political socialization family essay

6.1 Political Socialization: The Ways People Become Political

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Define political socialization.
• Describe the main influences on a person’s political socialization.
• Analyze the ways social media has affected political socialization.
• Discuss the factors that determine which influences will have the greatest impact on a person’s political socialization.

Do you consider yourself to have a political identity? Do you belong to or identify with a political party? Do you have a political ideology, such as conservative, libertarian, liberal, or populist? Are you apolitical (indifferent to politics), or are you deeply engaged in political action? Whatever your answers are, there is a chance—but a rather small one—that you deliberately and thoughtfully made these choices at a single moment by analytically comparing the various alternatives. It’s more likely that your choices gradually emerged over time through a complex combination of environmental and social influences interacting with your own personal biological and psychological makeup.

It is not entirely clear how Greta Thunberg became a climate change activist, for example, although her father Svante was named after his grandfather, a Nobel Prize–winning scientist who identified the link between increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and higher global temperatures. 5 She grew up in Sweden, a country with a strong ethic of environmentalism (by some measures, it is ranked as the most environmentally friendly country in the world). 6 She reports learning about climate change by age eight and credits the American student activists who protested gun laws after the Parkland, Florida, school shootings with inspiring her to act. 7

The gradual process of developing values and beliefs, of people becoming who they are as adults, is socialization , and the slow development of who a person becomes as a political being is political socialization . 8 Through political socialization, people develop their political ideology in the broadest sense. This includes not only their values and attitudes regarding the role of citizens and the government, but also regarding issues such as social justice or climate change. Socialization also influences whether a person is likely to have any interest in politics at all.

Political socialization is neither premeditated nor preordained, although there is a growing body of evidence that indicates that there are genetic links to political predispositions. 9 As an infant, you did not choose who you would become as an adult. As you grew, you were subject to a wide variety of forces that shaped your personality. Some of these forces were present in your physical environment, such as your home (Was there lead paint on the walls?), your neighborhood (Was it safe?), 10 and your school (Was it a place you looked forward to going to?). 11 As your physical environment shapes your learning, it also influences your views and attitudes, even if you are unaware of these influences.

The line from your social and physical environment to your political personality may be indirect. If you grew up in a heavily policed neighborhood, attended a deteriorating school, and lacked safe drinking water, your attitudes about government are likely to differ from an otherwise identical individual who lived in a comfortable home with safe drinking water and attended a well-resourced school in an affluent neighborhood. Humans are complicated, and it would be unwise to conclude that all those growing up in privilege are identically socialized or that those raised lacking such privilege all have the same political personalities. Your social and physical environments do not determine your political personality, but they can have an important influence.

The Role of the Family

The family is usually considered the most important influence on both a person’s overall socialization and their political socialization . Families profoundly affect people’s views about religion, work, and education. 12 People gradually develop these preferences, attitudes, and behaviors as they grow from infants to adolescents to adults. The impact families have on people’s lives does not vanish when they become adults. It is likely to persist over their lifetimes. The influence need not always flow from the parents to the child. Greta Thunberg ’s activism led her parents to reconsider their own environmental attitudes, and research suggests that children often affect their parents’ views on the environment. 13

Your family is likely to exert a substantial influence on your political views. 14 In some political settings in which a child’s identity is defined by religion, ethnicity, and place, their political views may seem almost predetermined. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, for example, the three main groups tend to be divided by ethnicity and religion, which largely define their political affiliations. Ethnic Bosniaks tend to be Muslim, Croats tend to be Roman Catholic, and Serbs are mainly Orthodox Christians. These differing ethnic and religious groups largely determine individuals’ political affiliations: there is little political intermingling across ethnic and religious lines. 15

In most places around the world, if parents raise their children in a particular religious faith, those children are more likely than not to adopt that faith as they become adults (or, if the children are raised in no faith, they are less likely to have religious connections as adults). 16 The same is true for almost any other important facet of life: social attitudes, beliefs about the role of the family, and yes, political beliefs. This is not to say that beliefs are automatically transmitted: young people have agency and may accept, reject, or simply question what their parents believe. 17

THE CHANGING POLITICAL LANDSCAPE

The changing family.

Families play a key role in political socialization, and family structure is evolving in different ways around the world. One fundamental change is family size; fertility rates have dropped in virtually every country in the past century.

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) provides an extreme example. When the PRC was established in 1949, the government encouraged families to have children to create additional workers, and by the 1960s the typical Chinese family had six children. At that point political leaders became worried about rapid population growth, and so in 1980 they instituted a one-child policy strictly enforced through a combination of benefits and often-harsh penalties. The policy dramatically slowed population growth, and it substantially increased both the age of and the percentage of males in the population. Under this policy, a cultural preference for male children led to sex-selective abortions and female infanticide. Believing that they had gone too far, the Chinese government lifted the one-child policy in 2016. 18

What It Was Like to Grow Up under China’s One-Child Policy

In this TED talk, Chinese filmmaker Nanfu Wang describes her experiences as a child growing up under China’s one-child policy and as an adult making a documentary about people’s experiences under the policy.

Family structure involves not only how many children are in a family, but where they live when they effectively become adults. As of 2016, a higher percentage (52 percent) of 18-to-29-year-olds in the United States were living with their parents than at any time since 1900. 19 Among wealthy countries, the percentage of 15-to-29 year-olds living with their parents varied from about 80 percent in Italy to 30 percent in Canada. 20

Given what we already know about how family members can influence each other’s political attitudes and beliefs, it will be interesting to see how these changing family structures and living conditions impact political socialization .

Your parents’ political leanings and your broader family environment affect your political views. For example, who is expected to take responsibility for caring for parents as they age varies from country to country. In China, caring for one’s parents is a sacred duty; in Norway, it is more often seen as an obligation of the government. Germans and Italians are more than twice as likely as Americans to say that the government, rather than the family, has the main responsibility for caring for the elderly. 21

Note that these statements, like other generalizations, are not true for every person in every circumstance everywhere. Some children of devout worshippers become atheists, some people raised as capitalists become communists, and some of the children of political, social, and cultural liberals become ardent conservatives.

When making these generalizations, this chapter uses words like “generally” or “tend” to suggest that the statements are accurate for the bulk of the group or characteristic being discussed. For example, in the United States, about 7 out of 10 teenagers have political ideologies and partisan affiliations similar to their parents: liberal teens tend to have liberal parents, and conservative youth generally have conservative parents. Still, about one-third of US teenagers adopt different political ideologies from those they were raised with. 22

Bernie Sanders Says His Childhood Shaped His Political Views

In a 60 Minutes interview, Senator Bernie Sanders describes how his childhood experiences helped shape his political views.

The identities of a young person’s parent(s) affect that person’s political socialization . If parental engagement in politics is high and party identification is strong, children are more likely to adopt those attitudes and behaviors than if parental political engagement is low and their partisanship indifferent. 23 Family structure—whether a child is living with two parents or a single parent, and whether parents are married, divorced, or cohabitating, for example—raises complex issues for political socialization that are not well understood. 24 Moreover, the impact of the family on socialization is not limited to children. Family dynamics also impact the political socialization of adults. 25

Your living situation growing up largely determines what influences you will encounter as you mature. Your school can influence your political socialization, as different schools have differing teaching philosophies, student bodies, and political activities. Likewise, your place of worship may have a profound influence on who you become. When you are young, your parents or guardians probably choose your school and religion; however, as people grow older, many of them spend less time with their parents or guardians and more time with their peers, including friends at school, work, community, and play. You may change your language, clothing, and interests to fit in with those in your group. And as you grow older, you are increasingly able to make your own decisions.

