A Campus Press interview with Michael McDevitt, associate professor in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication
A Campus Press interview with Michael McDevitt, associate professor of the School of Journalism and Mass Communication
Daniel Carter (CP reporter): How do you feel the political identity of teens changes from the high school atmosphere to the college atmosphere?
Michael McDevitt: Political scientists often describe partisan identity as fairly stable throughout an individual’s lifetime, however, if these identities are malleable to any extent they are likely to be influenced during youth and youth encompassing childhood. So a lot of youth making the transition from high school to college will have malleable identities. And so, my research looks at the initial period of identity formation and looks at the contribution of schools, particularly civics curriculum, families, news media use and also the geopolitical setting in which young people grow up. And that brings in the focus of the study in red states and blue states. I think it makes sense to expect that a young person making the transition from high school to college could change from identifying with Republicans to Democrats or vice versa. There is research that goes back many decades, I believe in the east coast from a school called Bennington College, elite college for all girls that shows when children from elite, and expected conservative families move to a more liberal college environment, where their peers and professors are mostly liberal, the girls’ political identities changed to fit those around them, moving away from identities from their parents.
Daniel Carter: That’s very interesting, and a perfect example of what I was trying to ask about. It also ties into another question I was wondering about. There’s that old cliche that says, “if you’re not liberal when you’re young you have no heart, and if you’re not conservative when you’re old you have no brain.” How do you feel about this notion, and have you seen any greater insight in it through your research?
Michael McDevitt: You know, there’s probably some truth to that. As with all cliches, all stereotypes, you have to move beyond it. What we do seem to find in research, and I think it’s fairly obvious just in observing people as they progress through life, that exposure to education, to knowledge to thoughtful peers, to an intellectually stimulating environment tends to be associated with progressive values. And it’s also the case when you look at the moral and ethical development of human beings that during a lifetime in which an individual progresses from one level of ethical awareness to a higher level they move perspectives that and bad depends on if you are going to be punished or not, and then it progresses to, there’s a guy named Lawrence Koleburg, I don’t know if he’s still alive but his research has shown that people tend to move from an authoritarian perspective on good and bad right and wrong. So, something is bad if you’ll be punished. And then you can move towards a somewhat more sophisticated perspective that something is good or bad because of the societal norm or the existing power structure. Youngsters will identify with what is normal and what is good in societal norms, when it comes from an authority. A higher stage of moral development, and I would argue civic awareness as well, is when you go beyond the societal norms, beyond what is good and bad, beyond what happens to be accepted within your family, peer group, within your college, company etc. So, I think that gradual progression that is fostered by age and human development but also by education tends to lead to more progressive values and universal values that transcend the ethnocentric or authoritarian value system that is associated with a more conservative or right-wing orientation.
Daniel Carter: I think that’s very significant in talking about teen political behavior, but to get back to your study: Where does your initial interest lie and why did you initially decide to pursue the project?
Michael McDevitt: Well I worked on my dissertation back in the mid-to-late 1990’s in California, I was working on getting my PhD. This was based on a study looking at the effects of civics curricula in San Jose California, and is still existing in about 40 states, it’s known as Kids Voting USA. Kids Voting USA is an election-oriented curriculum. It goes beyond the didactic, top down and unfortunately, typical approach to civic education, where students memorize how a bill becomes law, who was the 16th president etc.. But that doesn’t get adolescents and children interested in politics, in fact research tends to show that that approach backfires because adolescents tend to think politics is boring. What Kids Voting does is make the experience more participatory and involves students in the voting process. So, particularly in low-income households there is a trickle up influence. So when the child is exposed to and interesting political topic at school with his peers or in the classroom the kid goes home and starts mouthing off opinions and that pisses off the parents. Particularly low-income households because they tend to be more authoritative or utilitarian. Sometimes it’s the case that the parents are not very politically active, or were not socialized to be good civic parents. When that is the case, sometimes the child’s interest in politics sparks the parent to become more politically active. They start to key-in on election news, their positions on issues, who they’re going to vote for. This is kind of political theory upside- down. So the idea of trickle up influence was intriguing to me. And ever since my dissertation, my primary area of study has been political awareness in the family and political identity in both children and parents. So then, to fast forward a bit, my current study is looking at how civic identity is fostered in families across the country, specifically in red states and in blue states. And so to the extent that young people interact, because of news media, effective curriculum programs, or other factors there is a process we are seeing in which young people develop their political identities. One of the things that makes this study distinctive is that were not assuming the political identity is passed on in a unidirectional way, but that young people are somewhat independent in how they form their identities. So that’s the link between my initial interest and trickle up influence and this current study. I think it’s important for me to bring full circle that adolescents sometimes feel the need to rebel from their parents. So when they bring a political idea into the home, they are not always looking for them to be agreed with by parents. But it is this reaction that helps teenagers refine their identity.
