Elizabethtown College

JayScholar
Sociology-Anthropology: Student Scholarship &
Creative Works

Sociology-Anthropology

Spring 2021

To Vote or Not To Vote: The Effects of Political Information
Efficacy, Locus of Control, and Parental Socialization on the
Political Engagement of College Students
Jessica Cox

Follow this and additional works at: https://jayscholar.etown.edu/soc-anthstu
Part of the Civic and Community Engagement Commons, and the Politics and Social Change
Commons

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

1

To Vote or Not To Vote: The Effects of Political Information Efficacy, Locus of Control, and
Parental Socialization on the Political Engagement of College Students

By

Jessica Cox

This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Honors in the Discipline in
Sociology and the Elizabethtown College Honors Program
May 3, 2020

Thesis Director and Department Chair (signature required)
Dr. Conrad Kanagy
Second Reader

Dr. Michele Lee Kozimor

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

2

Honors Senior Thesis
Release Agreement Form
The High Library supports the preservation and dissemination of all papers and projects completed as part of the
requirements for the Elizabethtown College Honors Program (Honors Senior Thesis). Your signature on the
following form confirms your authorship of this work and your permission for the High Library to make this
work available. By agreeing to make it available, you are also agreeing to have this work included in the
institutional repository, JayScholar. If you partnered with others in the creation of this work, your signature also
confirms that you have obtained their permission to make this work available.
Should any concerns arise regarding making this work available, faculty advisors may contact the Director of the
High Library to discuss the available options.

Release Agreement
I, as the author of this work, do hereby grant to Elizabethtown College and the High Library a non-exclusive
worldwide license to reproduce and distribute my project, in whole or in part, in all forms of media, including but
not limited to electronic media, now or hereafter known, subject to the following terms and conditions:
Copyright
No copyrights are transferred by this agreement, so I, as the author, retain all rights to the work, including but
not limited to the right to use in future works (such as articles or books). With this submission, I represent that
any third-party content included in the project has been used with permission from the copyright holder(s) or
falls within fair use under United States copyright law (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107).
Access and Use
The work will be preserved and made available for educational purposes only. Signing this document does not
endorse or authorize the commercial use of the content. I do not, however, hold Elizabethtown College or the
High Library responsible for third party use of this content.
Term
This agreement will remain in effect unless permission is withdrawn by the author via written request to the High
Library.

Signature:

Date: 05/03/2021

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

3

ABSTRACT
Political engagement involves both indirect and direct actions that effect the political system
such as voting, donating to campaigns, and volunteering for a political party. Previous literature
has suggested that students demonstrating more interest in politics and exhibiting strong party
ties were more likely to vote than those who were uninterested in politics. Limited research has
examined the relationship between political information efficacy, locus of control, and parental
socialization on the political engagement of college students; however, studies have thoroughly
examined the effects of political affiliation. The sample population for this research were
students enrolled at one small, private, liberal arts institution located in central Pennsylvania. The
data were obtained through the use of mixed methodology, using survey and semi-structured
interview techniques. Results show that there were significant relationships between political
engagement and political information efficacy. Those who felt more confident with their political
knowledge were more likely to be politically engaged. Interestingly, there was a was no
relationship between locus of control and political engagement. There were significant
relationships between political engagement and parental socialization. Those who recalled their
parents being more politically engaged were more politically engaged themselves.

Key Words: Political Engagement of College Students, Political Information Efficacy, Locus of
Control, Parental Socialization

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………….5
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………………..9
CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES………………………………….19
CHAPTER 4 – DATA AND METHODS…………………………………………...………….21
CHAPTER 5 – QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS………………………………………..………29
CHAPTER 6 – QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS………………………………………..………...49
CHAPTER 7 – SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS………………………………….………53
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………56
APPENDIX A: Tables……………………………………………………………….…………60
APPENDIX B: Full Questionnaire and Codebook……………………………………………..89
APPENDIX C: Interview Questions and Consent Script……………………………………..109
APPENDIX D: Faculty Email……………………………………………………...…………111
APPENDIX E: Survey Consent Form………………………………………….……………..113
APPENDIX F: CITI Certificate……………………………………………………………… 116

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

5

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
The 2020 presidential election was the first opportunity for most traditional age college
students (those between the ages of 18 and 24) to vote in a national election. These first-time
voters in election battleground states, which are states that could be won by either the Republican
or Democratic candidate, played a prominent role in determining the 46th President of the United
States. For example, in the 2016 presidential election, Georgia’s electoral college votes were
distributed to Republican candidate Donald Trump, but in the recent 2020 election Georgia
“turned blue” meaning its electoral college votes were won by Democratic candidate Joseph
Biden (Bruner 2020). Bruner (2020) interviewed Nse Ufot, the CEO of New Georgia Project, to
understand how Georgia switched from supporting a Republican candidate to a Democratic
candidate in the last four years. The New Georgia Project is a nonpartisan organization founded
by Stacey Abrams in 2013 that aims to register voters in Georgia (Bruner 2020). Nse Ufot
emphasized that higher voter turnout among college age students was one of the main factors
that flipped Georgia from red to blue. In Georgia alone, 21 percent of the total votes were
attributed to young adults between the ages of 18-29 compared to 17 percent nationwide (Tufts
University CIRCLE 2020b; Bruner 2020).
Encouraging young adults to vote in the 2020 presidential election depended heavily on
grassroot campaigns launched by New Georgia Project, Campus Vote Project, Students for 2020,
and Opportunity Youth United (Bruner 2020; Strauss, Katzman, and Bernstein 2020). These
organizations, which target college age students to register to vote, relied on social media
platforms to conduct registration drives (Bruner 2020; Strauss et al. 2020). The New Georgia
Project partnered with Twitch, a livestreaming platform, and registered 9,000 new voters for
National Voter Registration Day in September of 2020 (Bruner 2020). Nse Ufot recognized the

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

6

power of Twitch and organized another event on election day which consisted of a 12-hour
livestream with special appearances and performances from Beyonce’s mother Tina Knowles,
Astronaut Mae Jemison, and rapper Dave East attracting half a million visitors. Due to these
grassroot efforts, Georgia had the highest increase in college age voter registration in the country
since 2016 (Bruner 2020).
Historically, voters between the age of 18 and 24 have turned out in lower numbers at the
polls than all other age groups since the 1964 presidential election (File 2014). In 1964, about
50.9 percent of individuals aged 18 to 24 years voted as compared to 69.0 percent of individuals
aged 25 to 44, 75.9 percent of individuals aged 45 to 64, and 66.3 percent of individuals 65 years
and older (File 2014). Yet, when comparing young adults’ (18 to 29 years old) voting behavior
from 1980 to 2020, interesting trends emerge. According to the Census Bureau (2017), 48.2
percent of individuals aged 18 to 29 voted in the 1980 presidential election remaining consistent
throughout the last 40 years with slight increases in the 1992 presidential election (52.0 percent)
and in the 2008 presidential election (51.1 percent). Based on calculations made by Tufts College
(CIRCLE) Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (2021b),
about 53 to 55 percent of eligible voters aged 18 to 29 voted in the 2020 presidential election.
This projection shows that individuals aged 18 to 29 turned out in numbers similar to past
cohorts in 1964, 1992, and 2008, revealing how impactful college age students are in the national
voter electorate (File 2014; United States Census Bureau 2017).
As reported by Sprunt (2020) and Frey (2020), over half of the United States population
is in the Millennial generation or younger and they comprise 37 percent of eligible voters.
Cilluffo and Fry (2018) found that voting reached a high during the 2018 midterm election due to
participation from Generation X, Millennials, and Generation Z. The Millennial generation and

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

7

Generation Z accounted for 30.6 million votes or a quarter of the total votes in 2018. Thirty
percent of eligible voters in Generation Z turned out to vote and were responsible for four
percent of all the votes in the 2018 midterm election (Sprunt 2020). This emphasizes the impact
young adult voters can have in national elections.
As young individuals become more politically conscious, they begin to engage directly
with political activities and institutions. After polling 1,100 individuals between 18 and 29 years
old, Tufts College Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement
(2020a), reported that 83 percent believed they had the power to change the country. For
instance, 25 percent of young adults were registering others to vote, 29 percent were donating
money to campaigns, 18 percent were volunteering for political campaigns, 27 percent were
attending marches or public demonstrations, and 50 percent were trying to convince other young
adults to vote (Tufts University CIRCLE 2020a). As stated in Kiesa (2020), 33 percent of young
adults advocated for local, state, or national policy, 29 percent donated money to a campaign,
and 16 percent volunteered for a political campaign. This demonstrates that young adults are
participating in the political process while encouraging others to do so too.
Although young adults are becoming more involved, they lack key knowledge about the
voting process and are not typically contacted by politicians (Tufts University CIRCLE 2020a).
More than half of young adults (53 percent), have not been contacted at any time this year by a
political campaign, or organizations advocating for a specific candidate (Tufts University
CIRCLE 2020a). Young adults who voted in the past where more likely to be contacted by
political campaigns and organizations. Additionally, those contacted by campaigns and
organizations are much more likely to vote than those who are not (New Georgia Project 2020).
Educating young individuals about the voting process is key to increasing engagement because

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

8

they will have more confidence in their ability to navigate the political sphere (New Georgia
Project 2020). Roughly 51 percent of young adults correctly answered whether their state had
online voter registration available (Tufts University CIRCLE 2020a). In addition, a third (32
percent) of young adults did not know if they could register to vote online in their state. While
online voter registration is helpful to many individuals who know the process, 7.5 percent of
young adults expressed that they do not have good internet access (Tufts University CIRCLE
2020a). If young adults do not believe they have enough political knowledge to participate in the
electoral process, they may become less confident in themselves and their ability to engage with
politics. Consequently, lack of internet access and political information are two barriers young
adults face when undergoing the voting process.
Even though young adults face barriers in the voting process, they are passionate about a
wide variety of political issues. In 2020, both racism and policing communities of color have
become more important issues to young adults (Tufts University CIRCLE 2020a). For instance,
young adults identifying as Asian, Latino, or Black indicated that racism was one of their top two
priorities when voting. According to Frey (2020) individuals that make up the Millennial and
Generation Z cohorts are more racially diverse than any previous generation and almost half of
them identify as a racial or ethnic minority. Interestingly, 27 percent of young adults in the
Millennial and Generation Z cohorts participated in peaceful protests during the summer of 2020
after the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor (Frey 2020). In addition, nonwhite
members compose over half of the Millennial and Generation Z in nine different swing states
including Arizona and Florida (Frey 2020). Interestingly, there is no one single issue that is the
most important to all young adults (Tufts University CIRCLE 2020a). Overall, about 12 to 13
percent of young adults identified environmental issues, racism, and health care access as one of

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

9

their top priority issues for the 2020 presidential election. This is a change from 2018, because
most young individuals prioritized college affordability, healthcare access, employment, tax
rates, and racism as top issues (Tufts University CIRCLE 2020a). These issues exemplify that
young adults are interested in participating politically. This research examined the effects of
political information efficacy, locus of control, and parental socialization on the political
engagement of college students at a small, private, liberal arts college in central Pennsylvania
using a mixed methods approach.
CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW
Defining Political Engagement
Previous studies have examined political engagement among traditional age college
students (Bernstein 2005; Hargittai and Shaw 2013; Niemi and Hanmer 2010; and Snell 2010).
Political engagement can be defined as both indirect and direct actions that effect the political
system (Bernstein 2005; Hargittai and Shaw 2013). Hargittai and Shaw (2013) define political
engagement as direct political action such as voting, donating to campaigns, and volunteering for
a political party.
Snell (2010) utilized survey and interview data collected from the National Study of
Youth and Religion to understand 18-24 year old’s political participation. In total, 59 percent of
the sample did not self-identify as being political (Snell 2010). For instance, those identifying
themselves as semipolitical defined being political as engaging with politics on an individual
level such as watching political news rather than collective political behavior like voting or
volunteering for a campaign. Therefore, those individuals identifying as semipolitical view
political behavior in terms of individual political acts (Snell 2010). Snell (2010) found that
individuals who identified themselves as not political were either distrustful of the government
or did not believe they could have an impact on the political system.

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

10

Although there is robust literature on political engagement, most studies analyze the
voting behavior of college age students (Hargittai and Shaw 2013; Niemi and Hanmer 2010).
Niemi and Hanmer (2010) sampled 12,000 college students and studied the effects of geographic
location and psychological factors on voter turnout. Students who demonstrated more interest in
politics and exhibited strong party ties were more likely to vote than those who were uninterested
in politics (Niemi and Hanmer 2010). Those who lived closer to their home while at college were
more likely to make it to the polls and vote than those who lived farther from their home while at
college (Niemi and Hanmer 2010). Interestingly, those who were able to register in a
battleground state by either picking their hometown or college town were likely to do so.
Theoretical Framework
Self-efficacy, locus of control, and the social learning theory were used to analyze the
relationship between political information efficacy, locus of control, and parental socialization
on the political engagement of traditional age college students. Bandura (1977) describes selfefficacy theory as one’s perceived capability of performing tasks which require a certain level of
skill and knowledge. This theory is instrumental in supporting the independent variable, political
information efficacy. College students’ level of political information efficacy revealed how
confident and capable they are at collecting and understanding political material (Bandura 1977).
For this reason, the self-efficacy theory provided the context needed to understand the
relationship between political information efficacy and political engagement. Rotter (1966) and
Twenge, Zhang, and Inn (2004) define locus of control theory as the degree to which an
individual perceives their life is controlled by internal or external factors. Those who exhibit an
internal locus of control believed that they have the power to alter their life outcome, while those
with an external locus of control felt that luck or other external factors have more influence on

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

11

their life choices (Twenge et al. 2004). The locus of control theory supports the independent
variable locus of control because it measured how much control college students believe they
have in the political process. Gidengil, Wass, and Valaste (2016) define the social learning
theory as the process of observational learning and modeling behaviors of parental figures or role
models. For instance, Bandura (1977) emphasizes that parents’ behaviors can be internalized and
later replicated by their children. The social learning theory provided a theoretical foundation to
study the independent variable parental socialization.
Political Information Efficacy and Political Engagement
Researchers have studied the political information efficacy of college students (Austin,
Van de Vord, Pinkelton, and Epstein 2008; Kaid, McKinney, and Tedesco 2007; Moffett and
Rice 2018; Muralidharan and Sung 2018; Tedesco 2007). Moffett and Rice (2018) define
political information efficacy as how confident an individual is in finding and understanding
political content.
Moffett and Rice (2018) surveyed college undergraduates before the 2016 election to
understand the relationship between political information efficacy and political engagement.
After analyzing results, Moffett and Rice (2018) found that college students who consumed
political content on social media platforms were more likely to create political posts and
convince others to vote. In other words, college students who spent more time online reading
political posts were more likely to express their own political beliefs than those who spent less
time online consuming political content (Moffett and Rice 2018). Similarly, Muralidharan and
Sung (2016) surveyed 363 college students from five major U.S. universities to understand how
their political information efficacy shaped their voting patterns in the 2012 presidential election.
Muralidharan and Sung (2016) found that election news, in the form of news websites, television