It is less clear whether your peers will have a lasting impact on your political socialization. Like many things when you are growing up, your choice of peers is not entirely in your control. Most children don't pick where they live and where they attend primary school, and those two factors play a big part in determining the pool of people from which individuals can choose friends. In short, your parents’ life circumstances and choices shape who your peers are likely to be. Still, context is important. Before the advent of social media, parental decisions would almost entirely determine your pool of peers. Now, given internet access, young people can find their peer groups virtually anywhere.

Increasingly, young people rely on social media to learn about the world and connect with others. Political scientists are still trying to decipher what this means for political socialization. In the past, a young person’s peers tended to be local: other members of the clan, the village, or the church. Today, a young person’s peers can be almost anywhere in the world, assuming they understand the same language, and thus young people (and adults) can more easily choose their peers based on common interests and beliefs than they could in the past. To the extent that young people, and indeed all individuals, can choose their social networks rather than being placed in them by virtue of their location, it is more likely that peer networks will reinforce existing beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors rather than change them. The ability of individuals to choose their social networks leads to “echo chambers,” which Chapter 12: The Media will examine further.

Other Affiliations

Your family and peers greatly influence your political opinions, attitudes, values, and behaviors, but there are other important influences. How much these other influences affect a person’s political socialization depends, in part, on how important they are to the person’s identity and daily life.

What Does Being Indigenous Mean?

In this clip, Indigenous people in Canada explain what it means to them to be Indigenous.

Consider ethnicity. The dominant ethnic group within a country—the White British within the United Kingdom, for example—may not perceive their ethnicity as having much of an influence on their political socialization, but its impact is likely to be profound. Members of ethnic majorities may be more likely to assume that politics and government should favor their interests as a matter of course because they may (naively) believe that what is good for them is good for everyone. Ethnic minorities, in contrast, may be socialized to feel the sting of discrimination and to view the government as no friend. One’s ethnic identity is likely to be more salient if that identity signifies one as an outsider. 26

If you were raised in a devout family, that family’s religion may have an important influence on your political socialization. 27 In the United States, for example, those individuals identifying as evangelicals are much more likely than the rest of the population to favor socially conservative public policies such as prohibiting same sex marriage or curtailing abortion rights, and they are much more likely to support the Republican Party. At the opposite end of the spectrum, those raised as atheists are more likely to believe that governmental policy should not be based on religious principles. 28

Gender roles and gender identification can influence an individual’s political socialization. Socialization into “traditional” gender roles may discourage women from developing interest or participating in politics, while in countries with women in leadership positions, young women may be socialized to become more politically aware and active. 29 The impact of gender identification and sexual orientation on political socialization is not well understood, but it seems likely that the greater the importance a person places on these attributes and the more intense the formative experiences they have regarding these attributes, the greater the influence these attributes will have on that person’s political socialization. 30

Even though young people spend a lot of time in school, the impact of schooling on political socialization appears to be modest. Why? The schools children attend often reflect the choices and environment of their parents, so they have little independent influence on socialization. For example, if you come from a religious home and your family has the means to do so, your parents might choose to send you to religious school; this reinforces the influence of the family’s religion on socialization. More broadly, the schools young people attend are likely to reflect the conditions and values that already exist in their environment.

People are socialized as individuals, and they are socialized in groups, including their family, peers, and others in their social environments. As people are socialized, they become part of larger groupings of individuals with common characteristics. The next sections discuss these larger groupings.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-political-science/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Mark Carl Rom, Masaki Hidaka, Rachel Bzostek Walker
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Political Science
• Publication date: May 18, 2022
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-political-science/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-political-science/pages/6-1-political-socialization-the-ways-people-become-political

© Apr 26, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Political Socialization: Definition and Examples

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

Political socialization is the process whereby individuals are initiated into the dominant values and traditions of a society, including those values which define the legitimate processes of politics and the way that power is exercised.

Political socialization occurs throughout an individual’s life, but is most pronounced during childhood and adolescence. The family is generally considered to be the primary agent of political socialization, followed by educational institutions, the media, and peer groups.

As a phenomenon, political socialization has been around for centuries, but it has been studied extensively and systematically since the early 20th century.

Around the turn of the twentieth century, educators in the United States conducted studies of school children that included choices of national figures most admired by the children (Greenstein, 1965).

Early research also focused on understanding how World War II and the Cold War influenced children’s attitudes toward politics and government (Greenstein, 1965).

In more recent years, scholars have taken a broader approach to political socialization, studying factors such as race, gender, and social class in addition to age, education, and family background.

Hyman (1959) conceptualized political socialization along three dimensions: participation or involvement in politics, radical or conservative goals, and democratic or authoritarian forms.

According to Hyman, these three dimensions are interrelated but independent of each other. That is, individuals can be high or low on any single dimension without being high or low on the others.

Key Takeaways

• Political socialization is the process by which individuals develop their political beliefs.
• Family, friends, school, media, and government are all main agents of political socialization.
• Classically, sociologists have thought of political socialization as occurring largely during one”s childhood, resulting in stable political views; however, this view has shifted in later sociological research accounting for the role of one”s current environment and attitudes on political beliefs.
• More recently, consensus theories have been Nonetheless, a large number of secondary agents – such as work and political parties – can serve as agents of secondary socialization. Their number typically depends on the political complexity of a society.

Agents of political Socialization

The family is considered to be the primary agent of political socialization. From an early age, children learn about politics and government from their parents or guardians.

Parents often share their own political views with their children, which can have a significant impact on the development of those views. In addition, parents provide information about how to participate in the political process, such as voting or running for office.

For example, a parent who is active in their local community may take their child to city council meetings, help them register to vote when they turn 18, or take them to political protests and rallies aligned with their own political views (Jennings & Niemi, 2015).

While the family is the main agent of political socialization , there is little overt indoctrination into political traditions. Rather, the traditions and values of a society are absorbed through the expression of general sentiments towards political symbols and personalities.

Although they are a possible agent of political socialization, parents are not necessarily significant, or influential one. There is no guarantee that the children will reflect their parents” political views. Indeed, many parents and children have radically different views on politics.

For example, a child raised in a religious and conservative household may rebel by becoming a liberal atheist (Jennings & Niemi, 2015).

Friends can play an important role in our political socialization. While family, schools, and the media all provide people with information about politics and government, friends are often the first people we turn to when we want to discuss these topics.

One’s friends can help shape one’s political views by providing them with new perspectives and ideas and by serving as a sounding board for one’s own beliefs (Reidy et al., 2015).

In addition to shaping views on politics, friends can also influence participation in the political process. If someone’s friends are politically active, people are more likely to be engaged in politics themselves. Friends can also provide people with motivation and support when it comes to taking action on issues they care about.

Of course, not all of one’s friends will share their political views. In fact, it is often through people”s interactions with people who hold different viewpoints that solidify one”s own beliefs.

However, even when people disagree with their friends on political issues, they can still play an important role in one’s political lives. Friends can help people see both sides of an issue, which can lead to a more nuanced understanding of the complex issues people face as a society (Reidy et al., 2015).

Another important agent of political socialization is schools. From a young age, children learn about government and politics in their social studies classes. They also engage in classroom discussions and debates about current events and controversial issues.

