Can you write me 200-300 word papers for each week (week 4-6)? Please find the attachment below for the assignment questions. I will provide you with the weekly readings after I hire you.
W eek 4. From Pancer , page 4, 5 and page 6 answer all questions plus page 9 “How do we develop a sense of right and wrong?” W eek 5 . How important are parents/family/friends/peers to your own Community Engagement (C.E.)? Which are you? Activist, helper, responder, uninvolved. (helpers are not politically involved, responders are people who help when asked to). Don’ t forget to raise inquiry in your homework reflection journal. W eek 6. Discuss any C.E. you have been involved in in the last week. What are your views for/against mandatory C.E. programs? Does mandatory C.E. promote/enhance or dissuade.? Recount your experience of how schools/neighborhoods influence C.E. What role does formal schooling play in civic ed. and civic engagement progress? To what extent do you think your education is “communities of practice”? (relates to Wenger reading p.209, mutual engagement, taking the opportunity to try out one’ s knowledge in interpersonal situations and making experiences more meaningful by discussing them with others).
Can you write me 200-300 word papers for each week (week 4-6)? Please find the attachment below for the assignment questions. I will provide you with the weekly readings after I hire you.
Citizenship and Civic Engagement Page 1 of 17 PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy ). Subscriber: University of Otago; date: 01 November 2015 The Psychology of Citizenship and Civic Engagement S. Mark Pancer Print publication date: 2015 Print ISBN-13: 9780199752126 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: December 2014 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199752126.001.0001 Citizenship and Civic Engagement An Introduction S. Mark Pancer DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199752126.003.0001 Abstract and Keywords This chapter introduces the concepts of citizenship and civic engagement. A critical element of both concepts is the notion of active citizenship, in which individuals are actively involved in the life of their country and community through participation in things such as volunteering, neighborhood organizations, or political work. The chapter discusses why such involvements are important for the well-being of individuals and communities and provides examples of how theory and research in different areas of psychology, such as developmental psychology, community psychology, and social psychology, can inform our understanding of citizenship and civic engagement. The chapter presents an integrative theory that considers the factors that initiate civic participation and those that sustain it, from both an individual and systems perspective. The chapter ends with a description of how the book is organized and the key values and perspectives that the author brings to bear on the subject. Keywords: citizenship , civic engagement , active citizenship , volunteering , neighborhood organizations , developmental psychology , community psychology , social psychology The 2008 federal election in the United States was seen as an historic event, not only in America but also all over the world. It was the first time that an African American had run in the general election for president, and many viewed the Democratic Party’s candidate, Barack Obama, as a champion of those who had suffered under the harsh policies of the previous administration. One would think that such a watershed election would bring droves of people to the polls on election day. So how many people did turn out to vote? Only a little over 60% of eligible voters University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online Citizenship and Civic Engagement Page 2 of 17 PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy ). Subscriber: University of Otago; date: 01 November 2015 cast a ballot in the election. Other countries have fared even worse. In the Canadian federal election that same year, fewer than 59% of eligible individuals voted, the lowest turnout in Canadian history. Most alarming was the voting rate among the youngest Canadians; only about 1 in 5 of young first-time voters cast a ballot. Choosing political representatives through voting is one of the most important rights of citizens in a healthy democracy. What then, does such low voter turnout say about the health of the democratic process in countries such as the United States and Canada? Voting is a complex behavior. Whether a person votes, and how that person votes, is influenced by many factors, including the person’s gender, ethnic and cultural background, socioeconomic status, group memberships, and personal values, as well as how individuals have been influenced by their family and friends and by the barrage of campaign messages directed at voters through the media. It is exactly this kind of complex behavior that psychology, the science of behavior, was developed to understand. Research in several areas of psychology can do much to inform us about civic behaviors such as voting. In the area of political psychology, for example, several studies have attempted to identify some of the key factors that deter people from voting. One of the factors seems to be the prevalence of negative advertising in contemporary political campaigns. The broadcast media are rife with “attack ads” in which candidates seem to be more intent on maligning their opponents’ character than criticizing their policies or (p.2) political platform. Research in political psychology shows that negative advertising increases citizens’ lack of trust in government, and it dampens people’s inclination to go out and vote. Interestingly, it also indicates that negative ads tend to tarnish the image not only of the victim of the attack but of the perpetrator of the attack as well ( Lau, Sigelman & Rovner, 2007 ; Allen & Burell, 2002; Pancer & Landau, 2009 ). Research in political psychology, it would seem, has important implications for our understanding of some of the key factors that may explain why some people might not participate in one of the most fundamental of civic activities—voting. Voting is a key component of citizenship. It is seen as one of the most important rights and responsibilities that a citizen of a democratic country has. Indeed, it is considered so important that several countries, such as Australia and Argentina, make it compulsory under law for every citizen to vote in national elections. Failure to vote is against the law, and brings a penalty. But voting is only one aspect of citizenship. Dictionary definitions of citizenship typically describe two kinds of meaning associated with the term. One is a legalistic meaning, in which citizenship is a legal status that individuals in a country may enjoy, that has associated with it certain rights and privileges (such as the right to vote). The other has to do with “the qualities that a person is expected to have as a responsible member of a community” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.), or, in other words, how individuals behave as members of their community. It is