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

12

news shows, and radio news shows had a greater impact on college students political information
efficacy than other news sources. Interestingly, Moffett and Rice (2018) found the students’
online political engagement influenced in-person political behavior. For example, students selfidentifying as strong partisans and who spent more time reading online political content were
more likely to persuade others to vote offline. Moffett and Rice (2018) concluded that political
online activities can engage students who may not otherwise participate in political activities.
This suggests that college students gain political knowledge and confidence from consuming
various forms of news media (Moffett and Rice 2018).
Tedesco (2007) conducted an experiment with 271 young adults to understand how
Internet activity effects political information efficacy. The findings express that increased
interactivity exposure on websites had significantly increased the participants’ political
information efficacy. As a result, participants that spent more time interacting with websites,
were more likely to feel informed about politics than those participants who spent less time
interacting with websites. Similarly, Hargittai and Shaw (2013) found those who spent more time
online and have web-based skills were more likely to be accessing or discussing political content
than those who spent less time online. Moreover, Tedesco (2007) found that increased
interactivity exposure on websites increased the likelihood of participants valuing voting.
Overall, the results confirm that exposure to interactivity on websites increased young adults’
perception that their opinion matters in the political process (Tedesco 2007).
Kaid et al. (2007) employed the National Election survey to compare how media use
effected the political behavior of young and older voters. The findings emphasize that older
voters were more likely than younger voters to rely on television news media for political
information (Kaid et al. 2007). Additionally, older voters were more likely to read newspapers

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

13

than younger voters and younger voters were more likely to rely on the Internet for gathering
political information than older voters. Furthermore, younger voters perceived themselves to be
less politically informed and were less likely to exercise their right to vote than older voters. Yet,
younger voters who watched presidential debates and engaged with campaign messaging were
more likely to feel confident and had higher levels of political information efficacy than younger
voters who did not engage with political media (Kaid et al. 2007). Similarly, Austin et al. (2008)
found that celebrity endorsed political promotions predicted higher rates of self-efficacy in
young adult voters. In other words, the more receptive young adults were to celebrity
endorsements the less likely they were to be complacent and more likely to vote (Austin et al.
2008).
Locus of Control and Political Engagement
Various studies define locus of control as an individual perceiving how much control
they have over their life choices and outcomes (Blanchard and Scarboro 1973; Kaid et al. 2007;
Twenge, Zhang, and Inn 2004). Twenge et al. (2004) define locus of control in terms of an
internal and external locus of control. For instance, individuals believing they have control over
their own destiny exhibit an internal locus of control while those believing external forces
determine their fate have an external locus of control (Twenge et al. 2004). Twenge et al. (2004)
analyzed 97 samples of college age students between 1960 and 2002 to understand how their
locus of control has changed over time. College students in 2002 developed more of an external
locus of control than their predecessors in 1960 (Twenge et al. 2004). Increasingly, college
students perceived outside forces rather than internal forces controlling their lives. For example,
college students in 2002 scored more externally on the locus of control scale than 80 percent of
college students from 1960 (Twenge et al. 2004). Over decades, college students began to

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

14

develop an external locus of control and believed that external forces rather than their own
decisions controlled their fate. Interestingly, Twengo et al. (2004) explained that the increase in
external locus of control was due to an increase in individualization among American college
students. Instead of influencing students in leading an independent life, the rise of
individualization in the United States had conditioned students into believing that they have little
power to change the larger world (Twengo et al. 2004)
Blanchard and Scarboro (1973) surveyed 118 college age students to understand how
one’s self-perceived locus of control effects voting behavior. The findings reinforce that those
identified as “Internals,” on Rotter’s locus of control scale, were more likely to cast a vote than
those who identified as “Externals” (Blanchard and Scarboro 1973:123-124). In other words,
those believing they had internal control over the decisions they made were more likely to vote
than those believing external factors controlled the decisions they made (Blanchard and Scarboro
1973). For example, Kaid et al. (2007) found younger voters were more likely to believe that
they had little control or say in government affairs. Specifically in the 2000 and 2004 election
years, younger voters were more likely than older voters to believe that political officials did not
care about their opinions (Kaid et al. 2007). This exemplifies that young adults’ perceived locus
of control can affect their voting behavior (Blanchard and Scarboro 1973; Kaid et al. 2007).
Parental Socialization and Political Engagement
Researchers have studied the effects of parental socialization on political engagement of
young adults (Brady, Schlozman, and Verba 2015; Lahtinen, Erola, and Wass 2019; Neundorf,
Niemi, and Smets 2016; Voorpostel and Coffee 2015; Warren and Wicks 2011). Brady et al.
(2015) defines parental socialization as the way in which parents teach their children directly and
indirectly through their actions on how to understand and interact with the world.

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

15

Warren and Wicks (2011) studied how political engagement of parents influences their
children’s future political activity. The findings claim that the development of young adults’
sense of political engagement was directly connected to their parents’ political engagement and
indirectly impacted by their online political media consumption. Interestingly, parents with a
higher degree of education were more likely to be politically engaged and pass this value down
to their children than parents with less education (Warren and Wick 2011). Similarly, Brady et
al. (2015) found parents’ socioeconomic status and the amount of political stimulation parents
create in the household largely predicts how politically active their children will be. Using an
eight-act scale to score how politically engaged young adults were, Brady et al. (2015) found that
the average respondent performs 2.11 political acts. Furthermore, about 25 percent of this
activity was attributed to parental influence due to the parents’ education level and
socioeconomic status (Brady et al. 2015). Consequently, parents with access to higher degrees of
education due to their socioeconomic status were more likely to encourage their children to
engage with politics than those parents with less education and a lower socioeconomic status
(Brady et al. 2015). Lahitnen et al. (2019) also found both socioeconomic status and education
level to be prominent factors in predicting the political engagement of parents. By using Finnish
voting records between 1980 and 1989, Lahitnen et al. (2019) specifically studied how siblings
voted in the 2015 national election and how their mothers and fathers separately influenced
them. The findings reveal that both the mother and father had equal importance in influencing
their children’s involvement in politics (Lahitnen et al. 2019). This equal importance between
mother and father emphasizes the importance of socioeconomic status of the young adults’
childhood family. Therefore, these findings reinforce that an individual’s childhood has an
impact on their voting behavior as adults (Lahitnen et al. 2019).

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

16

While parents that are politically active are more likely to have children that are
politically engaged, parents who do not engage in politics also have an effect on their children’s
political identity. For example, Voorpostel and Coffe (2015) studied the effects of parental
separation on young adults’ political participation in Switzerland. Utilizing a random sample of
households between 1999-2009, Voortpostel and Coffe (2015) found that young adults with
separated parents were negatively affected in terms of developing a political identity and
participating in politics. For example, young adults with separated parents were less likely to
vote frequently and volunteer than young adults whose parents were not separated. As separated
parents began to engage less with politics, their children were more likely to model their
behavior rather than learning how to become politically active on their own (Voorposetl and
Coffee 2015). This research yielded similar results to Harigattai and Shaw (2013) who found that
if parents believe it is important to vote, there is a greater chance that this value will be passed on
to their child than parents who do not believe voting is important (Harigittai and Shaw 2013).
Overall, Voorpostel and Coffe (2015) made it clear that the parents’ actions rather than their
personality or characteristics have more of an impact on their children’s future political activity
(Voorpostel and Coffe 2015).
Neundorf et al. (2016) investigated how civic education could compensate for a lack of
parental socialization. Employing the Belgian Political Panel Study between 2006 and 2011
yielding 2,821 respondents, Neundorf et al. (2016) found that a combination of parental
socialization and civic education courses produced a foundation of political engagement in 14
year old children. Additionally, children who completed civic education courses and who were
not exposed to politics in their homes were more likely to become politically engaged than
students who were not exposed to politics at school or in their home (Neundorf et al. 2016). The

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

17

findings consistently report that children from disadvantaged families with lower socioeconomic
statuses and who were not provided with civic education in their school were at high risk of
becoming politically unengaged (Neundorf et al. 2016). Interestingly, children who were not
socialized by their parents to engage with politics could break this cycle if they participated in
protests (Brady et al. 2015).
Sex and Political Engagement
Muralidharan and Sung (2016) found that sex had a significant relationship with political
engagement. Young female voters relied on social media platforms and family members for
political information while males listened to political satire shows, political talk shows, and
political radio shows (Muralidharan and Sung 2016). Yet, young female voters were more likely
than male voters to increase their political information efficacy levels by conversing with others
(Muralidharan and Sung 2016). A different study conducted by Harigattai and Shaw (2013),
found that women were less likely than men to interact with political content online. This does
not support Muralidharan and Sung’s (2016) finding that women relied on social media
platforms for political knowledge. Although men and women interact with political content and
conversations differently, Niemi and Hanmer (2010), found that young women voted at higher
rates than young men. Similarly, Snell (2010) found that individuals who identified as being
disengaged from politics were more likely to be young men than young women. According to
Blanchard and Scarboro (1973), female students voting for the first time were more likely to vote
if their fathers were more conservative. On the other hand, there was a significant relationship
between political philosophy and voting for male students who were previously eligible to vote
(Blanchard and Scarboro 1973).
Partisanship and Political Engagement

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

18

Numerous studies define partisanship as strong preference for a political party (Ardoin,
Bell, and Ragozzino 2015; Wray-Lay, Arrunda, and Hopkins 2019). Ardoin, Bell, and Ragozzino
(2015) examined votes cast in 86 precincts, located on 42 college campuses, across five states
after the 2008 presidential election. It was found that precincts located on college campuses
provided more support for the Democratic candidate Barack Obama than precincts not located on
college campuses. Yet, during local and state elections Republican candidates received greater
support in college precincts than non-college precincts (Ardoin et al. 2015). These findings argue
that college voters lean Democratic, but are not monolithic in their political ideology. Moreover,
college students voted in higher numbers during national elections rather than state and local
elections (Ardoin et al. 2015).
Wray-Lake, Arrunda, and Hopkins (2019) examined the effects of political affiliation on
young adults’ political participation across age and time. Data were collected through the
Monitoring the Future (MTF) which is an ongoing national longitudinal study that tracks
behaviors and attitudes of young adults since 1975. Wray-Lake et al. (2019) found that youth
who had an affiliation with either political party were more likely to have higher rates of
participation in the political process than those who did not have an affiliation with a political
party. In other words, partisan ties created in one’s youth influenced political engagement in their
future. Similarly, Muralidharan and Sung (2016) found those who strongly identified with one of
the two main political parties, were more likely to vote. On the other hand, young adults who did
not have strong partisan ties were less likely to participate in the electoral process and may
become disengaged as they grow older, leaving them distrustful of the government and avoiding
political conversations (Wray-Lake et al. 2019).
CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

19

Additions to Literature
This research adds to previous literature in several ways. First, it updates the literature by
analyzing the 2020 presidential election and a new cohort of eligible voters. Next, by using both
social psychological factors such as political information efficacy and locus of control, and a
broader sociological approach which analyzes how parents socialize their children, this research
created a multi-dimensional study. Lastly, both sex and partisanship were used as control
variables due to the multiple amounts of studies previously conducted on these two variables and
the political engagement of college students.
RESEARCH MODEL

Political
Information
Efficacy

Locus of
Control

Political Engagement of
College Students

Parental
Socialization

HYPOTHESES
H1: Traditional age college students who feel more confident about the political content they
consume will be more politically engaged than college students who feel less confident
about the political content they consume.

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

20

Rationale: Moffett and Rice (2018) found college students who spent more time online
reading political posts were more likely to express their own political beliefs than
those who spent less time online consuming political content. Additionally, Kaid
et al. (2007) found younger voters who watched presidential debates and engaged
with campaign messaging were more likely to feel confident and had higher levels
of political information efficacy than younger voters who did not engage with
political media (Kaid et al. 2007).
H2: Traditional age college students who identify with an internal locus of control will be more
politically engaged than college students who identify with an external locus of control.
Rationale: Blanchard and Scarboro (1973) found, those who believe that they have internal
control over the decisions they make are more likely to vote than those who
believe that external factors control the decisions they make. Similarly, Kaid et al.
(2007) found younger voters were more likely to believe that they had little
control or say in government affairs.
H3: Traditional age college students who perceive their parents to be politically engaged will
be more politically engaged than students who do not perceive their parents to be politically
engaged.
Rationale: Warren and Wicks (2011) found that the development of young adults’ sense
of political engagement was directly connected to their parents’ political
engagement. Lahitnen et al. (2019) found that both the mother and father have
equal importance in influencing their children’s political engagement.

CHAPTER 4 - DATA AND METHODOLOGY
Data and Methodology

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

21

The data for this research were students from Elizabethtown College which is a small,
private, liberal arts institution located in central Pennsylvania. The data were obtained through
the use of mixed methodology, using survey and semi-structured interview techniques yielding a
total of 108 questionnaire respondents and 8 interviewees. The purpose of utilizing both methods
was to increase the validity and reliability of the sample that the data was collected from. First, a
questionnaire was distributed that consisted of closed and open-ended questions. The
questionnaires were distributed to different Core Areas of Understanding, including 100, 200,
300, and 400 level classes. A probability sample was employed to systematically select courses
from the Spring 2021 semester. Faculty of the selected courses were contacted through e-mail
and if faculty were willing to participate, links to the questionnaire were distributed at the
beginning or end of a class period, or by the faculty on their own. In addition, the link to the
questionnaire was posted on the Jays app and on personal social media accounts. A final question
on the questionnaire requested future participation in semi-structured interviews. Furthermore,
convenience sampling and snowball sampling were used to gather 8 participants for 40 minute
semi-structured zoom video call interviews.
Dependent Variable
The dependent variable for this research was the political engagement of college students.
In order to operationalize this variable, multiple questions from the questionnaire and interview
were utilized. The following questions from the questionnaire (see Appendix B for full
questionnaire and codebook), adapted from Bernstein (2005), Kaid et al. (2007), Snell (2010),
Twenge et al. (2012), and Wray-Lake et al. (2019), were used to operationalize political
engagement. The measure was split into four measures of political engagement including,
general political engagement, political engagement and participation, political engagement on

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

22

social media, and political engagement and media platform use. The following questions were
used to operationalize general political engagement.
On a scale of 1-5, 1 being none and 5 being a great deal, please indicate your level of interest in
each of the following statements.
• In general, how much interest do you have in politics?
• In general, how much do you discuss politics with your family and friends?
• How much interest did you have in the 2020 presidential election?
• In general, how much did you follow political campaigns in the 2020 presidential
election?
• How much did you research either political candidate in the 2020 presidential election?
On a scale of 1-5, 1 being never and 5 being very often, please indicate how often you spoke to
to others about the campaigns and were exposed to media coverage of the campaigns.
• How often have you been exposed to media coverage of either presidential campaigns?
• How often have you talked with other people about either of the presidential campaigns?
A general political engagement index was created to collapse the responses from the
following questions above, for some of the analyses. The index ranged from 7 indicating low
engagement to 35 indicating high engagement. The index had a Cronbach’s Alpha of .894,
showing that the index was highly reliable for measuring general political engagement. The
mean for the index was 24.36 with a standard deviation of 5.76.
Political engagement was operationalized using multiple questions from the questionnaire.
The following questions were used to operationalize political engagement and participation.
Are you registered to vote?
• Yes
• No
Did you vote in the 2020 State primary election?
• Yes
• No
Did you vote in the 2020 National presidential election?
• Yes
• No
How did you vote?
• Mail-in Ballot
• In-person
• Did not know how to vote

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

23

Indicating either yes or no, in the past 12 months have you participated in any of the following
activities?
• Discussed politics with family, friends, or others
• Watched a presidential debate
• Tried to persuade others to vote
• Registered others to vote
• Volunteered as a poll worker
• Gave money to a political candidate
• Contacted by a political campaign
• Volunteered for a political campaign
• Attended a political meeting
• Attended a political rally or campaign event
• Contacted a political official (e.g. a local representative, State Senator, or Governor)
• Participated in a lawful demonstration (e.g. public protest or march)
• Boycotted certain products or companies
• Signed a petition in support of a social or political issue
A political engagement and participation index was created to collapse the questions above,
for some of the analyses. The index ranged from 1 indicating low engagement to 15 indicating
high engagement. The index had a Cronbach’s Alpha of .777, showing that the index was
adequately reliable for measuring political engagement and participation. The mean for the index
was 7.30 with a standard deviation of 2.94.
Political engagement was operationalized using multiple questions from the questionnaire.
The following questions were used to operationalize social media political engagement.
On a scale of 1-5, 1 being never and 5 being very often, how often have you engaged in each of
the following activities, in regards to the 2020 presidential election?
•
•
•
•
•