As children get older, they may participate in student government or extracurricular activities that involve politics, such as Model United Nations. Schools play a significant role in shaping students” political views and preparing them to be active citizens.

In general, effective civic education programs engage students in activities that prepare them for the real world of politics, such as mock elections and legislative hearings (Jennings & Niemi, 2015).

The college environment can provide a further opportunity for students to develop their political views and to become politically active.

Many campuses have organizations that promote various causes and engage in political activism, sometimes enduring for someone”s entire life.

One famous study at Bennington College in the 1930s showed that 1/3 of Bennington students, who came predominantly from wealthy families with conservative values but were educated by political progressives — adopted the progressive ideals of their teachers (Alwin, Cohen, & Newcomb, 1991).

Nonetheless, schools are not necessarily active or effective agents of political socialization. They may neglect to teach basic facts about government to students, favoring more “core” academic subjects like math and reading.

In addition, schools may shy away from controversial topics or current events, for fear of offending parents or sparking heated debates among students.

As a result, many young adults graduate from high school without a good understanding of how government works or what their civic responsibilities are. This lack of knowledge can make it difficult for young adults to fully participate in the political process.

Children also learn about politics from the media . Television, movies, and music often contain messages about political issues and events.

For example, a child might see a news story about a hurricane and learn about the government”s role in providing emergency assistance.

Or a child might watch a movie that depicts a corrupt politician and learn about the importance of honesty in government.

In general, as the number of media outlets has increased and new technologies enable for more engaging media experiences, mass media”s ability to socialize people to politics has grown substantially.

Because individuals do not have personal access to government or politicians, most people”s political experiences occur vicariously through the news. The typical American spends about forty hours per week consuming mass media (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2007).

This high level of media consumption means that people are likely to encounter political messages on a regular basis (Adoni, 1979).

While the amount of time that people spend exposed to mass media has increased, there has also been a shift in the types of media that people use.

In particular, there has been a move away from traditional forms of media, such as newspapers and television news programs, and towards newer forms of media, such as the internet and social networking sites.

One consequence of this shift is that people are now more likely to encounter political content through their personal networks, rather than through broader, more impersonal sources.

Many have argued that this can lead to political radicalization, as this has led to the development of echo chambers, where people only encounter information and opinions that confirm their existing beliefs (Adoni, 1979).

Religion is a central aspect of many people”s lives and can play an important role in political socialization. Religious beliefs and values can influence the way people think about political issues and candidates, and religious institutions can provide resources and support for political campaigns.

In addition, religious leaders can help shape public opinion on political issues.

Religion can also affect people”s voting behavior. Studies have shown that religious affiliation is a strong predictor of voting behavior in the United States.

People who identify as evangelical Christians are more likely to vote Republican, while people who identify as mainline Protestants or Catholics are more likely to vote Democrat.

People who do not have a religious affiliation are more likely to vote for third-party candidates or not vote at all. In addition, religious institutions can provide resources and support for political campaigns (Pearson-Merkowitz & Gimpel, 2009).

Political parties

Political parties and political socialization are two important concepts in the study of political science. Party identification was originally conceptualized as an identity.

It was seen as something that could be developed without the cognitive skills to fully understand the political world. Later, scholars characterized partisanship as a “lifestyle” rather than a lifelong identity. Although it often endures across time.

One”s affiliation with a political party is in large part an attitude developed in reaction to the actions of governments and other political actors, notably the economy (Stoker & Bass, 2011).

Political parties are an example of secondary agents of political socialization that have a distinctly political character. They are designed explicitly to spread political ideas, mobilize political engagement, and develop political leaders.

The role of political parties in political socialization is important because they provide a way for people to connect with others who have similar political views. This can help people to develop a better understanding of the political process and make informed decisions about who to vote for.

Additionally, political parties can be a source of information about candidates and issues. They can also help people feel like they are part of a larger community and have a say in the political process.

Being surrounded by members of and advocating for a political party can further solidify the party”s political beliefs in its members (Stoker & Bass, 2011).

With the average American spending over eight hours per day at work, the workplace is an important site for political socialization.

For many people, coworkers become some of their closest friends, and the workplace provides a built-in support system.

In addition, workplaces provide structure and routine, which can be helpful in difficult times. As people become more and more enmeshed in the community of the work, they become more likely to identify with the beliefs of those around them. In this way, work serves a similar function to peer groups (Washburn & Covert, 2017).

Employers can explicitly use their employee”s work as a vehicle for political socialization by requiring attendance at politically-charged seminars or viewing of films and messaging promoting the workplace”s political views.

However, more common is the subtle pressure to support the company”s favored candidates or policies. Employees who do not conform to these pressures may find themselves passed over for promotions or even lose their jobs.

As a result, people tend to self-censor their views on politics while at work, which can have a significant impact on their overall political views (Washburn & Covert, 2017).

Characteristics and Importance

Children realize they belong to a town and eventually develop political awareness of their nationality. The development of a political self begins when children start to become aware of politics as its own distinct realm in the preschool years. (Dennis, Easton, & Easton, 1969).

Younger children often think of the government personally. The first political objects recognized by children, in America, are the president of the United States and the police officer.

Children tend to idealize these political figures, though this has become less of a trend in recent years as scandals have been made more and more visible by the media (Dennis, Easton, & Easton, 1969).

Many young children have positive attitudes about the political system. School ceremonies such as singing the “Star-Spangled Banner” at the start of each day may inspire patriotism in children. Older children tend to think of the government more abstractly.

By ages 8-10, most children have a basic understanding of government as an institution separate from the individual (Dennis, Easton, & Easton, 1969).

Sociologists believe that people are most politically impressionable during the period from their mid-teens through their mid-twenties, when their views are not set and they are open to new experiences.

Nonetheless, significant events in anyone’s life – such as work, marriage, parenthood, and retirement, can significantly alter one’s political views (Steckenrider & Cutler, 1989).

Political socialization does not automatically lead to political participation, but it is an important factor in understanding why some people participate in politics and some do not.

According to classical theories of political socialization, people who are more politically active have typically had more contact with agents of political socialization, such as parents, teachers, and friends (Greenstein, 1965).

In recent years, however, scholars have argued that there are other factors – such as education level or socio-economic status – that are better predictors of political participation than exposure to political socialization agents (Griffin & Newman, 2005).

Some political scientists are concerned about the impact of political socialization on society, particularly how political institutions function. Others concentrate more on what socialization implies for people and how they deal with their political environment.

The breadth of topics those who study political socialization are interested in extends from broad topics such as national identity and consensus political norms to narrower ones such as partisanship and issue preferences.

These broad topics are especially important in understanding how political culture is preserved, while the narrower ones help explain individual-level behavior and attitudes (Jennings & Niemi, 2015).

Adoni, H. (1979). The functions of mass media in the political socialization of adolescents. Communication Research, 6 (1), 84-106.

Alwin, D. F., & Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Aging, cohorts, and the stability of sociopolitical orientations over the life span.  American journal of sociology, 97 (1), 169-195.

Alwin, D. F., Cohen, R. L., & Newcomb, T. M. (1991). Political attitudes over the life span: The Bennington women after fifty years . Univ of Wisconsin Press.

Campbell, D. E. (2009). Civic engagement and education: An empirical test of the sorting model.  American Journal of Political Science, 53 (4), 771-786.

