2018
DOI: 10.3224/pcs.v7i1-2.09
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The moderating role of political interest: Investigating involvement in institutional and non-institutional political participation among young adults in Sweden

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, few studies have examined empirically typologies of youth citizenship defined by active participation and interest (Amnå & Ekman, 2014) and none, to our knowledge, have expanded them by including a dimension of trust or have analyzed them in multinational samples. Thus, the patterns of youth involvement in our analysis are identified by three indicators: (a) activity in civic and political participation , which was expected to distinguish between active and inactive youth; (b) political and social interest , which was expected to distinguish between latently involved and uninvolved youth; (c) trust in institutions and in the political processes , which was expected to differentiate between trustful and distrustful attitude toward the political process (Dahl et al, 2016; Gamson, 1968). We expect to be able to identify up to six groups of adolescents with different combinations of involvement and political trust, distinguishing between: those that are engaged latently and/or actively in a trustful manner, those that are engaged latently and/or actively in a distrustful manner, those that are unengaged while trusting institutions and those that are unengaged and distrustful (i.e., alienated).…”
Section: The Present Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, few studies have examined empirically typologies of youth citizenship defined by active participation and interest (Amnå & Ekman, 2014) and none, to our knowledge, have expanded them by including a dimension of trust or have analyzed them in multinational samples. Thus, the patterns of youth involvement in our analysis are identified by three indicators: (a) activity in civic and political participation , which was expected to distinguish between active and inactive youth; (b) political and social interest , which was expected to distinguish between latently involved and uninvolved youth; (c) trust in institutions and in the political processes , which was expected to differentiate between trustful and distrustful attitude toward the political process (Dahl et al, 2016; Gamson, 1968). We expect to be able to identify up to six groups of adolescents with different combinations of involvement and political trust, distinguishing between: those that are engaged latently and/or actively in a trustful manner, those that are engaged latently and/or actively in a distrustful manner, those that are unengaged while trusting institutions and those that are unengaged and distrustful (i.e., alienated).…”
Section: The Present Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Those dimensions refer to Political Knowledge (PK), Political Interest (PI), and Political Efficacy (PE). Few studies have shown that these three variables could act as solid predictors towards political participation (Galston, 2001;Zaheer, 2016;Dahl, Abdelzadeh, & Sohl, 2018). Based on the definition of these three, PK refers to a cognitive component of politics, PI refers to an emotion that drives people to participate in politics, and PE refers to belief related to politics as a tool for change.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Youth may, for example, act according to what is expected of them, or because an action is personally important or momentarily beneficial to them, rather than being in line with their intrinsic political opinion (Koestner et al, 1996; Lopes et al, 2009). Also, political self-efficacy, relationships and attitudes towards others, trust in political institutions and democratic ideals, and existing political opportunities appear to matter (Dahl et al, 2018; Vromen, 2017; Oser & Hooghe, 2018). What is lacking is knowledge of the early motivational conditions that might turn youth’s political interest into political action.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%