Writing social media posts on political issues (e.g. composing an original tweet, writing
an original Facebook post)
Creating and posting online audio, video, animation, photos, or computer artwork to
express political views
Sharing political news, video clips, photos, or other’s content on your social media
account (e.g. re-tweeting a political news article, sharing a political video clip on an
Instagram story)
Participating in online political discussions (e.g. discussion boards, Twitter threads,
Facebook comments)
Exchanging opinions about politics via email, social networking platforms, or instant
messenger

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

24

A social media political engagement index was created to collapse the questions above,
for some of the analyses. The index ranged from 5 indicating low engagement to 22 indicating
high engagement. The index had a Cronbach’s Alpha of .893, showing that the index was highly
reliable for measuring social media political engagement. The mean for the index was 8.68 with
a standard deviation of 4.54.
Political engagement was operationalized using multiple questions from the questionnaire.
The following questions were used to operationalize political engagement and media platform
use.
On a scale of 1-5, 1 being never and 5 being very often, how often did you rely on these
platforms for political content, in regards to the 2020 presidential election?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

YouTube
Twitter
Instagram
Snapchat
Facebook
Tik-Tok
Personal Blogs
Online Forums and Discussion Boards
Government Web Sites (e.g. Local, State, or National)
Presidential Candidate’s Websites
Network Television News (e.g. ABC, MSNBC, NBC, Fox News, CNN)
Network Television News Web Sites (e.g. bbc.com, foxnews.com)
Print Media News (e.g. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal)
Print Media News Web sites (e.g. nytimes.com, wsj.com)
News pages of internet service providers (e.g. Google News, Yahoo News)

A political engagement and media platform use index was created to collapse the questions
above, for some of the analyses. The index ranged from 15 indicating low engagement to 56
indicating high engagement. The index had a Cronbach’s Alpha of .815, showing that the index
was highly reliable for measuring political engagement and media platform use. The mean for
the index was 31.84 with a standard deviation of 9.09.

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

25

Independent Variables
The independent variables for this research were political information efficacy, locus of
control, and parental socialization. The following questions from the questionnaire (see
Appendix B for full questionnaire and codebook), adapted from Kaid et al. (2007), Kushin and
Yamamoto (2010), and Tedesco (2007), were used to operationalize political information
efficacy.
On a scale of 1-7, 1 being strongly disagree and 7 being strongly agree, how much do you agree
with the following statements?
• My vote makes a difference
• I can make a difference if I participate in the election process
• I have a real say in what the government does
• Whether I vote or not has no influence on what politicians do
• Voting gives people an effective way to influence what the government does
• Protesting gives people an effective way to influence what the government does
• One can be confident that politicians will always do the right thing
• One cannot always trust what politicians say
• Politicians often quickly forget their election promises after a political campaign is over
• Politicians are more interested in power than in what the people think
A general political efficacy index was created to collapse the questions above, for some of
the analyses. The index ranged from 14 indicating low political efficacy to 61 indicating high
political efficacy. The index had a Cronbach’s Alpha of .778 showing that the index was
adequately reliable for measuring general political efficacy. The mean for the index was 36.99
with a standard deviation of 8.66.
On a scale of 1-7, 1 being strongly disagree and 7 being strongly agree, how much do you agree
with the following statements?
• I consider myself well-qualified to participate in politics
• I think that I am better informed about politics and government than most people
• I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of the important political issues facing our
country
• If a friend asked me about the presidential election, I feel I would have enough
information to help my friend figure out who to vote for
A political information efficacy index was created to collapse the questions above, for some
of the analyses. The index ranged from 4 indicating low political information efficacy to 28

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

26

indicating high political information efficacy. The index had a Cronbach’s Alpha of .917,
showing that the index was highly reliable for measuring political information efficacy. The
mean for the index was 16.93 with a standard deviation of 6.43.
The second independent variable for this research was locus of control. The following
questions from the questionnaire (see Appendix B for full questionnaire and codebook), adapted
from Rotter (1966) and the National Longitudinal Surveys (1979), were used to operationalize
locus of control.
For each question select the statement that you agree with the most
a. Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck.
b. People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.
a. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen.
b. Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a decision to take a definite
course of action.
a. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work.
b. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to- be a matter of good
or bad fortune anyhow.
a. In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck.
b. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin.
a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right place first.
b. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability. Luck has little or nothing to do with
it.
a. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental
happenings.
b. There really is no such thing as "luck."
a. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me.
b. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my life.
a. What happens to me is my own doing.
b. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my life is taking.

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

27

A locus of control index was created to collapse the questions above, for some of the
analyses. The index ranged from 1 indicating high external locus of control to 8 indicating high
internal locus of control. The index had a Cronbach’s Alpha of .522, showing that the index was
moderately reliable for measuring locus of control. The mean for the index was 4.50 with a
standard deviation of 1.76.
Parental Socialization
The third independent variable for this research was parental socialization. The following
questions from the questionnaire, adapted from Brady et al. (2015), were used to operationalize
parental socialization.
What is your mother or father’s highest level of education?
•
•
•
•
•

Less than High School
High School or GED
Associates Degree (2 years of College)
Bachelors Degree (4 years of College)
Master’s Degree or higher

When you turned 18, did your parents encourage you to register to vote?
•
•

Yes
No

On a scale of 1-5, 1 being never and 5 being very often, growing up how often did you notice
your parents doing any of the following?
• Growing up, in general how often did your parents talk about politics in the house?
• Growing up, in general how often did your parents vote?
On a scale of 1-5, 1 being never and 5 being very often, growing up, how often do you remember
your parents engaging in any of the following political activities?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Watching a presidential debate
Trying to persuade others to vote
Registering others to vote
Volunteering as a poll worker
Giving money to a political candidate
Being contacted by a political campaign
Volunteering for a political campaign
Attending a political meeting

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
•
•
•
•
•

28

Attending a political rally or campaign event
Contacting a political official (e.g. a local representative, State Senator, or Governor)
Participating in a lawful demonstration (e.g. public protest or march)
Boycotting certain products or companies
Signing a petition about a social or political issue

A parental political engagement index was created to collapse the questions above, for some
of the analyses. The index ranged from 15 indicating low engagement to 74 indicating high
engagement. The index had a Cronbach’s Alpha of .914, showing that the index was highly
reliable for measuring parental political engagement. The mean for the index was 30.04 with a
standard deviation of 10.64.
Control Variables
The first control variable for this research was sex. The following question from the
questionnaire was used to operationalize sex.
What gender do you identify as?
•
•
•

Female
Male
Non-binary

The second control variable for this research was partisanship or political ideology. The
following question from the questionnaire, adapted from Snell (2010), was used to operationalize
political ideology.
When it comes to politics, do you usually think of yourself as
(1) Very Liberal
(2) Liberal
(3) Somewhat Liberal
(4) Neither Liberal or Conservative
(5) Somewhat Conservative
(6) Conservative
(7) Very Conservative

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

29

CHAPTER 5 – QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
The final sample size for the survey was 108 individuals. Tables 1.1 and 1.2 illustrate the
descriptive statistics of the dependent variable political engagement of college students,
specifically the measure of general political engagement. The majority of respondents (76.9
percent) were interested in politics, 73.2 percent discussed politics with others, and 92.6 percent
were interested in the 2020 presidential election. Additionally, 77.8 percent of respondents were
interested in the political campaigns during the 2020 election and 71.3 percent of respondents
researched political candidates during 2020. Interestingly, 74.2 percent of respondents felt
informed about either presidential candidate, 75.9 percent were often exposed to media coverage
of either candidate, and 55.6 percent talked with others about either candidate.
[Insert Tables 1.1 and 1.2 here]
Tables 1.3 and 1.4 present the descriptive statistics for the dependent variable political
engagement of college students, specifically the measure of political engagement and
participation in the past 12 months. The majority of respondents (95.4 percent) indicated they
were registered to vote. While respondents participated by voting in their state primary elections
(58.3 percent), a majority of respondents (85.2 percent) voted in the 2020 national presidential
election. Consistent with research from the Tufts University Center for Information and Research
on Civic Learning and Engagement (2020), more individuals between the ages of 18-29 were
registered voters and voted in the 2020 election than past elections. Overall, about 53-55 percent
of young adults between the ages of 18-29 voted in the 2020 presidential election which is
inconsistent with the study body of which 85.2 percent voted (Tufts University CIRCLE 2021).
This inconsistency could be due to the age range because the students at Elizabethtown ranged

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

30

from 18-22 years old and the sample from Tufts University was 18-29 years old. Interestingly,
the majority of respondents (62.0 percent) voted by mail while 25.9 percent voted in-person.
The majority of respondents (99.1 percent) discussed politics with family or friends, 86.1
percent watched a presidential debate, and 62.0 percent tried to persuade others to vote.
Interestingly, data from Tufts University CIRCLE (2020) suggested that about 50 percent of
young adults were trying to convince other young adults to vote, which is inconsistent with the
findings from Table 1.3. Few respondents (17.6 percent) helped others to register to vote, 1.9
percent volunteered as a poll worker, and 11.1 percent gave money to a political campaign.
Compared to the findings from Tufts University CIRCLE (2020), about 25 percent of young
adults were registering others to vote and 29 percent were donating money to political
campaigns. This is slightly inconsistent with the findings from Table 1.3 which show a lower
percentage of students participating in these political activities.
Additionally, 61.1 percent of respondents had been contacted by a political campaign, but
only 4.6 percent of respondents volunteered for a political campaign. Once again, Tufts
University CIRCLE (2020) found that 18 percent of young adults volunteered for political
campaigns and about 53 percent were not contacted by a political campaign, showing
inconsistencies with findings from Table 1.3. Few respondents, (12.0 percent) attended a
political meeting, 18.7 percent contacted a political official, and 20.6 percent participated in a
lawful demonstration like a protest or rally. Inconsistent with findings from Tufts University
CIRCLE (2020), about 27 percent of young adults attended marches or public demonstrations
contrast to 20.6 percent of Elizabethtown College students. Lastly, 34.6 percent of respondents
boycotted products or companies in the last year and 52.3 percent signed a petition about a
political issue.

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

31

[Insert Tables 1.3 and 1.4 here]
Table 1.5 displays the descriptive statistics of the dependent variable political
engagement of college students, specifically the measure of social media and political
engagement. Most respondents, (65.4 percent) had never composed an original political social
media post and 74.8 percent had never created an original video, photo or audio post about
politics. Additionally, 54.2 percent of respondents had never shared political content on their
personal social media accounts, 65.4 percent never participated in online political discussions,
and 51.4 percent never exchanged political opinions online.
[Insert Table 1.5 here]
Tables 1.6-1.8 detail the descriptive statistics of the dependent variable political
engagement of college students, specifically the measure of political engagement and media
platform use. Overall, respondents relied on Instagram the most (47.2 percent ) then Twitter
(43.9 percent), YouTube (42.6 percent), Facebook (26.9 percent), Tik-Tok (21.3 percent), and
Snapchat (15.8 percent) for consuming political content on social media platforms. Additionally,
respondents relied on network television news (75.0 percent), network television web sites (50.9
percent), government websites (50.0 percent), print news media websites (44.4 percent),
presidential candidate websites (42.1 percent), news pages of internet service providers (34.6
percent), print news media (32.7 percent), online forums and discussion boards (13.9 percent),
and personal blogs (7.5 percent) for consuming political content.
[Insert Tables 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8 here]
Tables 1.9-1.11 exhibit the descriptive statistics of the independent variable political
information efficacy. Majority of respondents (71.4 percent) believed that their vote makes a
difference, 69.2 percent believed that they can make a difference in the election process, and

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

32

28.1 percent believed they have a real say in government. Interestingly, 36.4 percent of
respondents believed that whether they vote or not, they have no influence on government.
Additionally, respondents (53.2 percent) agreed that voting influences the government and 56.1
percent agreed that protesting influences the government. The majority of respondents (86.0)
disagreed that politicians always do the right thing and 76.7 percent agreed that politicians
cannot always be trusted. Interestingly, 72 percent of respondents agreed that politicians tend to
forget campaign promises after they are elected and 67.3 percent agreed that politicians are
interested in power. Overall, 36.4 percent of respondents felt that they were well-qualified to
participate in politics and 35.6 percent agreed that they are better informed about politics than
most others. Lastly, the majority of respondents (64.5 percent) felt that they understood
important politics issues and 54.2 percent felt confident in helping friends decide which
candidate to vote for.
[Insert Tables 1.9, 1.10, and 1.11 here]
Table 1.12 presents the descriptive statistics of the independent variable locus of control.
The majority of respondents (54.6 percent) agreed with the statement, “people’s misfortunes
result from the mistakes they make,” exhibiting an internal locus of control. The majority of
respondents (62.0 percent) agreed with the statement, “I have often found that what is going to
happen will happen,” showing an external locus of control. The majority of respondents (77.6
percent) agreed with the statement, “when I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make then
work,” demonstrating an internal locus of control. The majority of respondents (81.3 percent)
agreed with the statement, “in my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck,”
showing an internal locus of control. The majority of respondents (71.0 percent) agreed with the
statement, “getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability and luck has little or nothing

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

33

to do with it,” exhibiting an internal locus of control. The majority of respondents (78.5 percent)
agreed with the statement, “most people don’t realize the extent to which their lives are
controlled by accidental happenings,” displaying an external locus of control. The majority of
respondents (59.4 percent) agreed with the statement, “many times I feel that I gave little
influence over the things that happen to me,” exhibiting an external locus of control. Lastly, the
majority of respondents (66.4 percent) agreed with the statement, “what happens to me is my
own doing,” showing an internal locus of control.
[Insert Table 1.12 here]
Tables 1.13 and 1.14 illustrate the descriptive statistics of the independent variable
parental political engagement and socialization. The majority of respondents (70.1 percent)
selected that their parents’ highest level of education was a Bachelor’s degree or higher. Most
respondents (59.8 percent) had discussed politics with their parents, 90.6 percent believed that
their parents had voted, and 81.3 percent had been encouraged by their parents to register to vote
when they turned 18. Overall, the majority of respondents (67.3 percent) recalled their parents
watching presidential debates, while 35.5 percent recalled their parents registering others to vote.
Additionally, few respondents (8.4 percent) recalled their parents volunteering as a poll worker,
15.8 percent recalled their parents donating money to a political candidate, and most respondents
(52.3 percent) recalled their parents being contacted by a political campaign. Few respondents
(9.3 percent) recalled their parents volunteering for a political campaign, 13.1 percent recalled
their parents attending a political meeting, and 10.3 percent recalled their parents attending a
rally or campaign event. Similarly, few respondents (14.9 percent) recalled their parents
contacting a political official, 9.4 percent recalled their parents participating in a lawful