EASTON, D., & DENNIS, J. (1969). 2 The Child’s Image of. Political Socialization, 24.

Greenstein, F. I. (1965). Personality and political socialization: The theories of authoritarian and democratic character. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 361 (1), 81-95.

Griffin, J. D., & Newman, B. (2005). Are voters better represented?. The Journal of Politics, 67 (4), 1206-1227.

Hyman, H. (1959). Political socialization.

Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (2015). Political character of adolescence: The influence of families and schools . Princeton University Press.

Pearson-Merkowitz, S., & Gimpel, J. G. (2009). Religion and political socialization. The Oxford handbook of religion and American politics, 164-190.

Reidy, C. M., Taylor, L. K., Merrilees, C. E., Ajduković, D., Biruški, D. Č., & Cummings, E. M. (2015). The political socialization of youth in a post-conflict community. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 45 , 11-23.

Rideout, V. (2007). Parents, Children & Media: A Kaiser Family Foundation Survey. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Steckenrider, J. S., & Cutler, N. E. (1989). Aging and adult political socialization: The importance of roles and transitions. Political learning in adulthood: A sourcebook of theory and research , 56-88.

Stoker, L., & Bass, J. (2011). Political socialization : Ongoing questions and new directions.

Wasburn, P. C., & Covert, T. J. A. (2017). Making citizens: Political socialization research and beyond. Springer.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

6.2 Political Socialization

Learning objectives.

After reading this section, you should be able to answer the following questions:

• How do people develop an understanding of their political culture?
• What is political socialization, and why is it important?
• What constitutes a political generation?

This section will define what is meant by political socialization and detail how the process of political socialization occurs in the United States. It will outline the stages of political learning across an individual’s life course. The agents that are responsible for political socialization, such as the family and the media, and the types of information and orientations they convey will be discussed. Group differences in political socialization will be examined. Finally, the section will address the ways that political generations develop through the political socialization process.

What Is Political Socialization?

People are inducted into the political culture of their nation through the political socialization process (Greenstein, 1969). Most often older members of society teach younger members the rules and norms of political life. However, young people can and do actively promote their own political learning, and they can influence adults’ political behavior as well (McDevitt & Chaffee, 2002).

Political scientists Gabriel Almond and James Coleman once observed that we “do not inherit our political behavior, attitudes, values, and knowledge through our genes” (Almond & Coleman, 1960). Instead, we come to understand our role and to “fit in” to our political culture through the political learning process (Conover, 1991). Political learning is a broad concept that encompasses both the active and passive and the formal and informal ways in which people mature politically (Hahn, 1998). Individuals develop a political self , a sense of personal identification with the political world. Developing a political self begins when children start to feel that they are part of a political community. They acquire the knowledge, beliefs, and values that help them comprehend government and politics (Dawson & Prewitt, 1969). The sense of being an American, which includes feeling that one belongs to a unique nation in which people share a belief in democratic ideals, is conveyed through the political learning process.

Political socialization is a particular type of political learning whereby people develop the attitudes, values, beliefs, opinions, and behaviors that are conducive to becoming good citizens in their country. Socialization is largely a one-way process through which young people gain an understanding of the political world through their interaction with adults and the media. The process is represented by the following model (Greenstein, 1969):

who (subjects) → learns what (political values, beliefs, attitudes, behaviors) → from whom (agents) → under what circumstances → with what effects.

Agents of socialization , which include parents, teachers, and the mass media, convey orientations to subjects, who are mostly passive. For example, parents who take an active role in politics and vote in every election often influence their children to do the same. Young people who see television coverage of their peers volunteering in the community may take cues from these depictions and engage in community service themselves. The circumstances under which political socialization can take place are almost limitless. Young people can be socialized to politics through dinner conversations with family members, watching television and movies, participating in a Facebook group, or texting with friends. The effects of these experiences are highly variable, as people can accept, reject, or ignore political messages.

People develop attitudes toward the political system through the socialization process. Political legitimacy is a belief in the integrity of the political system and processes, such as elections. People who believe strongly in the legitimacy of the political system have confidence that political institutions will be responsive to the wants and needs of citizens and that abuses of governmental power will be held in check. If political leaders engage in questionable behavior, there are mechanisms to hold them accountable. The presidential impeachment process and congressional ethics hearings are two such mechanisms.

Political efficacy refers to individuals’ perceptions about whether or not they can influence the political process. People who have a strong sense of political efficacy feel that they have the skills and resources to participate effectively in politics and that the government will be responsive to their efforts. Those who believe in the legitimacy of the political system and are highly efficacious are more likely to participate in politics and to take strong stands on public-policy issues (Craig, 1993). Citizens who were frustrated about the poor state of the economy and who felt they could influence the political process identified with the Tea Party in the 2010 election and worked to elect candidates who promised to deal with their concerns.

Much political socialization in the United States passes on norms, customs, beliefs, and values supportive of democracy from one generation to the next. Americans are taught to respect the democratic and capitalist values imbedded in the American creed. Young people are socialized to respect authorities, such as parents, teachers, police officers, and fire fighters, and to obey laws.

The goal of this type of socialization is deliberately intended to ensure that the democratic political system survives even in times of political stress, such as economic crisis or war (Dennis, Easton, & Easton, 1969). One indicator of a stable political system is that elections take place regularly following established procedures and that people recognize the outcomes as legitimate (Dennis, Easton, & Easton, 1969). Most Americans quickly accepted George W. Bush as president when the 2000 election deadlock ended with the Supreme Court decision that stopped the recounting of disputed votes in Florida. The country did not experience violent protests after the decision was announced, but instead moved on with politics as usual (Conover, 1991).

2000 Presidential Election Bush vs. Gore

(click to see video)

This citizen-produced video shows peaceful protestors outside of the Supreme Court as the case of Bush v. Gore was being considered to decide the outcome of the 2000 presidential election.

Some scholars argue that political socialization is akin to indoctrination , as it forces people to conform to the status quo and inhibits freedom and creativity (Lindbolm, 1993). However, socialization is not always aimed at supporting democratic political orientations or institutions. Some groups socialize their members to values and attitudes that are wildly at odds with the status quo. The Latin Kings, one of the largest and oldest street gangs in the United States, has its own constitution and formal governing structure. Leaders socialize members to follow gang rules that emphasize an “all for one” mentality; this includes strict internal discipline that calls for physical assault against or death to members who violate the rules. It also calls for violent retribution against rival gang members for actions such as trafficking drugs in the Kings’s territory. The Kings have their own sign language, symbols (a five-point crown and tear drop), colors (black and gold), and holidays (January 6, “King’s Holy Day”) that bond members to the gang (Padilla, 1992).

Political Socialization over the Life Course

Political learning begins early in childhood and continues over a person’s lifetime. The development of a political self begins when children realize that they belong to a particular town and eventually that they are Americans. Awareness of politics as a distinct realm of experience begins to develop in the preschool years (Dennis, Easton, & Easton, 1969).

Younger children tend to personalize government. The first political objects recognized by children are the president of the United States and the police officer. Children tend to idealize political figures, although young people today have a less positive view of political actors than in the past. This trend is partially a result of the media’s preoccupations with personal scandals surrounding politicians.

Young people often have warm feelings toward the political system. Children can develop patriotic values through school rituals, such as singing the “Star Spangled Banner” at the start of each day. As children mature, they become increasingly sophisticated in their perceptions about their place in the political world and their potential for involvement: they learn to relate abstract concepts that they read about in textbooks like this one to real-world actions, and they start to associate the requirements of democracy and majority rule with the need to vote when they reach the age of twenty-one.