a person’s behavior as a citizen that determines what kind of citizen that individual is. Someone who is a good citizen would be expected to vote in an informed and responsible manner, certainly, but a good citizen would also be expected to do other things, as well. Such a person would take an active role in making decisions that affect the community, help others by doing volunteer work, keep informed about people and events in the community, participate in neighborhood organizations, or perform many other activities that have as their purpose the enhancement of life for all members of the community. Some have used the term “active” citizenship to describe this kind Citizenship and Civic Engagement Page 3 of 17 PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy ). Subscriber: University of Otago; date: 01 November 2015 of citizenship. Bryony Hoskins and Massimiliano Mascherini (2009) , of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, define active citizenship as participation in civil society, community and/or political life, characterized by mutual respect and non-violence and in accordance with human rights and democracy. (p. 462) Hoskins and Mascherini see active citizenship as encompassing four spheres of activity. The first of these spheres is “representative democracy.” In this sphere, (p.3) a person would practice active citizenship by voting, becoming involved with a political party, or working with elected representatives or government officials, for example. The second sphere is “community life.” The person demonstrating active citizenship in community life would be someone who supports and enriches his or her community by donating money, for example, performing volunteer work, or participating in religious, cultural, business, educational, or sports organizations. The third sphere of activity that Hoskins and Mascherini discuss has to do with “protest and social change” (see also Watts & Flanagan, 2007 ). In this sphere, active citizens work toward community betterment and social justice by participating in activities such as protests, boycotts, demonstrations, and strikes. The fourth sphere of active citizenship has to do with “democratic values.” Underlying all actions of the active citizen must be values that are consistent with bettering the condition of all members of the community. These include values such as democratic participation, human rights, and nondiscrimination. Closely related to the notion of citizenship is the concept of civic engagement. One of the most commonly cited definitions of civic engagement is by Michael Delli Carpini, formerly of the Pew Trusts, who describes it as “individual and collective actions designed to identify and address issues of public concern” ( Delli Carpini, 1996 ). The focus of Delli Carpini’s definition is clearly on activities that are aimed at dealing with social problems. His notion of civic engagement encompasses activities such as “working in a soup kitchen, serving on a neighborhood association, writing a letter to an elected official or voting.” Thomas Ehrlich, in his book, Civic Responsibility and Higher Education (Ehrlich, 2000 ), provides a somewhat broader definition of civic engagement: Civic engagement means working to make a difference in the civic life of our communities and developing the combination of knowledge, skills, values and motivation to make that difference. It means promoting the quality of life in a community through both political and non-political processes. (p. vi) Ehrlich’s definition of civic engagement would include all activities aimed at enhancing the quality of life in a community, not just those designed to address social problems. These activities would include things such as participation in arts or cultural activities and organizations, activities that certainly enhance a community’s quality of life, but have nothing directly to do with “issues of public concern.” Perhaps the best way to gain an understanding of what is meant by citizenship and civic engagement is to look at how these constructs have been measured. One of the most comprehensive measures of civic engagement is the survey instrument developed under the auspices of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement Citizenship and Civic Engagement Page 4 of 17 PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy ). Subscriber: University of Otago; date: 01 November 2015 (CIRCLE). This survey was administered (p.4) to a nationally representative sample of Americans in order to assess the “civic and political health” of American society ( Keeter, Zukin, Andolina & Jenkins, 2002 ; Lopez, Levine, Both, Kiesa, Kirby & Marcelo, 2006 ). The CIRCLE survey contains 19 items, divided into three categories. One category has to do with “civic activities” that involve helping people and improving the local community. It includes behaviors such as doing volunteer work or working with a local group to solve a community problem. A second category focuses on “electoral activities” that revolve around the political process, and includes behaviors such as voting or persuading other people to vote for a certain candidate or party. The third category concerns “political voice” activities in which people express their viewpoints on significant social issues by doing things such as protesting or boycotting a particular product. Table 1.1 lists the 19 core indicators of civic engagement used in the CIRCLE survey and the questions used to tap civic engagement. Table 1.1 Civic Engagement Questions from the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) Civic and Political Health Survey Indicator Survey Question Civic Activity Indicators Community problem solving Have you ever worked together informally with someone or some group to solve a problem in the community where you live? Regular volunteering for a non-electoral organization Have you ever spent time participating in any community service or volunteer activity, or haven’t you had time to do this? By volunteer activity, I mean actually working in some way to help others for no pay. Active membership in a group or association Do you belong to or donate money to any groups or associations, either locally or nationally? Are you an active member of this group/any of these groups, a member but not active, or have you given money only? Participation on a fund raising run/walk/ride Have you personally walked, ran, or bicycled for a charitable cause? Other fund raising or charity Have you ever done anything else to help raise money for a charitable cause? Electoral Activity Indicators Regular voting Can you tell me how often you vote in local and national elections? Always, sometimes, rarely, or never? Persuading others When there is an election taking place do you generally talk to any people and try to show them why they should vote for or against one of the parties or candidates, or not? Displaying buttons, signs, stickers Do you wear a campaign button, put a sticker on your car, or place a sign in front of your house, or aren’t these things you do? Campaign contributions In the past 12 months, did you contribute money to a candidate, a political party, or any organization that supported