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

34

demonstration, 21.7 percent recalled their parents boycotting products or companies, and 20
percent recalled their parents signing a petition.
[Insert Tables 1.13, and 1.14 here]
Table 1.15 presents the descriptive statistics of both control variables gender identity and
political ideology. Majority of respondents (65.7 percent) identified as female, 31.5 percent as
male, and 2.8 percent as non-binary. Overall, 47.2 percent of respondents identified as liberal,
22.2 percent as neither liberal or conservative, and 30.6 percent as conservative.
[Insert Table 1.15 here]
Table 2.1 shows the bivariate correlations between the political engagement of college
students, general political efficacy, political information efficacy, gender identity, and political
ideology. There was a moderate, positive, statistically significant relationship between general
political efficacy and and general political engagement (r=.360; p=.000). This indicates that
those who are generally more confident in their ability to participate in politics are more likely to
be politically engaged. There was a weak, positive, statistically significant relationship between
general political efficacy and political engagement and participation (r=.296; p=.000). This
shows that those who are generally more confident in their ability to participate in politics are
more likely to be engaged with political activities like watching a presidential debate. There was
a moderate, positive, statistically significant relationship between general political efficacy and
social media political engagement (r=.329; p<.01). This reveals that those who were generally
more confident in their ability to participate in politics were more likely to be politically vocal on
social media platforms. There was a weak, positive, statistically significant relationship between
general political efficacy and political engagement and media platform use (r=.299; p<.01). This
shows that those who were generally more confident about their ability to participate in politics

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

35

were more likely to utilize social media platforms and other media forms like network television
to consume political content. Lastly, there was a moderate, positive relationship between general
political efficacy and how informed a respondent felt about a political candidate (r=.342;
p=.000). This illustrates that those who were generally more confident about their ability to
participate in politics were more likely to be well informed about either political candidate.
These findings support the hypothesis that traditional age college students who feel more
confident about the political content they consume will be more politically engaged than college
students who feel less confident about the political content they consume.
A strong, positive, statistically significant relationship between political information
efficacy and general political engagement suggests that those who felt more confident with their
political knowledge were more likely to be politically engaged (r=.767; p=.000). There was a
strong, positive, statistically significant relationship between political information efficacy and
political engagement and participation (r=.669; p<.01). This indicates that those who felt more
confident with their political knowledge were more likely to participate in political activities like
voting. There was a moderate, positive, statistically significant relationship between political
information efficacy and social media political engagement (r=.469; p=.000). This shows that
those who felt more confident with their political knowledge were more likely to be politically
vocal on social media platforms. There was a moderate, positive, statistically significant
relationship between political information efficacy and political engagement and media platform
use (r=.424; p=.000). This suggests that those who felt more confident with their political
knowledge were more likely to utilize social media platforms and other media forms like
government websites to consume political content. There was a strong, positive, statistically
significant relationship between political information efficacy and how informed a respondent

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

36

felt about a political candidate (r=.768; p=.000). This reveals that those who felt more confident
with their political knowledge were more likely to be informed about either political candidate.
These findings support the hypothesis that traditional age college students who feel more
confident about the political content they consume will be more politically engaged than college
students who feel less confident about the political content they consume.
[Insert Table 2.1 here]
Table 2.2 shows the bivariate correlations between political engagement, locus of control,
gender identity, and political ideology. Interestingly, there was no relationship between locus of
control and any of the political engagement variables including, general political efficacy,
political engagement and participation, social media political engagement, media platform use,
and how informed a respondent felt about either candidate. This does not support the hypothesis
that traditional age college students who identify with an internal locus of control will be more
politically engaged than college students who identify with an external locus of control.
[Insert Table 2.2 here]
Table 2.3 illustrates the bivariate correlations between political engagement, parental
socialization, gender identity, and political ideology. There was a moderate, positive, statistically
significant relationship between parental political engagement and general political engagement
of the respondents (r=.388; p=.000). This suggests that those who recalled their parents being
more politically engaged were more politically engaged themselves. There was a moderate,
positive, statistically significant relationship between parental political engagement and the
respondents’ political engagement and participation (r=.377; p=.000). This shows that those who
recalled their parents being more politically engaged were more likely to participate in political
activities like contacting a political official. There was a moderate, positive, statistically

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

37

significant relationship between parental political engagement and respondents’ social media
political engagement (r=.356; p=.000). This reveals that those who recalled their parents being
more politically engaged were more likely to be politically vocal on social media platforms.
There was a moderate, positive, statistically significant relationship between parental political
engagement and media platform use (r=.357; p=.000). This illustrates that those who recalled
their parents being more politically engaged were more likely to utilize social media platforms
and other media forms like government websites to consume political content. There was a
moderate, positive, statistically significant relationship between parental political engagement
and how informed a respondent felt about a political candidate (r=.326; p<.01). This indicates
that those who recalled their parents being politically engaged were more likely to be informed
about either political candidate. This finding supports the hypothesis that traditional age college
students who perceive their parents to be politically engaged will be more politically engaged
than students who do not perceive their parents to be politically engaged.
[Insert Table 2.3 here]
Table 3.1 shows the bivariate relationship between the political engagement of college
students and general political efficacy. There was a statistically significant and substantive
difference found between general political efficacy and general political engagement. There was
a 47 percent difference between individuals who scored high and low on the general political
efficacy index that were highly politically engaged (p=.000). These results are consistent with
previous research (Austin et al. 2008; Kaid et al. 2007; Moffett and Rice 2018; Muralidharan and
Sung 2018; Tedesco 2007), and support the hypothesis that traditional age college students who
feel more confident about the political content they consume will be more politically engaged
than college students who feel less confident about the political content they consume.

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

38

There are no other significant differences between individuals who scored high and low
on the general political efficacy index that were highly politically engaged, but there are some
substantive differences. For instance, there was a 12.2 percent difference between between
individuals who scored high and low on the general political efficacy index that were highly
politically engaged and participated in political activities. There was also a 9.5 percent difference
between individuals who scored high and low on the general political efficacy index that were
highly politically engaged on social media platforms. Additionally, there was a 9 percent
difference between individuals who scored high and low on the general political efficacy index
that were highly engaged and consuming political media. Lastly, there was a 40.7 percent
difference between individuals who scored high and low on the general political efficacy index
that were highly informed about either political candidate. These results do not support the
hypothesis that traditional age college students who feel more confident about the political
content they consume will be more politically engaged than college students who feel less
confident about the political content they consume, because they are not statistically significant.
However, the results are substantively interesting because it displays that there are differences
between students who were highly politically engaged and who ranked either high or low on the
general political efficacy scale.
[Insert Table 3.1 here]
Table 3.2 presents the bivariate relationship between the political engagement of college
students and political information efficacy. There were multiple statistically significant and
substantive differences found between political information efficacy and political engagement.
There was a 77 percent difference between individuals who scored high and low on the political
information efficacy index that were highly politically engaged (p=.000). For example, there was

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

39

a 57.6 percent difference between between individuals who scored high and low on the political
information efficacy index that were highly politically engaged and participated in political
activities (p=.000). There was also a 24.2 percent difference between individuals who scored
high and low on the political information efficacy index that were highly politically engaged on
social media platforms (p=.001). Additionally, there was a 18.8 percent difference between
individuals who scored high and low on the political information efficacy index that were highly
engaged and consuming political media (p=.034). Lastly, there was a 69.6 percent difference
between individuals who scored high and low on the political information efficacy index that
were highly informed about either political candidate (p=000). These results are consistent with
previous research (Austin et al. 2008; Kaid et al. 2007; Moffett and Rice 2018; Muralidharan and
Sung 2018; Tedesco 2007), and support the hypothesis that traditional age college students who
feel more confident about the political content they consume will be more politically engaged
than college students who feel less confident about the political content they consume.
[Insert Table 3.2 here]
Table 3.3 illustrates the bivariate relationship between the political engagement of college
students and locus of control. There were no statistically significant differences found between
locus of control and any of the political engagement variables, but there were a few substantive
differences. There was a 18.3 percent difference between individuals who scored as externals
and internals that were highly politically engaged. Additionally, there was a 17.7 difference
between individuals who scored as externals and internals that were highly politically engaged
and participated in political activities. There was also a 7.2 percent difference between
individuals who scored as externals and internals that were highly politically engaged on social
media platforms. Additionally, there was no substantive difference between individuals locus of

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

40

control and the political engagement and media platform use index. Lastly, there was a 6 percent
difference between individuals who scored as externals and internals that were highly informed
about either political candidate. These results are inconsistent with previous research (Blanchard
and Scarboro 1973; Kaid et al. 2007; Twenge et al. 2004), and do not support the hypothesis that
traditional age college students who identify with an internal locus of control will be more
politically engaged than college students who identify with an external locus of control.
[Insert Table 3.3 here]
Table 3.4 shows the bivariate relationship between the political engagement of college
students and parental political engagement. There were three statistically significant and
substantive differences found between parental political engagement and political engagement.
Of the students who identified themselves as highly politically engaged, there was a 51.1 percent
difference between individuals who ranked their parents as either high or low on the parental
political engagement index (p=.026). In addition, of those students who identified themselves as
highly politically engaged and who participated in political activities, there was a 81.8 percent
difference between individuals who ranked their parents as either high or low on the parental
political engagement index (p=.000). There was also a 53.5 difference between individuals who
ranked their parents as either high or low on the parental political engagement index that were
highly politically engaged on social media platforms. These results are consistent with previous
research (Brady et al. 2015; Lahtinen et al. 2019; Neundorf et al. 2016; Voorpostel and Coffee
2015; Warren and Wicks 2011), and support the hypothesis that traditional age college students
who perceive their parents to be politically engaged will be more politically engaged than
students who do not perceive their parents to be politically engaged.

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

41

There are no other significant differences between individuals who ranked their parents
as either high and low on the parental political engagement index that were highly politically
engaged, but there was one substantive difference. For example, there was a 33.4 substantive
difference between individuals who ranked their parents as either high or low on the parental
political engagement index who were highly engaged and consuming political media. Lastly,
there was no statistically significant or substantive difference between individuals who ranked
their parents as either high or low on the parental political engagement index who were highly
informed about either political candidate. These results do not support the hypothesis that
traditional age college students who perceive their parents to be politically engaged will be more
politically engaged than students who do not perceive their parents to be politically engaged
because they are not statistically significant.
[Insert Table 3.4 here]
Table 4.1 shows the linear regression results of general political efficacy, political
information efficacy, locus of control, parental political engagement, gender identity, and
political ideology on the general political engagement of college students. Consistent with
bivariate results from Tables 2 and 3, it appears from Model 1 (R2=.136) that general political
efficacy was predictive of general political engagement of college students explaining 13.6
percent of the variance. The coefficient for general political efficacy was moderate and
statistically significant. Consistent with bivariate results from Tables 2 and 3, Model 2 (R2=.399)
shows that political information efficacy was a better predictor of general political engagement
of college students than general political efficacy explaining 39.9 percent of the variance.
Additionally, the coefficient for political information efficacy was moderate and statistically
significant. As shown in Model 3 (R2=.021) locus of control was a worse predictor of general

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

42

political engagement than political information efficacy and general political efficacy, with 2.1
percent of the variance in general political engagement being explained by locus of control. This
was consistent with bivariate results from Tables 2 and 3, locus of control is not statistically
significant. Consistent with bivariate results from Tables 2 and 3, Model 4 (R2=.100), shows that
parental political engagement was predictive of general political engagement of college students
explaining 10 percent of the variance. Parental political engagement was a worse predictor of the
general political engagement of college students than general political efficacy and political
information efficacy, but a better predictor than locus of control. The coefficient for parental
political engagement was small and statistically significant.
Consistent with Models 1 and 2, general political efficacy and political information
efficacy were still both statistically significant predictors of general political engagement in
Model 5. Interestingly, inconsistent with Model 3, locus of control became a statistically
significant predictor of general political engagement in Model 5. Inconsistent with Model 4
parental political engagement was not a statistically significant predictor of general political
engagement in Model 5. Adding the control variables of gender identity and political ideology
did not change the effect of general political efficacy, political information efficacy, locus of
control, and parental political engagement from Model 5, with Model 6 (R2=.490) being a better
predictor of general political engagement than Model 5 (R2=.488). Overall, the full model,
(Model 6) was the best predictor of general political engagement, explaining 49 percent of the
variance in general political engagement.
[Insert Table 4.1 here]
Table 4.2 shows the linear regression results of general political efficacy, political
information efficacy, locus of control, parental political engagement, gender identity, and

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

43

political ideology on the political engagement and participation of college students. Consistent
with bivariate results from Tables 2 and 3, it appears from Model 1 (R2=.042) that general
political efficacy was predictive of political engagement and participation of college students
explaining 4.2 percent of the variance. The coefficient for general political efficacy was small
and statistically significant. Consistent with bivariate results from Tables 2 and 3, Model 2
(R2=.316) shows that political information efficacy was a better predictor of political
engagement and participation of college students than general political efficacy, explaining 31.6
percent of the variance. Additionally, the coefficient for political information efficacy was
moderate and statistically significant. As shown in Model 3 (R2=.030) locus of control was a
worse predictor of political engagement and participation than political information efficacy and
general political efficacy, with 3.0 percent of the variance in political engagement and
participation being explained by locus of control. This was consistent with Tables 2 and 3, since
locus of control was not statistically significant. Consistent with bivariate results from Tables 2
and 3, Model 4 (R2=.136), shows that parental political engagement was predictive of general
political engagement of college students explaining 13.6 percent of the variance. Parental
political engagement was a better predictor of political engagement and participation than
general political efficacy and locus of control, but a worse predictor than political information
efficacy. The coefficient for parental political engagement was moderate and not statistically
significant.
Inconsistent with Model 1, general political efficacy was not a statistically significant
predictor of political engagement and participation in Model 5. Consistent with Model 2,
political information efficacy was still a statistically significant predictor of political engagement
and participation in Model 5. Interestingly, inconsistent with Model 3, locus of control became a

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

44

statistically significant predictor of political engagement and participation in Model 5.
Additionally, parental political engagement became a statistically significant predictor of
political engagement and participation in Model 5, which was consistent with Model 4. Adding
the control variables of gender identity and political ideology to Model 6 did not change the
effects of general political efficacy and political information efficacy, but did change the effects
of locus of control and parental political engagement from Model 5. Overall, Model 6 (R2=.420)
was a better predictor than Model 5 (R2=.408) of political engagement and participation,
accounting for 42 percent of the variance.
[Insert Table 4.2 here]
Table 4.3 shows the linear regression results of general political efficacy, political
information efficacy, locus of control, parental political engagement, gender identity, and
political ideology on the political engagement of college students on social media. Consistent
with bivariate results from Tables 2 and 3, it appears from Model 1 (R2=.037) that general
political efficacy was predictive of political engagement of college students on social media
explaining 3.7 percent of the variance. The coefficient for general political efficacy was small
and statistically significant. Consistent with bivariate results from Tables 2 and 3, Model 2
(R2=.150) shows that political information efficacy was a better predictor of political
engagement of college students on social media than general political efficacy, explaining 15
percent of the variance. Additionally, the coefficient for political information efficacy was small
and statistically significant. As shown in Model 3 (R2=.015) locus of control was a worse
predictor of political engagement on social media than both general political efficacy and
political information efficacy, with 1.5 percent of the variance in political engagement on social
media being explained by locus of control. This was consistent with Tables 2 and 3, since locus