Young people who participate in community service projects can develop a long-term commitment to volunteering and political participation.

Hebron – Community Service Day 2013 – CC BY-NC 2.0.

People are the most politically impressionable during the period from their midteens through their midtwenties, when their views are not set and they are open to new experiences. College allows students to encounter people with diverse views and provides opportunities for political engagement (Niemi & Hepburn, 1995). Young people may join a cause because it hits close to home. After the media publicized the case of a student who committed suicide after his roommate allegedly posted highly personal videos of him on the Internet, students around the country became involved in antibullying initiatives (Sapiro, 1983).

Significant events in adults’ lives can radically alter their political perspectives, especially as they take on new roles, such as worker, spouse, parent, homeowner, and retiree (Steckenrider & Cutler, 1988). This type of transition is illustrated by 1960s student protestors against the Vietnam War. Protestors held views different from their peers; they were less trusting of government officials but more efficacious in that they believed they could change the political system. However, the political views of some of the most strident activists changed after they entered the job market and started families. Some became government officials, lawyers, and business executives—the very types of people they had opposed when they were younger (Lyons, 1994).

Student activists in the 1960s protested against US involvement in the Vietnam War. Some activists developed more favorable attitudes toward government as they matured, had families, and became homeowners.

Wikimedia Commons – CC BY 2.0.

Even people who have been politically inactive their entire lives can become motivated to participate as senior citizens. They may find themselves in need of health care and other benefits, and they have more time for involvement. Organizations such as the Gray Panthers provide a pathway for senior citizens to get involved in politics (Miles, 1997).

Agents of Political Socialization

People develop their political values, beliefs, and orientations through interactions with agents of socialization. Agents include parents, teachers, friends, coworkers, military colleagues, church associates, club members, sports-team competitors, and media (Dawson & Prewitt, 1969). The political socialization process in the United States is mostly haphazard, informal, and random. There is no standard set of practices for parents or teachers to follow when passing on the rites of politics to future generations. Instead, vague ideals—such as the textbook concept of the “model citizen,” who keeps politically informed, votes, and obeys the law—serve as unofficial guides for socializing agencies (Langton, 1969; Riccards, 1973).

Agents can convey knowledge and understanding of the political world and explain how it works. They can influence people’s attitudes about political actors and institutions. They also can show people how to get involved in politics and community work. No single agent is responsible for an individual’s entire political learning experience. That experience is the culmination of interactions with a variety of agents. Parents and teachers may work together to encourage students to take part in service learning projects. Agents also may come into conflict and provide vastly different messages.

We focus here on four agents that are important to the socialization process—the family, the school, the peer group, and the media. There are reasons why each of these agents is considered influential for political socialization; there are also factors that limit their effectiveness.

Over forty years ago, pioneering political-socialization researcher Herbert Hyman proclaimed that “foremost among agencies of socialization into politics is the family” (Hyman, 1959). Hyman had good reason for making this assumption. The family has the primary responsibility for nurturing individuals and meeting basic needs, such as food and shelter, during their formative years. A hierarchical power structure exists within many families that stresses parental authority and obedience to the rules that parents establish. The strong emotional relationships that exist between family members may compel children to adopt behaviors and attitudes that will please their parents or, conversely, to rebel against them.

Parents can teach their children about government institutions, political leaders, and current issues, but this rarely happens. They can influence the development of political values and ideas, such as respect for political symbols or belief in a particular cause. The family as an agent of political socialization is most successful in passing on basic political identities, especially an affiliation with the Republican or Democratic Parties and liberal or conservative ideological leanings (Dennis & Owen, 1997).

Children can learn by example when parents act as role models. Young people who observe their parents reading the newspaper and following political news on television may adopt the habit of keeping informed. Adolescents who accompany parents when they attend public meetings, circulate petitions, or engage in other political activities stand a better chance of becoming politically engaged adults (Merelman, 1986). Children can sometimes socialize their parents to become active in politics; participants in the Kids Voting USA program have encouraged their parents to discuss campaign issues and take them to the polls on Election Day.

The home environment can either support or discourage young people’s involvement in political affairs. Children whose parents discuss politics frequently and encourage the expression of strong opinions, even if it means challenging others, are likely to become politically active adults. Young people raised in this type of family will often initiate political discussion and encourage parents to become involved. Alternatively, young people from homes where political conversations are rare, and airing controversial viewpoints is discouraged, tend to abstain from politics as adults (Saphir & Chaffee, 2002). Politics was a central focus of family life for the Kennedys, a family that has produced generations of activists, including President John F. Kennedy and Senator Ted Kennedy.

Members of the Kennedy family have been prominently involved in politics for over a century, illustrating how the desire to participate in politics is passed on generationally.

Wikimedia Commons – public domain.

There are limitations on the effectiveness of the family as an agent of political learning and socialization. Most families are not like the Kennedys. For many families, politics is not a priority, as they are more concerned with issues related to day-to-day life. Few parents serve as political role models for their children. Many activities, such as voting or attending town meetings, take place outside of the home (Merelman).

Some scholars consider the school, rather than the family, to be the most influential agent of political socialization (Hess & Torney, 1967). Schools can stimulate political learning through formal classroom instruction via civics and history classes, the enactment of ceremonies and rituals such as the flag salute, and extracurricular activities such as student government. Respect for authorities is emphasized, as teachers have the ability to reward and punish students through grades.

The most important task of schools as agents of political socialization is the passing on of knowledge about the fundamentals of American government, such as constitutional principles and their implications for citizens’ engagement in politics. Students who master these fundamentals feel competent to participate politically. They are likely to develop the habit of following politics in the media and to become active in community affairs (Nie, Junn, & Stehlik-Barry, 1996).

The college classroom can be an environment for socializing young people to politics. Faculty and student exchanges can form, reinforce, or change evaluations of politics and government. A famous study of women students who attended Bennington College during the Great Depression of the 1930s illustrates how the college experience can create long-lasting political attitudes. The Bennington women came predominantly from wealthy families with conservative values. The faculty consisted of political progressives who supported the New Deal and other social programs. About one-third of the Bennington women adopted the progressive ideals of their teachers. Many of these women remained active in politics their entire lives. A number became leaders of the women’s rights movement (Alwin, Cohen, & Newcomb, 1991).

Figure 6.10

Women at Bennington College in the 1930s became active in community affairs as a result of their political socialization in college.

Wikimedia Commons – CC BY-SA 2.0.

While schools have great potential as agents of political socialization, they are not always successful in teaching even basic facts about government to students. Schools devote far less time to civics and history than to other subjects that are considered to be basic skills, such as reading and math. The average amount of classroom time spent on civics-related topics is less than forty-five minutes per week nationwide, although this figure varies widely based on the school. Students whose exposure to civics is exclusively through lectures and readings generally memorize facts about government for tests but do not remember them or make connections to real-world politics. The most effective civic education programs engage students in activities that prepare them for the real world of politics, such as mock elections and legislative hearings (Niemi & Junn, 1998).

Peers (a group of people who are linked by common interests, equal social position, and similar age) can be influential in the political socialization process. Young people desire approval and are likely to adopt the attitudes, viewpoints, and behavior patterns of groups to which they belong. Unlike the family and school, which are structured hierarchically with adults exercising authority, the peer group provides a forum for youth to interact with people who are at similar levels of maturity. Peers provide role models for people who are trying to fit in or become popular in a social setting (Walker, Hennig, & Krettenauer, 2000).