Daniel Carter: Do you have any undergraduate or graduate students that are helping you with the story at CU?
Michael McDevitt: I do, I have a doctoral student working with me, her name is Ally Ostrowski.
Daniel Carter: I understand you have funding from institutions other than CU, what can you tell me about that?
Michael McDevitt: Yes, I have funding from an organization know as CIRCLE. CIRCLE is an organization in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Maryland.
Daniel Carter: Do you have any students or faculty working with you directly on this study?
Michael McDevitt: No, but I do have a couple of students involved at the University of Florida because on of my research partners is based there. I see what you’re getting at here though: Ally is the only CU student I have working with me currently, but I welcome anyone interested to contact me.
Daniel Carter: So, how did you choose the states that you did to conduct the study in?
Michael McDevitt: We wanted to interview high school seniors before and after the 2006 state elections. And so we looked at states that were very competitive in terms of either a gubernatorial campaign or a U.S. senatorial campaign. So that led to us looking at news sources, and political party candidate Web sites and other indication that indicated a high level of competition. We were looking for a high level of competition because for adolescents to be highly affected there needs to be a high level of stimulation. Let’s face it, most of the time teens are thinking about other things besides politics. Most of the phenomenon that takes place in political identification takes place with a campaign period. You need a lot of media discussion, a lot of buzz.
Daniel Carter: Ok, so you chose the states and decided what you wanted to look for, but once it actually came time to interview students how did you choose them?
Michael McDevitt: It was a random sample of high school seniors. This is a bit technical; I use the funding to pay a marketing firm to acquire sampling frames of high school students. So from those frames we took a random sample of students.
Daniel Carter: So, you said your results will come out in a week, do you have any predictions on what those results might be?
Michael McDevitt: We’re looking at the origins of political ideas as far as partisanship, but also ideology. We’re also looking at receiving information that transcends partisanship ideals or specific ideologies. These results may contradict previous studies that reject the theme that American youth are apathetic, and that’s certainly a viable premise. We know that in recent elections more young people are voting, but it is not because of the traditional way that comes down from a young person’s parents. So the research question is, if it is not coming from parents and family (as in the past), then what are these unconventional influences. I have found in previous studies that have shown that more young people are not identifying with the two party system, but are bypassing it and becoming more involved with activism, and some of that is legal and some is illegal. There are theories that say if young people find their political identities within their families than they are more likely to identify with the two-part system. Whereas if the youngster receives his or her political identity from other influences they are more likely to engage in involvement that bypasses the bi-partisan system. This study will show me some more insight into that theory, and I’m excited to see the results about that. Also, its apparent that curricula in America have become a lot more politicized, so it will be interesting to see how that plays out in the results.
Daniel Carter: As a researcher in this field how do you feel about the increase of first time voters in the last few election? Along with this notion, how do feel the overall perspective of young voters has changed, or will change, or has it changed?
Michael McDevitt: Well it has been shown that in the 2000 elections, 2004 elections and in the mid-term elections, the voter turnout for first time voters has increased dramatically. Despite this, some older voters still have a pessimistic attitude towards young and first-time voters. This perspective is outdated. The picture is not completely bright however. When you look at tests of basic knowledge tests in the area of politics, recent numbers are quite low and this generation of adolescents has a dismal level of political knowledge. Despite this, the way in which young people form their political opinions today is much more complex than it used to be. I think the way young voters are perceived is slowly changing, in a positive way.
Daniel Carter: One last thing I want to explore with you is your opinions, as a professor of journalism, on how the news media effects the formation of a young person’s political identity, especially in this new more complex way of identity formation.
Michael McDevitt: Well, news media attention is tied to interpersonal communication. So there’s a social utility to interpersonal communication. If your peers in high school or college are talking about political issues, you’ll be more inclined to pay attention to news media. News media, especially in regards to public opinions and politics, is a social experience. So, you may not literally be watching FOX, MSNBC etc. with your peers, but you are anticipating that your peers will be talking about politics, so you want to arm yourself with information and knowledge and opinions. So, in order to assert your political identity you need to have knowledge, to have opinions, and that’s where news media comes into play. In terms of deliberative democracy news media opinions and casual day-to-day conversation with peers and parents all come together to correlate with each other to form the overall political identity.
Daniel Carter: Is there anything you feel like you want to volunteer or contribute more on in this interview before we stop?
Michael McDevitt: Well, yes. When we were talking about the formation of political identities in a partisan system I mentioned the issue of higher education and investigation being more associated with progressive values. I think it’s safe to say that most college campuses can be considered more liberal or Democratic. But I also think that this idea creates a notion of groupthink, and I believe that young people should be critical of that, and not simply adopt the popular views of their campus or peers.