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

45

of control was not statistically significant. Consistent with bivariate results from Tables 2 and 3,
Model 4 (R2=.065), shows that parental political engagement was predictive of political
engagement on social media, explaining 6.5 percent of the variance. Parental political
engagement was a better predictor of political engagement on social media than general political
efficacy and locus of control, but a worse predictor than political information efficacy. The
coefficient for parental political engagement was small and statistically significant.
Inconsistent with Model 1, general political efficacy was not a statistically significant
predictor of political engagement on social media in Model 5. Consistent with Model 2, political
information efficacy was still a statistically significant predictor of political engagement on
social media in Model 5. Consistent with Model 3, locus of control was not a statistically
significant predictor of political engagement on social media in Model 5. Lastly, parental
political engagement was not a statistically significant predictor of political engagement on
social media in Model 5, which was inconsistent with Model 4. Adding the control variables of
gender identity and political ideology to Model 6 did not change the effects of general political
efficacy, political information efficacy, and locus of control, but did change the effect of parental
political engagement from Model 5. Overall, Model 6 (R2=.278) was a better predictor than
Model 5 (R2=.204) of political engagement of college students on social media, accounting for
27.8 percent of the variance.
[Insert Table 4.3 here]
Table 4.4 shows the linear regression results of general political efficacy, political
information efficacy, locus of control, parental political engagement, gender identity, and
political ideology on the political media consumption and engagement of college students.
Consistent with bivariate results from Tables 2 and 3, it appears from Model 1 (R2=.100) that

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

46

general political efficacy was predictive of the political media consumption and engagement of
college students, explaining 10 percent of the variance. The coefficient for general political
efficacy was small and statistically significant. Consistent with bivariate results from Tables 2
and 3, Model 2 (R2=.067) shows that political information efficacy was a worse predictor of
political media consumption and engagement of college students than general political efficacy,
explaining 6.7 percent of the variance. Additionally, the coefficient for political information
efficacy was small and statistically significant. As shown in Model 3 (R2=.009) locus of control
was a worse predictor of political media consumption and engagement of college students than
both general political efficacy and political information efficacy, with 0.9 percent of the variance
in political media consumption and engagement of college students being explained by locus of
control. This was consistent with Tables 2 and 3, since locus of control was not statistically
significant. Consistent with bivariate results from Tables 2 and 3, Model 4 (R2=.063), shows that
parental political engagement was predictive of political media consumption and engagement of
college students, explaining 6.3 percent of the variance. Parental political engagement was a
worse predictor of political media consumption and engagement of college students than general
political efficacy and political information efficacy, but a better predictor than locus of control.
The coefficient for parental political engagement was small and statistically significant.
Consistent with Model 1, general political efficacy was a statistically significant predictor
of political media consumption and engagement of college students in Model 5. Inconsistent with
Model 2, political information efficacy was not a statistically significant predictor of political
media consumption and engagement of college students in Model 5. Consistent with Model 3,
locus of control was not a statistically significant predictor of political media consumption and
engagement of college students in Model 5. Lastly, parental political engagement was not a

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

47

statistically significant predictor of political media consumption and engagement of college
students in Model 5, which was inconsistent with Model 4. Adding the control variables of
gender identity and political ideology to Model 6 did not change the effects of general political
efficacy, political information efficacy, locus of control, and parental political engagement from
Model 5, with Model 6 (R2=.193) being a better predictor of political media consumption and
engagement of college students than Model 5 (R2=.182). Overall, the full model, (Model 6) was
the best predictor of political media consumption and engagement of college students,
accounting for 19.3 percent of the variance.
[Insert Table 4.4 here]
Table 4.5 shows the linear regression results of general political efficacy, political
information efficacy, locus of control, parental political engagement, gender identity, and
political ideology on how informed college students were about either candidate. Consistent with
bivariate results from Tables 2 and 3, it appears from Model 1 (R2=.069) that general political
efficacy was predictive of how informed college students were about either candidate, explaining
6.9 percent of the variance. The coefficient for general political efficacy was small and
statistically significant. Consistent with bivariate results from Tables 2 and 3, Model 2 (R2=.314)
shows that political information efficacy was a better predictor of how informed college students
were about either candidate than general political efficacy, explaining 31.4 percent of the
variance. Additionally, the coefficient for political information efficacy was moderate and
statistically significant. As shown in Model 3 (R2=.018) locus of control was a worse predictor of
how informed college students were about either candidate than both general political efficacy
and political information efficacy, with 1.8 percent of the variance in how informed college
students were about either candidate being explained by locus of control. This was consistent

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

48

with Tables 2 and 3, locus of control was not statistically significant. Consistent with bivariate
results from Tables 2 and 3, Model 4 (R2=.045), shows that parental political engagement was
predictive of how informed college students were about either candidate, explaining 4.5 percent
of the variance. Parental political engagement was a worse predictor of how informed college
students were about either candidate than general political efficacy and political information
efficacy, but a better predictor than locus of control. The coefficient for parental political
engagement was small and statistically significant.
Inconsistent with Model 1, general political efficacy was not a statistically significant
predictor of how informed college students were about either candidate in Model 5. Consistent
with Model 2, political information efficacy was still a statistically significant predictor of how
informed college students were about either candidate in Model 5. Consistent with Model 3,
locus of control was not a statistically significant predictor of how informed college students
were about either candidate in Model 5. Interestingly, parental political engagement was not a
statistically significant predictor of how informed college students were about either candidate in
Model 5, which was inconsistent with Model 4. Adding the control variables of gender identity
and political ideology to Model 6 did not change the effects of general political efficacy, political
information efficacy, locus of control, and parental political engagement from Model 5, with
Model 6 (R2=.356) being an equal predictor of how informed college students were about either
candidate with Model 5 (R2=.356). Overall, both models, (Model 5 and 6) were the best
predictors of how informed college students were about either candidate, explaining 35.6 percent
of the variance.
[Insert Table 4.5 here]

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

49

CHAPTER 6 – QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
On March 15 and continuing throughout April, 8 in-depth, semi-structured interviews
were conducted for about 30 to 40 minutes. The semi-structured interview questions (see
Appendix C for interview questions) included questions about political engagement, political
information efficacy, locus of control, and parental socialization. The four main themes from
findings of the interviews were (1) political engagement includes both outward and inward acts,
(2) being politically informed is essential, (3) many voices create change, and (4) parents are
influential.
The first major finding of the interviews was that students defined political engagement
as interacting outwardly with politics and inwardly. When asked how to define political
engagement, the participants focused on how they were political engaged in the last election. For
instance, many spoke about having conversations about the election with friends and family,
watching a presidential debate, and voting. Interestingly, most students did not discuss
volunteering for campaigns or donating money to campaigns when asked about their own
engagement with the 2020 presidential election. Yet, one student stressed that “knowing who
you are voting for and why” is a prominent element of political engagement. This was
emphasized by almost all of the students interviewed. Even though they had only been asked
about their own political engagement and not asked about researching candidates, they
associated being well-researched as political engagement. Broadly, one participant felt that
“generally showing that you care about politics in some was is engagement.” This is interesting
to note, because some students felt that you did not have to be completely immersed in an
election to be engaged, but having a conversation with a friend was enough to show that one was
politically engaged. This finding illustrates that traditional college age students define political

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

50

engagement in broad terms and include both indirect and direct acts that effect the political
system as engagement. Additionally, most participants agreed that they were more engaged with
politics than they have been in the past, due to the fact that most of them had the opportunity to
vote in a presidential election for the first time. This was also due to students feeling that this
election was “high stakes” and could directly impact their future.
The second major finding from the interviews was that being politically informed is
essential when voting. When asked how confident the students felt about finding and consuming
political information, most felt reasonably confident in their ability to understand political issues
most important to them and the views of each candidate on these specific issues. Interestingly,
almost all of the participants stressed that finding information from unbiased news sources and
seeking information that represented multiple political perspectives was instrumental before they
voted. This finding is particularly prominent, as most students had a level of awareness of their
own bias and were motivated to seek out multiple political perspectives before making a decision
to vote. One participant felt that “If you’re going to vote for a president you should at least know
what the candidates believe and how it will affect you and your community.” Other participants
echoed this belief with another individual saying that “knowing who and what you are voting for
is so important.” Once again, almost all of the students felt that one should do research to
understand who they are voting for and what that particular candidate believes in. This
emphasizes how students intertwine political efficacy and political engagement, showing that to
be engaged one should be informed. Although the students agreed that being politically informed
is important when engaging with politics, some felt that it is almost impossible to keep up with
all of the news stories and to understand every policy issue or view a candidate holds. One
participant felt that “you can be as educated as you want, but at the end of the day you’re not an

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

51

insider, so you can’t really know everything.” Interestingly, this quote exhibits a level of realism
among students and exemplifies how college students are aware that they will not know
everything about policy or a candidates views before voting, but it is still valuable to learn as
much as one can.
The third major finding from the interviews was that most participants valued their one
vote, but believed that many votes are needed to create large scale change. One participant
thought that “multiple people who believe the same thing and band together can make a
difference when one voice alone cannot.” This attitude was prominent as others felt that it was
important that they exercise their right to vote, yet they understood the power in numbers.
Additionally, some students claimed that one’s geography had a large impact on the value of
one’s vote and felt that their vote was not as powerful as someone’s in a swing state.
Furthermore, some participants felt less hopeful that their vote mattered because of their
skepticism of the government and their belief of corrupt government officials. One individual felt
that “at some level there will be corruption in the government and although we live in a
democracy and have the privilege to vote, hidden corruption cannot be changed by voting.” This
quote reinforces the findings from Kaid et al. (2007) which claims that younger voters were more
likely than older voters to believe that politicians did not care about their opinions and that they
had little control over government affairs. Yet, others students felt that small change like
convincing a friend to vote or having difficult political discussion with family were useful ways
to use one’s voice to create change. Most participants felt that exercising their right to vote was
important even if it only made a small impact. For instance, one individual said “I will always
vote and encourage others to vote and then hope a ripple effect takes place and can make a
difference even if my single vote did not.”

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

52

The last major finding from the interviews was that parents have the ability to influence
how their children view and engage politics. Multiple participants believed that they learned how
to value politics by how their parents valued politics. One participant said that “I learned from
both of my parents that you cannot control it [politics] as much as you think, but you should
voice your opinion knowing that it might not make a difference but at the same time it could.”
This once again indicates college students slight skepticism with participating in politics, but that
they still value voting. Interestingly, if one parent was less engaged than another parent, most
students felt more influenced by their parent who was more engaged with politics than the parent
who was less engaged with politics. Other students felt that the way their parents spoke, or did
not speak about politics influenced how eager they were to vote or become engaged when they
were 18. While some students were never encouraged by their parents to vote when they turned
18, most said their parents encouraged them to vote in the 2020 presidential election. Once again,
this unusually polarized election coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic impacted how students
and their parents valued political engagement. While some students were not heavily impacted
by their parents, one participant recalled the first time they voted in a presidential in 2016, with
her and her mother celebrating by taking pictures after voting. This student felt that both of their
parents “tried really hard to encourage my siblings and I to vote and participate in the political
process growing up.” This was interesting because this student was highly politically engaged
with the 2020 presidential election as well. Interestingly, Most students said they felt more
politically engaged than their parents during the 2020 presidential election and spent time having
conversations with their parents about politics more than they had in the past.
CHAPTER 7 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This research examined the effects of political information efficacy, locus of control, and

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

53

parental socialization on the political engagement of college students. The first hypothesis stated
that traditional age college students who feel more confident about the political content they
consume will be more politically engaged than college students who feel less confident about the
political content they consume. This hypothesis was supported by both the quantitative and
qualitative findings. Previous research has found that college students who spent more time
online reading political posts were more likely to express their own political beliefs than those
who spent less time online consuming political content (Moffett and Rice 2018). Additionally,
Kaid et al. (2007) found younger voters who watched presidential debates and engaged with
campaign messaging were more likely to feel confident and had higher levels of political
information efficacy than younger voters who did not engage with political media (Kaid et al.
2007). The second hypothesis stated that traditional age college students who identify with an
internal locus of control will be more politically engaged than college students who identify with
an external locus of control. This hypothesis was not supported by the quantitative and
qualitative findings, which showed that locus of control had no statistically significant effect on
the political engagement of college students. Research from Blanchard and Scarboro (1973)
found, those who believe that they have internal control over the decisions they make are more
likely to vote than those who believe that external factors control the decisions they make.
Similarly, Kaid et al. (2007) found younger voters were more likely to believe that they had little
control or say in government affairs. The third and final hypothesis stated that traditional age
college students who perceive their parents to be politically engaged will be more politically
engaged than students who do not perceive their parents to be politically engaged. This
hypothesis was supported by both the quantitative and qualitative findings. Additionally,
previous research found that the development of young adults’ sense of political engagement was

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

54

directly connected to their parents’ political engagement. Lahitnen et al. (2019) found that both
the mother and father have equal importance in influencing their children’s political engagement.
Overall, results from the survey research suggested that there were significant
relationships between political engagement and political information efficacy. Those who felt
more confident with their political knowledge were more likely to be politically engaged.
Individuals who felt more confident with their political knowledge were more likely to
participate in political activities like voting and watching a presidential debate. Interestingly,
there was a was no relationship between locus of control and political engagement. There were
significant relationships between political engagement and parental socialization. Those who
recalled their parents being more politically engaged were more politically engaged themselves.
Additionally, those who recalled their parents being more politically engaged were more likely to
participate in political activities like voting and signing a petition.
Interestingly, when using multivariate analysis and including control variables in the full
models some independent variables would often lose significance. This is important to note
because this indicates that the control variables, gender identity and political ideology can have a
significant influence on political engagement.
Qualitative data were also obtained from semi-structed in-depth interviews. The
prevailing trends from the interviews were (1) political engagement includes both outward and
inward acts, (2) being politically informed is essential, (3) many voices create change, and (4)
parents are influential. Overall, students’ relationship with politics was connected with their
confidence in understanding political content and their parents’ relationship with politics. It is
also important to note that the 2020 election brought about the highest rates of voter turnout
among the college age group, was particularly polarizing, and took place during the COVID-19

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

55

pandemic. Most participants felt more engaged with the 2020 presidential election than previous
elections, and were more motivated to participate and understand political content they were
consuming. Students felt strongly about being aware of their own bias and seeking information
that represented multiple perspectives and that having conversations with friends and family
helped them develop confidence.
There were strengths as well as limitations associated with this research. Strengths
included the multiple independent variables used including political information efficacy, locus
of control, and parental socialization. Previous research has focused heavily on partisanship,
political information efficacy, and parental socialization, but has not combined these variables
under one study. Additionally, this research was gathered after the 2020 presidential election,
during a pandemic, and was the first opportunity for many traditional age college students to
vote. The most apparent limitation was that the sample size was low with only 108 respondents
and limited to the Elizabethtown student body, thus not being representative of a larger and more
diverse population.
This research added to the literature on the political engagement of college students
analyzing the engagement of students during the 2020 presidential election and included the
variables political information efficacy, locus of control, and parental socialization. The results
of this study may be useful to those studying political engagement of young adults, colleges in
the United States, and future political candidates attempting to engage college students. It is
important to continue to monitor and research this generational cohort, Generation Z, as they
continue to participate in future elections because of the high voter turnout in 2020.

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

56

REFERENCES
Ardoin, Philip J., Scott Bell, and Michael M. Ragozzino. 2015. “The Partisan Battle Over
College Student Voting: An Analysis of student voting Behavior in Federal, State, and
Local Elections.” Social Science Quarterly 96(5). doi: 10.1111/ssque.12167.
Austin, Erica, Rebecca Van de Vord, Bruce E. Pinkelton, and Evan Epstein. 2008. “Celebrity
Endorsements and Their Potential to Motivate Young Voters.” Mass Communication and
Society 11:420-436. doi: 10.1080/15205430701866600.
Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Blanchard, Edward B. and M. Eugene Scarboro. 1973. “Locus of Control and the Predictions of
Voting Behavior in College Students.” Journal of Social Psychology 89(1):123-129.
doi:10.1080/00224545.1973.9922576.
Brady, Henry E., Kay Lehman Scholzman, and Sidney Verba. 2015. “Political Mobility and
Political Reproduction From Generation to Generation.” The ANNALS of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 657(1):149-173.
doi: 10.1177/0002716214550587.
Bruner, Raisa. 2020. “Civic Engagement Doesn’t Have To Be Corny. How Georgia Pulled off
Unprecedented Youth Voter Turnout.” The Times, November 6.
https://time.com/5908483/georgia-youth-vote/.
Cilluffo, Atony and Richard Fry. 2019. “Gen Z, Millennials and Gen X Outvoted Older
Generations in 2018 Midterms.” Pew Research Center, May 29.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/29/gen-z-millennialsand-gen-x-outvoted-older-generations-in-2018-midterms/.
Condon, Meghan and Matthew Holleque. 2013. “Entering Politics: General Self-Efficacy and
Voting Behavior Among Young People.” Political Psychology 35(2):167-181.
doi: 10.1111/pops.12019.
File, Thom. 2014. “Young-Adult Voting: An Analysis of Presidential Elections 19642012.” United States Census Bureau, April. https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20573.pdf.

