controlling for the same measure in 2016, and containing the same control variables as the models of adolescents’ attitudes. The interaction between Female × Democrat is nowhere near statistical significance. This means that, among the parents in our sample, Democratic-identifying women were not more likely to express discontent with the political system. See Table 9 in Online Appendix for the full results.
 
10
The index also includes “boycott certain products or stores,” which we have omitted because it is less directly related to presidential campaigning and the aftermath of the 2016 election.
 
11
This paragraph draws from the authors’ analysis of the Monitoring the Future surveys. Details available upon request.
 
12
The reader may wonder what happens when the dependent variable is whether teens actually marched in a protest. A logistic regression model with a dependent variable coded 1 if the teen reports having participated in a demonstration and 0 otherwise shows that Democratic teens, whether boys or girls, are more likely to have reported participating in a demonstration in 2017 (controlling for their activity in 2016). That is, the coefficient for Democrat is positive and significant (p < 0.10). However, given the small N of our sample, we have relatively few cases of teens who protested—a total of 47 overall, of whom 33 are Democrats, and 21 are Democratic girls. With such a small number of cases, our results are tenuous at best.
 
13
It would be informative to compare the impact of mothers versus fathers (see Oxley 2017). However, because the survey did not ask the responding parent to report on the behavior of the other, we are unable to isolate the impact of each parent’s activity.
 
14
Among Democratic girls, 37% became disillusioned between 2016 and 2017, 47% did not change their view, and 16% became more positive about the political system’s responsiveness.
 
