Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Political engagement’s non-political roots: examining the role of basic psychological needs in the political domain

Abstract

For the functioning of democratic societies, it is a crucial question why some citizens value or even enjoy political engagement while others hardly bother about politics at all. However, despite scholarly agreement on the relevance of childhood experiences, the early causes of varying inclinations for volitional political engagement remain largely unidentified. Arguing for the relevance of non-political factors, this study theorizes the role of basic psychological needs in shaping proclivities for political engagement. Specifically, this study hypothesizes that children who grow up in need-supportive parental homes will be more inclined to engage with politics decades later. Findings from two independent representative cohort studies (N = 5927, N = 6158) suggest that need-supportive parenting stimulates the development of curiosity and appreciation towards politics. Moreover, need-supportive parenting interacts with social learning processes in stimulating political engagement. Providing insights into the promotion of political engagement, these findings underscore the importance of factors seemingly remote to the political domain but deeply engrained in human processes of psychosocial functioning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    The reported goodness of fit indices relate to models without weights (see Supplement 3, Fig. 1). To calculate manifest variables, models with adjustment weights were used for which fewer goodness of fit indices are available (see Supplement 3, Fig. 2). Results are similar.

  2. 2.

    Both indicators related to rule—setting do not promote political engagement but the fact that these items are not associated with other corollary outcomes suggests that they may be weak indicators of the target concept.

  3. 3.

    At much smaller effect sizes, interaction of need-satisfaction and social learning replicates with regards to the provision of structure (see Supplement 3, Fig. 5). I also tested for interaction effect using BCS data. The interaction coefficient of involvement and political exposure is large and statistically significant. The results are shown in Supplement 2, Table 1.

References

  1. Abendschön, S. (2017). Children and politics. American Behavioral Scientist,61(2), 163–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764216689119.

  2. 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(1), 27–40.

  3. Aughinbaugh, A. (2004). The impact of attrition on the children of the NLSY79. The Journal of Human Resources,39(2), 536–563. https://doi.org/10.2307/3559026.

  4. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall series in social learning theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

  5. Berger, B. (2009). Political theory, political science and the end of civic engagement. Perspectives on Politics,7(02), 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1017/S153759270909080X.

  6. Blais, A. (2000). To vote or not to vote? The merits and limits of rational choice theory. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

  7. Blais, A., & Galais, C. (2016). Measuring the civic duty to vote: A proposal. Electoral Studies,41, 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.003.

  8. Bougher, L. D. (2017). Revisiting parental influence in individual political development: Democratic parenting in adolescence. Applied Developmental Science,111(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2017.1288125.

  9. Brady, H. E., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (2015). Political mobility and political reproduction from generation to generation. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,657(1), 149–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214550587.

  10. Brauer, J. R. (2011). Autonomy-supportive Parenting and Adolescent Delinquency (Dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.

  11. Bullock, J. G., Green, D. P., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,98(4), 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018933.

  12. Centre For Longitudinal Studies (2016). 1970 British Cohort Study: Forty-two-year follow-up 2012. London. https://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-7473-2.

  13. Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., van der Kaap-Deeder, J.,… Verstuyf, J. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and emotion, 39(2), 216–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9450-1.

  14. Dalton, R. J. (2008). The good citizen: How a younger generation is reshaping American politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

  15. Dalton, R. J., & Welzel, C. (Eds.). (2014). The civic culture transformed: From allegiant to assertive citizens. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  16. Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,4(1), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108.

  17. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry,11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.

  18. Dweck, C. S. (2017). From needs to goals and representations: Foundations for a unified theory of motivation, personality, and development. Psychological Review,124(6), 689–719. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000082.

  19. Easton, D. (1953). The political system: An inquiry into the state of political science Borzoi Books in Political Science (1st ed.). New York, NY: Knopf.

  20. Flanagan, C. (2003). Developmental roots of political engagement//Developmental Roots of Political Engagement. PS: Political Science and Politics,36, 257–261. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104909650300218X.

  21. Galais, C. (2018). How to make dutiful citizens and influence turnout: The effects of family and school dynamics on the duty to vote. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423918000021.