Peer-group influence begins when children reach school age and spend less time at home. Middle-childhood (elementary school) friendships are largely segregated by sex and age, as groups of boys and girls will engage in social activities such as eating together in the lunchroom or going to the mall. Such interactions reinforce sex-role distinctions, including those with political relevance, such as the perception that males are more suited to hold positions of authority. Peer relationships change later in childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood, when groups are more often based on athletic, social, academic, and job-related interests and abilities (Harris, 1995).

The pressure to conform to group norms can have a powerful impact on young people’s political development if group members are engaged in activities directly related to politics, such as student government or working on a candidate’s campaign. Young people even will change their political viewpoints to conform to those held by the most vocal members of their peer group rather than face being ostracized. Still, individuals often gravitate toward groups that hold beliefs and values similar to their own in order to minimize conflict and reinforce their personal views (Dey, 1997). As in the case of families, the influence of peer groups is mitigated by the fact that politics is not a high priority for most of them.

As early as the 1930s, political scientist Charles Merriam observed that radio and film had tremendous power to educate: “Millions of persons are reached daily through these agencies, and are profoundly influenced by the material and interpretations presented in impressive form, incessantly, and in moments when they are open to suggestion” (Merriam, 1931). The capacity of mass media to socialize people to politics has grown massively as the number of media outlets has increased and as new technologies allow for more interactive media experiences. Most people’s political experiences occur vicariously through the media because they do not have personal access to government or politicians.

Since the advent of television, mass media have become prominent socialization agents. Young people’s exposure to mass media has increased markedly since the 1960s. Studies indicate that the typical American aged two to eighteen spends almost forty hours a week consuming mass media, which is roughly the equivalent of holding a full-time job. In one-third of homes, the television is on all day. Young people’s mass-media experiences often occur in isolation. They spend much of their time watching television, using a computer or cell phone, playing video games, or listening to music alone. Personal contact with family members, teachers, and friends has declined. More than 60 percent of people under the age of twenty have televisions in their bedrooms, which are multimedia sanctuaries (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2006).

The use of more personalized forms of media, such as text messaging and participation in social networking sites, has expanded exponentially in recent years. Young people using these forms of media have greater control over their own political socialization: they can choose to follow politics through a Facebook group that consists largely of close friends and associates with similar viewpoints, or they may decide to avoid political material altogether. Young people, even those who have not reached voting age, can become involved in election campaigns by using social media to contribute their own commentary and videos online.

Media are rich sources of information about government, politics, and current affairs. People learn about politics through news presented on television, in newspapers and magazines, on radio programs, on Internet websites, and through social media. The press provides insights into the workings of government by showcasing political leaders in action, such as gavel-to-gavel coverage of Congress on C-SPAN. People can witness politicians in action, including on the campaign trail, through videos posted on YouTube and on online news sites such as CNN and MSNBC. Entertainment media, including television comedies and dramas, music, film, and video games also contain much political content. Television programs such as The West Wing and Law and Order offer viewers accounts of how government functions that, although fictionalized, can appear realistic. Media also establish linkages between leaders, institutions, and citizens. In contrast to typing and mailing a letter, it is easier than ever for people to contact leaders directly using e-mail and Facebook.

Some factors work against the media as agents of political socialization. Media are first and foremost profit-driven entities that are not mandated to be civic educators; they balance their public service imperative against the desire to make money. Moreover, unlike teachers, journalists do not have formal training in how to educate citizens about government and politics; as a result, the news often can be more sensational than informative.

Group Differences

Political learning and socialization experiences can differ vastly for people depending on the groups with which they associate, such as those based on gender and racial and ethnic background. Certain groups are socialized to a more active role in politics, while others are marginalized. Wealthier people may have more resources for participating in politics, such as money and connections, than poorer people.

Figure 6.11

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is one of an increasing number of women who has achieved a highly visible political leadership role.

There are significant differences in the way that males and females are socialized to politics. Historically, men have occupied a more central position in American political culture than women. This tradition was institutionalized at the time of the founding, when women did not receive the right to vote in the Constitution. While strides have been made over the past century to achieve political equality between the sexes, differences in sex-role socialization still exist. Traits associated with political leadership, such as being powerful and showing authority, are more often associated with males than females. Girls have fewer opportunities to observe women taking political action, especially as few females hold the highly visible positions, such as member of Congress and cabinet secretary, that are covered by mass media. This is starting to change as women such as Madeleine Albright and now Hillary Clinton attract media attention in their roles as secretary of state or as Nancy Pelosi did as Speaker of the House of Representatives. Sarah Palin gained national attention as Republican John McCain’s vice presidential running mate in 2008, and she has become a visible and outspoken political figure in her own right. Despite these developments, women are still are socialized to supporting political roles, such as volunteering in political campaigns, rather than leading roles, such as holding higher-level elected office. The result is that fewer women than men seek careers in public office beyond the local level (Sapiro, 2002).

Political Generations

A political generation is a group of individuals, similar in age, who share a general set of political socialization experiences leading to the development of shared political orientations that distinguish them from other age groups in society. People of a similar age tend to be exposed to shared historical, social, and political stimuli. A shared generational outlook develops when an age group experiences a decisive political event in its impressionable years —the period from late adolescence to early adulthood when people approach or attain voting age—and begins to think more seriously about politics. At the same time, younger people have less clearly defined political beliefs, which makes them more likely to be influenced by key societal events (Carpini, 1986).

The idea of American political generations dates back to the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson believed that new generations would emerge in response to changing social and political conditions and that this would, in turn, influence public policy. Today people can be described as being part of the Depression Era/GI generation, the silent generation, the baby boom generation, generation X, and the millennial generation/generation Y. Depression Era/GIs, born between 1900 and 1924, were heavily influenced by World War I and the Great Depression. They tend to trust government to solve programs because they perceived that Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal programs helped the country recover from the Depression. The silent generation, born between 1922 and 1945, experienced World War II and the 1950s during their impressionable years. Like their predecessors, they believe that government can get things done, but they are less trusting of leaders. The Vietnam War and the civil rights and women’s rights movements left lasting impressions on the baby boomers, who were born between 1943 and 1960. The largest of the generations, this cohort protested against the government establishment in its youth and still distrusts government. Generation Xers, born between 1965 and 1980, came of age during a period without a major war or economic hardship. The seminal events they relate to are the explosion of the Challenger spacecraft and the Iran-Contra hearings. This generation developed a reputation for lacking both knowledge and interest in politics (Strauss & Howe, 1992). The political development of the millennials, those born between 1981 and 2000, is influenced by the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and its aftermath, as well as by the rise of digital technologies. This generation is more multicultural and has more tolerance for racial and ethnic difference than older cohorts. Sociologists William Strauss and Neil Howe have identified an emerging cohort born after 2000, which they label the homeland generation. This generation is influenced by omnipresent technology, the war on terror, and parents who seek to protect them from societal ills (Strauss & Howe, 2000).