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

57

Frey, William. 2020. “Now, more than half of Americans are millennials or younger: Will their
size and activism impact the 2020 election?” The Brooking Institute, July 30.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/07/30/now-more-than-half-ofamericans-are-millennials-or-younger/.
Gidengil, Elisabeth, Hannah Wass, and Maria Valaste. 2016. “Political Socialization and Voting:
The Parent-Child Link in Turnout.” Political Research Quarterly 69(2):373-383.
doi: 10.1177/1065912916640900.
Hargittai, Eszter, and Aaron Shaw. 2013. “Digitally Savvy Citizenship: The Role of Internet
Skills and Engagement in Young Adults’ Political Participation around the 2008
Presidential Election.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 57(2):115-134.
doi: 10.1080/08838151.2013.787079.
Kaid, Lynda Lee, Mitchell S. McKinney, and John C. Tedesco. 2007. “Political Information
Efficacy and Young Voters.” American Behavioral Scientist 50(9):1093-1111.
doi:10.1177/0002764207300040.
Kushin, Matthew, and Masahiro Yamamoto. 2010. “Did Social Media Really Matter? College
Students’ Use of Online Media and Political Decision Making in the 2008 Election.”
Mass Communication and Society 13:608-630. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2012.516863.
Lahtinen, Hannu, Jani Erola, and Hanna Wass. 2019. “Siblings Similarities and The Importance
of Parental Socioeconomic Position in Electoral Participation.” Social Forces 98(2):702724. doi:10.1093/sf/soz010.
Moffett, Kenneth W. and Laurie L. Rice. 2018. “College Students and Online Political
Expression During the 2016 Election.” Social Science Computer Review 36(4):422-439.
doi:10.1177/0894439317721186.
Muralidharan, Sidharth and Yongjun Sung. 2016. “Direct and Mediating Effects of Information
Efficacy and Voting Behavior: Political Socialization of Young Adults in the 2012 U.S.
Presidential Election.” Communication Reports 29(2):100-114.
doi:10.1080/08934215.2015.1064537.

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

58

National Longitudinal Surveys Bureau of Labor Statistics. n.d. “NLSY79 Appendix 21:
Attitudinal Scales.” Accessed February 8, 2021. NLSY79 Appendix 21: Attitudinal
Scales | National Longitudinal Surveys (nlsinfo.org).
Neundorf, Anja, Richard G. Niemi, and Kaat Smets. 2016. “The Compensation Effect Of Civic
Education on Political Engagement: How Civics Classes Make Up For Missing Parental
Socialization.” Political Behavior 38:921-949. doi:10.1007/s11109-016-9341-0.
Niemi, Richard and Michael Hanmer. 2010. “Voter Turnout Among College Students New Data
and a Rethinking of Traditional Theories.” Social Science Quarterly 91(2):302-323.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42956403.
Rotter, Julian B. 1966. “Generalized Expectations For Internal Versus External Control of
Reinforcement.” Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 80(1):1-28.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976.
Snell, Patricia. 2010. “Emerging Adult Civic and Political Disengagement: A Longitudinal
Analysis of Lack of Involvement With Politics.” Journal of Adolescent Research
25(2):258-287. doi:10.1177/0743558409357238.
Tedesco, John C. 2007. “Examining Internet Interactivity Effects on Young Adult Political
Information Efficacy.” American Behavioral Scientist 50(9):1183-1194.
doi: 10.1177/0002764207300041.
Twenge, Jean M., Liqing Zhang, and Charles Inn. 2004. “It’s Beyond My Control: A CrossTemporal Meta-Analysis of Increasing Externality in Locus of Control, 1960-2002.”
Personality and Social Psychology Review 8(3):308-319.
doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_5.
Sprunt, Barbara. 2020. “Will 2020 Be The Year of The Young Voter?” National Public Radio,
September 12. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/12/909131065/will-2020-be-the-year-of-theyoung-voter.
Strauss, Valerie, John S. Katzman, and Fred Bernstein. 2020. “The Problem COVID-19 Presents
for College Students Who Want to Vote in November.” Washington Post, August 31.
https://www.washingtonpost.com /education/2020/08/31/problem-covid-19-presents-

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

59

college-students-who-want-vote-november/.
The New Georgia Project. 2020. “About.” https://newgeorgiaproject.org/about/.
Tufts University CIRCLE (Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and
Engagement). 2020a. “Poll: Young People Believe They Can Lead Change in
Unprecedented Election Cycle.” Medford, MA: https://circle.tufts.edu/latestresearch/poll-young-people-believe-they-can-lead-change-unprecedented-election-cycle.
Tufts University CIRCLE (Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and
Engagement). 2020b. “Youth Voter Turnout Increased in 2020.”
https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/election-week-2020#youth-voter-turnout-increasedin-2020.
United States Census Bureau. 2017. “Voting In America: A Look at The 2016 Presidential
Election.” https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/randomsamplings/2017/05/voting_in_america.html.
Voorpostel, Marieke and Hilde Coffee. 2015. “The Effect of Parental Separation on Young
Adults’ Political and Civic Participation.” Social Indicators Research 124:295-316.
doi:10.1007/s11205-014-0770-z.
Warren, Ron and Robert H. Wicks. 2011. “Political Socialization: Modeling Teen Political and
Civic Engagement.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 88(1):156-175.
doi: 10.1177/107769901108800109.
Wray-Lake, Laura, Erin H. Arrunda, and David Hopkins. 2019. “The Party Goes On: US Young
Adults’ Partisanship and Political Engagement Across Age and Historical Time.”
American Politics Research 47(6):1358-1375. doi:10.1177/1532673XI9849692.

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

APPENDIX A: Tables

60

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

61

Table 1.1
Descriptive Statistics of Respondent Characteristics, N=108
Dependent Variables: General Political Engagement
Variable
How Much Interest in Politics
None
Very Little
Some
Quite a Bit
A Great Deal
How Much Discussion of Politics
None
Very Little
Some
Quite a Bit
A Great Deal
How Much Interest in the 2020 Election
None
Very Little
Some
Quite a Bit
A Great Deal
How Much Interest in Political Campaigns
None
Very Little
Some
Quite a Bit
A Great Deal
How Much Research of Political Candidates
None
Very Little
Some
Quite a Bit
A Great Deal

N

Percent

6
19
46
26
11

5.6
17.6
42.6
24.1
10.2

5
24
37
32
10

4.6
22.2
34.3
29.6
9.3

3
5
31
29
40

2.8
4.6
28.7
26.9
37.0

4
20
31
38
15

3.7
18.5
28.7
35.2
13.9

12
19
28
35
14

11.1
17.6
25.9
32.4
13.0

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

62

Table 1.2
Descriptive Statistics of Respondent Characteristics, N=108
Dependent Variables: General Political Engagement
Variable
Exposed to Media Coverage of Presidential Candidates
Never
Rarely
Somewhat
Often
Very Often
Talked with Others About Either Presidential Candidates
Never
Rarely
Somewhat
Often
Very Often
How Informed About Either Presidential Candidate
Very Uninformed
Uninformed
Somewhat Uninformed
Neutral
Somewhat Informed
Informed
Very Informed

N

Percent

1
6
19
44
38

0.9
5.6
17.6
40.7
35.2

3
14
30
35
24

2.8
13.2
28.3
33.0
22.6

4
4
7
13
33
29
18

3.7
3.7
6.5
12.0
30.6
26.9
16.7

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
Table 1.3
Descriptive Statistics of Respondent Characteristics, N=108
Dependent Variables: Political Engagement and Participation
Variable
N
Are You Registered to Vote
Yes
103
No
5
Did You Vote in the 2020 State Primary Election
Yes
63
No
45
Did You Vote in the 2020 National Presidential Election
Yes
92
No
16
How Did You Vote
Did Not Know How to Vote
11
In-Person
28
Mail-in Ballot
67

63

Percent
95.4
4.6
58.3
41.7
85.2
14.8
10.2
25.9
62.0

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
Table 1.4
Descriptive Statistics of Respondent Characteristics, N=108
Dependent Variables: Political Engagement and Participation
Variable
N
Discussed Politics with Family or Friends
Yes
107
No
1
Watched a Presidential Debate
Yes
93
No
15
Tried to Persuade Others to Vote
Yes
67
No
41
Registered Others to Vote
Yes
19
No
89
Volunteered as a Poll Worker
Yes
2
No
106
Gave Money to a Political Candidate
Yes
12
No
96
Been Contacted by a Political Campaign
Yes
66
No
42
Volunteered for a Political Campaign
Yes
5
No
103
Attended a Political Meeting
Yes
13
No
95
Attended a Political Rally or Campaign Event
Yes
10
No
98
Contacted a Political Official
Yes
20
No
87
Participated in a Lawful Demonstration
Yes
22
No
85
Boycotted Products or Companies
Yes
37
No
70
Signed a Petition
Yes
56
No
51

64

Percent
99.1
0.9
86.1
13.9
62.0
38.0
17.6
82.4
1.9
98.1
11.1
88.9
61.1
38.9
4.6
95.4
12.0
88.0
9.3
90.7
18.7
81.3
20.6
79.4
34.6
65.4
52.3
47.7

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

65

Table 1.5
Descriptive Statistics of Respondent Characteristics, N=108
Dependent Variables: Political Engagement on Social Media
Variable
Composing a Political Social Media Post
Never
Rarely
Somewhat
Often
Very Often
Creating Political Video, Photos, or Audio
Never
Rarely
Somewhat
Often
Very Often
Sharing Political Content on Social Media
Never
Rarely
Somewhat
Often
Very Often
Participating in Online Political Discussions
Never
Rarely
Somewhat
Often
Very Often
Exchanging Political Opinions Online
Never
Rarely
Somewhat
Often
Very Often

N

Percent

70
12
15
7
3

65.4
11.2
14.0
6.5
2.8

80
17
8
1
1

74.8
15.9
7.5
0.9
0.9

58
14
12
15
8

54.2
13.1
11.2
14.0
7.5

70
21
11
4
1

65.4
19.6
10.3
3.7
0.9

55
17
19
14
2

51.4
15.9
17.8
13.1
1.9

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
Table 1.6
Descriptive Statistics of Respondent Characteristics, N=108
Dependent Variables: Political Engagement and Social Media Platform Use
Variable
N
Percent
YouTube
Never
41
38.0
Rarely
21
19.4
Somewhat
24
22.2
Often
16
14.8
Very Often
6
5.6
Twitter
Never
47
43.9
Rarely
13
12.1
Somewhat
18
16.8
Often
15
14.0
Very Often
14
13.1
Instagram
Never
35
32.4
Rarely
22
20.4
Somewhat
24
22.2
Often
22
20.4
Very Often
5
4.6
Snapchat
Never
66
61.1
Rarely
25
23.1
Somewhat
10
9.3
Often
7
6.5
Very Often
0
0.0
Facebook
Never
62
57.4
Rarely
17
15.7
Somewhat
14
13.0
Often
13
12.0
Very Often
2
1.9
Tik-Tok
Never
67
62.0
Rarely
18
16.7
Somewhat
13
12.0
Often
8
7.4
Very Often
2
1.9

66

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
Table 1.7
Descriptive Statistics of Respondent Characteristics, N=108
Dependent Variables: Political Engagement and Media Platform Use
Variable
N
Personal Blogs
Never
87
Rarely
11
Somewhat
8
Often
0
Very Often
0
Online Forums and Discussion Boards
Never
80
Rarely
12
Somewhat
10
Often
4
Very Often
1
Government Web Sites
Never
31
Rarely
23
Somewhat
27
Often
20
Very Often
7
Presidential Candidate’s Websites
Never
43
Rarely
19
Somewhat
22
Often
16
Very Often
7

67

Percent
82.1
10.4
7.5
0.0
0.0
74.8
11.2
9.3
3.7
0.9
28.7
21.3
25.0
18.5
6.5
40.2
17.8
20.6
15.0
6.5

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
Table 1.8
Descriptive Statistics of Respondent Characteristics, N=108
Dependent Variables: Political Engagement and Media Platform Use
Variable
N
Print News Media
Never
52
Rarely
20
Somewhat
23
Often
10
Very Often
2
Print News Media Websites
Never
39
Rarely
20
Somewhat
27
Often
14
Very Often
6
News Pages of Internet Service Providers
Never
46
Rarely
24
Somewhat
27
Often
8
Very Often
2
Network Television News
Never
9
Rarely
18
Somewhat
42
Often
26
Very Often
13
Network Television News Web Sites
Never
29
Rarely
24
Somewhat
32
Often
17
Very Often
6

68

Percent
48.6
18.7
21.5
9.3
1.9
36.8
18.9
25.5
13.2
5.7
43.0
22.4
25.2
7.5
1.9
8.3
16.7
38.9
24.1
12.0
26.9
22.2
29.6
15.7
5.6

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

69

Table 1.9
Descriptive Statistics of Respondent Characteristics, N=108
Independent Variable Political Information Efficacy

Variable
My Vote Makes a Difference
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
I Can Make a Difference in the Election Process
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
I Have a Real Say in Government
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Whether I Vote Or Not Has No Influence
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Voting Influences the Government
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree

N

Percent

4
6
3
18
29
29
19

3.7
5.6
2.8
16.7
26.9
26.9
17.6

2
8
2
21
22
30
22

1.9
7.4
1.9
19.6
20.6
28.0
20.6

10
21
22
24
19
8
3

9.3
19.6
20.6
22.4
17.8
7.5
2.8

5
17
22
24
20
15
4

4.7
15.9
20.6
22.4
18.7
14.0
3.7

6
7
12
25
32

5.6
6.5
11.2
23.4
29.9

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
Agree
Strongly Agree
Protesting Influences the Government
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree

70
21
4

19.6
3.7

5
14
7
21
24
19
17

4.7
13.1
6.5
19.6
22.4
17.8
15.9

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
Table 1.10
Descriptive Statistics of Respondent Characteristics, N=108
Independent Variable Political Information Efficacy
Variable
N
Confident That Politicians Always Do the Right Thing
Strongly Disagree
47
Disagree
34
Somewhat Disagree
11
Neutral
10
Somewhat Agree
5
Agree
0
Strongly Agree
0
Politicians Cannot Always be Trusted
Strongly Disagree
6
Disagree
6
Somewhat Disagree
4
Neutral
9
Somewhat Agree
14
Agree
31
Strongly Agree
37
Politicians Forget Campaign Promises After Elected
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
0
Somewhat Disagree
5
Neutral
23
Somewhat Agree
25
Agree
36
Strongly Agree
16
Politicians Are Interested in Power
Strongly Disagree
0
Disagree
3
Somewhat Disagree
8
Neutral
24
Somewhat Agree
26
Agree
28
Strongly Agree
18