  22. Green, D. P., Ha, S. E., & Bullock, J. G. (2010). Enough already about “black box” experiments: Studying mediation is more difficult than most scholars suppose. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,628(1), 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716209351526.

  23. Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within the family: The self-determination theory perspective. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 135–161). New York: Wiley.

  24. Grolnick, W. S., Levitt, M., & Caruso, A. (2018). Adolescent autonomy in context: Facilitative parenting in different cultures, domains, and settings. In B. Soenens, M. Vansteenkiste, & S. vanPetegem (Eds.), Studies in adolescent. Development autonomy in adolescent development: Towards conceptual clarity (1st ed., pp. 74–93). London: Taylor and Francis.

  25. Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,52(5), 890–898. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.890.

  26. Guay, F., Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). On the hierarchical structure of self-determined motivation: A test of top-down, bottom-up, reciprocal, and horizontal effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,29(8), 992–1004. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203253297.

  27. Harris, J. R. (2014). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New York: Free Press.

  28. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences,33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X. discussion 83–135.

  29. Holbein, J. B. (2017). Childhood skill development and adult political participation. American Political Science Review,111(03), 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055417000119.

  30. Inglehart, R. F. (2018). Cultural evolution: People’s motivations are changing, and reshaping the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108613880.

  31. Jennings, M. K., Stoker, L., & Bowers, J. (2009). Politics across generations: Family transmission reexamined. The Journal of Politics,71(03), 782–799. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609090719.

  32. Joussemet, M., Landry, R., & Koestner, R. (2008). A self-determination theory perspective on parenting. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne,49(3), 194–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012754.

  33. Kam, C. D., & Palmer, C. L. (2008). Reconsidering the effects of education on political participation. The Journal of Politics,70(3), 612–631. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608080651.

  34. Kasser, T. (2016). Materialistic values and goals. Annual Review of Psychology,67, 489–514. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033344.

  35. Kasser, T., Koestner, R., & Lekes, N. (2002). Early family experiences and adult values: A 26-year, prospective longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,28(6), 826–835. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289011.

  36. Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology,24(1), 183–214. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.183.

  37. Krapp, A. (2013). Moral motivation from the perspective of the self-determination theory and the person-object theory of interest. In K. Heinrichs, F. Oser, & T. Lovat (Eds.), Handbook of moral motivation: Theories, models, applications (pp. 113–140). Rotterdam: SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-275-4_8.

  38. Laurin, J. C., & Joussemet, M. (2017). Parental autonomy-supportive practices and toddlers’ rule internalization: A prospective observational study. Motivation and Emotion,41(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9627-5.

  39. Losier, G. F., & Koestner, R. (1999). Intrinsic versus identified regulation in distinct political campaigns: The consequences of following politics for pleasure versus personal meaningfulness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,25(3), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025003002.

  40. McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods,23(3), 412–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144.

  41. Miklikowska, M., & Hurme, H. (2011). Democracy begins at home: Democratic parenting and adolescents’ support for democratic values. European Journal of Developmental Psychology,8(5), 541–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2011.576856.

  42. Mostafa, T., & Wiggins, R. D. (2015). The impact of attrition and non-response in birth cohort studies: A need to incorporate missingness strategies. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies,6(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.14301/llcs.v6i2.312.

  43. Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 national election study. American Political Science Review,85(4), 1407–1413. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963953.

  44. Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard economic studies (Vol. 124). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  45. Padilla-Walker, L. M. (2014). Parental socialization of prosocial behavior: A multidimensional approach. In L. M. Padilla-Walker & G. Carlo (Eds.), Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach (pp. 131–149). New York: Oxford University Press.

  46. Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Carlo, G. (Eds.). (2014). Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

  47. Pirralha, A. (2017). The link between political participation: A three wave causal analysis of the German SOEP household panel. Social Indicators Research,37(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1661-x.

  48. Prior, M. (2019). Hooked: How political interest fuels our democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  49. Russo, S., & Stattin, H. (2017). Stability and change in youths’ political interest. Social Indicators Research,132(2), 643–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1302-9.

  50. Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Plant, R. W. (1990). Emotions in non-directed text learning. Learning and Individual Differences,2(1), 1–17.

  51. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Publications Inc.; The Guilford Press.