candidates? Volunteering for candidates or political organizations From volunteer sequence, respondent indicated having volunteered for “A political organization or candidates running for office” Political Voice Indicators Citizenship and Civic Engagement Page 5 of 17 PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy ). Subscriber: University of Otago; date: 01 November 2015 Contacting officials Have you contacted or visited a public official—at any level of government—to ask for assistance or to express your opinion? Contacting the print media Have you contacted a newspaper or magazine to express your opinion on an issue? Contacting the broadcast media Have you called in to a radio or television talk show to express your opinion on a political issue, even if you did not get on the air? Protesting Have you taken part in a protest, march, or demonstration? E-mail petitions Have you signed an e-mail petition? Written petitions Have you ever signed a written petition about a political or social issue? Boycotting Have you NOT bought something because of conditions under which the product is made, or because you dislike the conduct of the company that produces it? Buycotting Have you bought a certain product or service because you like the social or political values of the company that produces or provides it? Canvassing Have you worked as a canvasser—having gone door-to-door for a political or social group or candidate? Much of my own research has focused on civic engagement in young people. In order to assess civic participation in youth, I and my colleagues have developed our own measure of civic engagement—the Youth Inventory of Involvement (YII) ( Pancer, Pratt, Hunsberger & Alisat, 2007 ). This measure asks respondents to indicate on a five-point scale, ranging from “never did this” to “did this a lot,” how often over the previous year they have engaged in each of 30 activities. These activities represent a broad range of behaviors that we considered to demonstrate different aspects of civic engagement. We ask respondents to indicate how often they have helped people in their community by visiting those who were ill or taking care of children (without pay). We ask them how often they have participated in sports, ethnic, cultural, or arts groups in their school or neighborhood. We also ask how often they have been involved in traditional political activities, such as working on a political campaign, and how often they have expressed their political “voice” by participating in protest marches, signing a petition, or other activities. Table 1.2 shows the full YII measure. Table 1.2 Youth Inventory of Involvement The following is a list of school, community, and political activities that people can get involved in. For each of these activities, please use the following scale to indicate whether in the last year: 0—You never did this 3—You did this a fair bit 1—You did this once or twice 4—You did this a lot 2—You did this a few times Citizenship and Civic Engagement Page 6 of 17 PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy ). Subscriber: University of Otago; date: 01 November 2015 1. Visited or helped out people who were sick 2. Took care of other families’ children (on an unpaid basis) 3. Participated in a church-connected group 4. Participated in or helped a charity organization 5. Participated in an ethnic club or organization 6. Participated in a political party, club or organization 7. Participated in a social or cultural group or organization (e.g., a choir) 8. Participated in a school academic club or team 9. Participated in a sports team or club 10 . Led or helped out with a children’s group or club 11 . Helped with a fund-raising project 12 . Helped organize neighborhood or community events (e.g., carnivals, hot dog days, potluck dinners) 13 . Helped prepare and make verbal and written presentations to organizations, agencies, conferences, or politicians 14 . Did things to help improve your neighborhood (e.g., helped clean neighborhood) 15 . Gave help (e.g., money, food, clothing, rides) to friends or classmates who needed it 16 . Served as a member of an organizing committee or board for a school club or organization 17 . Wrote a letter to a school or community newspaper or publication 18 . Signed a petition 19 . Attended a demonstration 20 Collected signatures for a petition drive 21 . Contacted a public official by phone or mail to tell him or her how you felt about a particular issue 22 . Joined in a protest march, meeting, or demonstration 23 . Got information about community activities from a local community information center 24 . Volunteered at a school event or function 25 . Helped people who were new to your country 26 . Gave money to a cause 27 . Worked on a political campaign 28 . Ran for a position in student government 29 . Participated in a discussion about a social or political issue 30 . Volunteered with a community service organization We and others have administered this measure to thousands of young people. In one of our studies (the “Futures Project”), we had nearly a thousand students from 16 Canadian high schools complete the YII when they were in their second-to-last year of high school. We calculated a total score for each respondent, as well as four subscale scores: a political involvement score (calculated by summing their responses on all items having to do with political activities), a community involvement score (the sum of the rated level of involvement in activities such as organizing a community event), a helping activity score (the sum of ratings on activities that involved providing care for others, such as taking care of children), and a “passive” involvement score (the sum of ratings on activities that usually involve responding to requests rather than actively initiating something, such as signing a petition or giving money to a cause). We then used these subscale scores in a cluster analysis, which placed students who had similar scores on each of the subscales into different groups or clusters. This analysis revealed four types of (p.5) (p.6) students: Activists, who had high scores on every type of involvement; Helpers, who had high scores on the “helping activity” subscale but were not very politically involved; Responders, who helped or participated when asked to do so (as indicated Citizenship and Civic Engagement Page 7 of 17 PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy ). Subscriber: University of Otago; date: 01 November 2015 by their relatively high scores on the passive involvement subscale) but were otherwise not very involved; and the Uninvolved, who had the lowest scores on every subscale. The cluster analysis we did allowed us to determine how many young people were in each cluster. Only about 8% were Activists. The Helpers (p.7) (p.8) formed the largest proportion of the students, at 35% of the total. Responders constituted 25% of the total. Uninvolved students made up the second largest cluster of students, at 32% of the total. In addition to having students complete the YII (and other measures), we also asked several of the students from each cluster to take part in a face-to-face interview, in which we questioned them about