71

Percent
43.9
31.8
10.3
9.3
4.7
0.0
0.0
5.6
5.6
3.7
8.4
13.1
29.0
34.6
1.9
0.0
4.7
21.5
23.4
33.6
15.0
0.0
2.8
7.5
22.4
24.3
26.2
16.8

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
Table 1.11
Descriptive Statistics of Respondent Characteristics, N=108
Independent Variable Political Information Efficacy
Variable
N
I Am Well-Qualified to Participate in Politics
Strongly Disagree
11
Disagree
13
Somewhat Disagree
11
Neutral
33
Somewhat Agree
14
Agree
13
Strongly Agree
12
I Am Better Informed About Politics Than Most
Strongly Disagree
19
Disagree
19
Somewhat Disagree
8
Neutral
23
Somewhat Agree
16
Agree
17
Strongly Agree
5
I Understand Important Political Issues
Strongly Disagree
7
Disagree
5
Somewhat Disagree
8
Neutral
18
Somewhat Agree
31
Agree
26
Strongly Agree
12
I Am Confident In Helping Friends
Strongly Disagree
15
Disagree
5
Somewhat Disagree
7
Neutral
22
Somewhat Agree
18
Agree
25
Strongly Agree
15

72

Percent
10.3
12.1
10.3
30.8
13.1
12.1
11.2
17.8
17.8
7.5
21.5
15.0
15.9
4.7
6.5
4.7
7.5
16.8
29.0
24.3
11.2
14.0
4.7
6.5
20.6
16.8
23.4
14.0

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

73

Table 1.12
Descriptive Statistics of Respondent Characteristics, N=108
Independent Variable Locus of Control
Variable
People’s Misfortunes
External Locus of Control
Internal Locus of Control
Perception of Fate
External Locus of Control
Internal Locus of Control
Control of Future Plans
External Locus of Control
Internal Locus of Control
Control of Life Outcomes
External Locus of Control
Internal Locus of Control
Employment and Luck
External Locus of Control
Internal Locus of Control
Perception of Luck
External Locus of Control
Internal Locus of Control
Influence of Luck
External Locus of Control
Internal Locus of Control
Perception of Control
External Locus of Control
Internal Locus of Control

N

Percent

49
59

45.4
54.6

67
41

62.0
38.0

24
83

22.4
77.6

20
87

18.7
81.3

31
76

29.0
71.0

84
23

78.5
21.5

63
43

59.4
40.6

36
71

33.6
66.4

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

74

Table 1.13
Descriptive Statistics of Respondent Characteristics, N=108
Independent Variable Parental Socialization
Variable
Parents Watched Presidential Debates
Never
Rarely
Somewhat
Often
Very Often
Parents Tried to Persuade Others to Vote
Never
Rarely
Somewhat
Often
Very Often
Parents Registered Others to Vote
Never
Rarely
Somewhat
Often
Very Often
Parents Volunteered as a Poll Worker
Never
Rarely
Somewhat
Often
Very Often
Parents Gave Money to a Political Candidate
Never
Rarely
Somewhat
Often
Very Often
Parents Been Contacted by a Political Campaign
Never
Rarely
Somewhat
Often
Very Often

N

Percent

15
20
25
38
9

14.0
18.7
23.4
35.5
8.4

39
30
24
8
6

36.4
28.0
22.4
7.5
5.6

70
20
10
4
2

66.0
18.9
9.4
3.8
1.9

90
8
4
2
3

84.1
7.5
3.7
1.9
2.8

77
13
9
4
4

72.0
12.1
8.4
3.7
3.7

36
15
21
25
10

33.6
14.0
19.6
23.4
9.3

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
Table 1.14
Descriptive Statistics of Respondent Characteristics, N=108
Independent Variable Parental Socialization
Variable
N
Parents Volunteered For a Political Campaign
Never
86
Rarely
11
Somewhat
4
Often
4
Very Often
2
Parents Attended a Political Meeting
Never
79
Rarely
14
Somewhat
5
Often
5
Very Often
4
Parents Attended a Rally or Campaign Event
Never
82
Rarely
14
Somewhat
5
Often
3
Very Often
3
Parents Contacted a Political Official
Never
72
Rarely
19
Somewhat
6
Often
7
Very Often
3
Parents Participated in a Lawful Demonstration
Never
83
Rarely
14
Somewhat
6
Often
2
Very Often
2
Parents Boycotted Products or Companies
Never
67
Rarely
16
Somewhat
14
Often
6
Very Often
3
Parents Signed a Petition
Never
65
Rarely
19
Somewhat
12
Often
6
Very Often
3

75

Percent
80.4
10.3
3.7
3.7
1.9
73.8
13.1
4.7
4.7
3.7
76.6
13.1
4.7
2.8
2.8
67.3
17.8
5.6
6.5
2.8
77.6
13.1
5.6
1.9
1.9
63.2
15.1
13.2
5.7
2.8
61.9
18.1
11.4
5.7
2.9

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

76

Table 1.15
Descriptive Statistics of Respondent Characteristics, N=108
Control Variables
Variable
Gender Identity
Female
Male
Non-Binary
Political Ideology
Very Liberal
Liberal
Somewhat Liberal
Neither Liberal or Conservative
Somewhat Conservative
Conservative
Very Conservative

N

Percent

71
34
3

65.7
31.5
2.8

12
22
17
24
11
18
4

11.1
20.4
15.7
22.2
10.2
16.7
3.7

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

77

Table 2.1
Correlation matrix of Political Engagement and Political Information Efficacy, N= 108
(1) General Political
Engagement Indexa
(2) Political Engagement
and Participation Indexb
(3) Social Media Political
Engagement Indexc

(1)
1.00

(4) Political Engagement
and Media Platform Use
Indexd
(5) How Informed About
Either Candidate
(6) General Political
Efficacy Indexe
(7) Political Information
Efficacy Indexf
(8) Gender Identityg

(2)
.712***

(3)
.559***

(4)
.601***

(5)
.744***

(6)
.360***

(7)
.767***

(8)
.136

(9)
-.217*

1.00

.609***

.567***

.657***

.269***

.669**

.148

-.317**

1.00

.537***

.459***

.329**

.469***

.141

-.380***

1.00

.518***

.299**

.424***

-.014

1.00

.342***

.768***

.188

-.247**

1.00

.357***

-.082

-.271**

1.00

.241*

-.145

1.00

-.069

(9) Political Ideologyh
Note: *=p< .05; **=p< .01; ***=p< .001
a

General Political Engagement Index coded as 7=Not Engaged and 35=Very Engaged
Engagement and Participation Index code as 1=Not Engaged and 15=Very
Engaged
c Social Media Political Engagement Index coded as 5= Not Engaged and 22= Very
Engaged
d Political Engagement and Media Platform Use Index coded as 15= Not Engaged and
56=Very Engaged
e General Political Efficacy coded as 14= Low Political Efficacy and 61= High Political
Efficacy
f Political Information Efficacy Index coded as 4=Low Political Information Efficacy
and 28= High Political Efficacy
g Gender Identity coded as 0= Female, 1= Male, and 2= Non-Binary
h Political Ideology coded as 1=Very Liberal and 7= Very Conservative
b Political

-.158

1.00

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

78

Table 2.2
Correlation matrix of Political Engagement and Locus of Control, N= 108
(1)
(1) General Political Engagement
Indexa
(2) Political Engagement and
Participation Indexb
(3) Social Media Political Engagement
Indexc
(4) Political Engagement and Media
Platform Use Indexd

1.00

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

.712***

.559***

.601***

.744***

-.171

.136

-.217*

1.00

.609***

.567***

.657***

-.154

.148

-.317**

1.00

.537***

.459***

-.164

.141

-.380***

1.00

.518***

-.049

-.014

-.158

1.00

-.167

.188

-.247**

1.00

.058

.305**

1.00

-.069

(5) How Informed About Either
Candidate
(6) Locus of Control Indexe
(7) Gender Identityf
(8) Political Ideologyg
Note: *=p< .05; **=p< .01; ***=p< .001
a

General Political Engagement Index coded as 7=Not Engaged and 35=Very Engaged
Engagement and Participation Index code as 1=Not Engaged and 15=Very Engaged
c Social Media Political Engagement Index coded as 5= Not Engaged and 22= Very Engaged
d Political Engagement and Media Platform Use Index coded as 15= Not Engaged and 56=Very
Engaged
e Locus of Control Index coded as 1= High External Locus of Control and 8=High Internal Locus
of Control
f Gender Identity coded as 0= Female, 1= Male, and 2= Non-Binary
g Political Ideology coded as 1=Very Liberal and 7= Very Conservative
b Political

1.00

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

79

Table 2.3
Correlation matrix of Political Engagement and Parental Socialization, N= 108
(1)
(1) General Political
Engagement Indexa

1.00

(2) Political Engagement and
Participation Indexb
(3) Social Media Political
Engagement Indexc
(4) Political Engagement and
Media Platform Use Indexd
(5) How Informed About
Either Candidate
(6) Parental Political
Engagement Indexe
(7) Gender Identityf

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

.712***

.559***

.601***

.744***

.388***

.136

-.217*

1.00

.609***

.567***

.657***

.377***

.148

-.317**

1.00

.537***

.459***

.356***

.141

-.380***

1.00

.518***

.357***

-.014

-.158

1.00

.326**

.188

-.247**

1.00

-.004

-.095

1.00

-.069

(8) Political Ideologyg
Note: *=p< .05; **=p< .01; ***=p< .001
a

General Political Engagement Index coded as 7=Not Engaged and 35=Very Engaged
Engagement and Participation Index code as 1=Not Engaged and 15=Very Engaged
c Social Media Political Engagement Index coded as 5= Not Engaged and 22= Very Engaged
d Political Engagement and Media Platform Use Index coded as 15= Not Engaged and 56=Very Engaged
e Parental Political Engagement Index coded as 15= Not Engaged and 74= Very Engaged
f Gender Identity coded as 0= Female, 1= Male, and 2= Non-Binary
g Political Ideology coded as 1=Very Liberal and 7= Very Conservative
b Political

1.00

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

80

Table 3.1.
Political Engagement of College Students by General Political Efficacy (N=108)
General Political Efficacy (Percent)
Low
Medium
High
(n=19)
(n=72)
(n=15)
General Political Engagement Index
Low Engagement
36.8
5.6
0.0
Medium Engagement
36.8
61.1
26.7
High Engagement
26.3
33.3
73.3
Note: χ2= 25.905; p= .000
Political Engagement and Participation Index
(n=19)
(n=73)
(n=15)
Low Engagement
42.1
16.4
6.7
Medium Engagement
36.8
60.3
60.0
High Engagement
21.1
23.3
33.3
Note: χ2= 8.695; p= .069
Social Media Political Engagement Index
(n=19)
(n=73)
(n=15)
Low Engagement
89.5
71.2
53.3
Medium Engagement
0.0
21.9
26.7
High Engagement
10.5
6.8
20.0
Note: χ2= 8.344; p= .080
Political Engagement and Media Platform Use Index
(n=19)
(n=70)
(n=14)
Low Engagement
68.4
34.3
7.1
Medium Engagement
26.3
54.3
78.6
High Engagement
5.3
11.4
14.3
Note: χ2= 13.678; p= .008
How Informed About Either Candidate
(n=19)
(n=73)
(n=15)
Not Informed
26.3
13.7
0.0
Somewhat Informed
21.1
11.0
6.7
Very Informed
52.6
75.3
93.3
Note: χ2= 7.805; p=.099

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

81

Table 3.2.
Political Engagement of College Students by Political Information Efficacy (N=108)
Political Information Efficacy (Percent)
Low
Medium
High
(n=23)
(n=73)
(n=15)
General Political Engagement Index
Low Engagement
34.8
5.9
0.0
Medium Engagement
60.9
68.6
18.8
High Engagement
4.3
25.5
81.3
Note: χ2=52.277; p=.000
Political Engagement and Participation Index
(n=23)
(n=51)
(n=33)
Low Engagement
47.8
17.6
3.0
Medium Engagement
52.2
68.6
39.4
High Engagement
0.0
13.7
57.6
Note: χ2=40.159; p=.000
Social Media Political Engagement Index
(n=23)
(n=51)
(n=33)
Low Engagement
95.7
74.5
51.5
Medium Engagement
4.3
21.6
24.2
High Engagement
0.0
3.9
24.2
Note: χ2=18.649; p=.001
Political Engagement and Media Platform Use Index
(n=23)
(n=48)
(n=32)
Low Engagement
60.9
29.2
31.3
Medium Engagement
39.1
60.4
50.0
High Engagement
0.0
10.4
18.8
Note: χ2=10.444 ; p=.034
How Informed About Either Candidate
(n=23)
(n=51)
(n=33)
Not Informed
47.8
7.8
0.0
Somewhat Informed
21.7
15.7
0.0
Very Informed
30.4
76.5
100.0
Note: χ2=40.016 ; p=.000

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
Table 3.3.
Political Engagement of College Students by Locus of Control (N=108)
Locus of Control (Percent)
External
Mixed
Internal
(n=29)
(n=45)
(n=30)
General Political Engagement Index
Low Engagement
10.3
6.7
16.7
Medium Engagement
41.4
55.6
53.3
High Engagement
48.3
37.8
30.0
Note: χ2=3.736; p=.443
Political Engagement and Participation Index
(n=29)
(n=46)
(n=30)
Low Engagement
17.2
15.2
30.0
Medium Engagement
51.7
58.7
56.7
High Engagement
31.0
26.1
13.3
Note: χ2=4.411; p=.353
Social Media Political Engagement Index
(n=29)
(n=46)
(n=30)
Low Engagement
62.1
76.1
76.7
Medium Engagement
20.7
19.6
13.3
High Engagement
17.2
4.3
10.0
Note: χ2=4.243; p=.374
Political Engagement and Media Platform Use Index
(n=29)
(n=45)
(n=27)
Low Engagement
20.7
46.7
37.0
Medium Engagement
65.5
48.9
48.1
High Engagement
13.8
4.4
14.8
Note: χ2=6.812; p=.146
How Informed About Either Candidate
(n=29)
(n=46)
(n=30)
Not Informed
10.3
13.0
14.3
Somewhat Informed
10.3
10.9
12.4
Very Informed
79.3
76.1
73.3
Note: χ2=2.276 ; p=.685

82

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
Table 3.4.
Political Engagement of College Students by Parental Engagement (N=108)
Parental Engagement (Percent)
Low
Medium
High
(n=76)
(n=22)
(n=5)
General Political Engagement Index
Low Engagement
14.5
0.0
0.0
Medium Engagement
56.6
45.5
20.0
High Engagement
28.9
54.5
80.0
Note: χ2=11.042; p=.026
Political Engagement and Participation Index
(n=77)
(n=22)
(n=5)
Low Engagement
24.7
4.5
0.0
Medium Engagement
57.1
63.6
0.0
High Engagement
18.2
31.8
100.0
Note: χ2=20.765; p=.000
Social Media Political Engagement Index
(n=77)
(n=22)
(n=5)
Low Engagement
74.0
72.7
20.0
Medium Engagement
19.5
18.2
20.0
High Engagement
6.5
9.1
60.0
Note: χ2=15.940; p=.003
Political Engagement and Media Platform Use Index
(n=76)
(n=20)
(n=5)
Low Engagement
42.1
25.0
20.0
Medium Engagement
51.3
55.0
40.0
High Engagement
6.6
20.0
40.0
Note: χ2=8.553; p=.073
How Informed About Either Candidate
(n=77)
(n=22)
(n=5)
Not Informed
19.5
0.0
14.4
Somewhat Informed
10.4
18.2
11.5
Very Informed
70.1
81.8
74.0
Note: χ2=7.560; p=.109