Conflicts between generations have existed for centuries. Thomas Jefferson observed significant differences in the political worldviews of younger and older people in the early days of the republic. Younger government leaders were more willing to adapt to changing conditions and to experiment with new ideas than older officials (Elazar, 1976). Today generation Xers and the millennials have been portrayed as self-interested and lacking social responsibility by their elders from the baby boom generation. Generational conflicts of different periods have been depicted in landmark films including the 1950s-era Rebel without a Cause and the 1960s-era Easy Rider . Generation X has been portrayed in films such as Slacker , The Breakfast Club , and Reality Bites . Movies about the millennial generation include Easy A and The Social Network .

Key Takeaways

Political socialization is the process by which people learn about their government and acquire the beliefs, attitudes, values, and behaviors associated with good citizenship. The political socialization process in the United States stresses the teaching of democratic and capitalist values. Agents, including parents, teachers, friends, coworkers, church associates, club members, sports teams, mass media, and popular culture, pass on political orientations.

Political socialization differs over the life course. Young children develop a basic sense of identification with a country. College students can form opinions based on their experiences working for a cause. Older people can become active because they see a need to influence public policy that will affect their lives. There are subgroup differences in political socialization. Certain groups, such citizens with higher levels of education and income, are socialized to take an active part in politics, while others are marginalized.

Political generations consist of individuals similar in age who develop a unique worldview as a result of living through particular political experiences. These key events include war and economic depression.

• Do you believe you have the power to make an impact on the political process?
• What is the first political event you were aware of? What did you think about what was going on? Who influenced how you thought about it?
• How do members of your political generation feel about the government? How do your attitudes differ from those of your parents?

Almond, G. A. and James S. Coleman, eds., The Politics of the Developing Areas (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1960), 27.

Alwin, D. F., Ronald L. Cohen, and Theodore M. Newcomb, Political Attitudes Over the Life Span (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991).

Carpini, M. X. D., Stability and Change in American Politics (New York: New York University Press, 1986).

Conover, P. J., “Political Socialization: Where’s the Politics?” in Political Science: Looking to the Future, Volume III, Political Behavior, ed. William Crotty (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1991), 125–152.

Craig, S. C., Malevolent Leaders (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1993).

Dawson, R. E. and Kenneth Prewitt, Political Socialization (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1969).

Dennis, J., David Easton, and Sylvia Easton, Children in the Political System (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969).

Dennis, J. and Diana Owen, “The Partisanship Puzzle: Identification and Attitudes of Generation X,” in After the Boom, ed. Stephen C. Craig and Stephen Earl Bennet (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997), 43–62.

Dey, E. L., “Undergraduate Political Attitudes,” Journal of Higher Education , 68 (1997): 398–413.

Elazar, D. J., The Generational Rhythm of American Politics (Philadelphia: Temple University, Center for the Study of Federalism, 1976).

Greenstein, F. I., Children and Politics (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1969).

Hahn, C. L., Becoming Political (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998).

Harris, J. R., “Where Is the Child’s Environment? A Group Socialization Theory of Development,” Psychological Review 102, no. 3 (1995): 458–89.

Hess, R. and Judith Torney, The Development of Political Attitudes in Children (Chicago: Aldine, 1967).

Hyman, H., Political Socialization (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1959), 69.

Kaiser Family Foundation, The Media Family (Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2006).

Langton, K. P., Political Socialization (New York: Oxford, 1969).

Lindblom, C. E., “Another Sate of Mind,” in Discipline and History, ed. James Farr and Raymond Seidelman (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993), 327–43.

Lyons, P., Class of ‘66 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994).

McDevitt, M. and Steven Chaffee, “From Top-Down to Trickle-Up Influence: Revisiting the Assumptions about the Family in Political Socialization,” Political Communication , November 2002, 281–301.

Merelman, R. M., “The Family and Political Socialization: Toward a Theory of Exchange,” Journal of Politics , 42:461–86.

Merelman, R. M., Making Something of Ourselves (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986).

Merriam, C. E., The Making of Citizens (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931), 160–61.

Miles, A. D., “A Multidimensional Approach to Distinguishing between the Most and Least Politically Engaged Senior Citizens, Using Socialization and Participation Variables” (PhD diss., Georgetown University, 1997).

Nie, N. H., Jane Junn, and Kenneth Stehlik-Barry, Education and Democratic Citizenship in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).

Niemi, R. G. and Jane Junn, Civic Education (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998).

Niemi, R. G. and Mary A. Hepburn, “The Rebirth of Political Socialization,” Perspectives on Political Science , 24 (1995): 7–16.

Padilla, F., The Gang as American Enterprise (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1992).

Riccards, M. P., The Making of American Citizenry (New York: Chandler Press, 1973).

Saphir, M. N. and Steven H. Chaffee, “Adolescents’ Contribution to Family Communication Patterns,” Human Communication Research 28, no. 1 (2002): 86–108.

Sapiro, V., The Political Integration of Women (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983).

Sapiro, V., Women in American Society (New York: Mayfair Publishing, 2002).

Steckenrider, J. S. and Neal E. Cutler, “Aging and Adult Political Socialization,” in Political Learning in Adulthood, ed. Roberta S. Sigel (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 56–88.

Strauss, W. and Neil Howe, Millennials Rising (New York: Random House, 2000).

Strauss, W. and Neil Howe, Generations (New York: William Morrow, 1992).

Walker, L. J., Karl H. Hennig, and Tobias Krettenauer, “Parent and Peer Contexts for Children’s Moral Reasoning Development,” Child Development 71, no. 4 (August 2000): 1033–48.

American Government and Politics in the Information Age Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

The Role of Political Socialisation in Shaping Political Attitudes and Behaviors

Table of Contents

Have you ever wondered how your political opinions came to be? Or why you lean towards a particular party or ideology? The answers lie in a fascinating process known as political socialization . This journey, which begins at birth and continues throughout our lives, subtly shapes our political attitudes and behaviors. But what exactly is political socialization, and how does it influence us? Let’s dive into the depths of this sociological process to uncover its impact on our individual and collective political landscapes.

What is political socialization?

Political socialization is the lifelong process by which individuals acquire political culture , learn the norms, values, and behaviors associated with political systems. It’s not just about acquiring knowledge; it’s about internalizing the political world around us and understanding our role within it. But where does this learning come from, and who are the teachers in this invisible classroom?

The agents of political socialization

Several institutions play a pivotal role in our political education. Each one contributes uniquely to the tapestry of our political understanding.

Family: The first school of politics

From the dinner table discussions to the subtle cues about right and wrong, our families are often our first introduction to politics. They set the stage for our basic political leanings and our understanding of civic responsibility .

Education: The formal political curriculum

Schools and universities are not just about reading, writing, and arithmetic. They are critical in teaching us how to engage with political processes, understand different ideologies , and foster critical thinking about governance and citizenship .

Media: The window to the political world

Whether it’s through the news, social media, or television shows, media is a significant source of political information, shaping our perceptions and often influencing our opinions on political matters.

Societal interactions: The community as a political influencer

Our interactions with peers, religious institutions, and other community groups provide diverse perspectives and experiences that further refine our political beliefs and attitudes.

The stages of political socialization

Political socialization is not a single event but a series of stages that occur throughout our lives.

Childhood: Planting the seeds

In our early years, we absorb the attitudes and beliefs of those around us, often accepting them without question. This is where the foundation of our political identity begins to take shape.

Adolescence: Testing the waters

As we grow into teenagers, we start to explore different political ideas, sometimes challenging the views we’ve inherited and beginning to form our own opinions.