their community and political involvements. Their responses during this interview corresponded highly with their scores on the YII and to their cluster assignments. The following is an exchange between the interviewer and an Activist student: Interviewer: Some people like to be really involved in the life of their school or their community. Do you consider yourself to be the kind of person who gets involved in your school or your community? Student: I would say yes, big time…I’m on student council here, I volunteer at the library, Sunday school teacher, I could probably go on and on about all this stuff, but hey, the tape’s not long enough…I would say I’m pretty active [in] community, school, church…just about everything. Contrast this with the response given by one of the Uninvolved students: Interviewer: Some people like to be really involved in the life of their school or their community. Do you consider yourself to be the kind of person who gets involved in your school or your community in this way? Student: Not really no. (p.9) Interviewer: Have you been involved in any activities or anything, or special events or anything? Student: No, not that I can remember…I don’t think I ever did anything. Why Is Citizenship Important? Citizenship and civic engagement are important for many reasons. In the study I just described, we found several substantial differences between young people who were civically engaged and those who were not. The Activists and Helpers had higher levels of self-esteem, a greater sense of optimism, more social support, a greater sense of social responsibility, and more advanced identity development than the Uninvolved individuals. These results are consistent with many, many other studies (to be described in later chapters) that show that people who are civically engaged tend to be better adjusted, socially and emotionally, than individuals who are not civically engaged. While most of these studies are correlational, making it difficult to say with certainty that civic engagement causes better social and psychological health (rather than saying that psychological well-being leads to greater engagement), there are several Citizenship and Civic Engagement Page 8 of 17 PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy ). Subscriber: University of Otago; date: 01 November 2015 experimental studies that indicate that civic engagement is indeed a causal factor in this relationship. Civic engagement is linked not only to the health of individual citizens; it is strongly linked to the health of communities, as well. The noted writer and social activist Jane Jacobs, in her book Dark Age Ahead (Jacobs, 2004 ), claimed that community is one of five pillars of a healthy society, and that the most important resource of a community is “speaking relationships, among neighbors and acquaintances in addition to friends” (p. 35). These relationships and networks of acquaintances are acquired through civic engagement. They make available many critical skills that individuals and families cannot provide for themselves, skills that help community members thrive and survive. Jacobs claimed that people’s lack of connection with other members of their community has placed the pillar of community in grave danger and threatens to push us into another dark age of cultural collapse. Robert Putnam, political scientist and professor of public policy at Harvard University, makes similar claims in his seminal book, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (Putnam, 2000 ). Putnam takes a broad view of civic engagement. He sees evidence of civic engagement in people joining bowling leagues, attending church or synagogue, participating in civic organizations such as parent-teacher associations, being active members of a union, making donations, doing volunteer work, or even getting together informally with friends and neighbors. He contends that all of these activities produce social capital —“connections among individuals—social networks and the norms of reciprocity (p.10) and trustworthiness that arise from them” (p. 19). This social capital, like physical or human capital, affects individual and group productivity. More important, though, it also has a profound impact on the health and welfare of entire communities. By looking across American states at things such as turnout in presidential elections, the number of civic and social organizations per 1,000 people, and individuals’ responses to questions on national surveys asking how often they did volunteer work in the previous year, Putnam was able to construct an index of social capital and assign a score to every state. When he looked at the relationship between states’ scores on his social capital index and several different indices of health and well-being, he found a very high correlation. States with high levels of social capital (and high levels of civic participation) had less violent crime, healthier babies, fewer school drop-outs, lower teen pregnancy rates, better school achievement, and better physical health than states with lower levels of social capital. Perhaps the most striking set of findings that Putnam reviews in his book is that, by almost any index one would use, the level of civic engagement has been falling dramatically over the last 30 years. Over this period there has been a steady decline in membership in parent-teacher associations, church attendance, union membership, participation in professional associations, league bowling, and even in the amount of “schmoozing” (informal social interaction) that occurs among friends and neighbors. Accompanying this decline in civic engagement has been a corresponding reduction in “social trust”—the extent to which individuals feel that most people in their community are honest and can be trusted. Putnam’s research, along with a growing body of work that examines well-being at a community, state, and even national level, provides strong evidence that civic engagement influences the health of communities, as well as individuals. What Does Psychology Have to Tell Us about Citizenship? Citizenship and Civic Engagement Page 9 of 17 PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy ). Subscriber: University of Otago; date: 01 November 2015 The purpose of this book is to look at what research in psychology and related social science disciplines tells us about how civic engagement develops, the major factors that influence its development, and the impact that civic involvement can have on individuals, communities, and society. Theory and research in several areas of psychology have a great deal to contribute to our understanding of citizenship and civic engagement. In social psychology, research on topics such as attitudes and values, interpersonal relationships, social influence, and social identity help us understand how individuals relate to others in their community and come to see themselves as citizens. In developmental psychology, a prominent area of theory and research is moral development, including the ways in which young people begin to develop a sense of social responsibility (e.g., Youniss & Yates, (p.11) 1997). In community psychology, a core principle guiding theory and