How young people get from voice to influence for change: exploring the relations between tactical choices and civic efficacy

ABSTRACT

Young people take advantage of new technologies to make their voices heard on important social issues. However, it is unclear whether they see expression as an end-point or starting-point for civic engagement, and how those perceptions relate to feelings of civic efficacy. This online study explored this question by asking young people aged between 18 and 25 (N = 873) to describe how they could address a civic issue they care about. The greatest efficacy was observed among participants who identified ways of using political expression to achieve civic goals extending beyond raising awareness to exerting influence through electoral or civic activities.

KEYWORDS:

• voice
• influence
• goals
• strategies
• tactical knowledge

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2024.2313651

Notes

1. There are studies showing the opposite result: low cost online engagement rarely results in further action offline in formal participatory channels (Cantijoch, Cutts, & Gibson, 2016) or meaningful support for the cause (Kristofferson, Peloza, & Peloza, 2014).

2. Although the racial makeup of our sample was roughly in line with the 2020 U.S. census data, there was a slight underrepresentation of Latino/Latina individuals and a slight overrepresentation of Asians.

3. Also labeled “political voice” by Lopez et al. (2006). To avoid confusion between Voice in Question 8 and Political Voice in Question 9, we use Political Expression instead of Political Voice. In our study, Voice in Question 8 concerns a goal of action; Political Expression in Question 9 counts as one of the strategies to substantiate the goal.

4. We relied on Gwet’s AC1 statistic, rather than Kappa, because it shows more stability when prevalence of codes varies (Wongpakaran, Wongpakaran, Wedding, & Gwet, 2013).

Additional information

Funding

This research was sponsored by the Spencer Foundation Small Research Grants on Education (201900061).

Notes on contributors

Chaebong Nam

Chaebong Nam is Assistant Professor of Social Studies Education at the Department of Educator Preparation & Leadership at the University of Missouri at Saint Louis.

David C. Kidd

David C. Kidd is Chief Assessment Scientist at the Democratic Knowledge Project in the Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University.