  52. Sapiro, V. (2004). Not your parents’ political socialization: Introduction for a new generation. Annual Review of Political Science,7(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.012003.104840.

  53. Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H. E., & Verba, S. (2018). Unequal and unrepresented. Political inequality and the people’s voice in the new gilded age: Megaphones for a few—whispers for the rest. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Pres.

  54. Sears, D. O., & Brown, C. (2013). Childhood and adult political development. In L. Huddy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology (2nd ed., pp. 59–95). Oxford: Univ. Press.

  55. Šerek, J., Lacinová, L., & Macek, P. (2012). Does family experience influence political beliefs? Relation between interparental conflict perceptions and political efficacy in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescence,35(3), 577–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.10.001.

  56. Shani, D. (2009). On the origins of political interest (Dissertation). Princeton: Princeton University.

  57. Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, D. S. (2017). Constraints on generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on psychological science: A journal of the Association for Psychological Science,12(6), 1123–1128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617708630.

  58. Smetana, J. G. (2018). The development of autonomy during adolescence: A social-cognitive domain theory view. In B. Soenens, M. Vansteenkiste, & S. van Petegem (Eds.), Studies in adolescent development. Autonomy in adolescent development: Towards conceptual clarity (pp. 53–73). London: Taylor and Francis.

  59. Smets, K., & van Ham, C. (2013). The embarrassment of riches? A meta-analysis of individual-level research on voter turnout. Electoral Studies,32(2), 344–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2012.12.006.

  60. Soenens, B., Deci, E. L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2017). How Parents contribute to children’s psychological health: The critical role of psychological need support. In M. L. Wehmeyer, K. A. Shogren, T. D. Little, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Development of self-determination through the life-course (pp. 171–187). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1042-6_13.

  61. Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory. Developmental Review,30(1), 74–99.

  62. Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Petegem, S. V., Beyers, W., & Ryan, R. M. (2018). How to solve the condundrum of adolescent autonomy? On the importance of distinguishing between independence and volitional functioning. In B. Soenens, M. Vansteenkiste, & S. van Petegem (Eds.), Studies in adolescent development. Autonomy in adolescent development: Towards conceptual clarity (1st ed., pp. 1–32). London: Taylor and Francis.

  63. Sohlberg, J. (2016). Thinking matters: The validity and political relevance of need for cognition. International Journal of Public Opinion Research,28(3), 428–439. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edv023.

  64. Sondheimer, R. M., & Green, D. P. (2010). Using experiments to estimate the effects of education on voter turnout. American Journal of Political Science,54(1), 174–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00425.x.

  65. Spearman, C. (1904). “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. The American Journal of Psychology,15(2), 201–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1412107.

  66. Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent-adolescent relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence,11(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/1532-7795.00001.

  67. Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration,23(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032359.

  68. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Burns, N. (2008). Family ties: Understanding the intergenerational transmission of political participation. In A. Zuckerman (Ed.), Social logic of politics: Personal networks as contexts for political behavior (pp. 95–114). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

  69. Wuttke, A. (2017). When the world around you is changing: Investigating the influence of alienation and indifference on voter turnout. In H. Schoen, S. Roßteutscher, R. Schmitt-Beck, B. Weßels, & C. Wolf (Eds.), Voters and voting in context: Multiple contexts and the heterogeneous German electorate. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198792130.003.0008.

  70. Zemp, M., Bodenmann, G., & Cummings, E. M. (2016). The significance of interparental conflict for children. European Psychologist,21(2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000245.

Download references

Acknowledgements

For comments and suggestions, I thank the participants of the colloquia at the Chair of Political Psychology (University of Mannheim) and at the Research Chair in Electoral Studies (Université de Montréal), Martina Zemp, the reviewers and the editors who helped me improve the manuscript.

Funding

There was no funding for this study.

Author information

Correspondence to Alexander Wuttke.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Replication material (data and Stata-syntax) is available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/TNAX4.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 2218 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wuttke, A. Political engagement’s non-political roots: examining the role of basic psychological needs in the political domain. Motiv Emot 44, 135–150 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09801-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Political participation
  • Political socialization
  • Value transmission
  • Self-determination theory
  • Political motivation