research is that when citizens participate as partners in the development of social programs, not only will they benefit more from these programs but also better programs will result ( Pancer & Cameron, 1994 ; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988 ). Political psychology has been concerned with topics such as nationalism and patriotism (e.g., Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989 ), voting behavior (e.g., Krampen, 2000 ), and political activism (e.g., Miller & Krosnick, 2004 ), all key elements of citizenship. These areas of theory and research, from four subdisciplines, represent only a portion of the work in psychology that is directly relevant to an understanding of the ways in which individuals think of themselves as citizens and participate in civic institutions and organizations. Work in several other areas of psychology, and in closely related social science disciplines such as political science and sociology, can also enhance our understanding of civic engagement. In what follows, I provide examples of work in a number of subdisciplines of psychology that relate to citizenship and civic engagement. Developmental Psychology Developmental psychology is the branch of psychology that studies how individuals change and mature, cognitively, emotionally, and socially, throughout their lives. Developmental psychologists are also concerned with the various contexts (such as families, schools, and neighborhoods) in which these changes occur and how these contexts affect the way people develop. One core area of research and theory in developmental psychology is moral development. How do individuals develop a sense of what is right and wrong? How do people learn to accommodate their own needs to the needs of others and to have empathy and sympathy for others? Theories in developmental psychology suggest that children adopt societal standards of what is considered right behavior through a process of “internalization” in which they come to take a societal norm or standard and adopt it as their own. Helping others is a civic behavior that is learned in this manner. Children learn to help by observing other people (in the first instance, their parents) helping others and then by imitating the helping behavior that they have seen (and sometimes being rewarded for their imitative behavior). Several studies have demonstrated this process. In one classic study, Joan Grusec and Sandra Skubiski (1970) had third- and fifth-grade children come individually to a mobile laboratory parked in their schoolyard, ostensibly to try out a new bowling game that had been developed for children and adults. Each child played the game along with an adult of the same sex. If the child or adult playing the game achieved a certain score, they were given marbles that they could trade in for prizes at the end of the game. The more marbles they got, the better the prize they would receive. But across the room from the bowling game was a table on which sat a big blue bowl containing several marbles. A picture beside the bowl showed a (p.12) young girl Citizenship and Civic Engagement Page 10 of 17 PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy ). Subscriber: University of Otago; date: 01 November 2015 wearing rags. The child and adult playing the game were told that, if they wanted, they could donate some of the marbles they won so that some of the toys that were used as prizes could be given to poor children like the girl in the picture. The adult then played the game first, won 10 marbles (an outcome pre-arranged by the experimenters), and dropped half of them into the blue bowl for the poor children. The child then played the game, and it was arranged that he or she would win 14 marbles. The researchers found that children who had been exposed to the adult model donating to charity gave an average of 4 marbles to the poor, while children in a control condition who played the game on their own without witnessing an adult model donating, gave an average of fewer than 1 marble to the poor. A later study, conducted by Marnie Rice and Joan Grusec (1975) , showed that children who had observed a charitable adult were more likely to behave charitably themselves even four months after they had observed the adult making a donation. This kind of learning leads to the internalization of an important standard of behavior known as the “norm of social responsibility,” which dictates that we should help those who are in need and who are dependent on us. Given the results of studies like those conducted by Grusec and her colleagues, it is no surprise that there is a strong correspondence between the extent to which parents engage in civic behaviors such as donating or volunteering and the extent to which their children engage in these behaviors, as well. These studies in the area of moral development, and research and theory in many other areas of developmental psychology, have much to tell us about the roots of civic engagement and the influence of environmental factors such as family context on how civic involvement develops. Community Psychology Community psychology is a subdiscipline of psychology that focuses on the interaction between individuals and the communities in which they live. The main goal of community psychology is to enhance the well-being of communities through psychological research, theory, and practice. Unlike those working in other areas of psychology, community psychologists operate on the basis of several core values. They consider it important to see social problems from an ecological perspective in which harsh social environments (in addition to individual factors) are potential causes of these problems; work to prevent problems rather than deal with them only after they have arisen; look at the strengths of individuals and communities, rather than focus only on their deficiencies, and work to build these strengths; recognize and respect diversity in the populations with whom they work; foster social change to enhance the health of communities; work toward social justice and a more equitable allocation of resources to oppressed and marginalized groups in society; and work in partnership with those who are suffering from social, emotional, and physical problems, as well as other community stakeholders, to develop solutions to these problems ( Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2010 ). (p.13) The participation of community residents in neighborhood organizations is a key element of civic engagement that has been the focus of a great deal of research in community psychology. Community psychologist Abraham Wandersman and his colleagues have done some of the earliest and most significant work in this area. In one study ( Prestby, Wandersman, Florin, Rich & Chavis, 1990 ), questionnaires that asked individuals about the benefits and costs of participation in neighborhood associations were administered to over 400 individuals, each of whom belonged to one of 29 different block associations in New York City. Two kinds of benefits Citizenship and Civic Engagement Page 11 of 17 PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy ). Subscriber: University of Otago; date: 01 November 2015 were assessed in the questionnaire. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which participation in the block association produced personal benefits (e.g., by allowing them to save money, learn new skills, or gain information) and/or social-communal benefits (e.g., by allowing them to make friends, gain recognition, receive support, help others, improve the block, or fulfill a responsibility or obligation). Respondents were also asked to indicate the costs of participating in their neighborhood association. Two kinds of costs were assessed: personal costs (e.g., need for child care, time required to participate, need to attend night meetings) and social- organizational costs (e.g., need to give up activities with friends or family, not feeling welcome, disagreeing with organizational goals, not seeing any organizational accomplishments). The results indicated that both perceived benefits and perceived costs related to level of participation, although benefits were more important determinants of level of participation than were costs. Individuals who participated more reported receiving significantly greater benefits from their participation. Learning new skills and gaining information were the benefits that best discriminated among the various levels of participation. This study demonstrates how community psychology, with its focus on people’s links with their community, can inform us about civic engagement and how communities can foster civic participation. Social Psychology Social psychology is the subdiscipline of psychology that deals with the way in which our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are affected by other people and social situations ( Allport, 1985 ). Social psychologists study topics such as attitudes and values, social influence, interpersonal relationships, and how individuals’ membership in the various groups to which they belong affects their behavior toward members of their own groups and outsiders. One aspect of interpersonal relationships that is closely related to civic engagement, and that has been much studied by social psychologists, is altruism or pro-social behavior. Research on altruism began in the mid-1960s, sparked by an incident that horrified many because it seemingly showed how apathetic and disengaged people could be. A young woman named Kitty Genovese, on the night of March 13, 1964, had returned home from work in the early morning, and was walking from her car (p.14) to her apartment building in the Queens area of New York when she was brutally (and fatally) attacked by a knife-wielding assailant. The attack lasted for over half an hour, and the New York Times reported that 38 people in Genovese’s apartment building had heard her screams during the attack, but had done nothing. The Times article blamed the lack of response on citizen apathy, but social psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latané thought that there were other factors that might have prevented people from intervening. They conducted a series of studies (see Latané & Darley, 1970 ) that suggested that the people who witnessed the attack were concerned but didn’t know what to do, and they failed to act because they took their cue from others who they knew must also have heard the screams but had not acted because they were also waiting to see what others would do. The research showed that social influence plays an important part in determining whether individuals will intervene when they see someone in need of help. Darley and Latané’s work spawned a large body of research into the factors that influence altruistic behavior. Some of the more recent research in this area has looked at a more common and ubiquitous form of helping than bystander intervention—the kind of helping that people engage in when they perform volunteer work. In one such study, social psychologists Allen Omoto and Mark Snyder (1995) developed a survey to tap the kinds of motivation that prompted Citizenship and Civic Engagement Page 12 of 17 PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy ). Subscriber: University of Otago; date: 01 November 2015 people to work as volunteers with individuals who had AIDS. The survey, which was completed by 116 AIDS volunteers, asked them to indicate how important each of 30 factors was in motivating them to begin volunteering with an AIDS organization. Five major kinds of motivation were represented by the items in the survey: personal values (“because of my humanitarian obligation to help others”); understanding (“to understand AIDS and what it does to people”); personal development (“to challenge myself and test my skills”); community concern (“to help members of the gay community”); and esteem enhancement (“to feel better about myself”). The researchers also used a follow-up survey and agency records to get an estimate of how long the respondents volunteered with the AIDS organization. The results of the study indicated that the kinds of motivation that were most important in determining how long individuals volunteered with the AIDS organization were those relating to understanding and personal development. Those who volunteered in order to learn about AIDS and to enhance their own skills and understanding volunteered for longer periods than those who were motivated by other things. This study illustrates how research in social psychology can help inform us about key factors that influence civic behaviors such as volunteering. Political Psychology Political psychology is a relatively new subdiscipline of both psychology and political science that uses psychological theory, research, and constructs to (p.15) examine political behavior and processes. Political psychologists have examined a wide range of phenomena, including international conflict, election campaigns, nationalism, political extremism, and terrorism. Civic engagement, and particularly political engagement, is also a topic to which political psychologists have devoted considerable energy. Many studies of psychological factors involved in political engagement have used data collected in large national surveys conducted in the United States and other countries. For example, Elizabeth Smith used data from the American National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) to look at the relationship between “investments in the social capital of young people” and political participation in young adulthood ( Smith, 1999 ). The NELS surveyed a national sample of eighth grade children in 1988, and conducted follow-up surveys with a subsample of these children in 1990, 1992, 1994, and 2000. The original grade 8 survey administered in 1988 contained questions asking respondents how much their parents discussed their school activities and other topics with them, as well as questions asking the students about their involvement in extracurricular activities such as athletics or arts organizations. The follow-up survey in 1990 contained these same questions and, in addition, included questions concerning students’ religious participation, such as how often they attended religious services. Smith looked at the extent to which these measures of “early investment in social