15
Details available upon request.
 
Literatur
Alozie, N. O., Simon, J., & Merrill, B. D. (2003). Gender and political orientation in childhood. The Social Science Journal, 40, 1–18.
Alter, C. (2018). A year ago, they marched. Now a record number of women are running for office, Time, January 29.
Alwin, D. F., Cohen, R. L., & Newcomb, T. M. (1991). Political attitudes over the life span: The Bennington women after fifty years. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Anderson, C. J., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Listhaug, O. (2005). Loser’s consent: Elections and democratic legitimacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Atkeson, L. R. (2003). Not all cues are created equal: The conditional impact of female candidates on political engagement. The Journal of Politics, 65(4), 1040–1061.
Atkeson, L. R., & Rapoport, R. B. (2003). The more things change the more they stay the same: Examining gender differences in political attitude expression, 1952–2000. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 495–521.
Bandura, A. (1969). Social-learning theory of identifactory processes. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company.
Baxter, S., & Lansing, M. (1980). Women & politics: The visible majority. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Beck, P., & Jennings, M. K. (1982). Pathways to participation. American Political Science Review, 76(1), 94–108.
Beck, P. A., & Jennings, M. K. (1991) Family traditions, political periods, and the development of partisan orientations. The Journal of Politics, 53(3), 742–763.
Bennett, L. L. M., & Bennett, S. E. (1989). Enduring gender differences in political interest: The impact of socialization & political dispositions. American Politics Quarterly, 17, 105–122.
Biggs, J. E. (2008). Young women and politics: An oxymoron? Journal of Youth Studies, 11, 579–592.
Brinkman, B. G. (2017). Promoting adolescent girls’ civic engagement and activism. In A. L. Bos & M. C. Schneider (Eds.), The political psychology of women in US politics (pp. 34–50). New York: Routledge.
Broockman, D. E. (2014). Do female politicians empower women to vote or run for office ? A regression discontinuity approach. Electoral Studies, 34, 190–204.
Burns, N., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (1995). The private roots of public action: gender, equality, & political participation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Campbell, E. Q. (1969). Adolescent socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company.
Campbell, A. L. (2003). How policies make citizens: Senior political activism and the American welfare state. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Campbell, D. E. (2008). Why we vote: How schools & communities shape our civic life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The american voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Campbell, D. E., & Wolbrecht, C. (2006). See Jane Run: Women Politicians as role models for adolescents. The Journal of Politics, 68(2), 233–247.
Citrin, J., & Stoker, L. (2018). Political trust in a cynical age. Annual Review of Political Science, 21, 49–70.
Clinton, H. (@HillaryClinton). (2016). To every little girl who dreams big: Yes, you can be anything you want—even president. Tonight is for you. –H. June 7, 8:08 p.m. Tweet.
Collingwood, L., Lajevardi, N., & Oskooii, K. A. R. (2018). A change of heart? Why individual-level public opinion shifted against Trump’s “Muslim Ban”. Political Behavior, 40, 1035–1072.
Conway, M. M. (1985). Political participation in the United States. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 448–474.
Dolan, K. (2006). Symbolic mobilization? The impact of candidate sex in American elections. American Politics Research, 34(6), 687–704.
Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(February), 57–79.
Easton, D. (1975). A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science, 5(October), 435–457.
Freeman, J. (1975). The politics of women’s liberation. New York: McKay Company Inc.
Ganley, C. M., George, C. E., Cimpian, J. R., & Makowski, M. B. (2018). Gender equity in college majors: looking beyond the STEM/non-STEM dichotomy for answers regarding female participation. American Educational Research Journal, 55(June), 453–487.
Gilardi, F. (2015). The temporary importance of role models for women’s political representation. American Journal of Political Science, 59(4), 957–970.
Gniewosz, B., Noack, P., & Buhl, M. (2009). Political alienation in adolescence: Associations with parental role models, parenting styles, and classroom climate. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22(4), 337–346.
Greenstein, F. I. (1969). Children & politics (Revised ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Han, H. (2009). Moved to action: Motivation, participation & inequality in American politics. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Hanmer, M. J., & Kalkan, K. O. (2013). Behind the curve: Clarifying the best approach to calculating predicted probabilities & marginal effect from limited dependent variable models. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 263–277.
Hansen, S. B. (1997). Talking about politics: Gender & contextual effects on political proselytizing. The Journal of Politics, 59(1), 73–103.
Huddy, L. & Willmann, J. (2017). Partisan sorting & the feminist gap in American politics. Working paper.
Jennings, M. K. (1987). Residues of a movement: The aging of the american protest generation. The American Political Science Review, 81(2), 367–382.
Jennings, M. K. (2002). Generational units & the student protest movement in the United States: An intra- & intergenerational analysis. Political Psychology, 23(2), 303–324.
Jennings, M. K., Stoker, L., & Bowers, J. (2009). Politics across generations: Family Transmission reexamined. The Journal of Politics, 71(3), 782–799.
Johnston, Lloyd D, Jerald G. Bachman, Patrick M. O’Malley, John E. Schulenberg, & Richard A. Miech. (2016). “Monitoring the future: A continuing study of American youth (12th-Grade Survey).” ICPSR 36798. http://​www.​monitoringthefut​ure.​org/​.
Kanthak, K., & Woon, J. (2015). Women don’t run? Election aversion & candidate entry. American Journal of Political Science, 59(July), 595–612.
Knol, M. J., Pestman, W. R., & Grobbee, D. E. (2011). The (mis)use of overlap of confidence intervals to assess effect modification. European Journal of Epidemiology, 26(4), 253–254.
Koch, J. (1997). Candidate gender & women’s psychological engagement in politics. American Politics Quarterly, 25(1), 118–133.
Krosnick, J. A., Visser, P. S., & Harder, J. (2010). The psychological underpinnings of political behavior. Handbook of social psychology. New York: Wiley.
Lawless, J. L. (2004). Politics of presence? Congresswomen & symbolic representation. Political Research Quarterly, 57(1), 81–99.
Lawless, J. L., & Fox, R. L. (2010). It still takes a candidate: Why women don’t run for office. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lips, H. M. (1995). Gender-Role Socialization: Lessons in Femininity. In Jo Freeman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective. Mountain View: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Lizotte, M. (2017). The gender gap in public opinion: exploring social role theory as an explanation. In A. L. Bos & M. C. Schneider (Eds.), The political psychology of women in U.S. politics. New York: Routledge.
Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In P. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge. London: Kegan Paul Ltd.
Mansbridge, J. (1999). Should blacks represent blacks & women represent women? A contingent ‘yes’. The Journal of Politics, 61(3), 628–657.
Mariani, M., Marshall, B. W., & Mathews-Schultz, A. L. (2015). See Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, & Sarah Palin Run? Party, ideology, & the influence of female role models on young women. Political Research Quarterly, 68(4), 716–731.
Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2004). Threat as a motivator of political activism: A field experiment. Political Psychology, 25(August), 507–523.
Mounk, Y. (2018). The people vs. democracy: Why our freedom is in danger & how to save it. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Muller, E. N., Dietz, H. A., & Finkel, S. E. (1991). Discontent & the expected utility of rebellion: The case of Peru. American Political Science Review, 85(December), 1261–1282.
Oxley, Z. M. (2017). Gender and the socialization of party identification. In A. L. Bos & M. C. Schneider (Eds.), The political psychology of women in U.S. politics (pp. 15–33). New York: Routledge.
Phillips, A. (1995). The politics of presence. New York: Clarendon Press.
Sears, D. O. (1983). The persistence of early predispositions. In L. Wheeler & P. Shaver (Eds.), Review of personality & social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 79–116). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Shadmehr, M. (2014). Mobilization, repression, & revolution: Grievances & opportunities in contentious politics. The Journal of Politics, 76(July), 621–635.
Stoker, L., & Jennings, M. K. (2008). Of time & partisan polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 52(July), 619–635.
Valentino, N. A., Brader, T., Groenendyk, E. W., Gregorowicz, K., & Hutchings, V. L. (2011). Election night’s alright for fighting: The role of emotions in political participation. The Journal of Politics, 73(January), 156–170.
Wolbrecht, C. (2018). A woman’s place is in the resistance: Women, gender, & American democracy. Memo prepared for the conference: A republic, If We Can Keep It, Cornell Center for the Study of Inequality and New America, Washington, DC, April 12–13. Retrieved August 7, 2018, from https://​cornell.​app.​box.​com/​v/​Memo-Wolbrecht.
Wolbrecht, C., & Campbell, D. E. (2017). Role models revisited: Youth, novelty, & the impact of female candidates. Politics, Groups, & Identities, 5(3), 418–434.
Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., & Yates, M. (1997). What we know about engendering civic identity. The American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 620–631.
Metadaten
Titel
The Resistance as Role Model: Disillusionment and Protest Among American Adolescents After 2016
verfasst von
David E. Campbell
Christina Wolbrecht
Publikationsdatum
19.02.2019
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Political Behavior / Ausgabe 4/2020
Print ISSN: 0190-9320
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-6687
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09537-w

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2020

Political Behavior 4/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

The Partisan and Policy Motivations of Political Donors Seeking Surrogate Representation in House Elections

Original Paper

Direct Democracy, Educative Effects, and the (Mis)Measurement of Ballot Measure Awareness

Original Paper

The Social Desirability of Rallying ’Round the Flag

Original Paper

Real Solutions for Fake News? Measuring the Effectiveness of General Warnings and Fact-Check Tags in Reducing Belief in False Stories on Social Media

Original Paper

A Healthy Democracy? Evidence of Unequal Representation Across Health Status

Original Paper

Do Means of Program Delivery and Distributional Consequences Affect Policy Support? Experimental Evidence About the Sources of Citizens’ Policy Opinions