Adulthood: Settling into our political selves

By the time we reach adulthood, our political beliefs are generally more solidified. We vote, we advocate, and we become active participants in the political process, influenced by the cumulative experiences of our earlier years.

The impact of political socialization on society

Political socialization doesn’t just shape individuals; it has a profound impact on society as a whole.

Creating political stability

By imparting the norms and values of a political system, political socialization fosters stability and continuity within a society, ensuring that the political culture is passed down to future generations.

Challenging the status quo

However, political socialization can also be a force for change. As individuals encounter new ideas and experiences, they can challenge and reshape the prevailing political culture, driving societal transformation.

Facilitating political participation

An understanding of political processes and belief in one’s efficacy as a citizen encourages active participation in the political system, from voting to protesting to running for office.

Political socialization in the digital age

The advent of the internet and social media has transformed the way we are politically socialized, bringing both opportunities and challenges.

The spread of information

Digital platforms allow for a rapid exchange of political ideas and information, expanding our political horizons and introducing us to perspectives we might never encounter in our immediate surroundings.

The echo chamber effect

However, the same algorithms that help us find likeminded individuals online can also trap us in echo chambers, reinforcing our pre-existing beliefs and limiting our exposure to diverse viewpoints.

Understanding political socialization is key to comprehending how we develop our political identities and the ways in which we can become more informed, critical, and active citizens. It reveals the complex interplay between individual experiences and societal structures in shaping the political landscape.

What do you think? Are there moments in your life that have significantly shaped your political beliefs? How do you think digital media is changing the way we are politically socialized?

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Submit Comment

Introduction to Sociology

1 Thinking Sociologically

• Sociological Methods
• Sociology in Everyday Life
• Sociology and other Disciplines
• In What Way Sociological Looks at Reality
• Observe Interpret and Validate Sociological Perspectives

2 Emergence of Sociology and Social Anthropology

• Emergence of Sociology
• Social and Economic Changes that Swept 19th Century European Society
• The Rise of Sociological Theory
• Emergence of Social Anthropology
• Emergence of Modern Social Anthropology
• Pioneers of Social Anthropology

3 Relationship of Sociology with Anthropology

• Nature of Sociology and Social Anthropology
• Emergence and History of Sociology
• Emergence and History of Anthropology
• Similarities between Sociology and Anthropology
• Differences between Sociology and Anthropology

4 Relationship of Sociology with Psychology

• Definition of Sociology
• Sociology and Psychology: The Possible Interlink
• Social Psychology: Historical Development
• Defining Social Psychology
• Inter-disciplinary Approach to Social Psychology
• Scope of Social Psychology
• Your Sociological Tool Kit
• Concepts and Methods of Sociology used in Social Psychology
• Perspectives in Sociological Social Psychology
• Objectives of Research in Social Psychology
• Importance of Sociological Social Psychology

5 Relationship of Sociology with History

• Defining History
• Relationship of Sociology with History
• Difference Between Sociology and History
• Historical Sociology as Sub-Discipline

6 Relationship of Sociology with Economics

• Definition of Economics
• Differences between Sociology and Economics
• Definitions Given by Different Economist and their Relation to Sociology
• Definitions Given by Different Sociologists and their Relation to Economics
• Economic Sociology as a Sub-Discipline of Sociology
• Common Issues Concerning both Sociology and Economics

7 Relationship of Sociology with Political Science

• Definition of Political Science
• Shift in the Focus of Political Science
• Relationship between Sociology and Political Science
• Differentiating between Political Sociology and Sociology of Politics
• Political Culture
• Political Socialisation
• Political Capital

8 Culture and Society

• Culture and Biology
• Culture Trait and Culture Complex
• Characteristics of Culture
• Types of Culture: Material and Non-material Culture
• Elements of Culture
• Culture and Civilization
• Cultural Change
• Cultural Diversity
• Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativism
• Multiculturalism
• Globalisation and Culture
• Culture in Indian Context

9 Social Groups and Community

• Definitions of Community
• Characteristics of Community
• Elements of Community Sentiment
• Community and Association
• Definition of Social Group
• Bases of Classification of Groups
• Primary and Secondary Groups
• Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft
• In Group and Out Group
• Reference Group
• Social Group and Community Differences

10 Associations and Institutions

• Meaning and Definition of Association
• Main Characteristics of an Association
• Defining Institutions
• Purpose of Institutions
• Types of Institutions
• Perspectives on Social Institutions

11 Status and Role

• The Concept of Status
• Ascribed and Achieved Status
• Master Status
• The Concept of Role
• Role Theory
• Classification of Roles
• Role Systems: Simple and Complex Societies
• Dimensions of Roles

12 Socialisation

• Socialisation – Meaning and Definitions
• Types of Socialisation
• Theories of Socialisation
• Agents of Socialisation

13 Structure and Function

• From Positivism to Functionalism
• The Premises of Functionalism
• Functionalism in Social Anthropology: Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski
• Functionalism of Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Merton

14 Social Control and Change

• Meaning and Definition of Social Control
• Types of Social Control
• Agencies of Social Control
• Concept and Meaning of Social Change
• Approaches to Understanding Social Change
• Factors of Social Change
• Impact of Social Change

15 Evolutionary Perspective

• The Beginning of the Concept of Social Evolution
• The Organic Analogy and Biological Theories of Evolution
• Theories of Cultural Evolution
• Limitation of Classical Evolutionary Theory
• Neo-Evolutionary Theories

16 Functionalism

• Founders of Functionalism
• Later Functionalists

17 Structuralism

• Claude Levi-Strauss and Structuralism
• The Concept of Culture as Understood by Levi-Strauss
• The Structural Analysis of Myths
• Ethnography and Structural Analysis
• Critical Points of View

18 Conflict Perspective

• The Classical Theorists
• Modern Conflict Schools
• Elite Theory
• Recent Trends in Conflict Theory

19 Interpretive Sociology

• Meaning and Definition
• Differences Between Interpretive and Positivist Sociology
• Origins of Interpretive Sociology
• Branches of Interpretive Sociology
• Limitations of Interpretive Sociology

20 Symbolic Interactionism

• George Herbert Mead: Basic Concepts
• The Emergence of Symbolic Interactionism
• Other Schools of Thought
• Erving Goffman and the Dramaturgical Approach
• Recent Studies

21 Feminist Perspective

• Socio-Historical Background
• Liberal Feminism
• Radical Feminism
• Marxist Feminism
• Socialist Feminism
• Post Modern and Third Wave Feminism
• Multicultural and Postcolonial Feminism

22 Dalit Perspective

• Defining Dalits: A Sociological Perspective
• Demand for a Different Perspective
• Theoretical Rationale of ‘Dalit Perspective’
• Defining Dalit Perspective

23 Division of Labour- Durkheim and Marx

• Socio-Economic Setting and Meaning of ‘Division of Labour’
• Durkheim’s Views on Division of Labour
• Marx’s Views on Division of Labour
• A Comparison

24 Religion- Durkheim and Weber

• Definition of Religion — Beliefs and Rites
• Durkheim’s Study of ‘Totemism’
• Religion and Science
• The Religion of India
• The Religion of China
• Ancient Judaism
• Durkheim and Weber — A Comparison

25 Capitalism- Marx and Weber

• Karl Marx on Capitalism
• Max Weber on Capitalism
• Marx and Weber – A Comparison

26 Social change and transformation

• Concept of Social Change and Social Transformation
• Theories of Social Change
• Rate of Social Change

Share on Mastodon