capital” (i.e., parental involvement, extracurricular participation, and religious participation) predicted respondents’ political participation years later, when they were surveyed in their early 20s. The results indicated that all three factors predicted later political engagement. Children whose parents had been highly involved with them, who had participated in extracurricular activities, and who had been involved in religious activities were more likely to vote or volunteer for a political organization as young adults than were those who had not participated in such activities. Citizenship and Civic Engagement Page 13 of 17 PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy ). Subscriber: University of Otago; date: 01 November 2015 An Integrative Theory of Civic Engagement While many of psychology’s subdisciplines have theories relating to behaviors such as volunteering or social activism, no one theory addresses all of the forms that civic engagement can take, from volunteering to being a member of a neighborhood organization to participating in protests or boycotts. In what follows, I outline a general conceptual or theoretical framework that attempts to integrate these forms of engagement. The framework grew out of an initial study that I and my colleague Mike Pratt conducted, in which we attempted to discover the roots of one form of civic engagement—volunteering ( Pancer & Pratt, 1999 ). Our notion in designing the study was that the best way to find out why some people become involved in volunteering while others do not is to talk to individuals who are at (p.16) the beginning of their “careers” as volunteers and ask them how they got started. Consequently, we sent letters to several community agencies and organizations that used young volunteers, asking them to nominate young people between the ages of 16 and 20 considered to be “committed volunteers” with their organization. We then contacted these individuals and interviewed several of them about their volunteer experiences. Among other questions, we asked them what they did as volunteers, how they became volunteers, what they liked and didn’t like about volunteering, and how their volunteer work had affected them. We quickly discovered that what motivated young people initially to do community service was not the same as what kept them going as volunteers once they had started. For example, some of our young respondents began volunteering so that they could improve their job prospects or explore career possibilities. But what kept them going was the nature of the experience they had as volunteers and the support they felt in doing their volunteer work. We incorporated this distinction between the factors that initiated civic engagement and those that sustained them into our theoretical model. Our theoretical framework grew and expanded as we conducted more studies of community service and other forms of civic engagement, such as social activism. The model was also informed, of course, by the research and theoretical work of others. The basic elements of the theory are presented in Figure 1.1 . The theory posits that the process of civic engagement can be seen as occurring on two levels: an individual level and a systems level. On an individual level, people first become civically engaged as a result of various initiating factors. The most prominent of these are social influence, the individual’s values, and instrumental motives. For example, a young person may become involved in volunteering through the influence of a parent or teacher: The hospital was my first [volunteer experience]…it was my teacher. It was grade six, I think, and…we’d talk and stuff and there was a group of my friends and she [the teacher] said you know, this would be great for you guys to do this, so…I went and applied and got in and started volunteering there. Citizenship and Civic Engagement Page 14 of 17 PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy ). Subscriber: University of Otago; date: 01 November 2015 Values can also play a role in initiating civic involvement. Social responsibility values can lead to civic behaviors such as volunteering, while social justice values might be expected to lead to involvement in social activism. Individuals may also engage in civic activities for instrumental purposes, in that they expected to receive personal benefits from their activities. We found that a number of our young volunteers began doing community service in order to improve their résumé or explore a possible career, for example: I think at an early age I realized that I think I would like to go into a medicine- related field, and I figured the best way to see what was actually (p.17) (p.18) going on in the hospital was to become a volunteer. So, I called up and I asked for volunteer opportunities and they told me that there were, so I decided to go for them. While initiating factors are sufficient to get people involved initially, other factors are important in determining whether that civic involvement will be sustained. Our research indicates that civic engagement will continue to the extent that sustaining factors are present and that these sustaining factors outweigh any inhibitory factors that may also be present. The key factors that sustain civic engagement are positive experiences and a supportive social milieu. For example, if a young person feels that she is making a difference in the lives of others through her volunteer work (a positive experience) and is appreciated by the organization with which she works (which provides a supportive social milieu), she is likely to continue volunteering. Indeed, the feeling of having “made a difference” in people’s lives is one of the most common, and most powerful, experiences that young people have reported to us about their volunteer work. As one young volunteer working with disabled children told us: It was one of the most positive [experiences] of my life. It was amazing to see the difference you could make in someone’s life…just being there…just giving them a hug or just making them smile is just big, and the people there are so devoted to each other. It’s just amazing to see that. If, however, individuals have predominantly negative experiences and do not feel supported in their civic activities, they are not likely to continue. In addition, the costs of engagement may also inhibit sustained involvement. One prominent cost of engagement is the amount of time and effort it entails. It is through sustained involvement that individuals who are civically engaged will experience outcomes related to their engagement. The kind and extent of these outcomes will depend on the nature of the involvements. For example, recent research indicates that young people who are broadly involved in a wide variety of activities will experience more positive outcomes than those who are involved more intensely in relatively few activities ( Busseri et al., 2006 , 2011 ; Figure 1.1 An Integrative Theory of Civic Engagement. Citizenship and Civic Engagement Page 15 of 17 PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy ). Subscriber: University of Otago; date: 01 November 2015 Rose-Krasnor et al., 2006 ). As I describe in detail later in the book, the majority of research on the impacts of civic engagement suggests that the outcomes associated with civic engagement are mostly positive. People (particularly young people) who are civically engaged demonstrate higher levels of well-being, more advanced identity development, fewer social and emotional problems, and a greater sense of social responsibility, among many outcomes. Civic engagement can also be viewed on a systems level (represented in the lower half of Figure 1.1 ). Research indicates that social systems—the families, communities, and societies in which people live, work, learn, play, and pray—have (p.19) a profound influence on civic engagement. The process through which initiating and sustaining or inhibitory factors lead to civic engagement and outcomes at the systems level is parallel to that which occurs at the individual level. Factors that initiate civic engagement at a systems level may include the presence of community organizations and leaders within those organizations who can recruit members and mentor those who participate. The more of these “opportunity structures” there are within a social system such as a school or a neighborhood, the greater the numbers of individuals in those systems who will begin to be involved ( Watts & Flanagan, 2007 ). Other systems-level initiating factors would include the presence of programs that encourage civic engagement, such as service-learning programs in the schools, or employee volunteer programs in businesses and corporations. Parallel to factors that sustain or inhibit civic engagement at the individual level are those that sustain or inhibit engagement at the systems level. At the systems level, engagement will be sustained if communities and community organizations have values, structures, and supports that promote engagement. For example, schools that include significant numbers of parents on their governing boards or councils serve as structures that will sustain civic involvement. Neighborhoods that have a sense of community, in which individuals feel a sense of belonging and connection with their neighbors, will also serve to sustain civic involvement. Conversely, neighborhoods with little sense of community, in which residents are mistrustful or even fearful of one another, will inhibit sustained civic involvement. According to a recent book by health scientists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett (2009) , income disparities are a key systemic factor relating to civic engagement. Countries with higher levels of income inequality show lower levels of social trust and less civic participation. The work that community organizations, interest and advocacy groups, and social movements perform demonstrates civic engagement at the systems level. There is a growing body of research evidence that civic engagement at a systems level is related to positive outcomes for whole communities and even for entire states and nations. Robert Putnam’s work, described earlier in this chapter, indicates that American states with greater civic participation and more community organizations are “healthier” states, in that they have lower rates of violent crime, better educational achievement, and fewer health problems compared to states with less civic participation and fewer opportunities for civic engagement ( Putnam, 2000 ). Organization of the Book This first chapter of the book introduces the concepts of citizenship and civic engagement, shows how different areas of psychological research relate to civic participation, and provides a theoretical framework concerning the individual and systemic factors that influence civic Citizenship and Civic Engagement Page 16 of 17 PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy ). Subscriber: University of Otago; date: 01 November 2015 involvement. Chapters 2 to 5 look at how (p.20) civic participation develops throughout the lifespan and the role that families, peers, schools, neighborhoods, workplaces, religious organizations, and society play in its development. In chapters 6, 7, and 8, I discuss the impacts of civic engagement on young people, adults, and the communities in which they live. Chapter 9 discusses the “why’s and wherefore’s” of civic engagement—how civic participation achieves the many positive outcomes with which it is associated, and the kinds of civic involvements that lead to the greatest benefits. In the final chapter of the book, I talk about how what we have learned through research can help us develop programs and policies that will build and enhance civic engagement and redress some of the gaps in civic participation that we see between rich and poor, marginalized and non-marginalized individuals, and other social divides. One cannot approach a topic such as citizenship and civic engagement without bringing a certain set of values or perspectives to bear on the subject. The reader will notice several of these values and perspectives in reading through this book. First, I consider civic engagement to be a broad set of behaviors that link individuals to others in their community and serve to enhance community life, rather than a narrow set of behaviors having to do with only the more legalistic aspects of citizenship (such as voting). Second, I see people’s notions of citizenship and their civic involvements as developing and changing throughout their lives; consequently, I will be looking at the influences on and outcomes of civic engagement throughout the lifespan in this book. Third, I believe that using a wide range of research methodologies is necessary and important to gain a full understanding of civic engagement. In my own research I use quantitative methods such as surveys and experiments, but I also make extensive use of qualitative methods, such as individual interviews, focus groups, and action research, in which I and my research partners have talked to people about issues such as their community service work, their experiences with corporate social responsibility programs, and their involvement in protests and civil disobedience. I will be quoting frequently from these interviews and discussions throughout the book. Fourth, I consider it critical to look at civic engagement at the social systems level, as well as from an individual perspective, by examining the various social contexts in which engagement occurs. For example, civic engagement will be very different for those who live in impoverished environments, or for those who are oppressed and lack political power, than for those who come from more privileged social backgrounds. Finally, given what we know about the many positive impacts of civic engagement, I believe that it is incumbent upon those who do research in this field to consider the ways in which their research can be translated into policy and practice that will enhance and increase civic participation and to work hand-in-hand with practitioners, policymakers, and citizens, young and old, to make this happen. Citizenship and Civic Engagement Page 17 of 17 PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy ). Subscriber: University of Otago; date: 01 November 2015 Access brought to you by: University of Otago