83

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

84

Table 4.1
OLS Regression Results of Political Information Efficacy, Locus of Control, and Parental
Socialization on the General Political Engagement of College Students (N=108)
Variable

Model 1

General Political Efficacy Index

Model 5

Model 6

.416***

.276**

.289**

(.103)

(.084)

(.092)

.563***

.478***

.463***

(.068)

(071)

(.074)

-.123

-.148*

-.150*

(.084)

(.062)

(.068)

.106

.108

(.090)

(.091)

Political Information Efficacy Index

Model 2

Locus of Control Index

Model 3

Parental Political Engagement Index

Model 4

.362**
(.108)

Gender Identity

.063
(.095)

Political Ideology

.001
(.032)

R2

.136

Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients
Standard Error shown in parentheses
*Relationship significant at the .05 level
**Relationship significant at the .01 level
***Relationship significant at the .001 level

.399

.021

.100

.488

.490

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

85

Table 4.2
OLS Regression Results of Political Information Efficacy, Locus of Control, and Parental Socialization on
the Political Engagement and Participation of College Students (N=108)
Variable
General Political Efficacy Index

Model 1

Model 5

Model 6

.242*

.090

.088

(.112)

(.094)

(.100)

.518***

.444***

.416***

(.074)

(.077)

(.081)

-.153

-.154*

-.132

(.086)

(.069)

(.075)

.440

.249

.243*

(.110)

(.099)

(.099)

Political Information Efficacy Index

Model 2

Locus of Control

Model 3

Parental Political Engagement

Model 4

Gender Identity

.096
(.103)

Political Ideology

-.030
(.035)

R2

.042

Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients
Standard Error shown in parentheses
*Relationship significant at the .05 level
**Relationship significant at the .01 level
***Relationship significant at the .001 level

.316

.030

.136

.408

.420

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

86

Table 4.3
OLS Regression Results of Political Information Efficacy, Locus of Control, and Parental Socialization on
the Political Engagement of College Students on Social Media (N=108)
Variable
General Political Efficacy Index

Model 1

Model 5

Model 6

.221*

.125

.049

(.110)

(.108)

(.111)

.350***

.295**

.256**

(.081)

(.089)

(.089)

-.108

-.120

-.028

(.085)

(.080)

(.083)

.162

.134

(.114)

(.110)

Political Information Efficacy Index

Model 2

Locus of Control

Model 3

Parental Political Engagement

Model 4

.301**
(.113)

Gender Identity

.050
(.114)

Political Ideology

.116**
(.039)

R2

.037

Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients
Standard Error shown in parentheses
*Relationship significant at the .05 level
**Relationship significant at the .01 level
***Relationship significant at the .001 level

.150

.015

.065

.204

.278

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

87

Table 4.4
OLS Regression Results of Political Information Efficacy, Locus of Control, and Parental Socialization on
the Political Media Consumption and Engagement of College Students(N=108)
Variable
General Political Efficacy Index

Model 1

Model 5

Model 6

.357**

.297**

.253*

(.107)

(.107)

(.114)

.228**

.121

.137

(.085)

(.087)

(.092)

-.081

-.108

-.080

(.084)

(.079)

(.086)

.290*

.197

.188

(.113)

(.113)

(.114)

Political Information Efficacy Index

Model 2

Locus of Control

Model 3

Parental Political Engagement

Model 4

Gender Identity

-.109
(.117)

Political Ideology

-.031
(.040)

R2

.100

Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients
Standard Error shown in parentheses
*Relationship significant at the .05 level
**Relationship significant at the .01 level
***Relationship significant at the .001 level

.067

.009

.063

.182

.193

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

88

Table 4.5
OLS Regression Results of Political Information Efficacy, Locus of Control, and Parental Socialization on
How Informed College Students Were About Either Candidate(N=108)
Variable
General Political Efficacy Index

Model 1

Model 5

Model 6

.337**

.191

.198

(.121)

(.108)

(.117)

.563***

.521***

.517***

(.081)

(.089)

(.094)

-.129

-.138

-.141

(.095)

(.080)

(.087)

.278*

.033

.034

(.127)

(.114)

(.116)

Political Information Efficacy Index

Model 2

Locus of Control Index

Model 3

Parental Political Engagement Index

Model 4

Gender Identity

.022
(.120)

Political Ideology

.003
(.041)

R2

.069

Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients
Standard Error shown in parentheses
*Relationship significant at the .05 level
**Relationship significant at the .01 level
***Relationship significant at the .001 level

.314

.018

.045

.356

.356

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

APPENDIX B: Full Questionnaire and Codebook

89

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
Are you registered to vote? (VOTE)
•
•

Yes
No

Did you vote in the 2020 State primary election? (VOTEPRIM)
•
•

Yes
No

Did you vote in the 2020 National presidential election? (VOTENAT)
•
•

Yes
No

How did you vote? (VOTEHOW)
•
•
•

Mail-in Ballot
In-person
Did not know how to vote

Please indicate your level of interest in each of the following statements.
In general, how much interest do you have in politics? (POLGEN)
(1) None
(2) Very Little
(3) Some
(4) Quite a Bit
(5) A Great Deal
In general, how much do you discuss politics with your family and friends? (POLTALK)
(1) None
(2) Very Little
(3) Some
(4) Quite a Bit
(5) A Great Deal
How much interest did you have in the 2020 presidential election? (POLELEC)
(1) None
(2) Very Little
(3) Some
(4) Quite a Bit
(5) A Great Deal
In general, how much did you follow political campaigns in the 2020 presidential election?
(POLCAMP)
(1) None
(2) Very Little
(3) Some

90

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
(4) Quite a Bit
(5) A Great Deal
How much did you research either political candidate in the previous presidential election?
(POLRSRCH)
(1) None
(2) Very Little
(3) Some
(4) Quite a Bit
(5) A Great Deal
In the past 12 months have you:
Discussed politics with family, friends, or others (DISCSPOL)
•
•

Yes
No

Watched a presidential debate (PRESDBT)
•
•

Yes
No

Tried to persuade others to vote (PERSVOTE)
•
•

Yes
No

Registered others to vote (REGVOTE)
•
•

Yes
No

Volunteered as a poll worker (POLLWRK)
•
•

Yes
No

Gave money to a political candidate (DONATE)
•
•

Yes
No

Contacted by a political campaign (CNTCTBY)
•
•

Yes
No

Volunteered for a political campaign (VOLUNCAMP)
•
•

Yes
No

91

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
Attended a political meeting (ATTNPOLMTG)
•
•

Yes
No

Attended a political rally or campaign event (ATTNRALLY)
•
•

Yes
No

Contacted a political official (e.g. a local representative, State Senator, or Governor)
(CNTCTPOL)
•
•

Yes
No

Participated in a lawful demonstration (e.g. public protest or march) (LAWDEM)
•
•

Yes
No

Boycotted certain products or companies (BOYCOT)
•
•

Yes
No

Signed a petition in support of a social or political issue (SGNPET)
•
•

Yes
No

In regard to the 2020 presidential election, how often did you engage in each of the following
activities?
Writing social media posts on political issues (e.g. composing an original tweet, writing an
original Facebook post) (WRITESM)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
Creating and posting online audio, video, animation, photos, or computer artwork to express
political views (CREATESM)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often

92

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

93

Sharing political news, video clips, photos, or other’s content on your social media account (e.g.
re-tweeting a political news article, sharing a political video clip on an Instagram story)
(SHARESM)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
Participating in online political discussions (e.g. discussion boards, Twitter threads, Facebook
comments) (PRTCPTSM)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
Exchanging opinions about politics via email, social networking platforms, or instant messenger
(EXCHSM)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
In regard to the 2020 presidential election, how often did you rely on these platforms for political
content?
(1) YouTube (YOUTUBE)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
(2) Twitter (TWITTER)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
(3) Instagram (INSTGRM)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
(4) Snapchat (SNAPCHAT)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
(5) Facebook (FACEBOOK)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
(6) Tik-Tok (TIKTOK)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
(7) Personal Blogs (BLOGS)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
(8) Online Forums and Discussion Boards (FRMBRD)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
(9) Government Web Sites (e.g. Local, State, or National) (GOVSITE)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often

94

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
(10) Presidential Candidate’s Websites (PRESITE)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
(11) Network Television News (e.g. ABC, MSNBC, NBC, Fox News, CNN) (TVNET)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
(12) Network Television News Web Sites (e.g. bbc.com, foxnews.com) (TVSITE)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
(14) Print Media News (e.g. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal) (PRNTNEWS)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
(13) Print Media News Web sites (e.g. nytimes.com, wsj.com) (NEWSSITE)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
(14) News pages of internet service providers (e.g. Google News, Yahoo News) (INTSITE)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
How informed did you feel about either of the presidential campaigns? (INFOCAND)
(1) Very Uniformed
(2) Uniformed

95

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
(3) Somewhat Uniformed
(4) Neutral
(5) Somewhat Informed
(6) Informed
(7) Very Informed
How often have you been exposed to media coverage of either presidential campaigns?
(MEDCAMP)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
How often have you talked with other people about either of the presidential campaigns?
(TALKCAMP)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
My vote makes a difference (VOTEDIF)
(1) Strongly Disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Somewhat Disagree
(4) Neutral
(5) Somewhat Agree
(6) Agree
(7) Strongly Agree
I can make a difference if I participate in the election process (PARTPDIF)
(1) Strongly Disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Somewhat Disagree
(4) Neutral
(5) Somewhat Agree
(6) Agree
(7) Strongly Agree
I have a real say in what the government does (SAYGOV)
(1) Strongly Disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Somewhat Disagree
(4) Neutral

96

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
(5) Somewhat Agree
(6) Agree
(7) Strongly Agree
Whether I vote or not has no influence on what politicians do (VOTEINFL)
(1) Strongly Disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Somewhat Disagree
(4) Neutral
(5) Somewhat Agree
(6) Agree
(7) Strongly Agree
Voting gives people an effective way to influence what the government does (VOTEPEEP)
(1) Strongly Disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Somewhat Disagree
(4) Neutral
(5) Somewhat Agree
(6) Agree
(7) Strongly Agree
Protesting gives people an effective way to influence what the government does (PROTINF)
(1) Strongly Disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Somewhat Disagree
(4) Neutral
(5) Somewhat Agree
(6) Agree
(7) Strongly Agree
One can be confident that politicians will always do the right thing (CONFPOL)
(1) Strongly Disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Somewhat Disagree
(4) Neutral
(5) Somewhat Agree
(6) Agree
(7) Strongly Agree
One cannot always trust what politicians say (TRUSTPOL)
(1) Strongly Disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Somewhat Disagree
(4) Neutral
(5) Somewhat Agree

97

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

98

(6) Agree
(7) Strongly Agree
Politicians often quickly forget their election promises after a political campaign is over
(POLFORG)
(1) Strongly Disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Somewhat Disagree
(4) Neutral
(5) Somewhat Agree
(6) Agree
(7) Strongly Agree
Politicians are more interested in power than in what the people think (POLPWR)
(1) Strongly Disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Somewhat Disagree
(4) Neutral
(5) Somewhat Agree
(6) Agree
(7) Strongly Agree
Please indicate whether you strongly agree or strongly disagree with each of the following
statements.
I consider myself well-qualified to participate in politics (SELFQUL)
(1) Strongly Disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Somewhat Disagree
(4) Neutral
(5) Somewhat Agree
(6) Agree
(7) Strongly Agree
I think that I am better informed about politics and government than most people (SELFINF)
(1) Strongly Disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Somewhat Disagree
(4) Neutral
(5) Somewhat Agree
(6) Agree
(7) Strongly Agree
I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of the important political issues facing our country
(SELFISS)
(1) Strongly Disagree

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

99

(2) Disagree
(3) Somewhat Disagree
(4) Neutral
(5) Somewhat Agree
(6) Agree
(7) Strongly Agree
If a friend asked me about the presidential election, I feel I would have enough information to
help my friend figure out who to vote for (SELFRND)
(1) Strongly Disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Somewhat Disagree
(4) Neutral
(5) Somewhat Agree
(6) Agree
(7) Strongly Agree
(1) select the statement that you agree with the most (LUCKGEN)
a. Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck.
b. People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.
(2) select the statement that you agree with the most (LUCKFATE)
a. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen.
b. Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a decision to take a definite
course of action.
(3) select the statement that you agree with the most (LUCKFUTR)
a. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work.
b. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to- be a matter of good
or bad fortune anyhow.
(4) select the statement that you agree with the most (LUCKATT)
a. In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck.
b. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin.
(5) select the statement that you agree with the most (LUCKWRK)
a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right place first.
b. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability. Luck has little or nothing to do with
it.

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

100

(6) select the statement that you agree with the most (LUCKACC)
a. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental
happenings.
b. There really is no such thing as "luck."
(7) select the statement that you agree with the most (LUCKINFL)
a. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me.=0 external
b. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my life.=1
internal
(8) select the statement that you agree with the most (LUCKCONT)
a. What happens to me is my own doing.
b. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my life is taking.
What is your mother or father’s highest level of education? (PAREDU)
•
•
•
•
•

Less than High School -coded as 1
High School or GED-coded as 2
Associates Degree (2 years of College)-coded as 3
Bachelor’s Degree (4 years of College)-coded as 4
Master’s Degree or higher- coded as 5

Growing up, in general how often did your parents talk about politics in the house? (PARTLK)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
Growing up, in general how often did your parents vote? (PARVOTE)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
When you turned 18, did your parents encourage you to register to vote? (PAREG)
•
•

Yes
No

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

101

Growing up, how often do you remember your parents engaging in any of the following political
activities?
Watching a presidential debate (PARDBT)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
Trying to persuade others to vote (PARSUADE)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
Registering others to vote (PAREGVT)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
Volunteering as a poll worker (PARPOLL)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
Giving money to a political candidate (PARDNT)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
Being contacted by a political campaign (PARCNTCBY)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
(5) Very Often
Volunteering for a political campaign (PARVOL)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
Attending a political meeting (PARMTG)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
Attending a political rally or campaign event (PARLLY)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
Contacting a political official (e.g. a local representative, State Senator, or Governor)
(PARCONPOL)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
Participating in a lawful demonstration (e.g. public protest or march) (PARLAWDEM)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
Boycotting certain products or companies (PARBOYCOT)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often

102

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
(5) Very Often
Signing a petition about a social or political issue (PARSIGN)
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Somewhat
(4) Often
(5) Very Often
What gender do you identify as? (GENDER)
•
•
•
•

Female
Male
Non-binary
Write-in

When it comes to politics, do you usually think of yourself as (POLVIEWS)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

(1) Very Liberal
(2) Liberal
(3) Somewhat Liberal
(4) Neither Liberal or Conservative
(5) Somewhat Conservative
(6) Conservative
(7) Very Conservative

What is your age? (AGE)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Write-in

Please specify your race/ethnicity, and select all that apply (RACE)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

White
African American
Black
Latinx
Hispanic
Asian
Pacific Islander
Native American or American Indian

103

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
What year will you graduate? (GRADYR)
•
•
•
•

2021
2022
2023
2024

What is you major? (MAJOR)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Accounting
o Business Department
Actuarial Science
o Math Department
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
o Chemistry and Biochemistry Department
Biology
o Biology Department
Biology Secondary Education
o Biology Department
Biology Laboratory Science
o Biology Department
Business Administration
o Business Department
Business Data Science
o Business Department
Chemistry
o Chemistry and Biochemistry Department
Chemistry Laboratory Sciences
o Chemistry and Biochemistry Department
Chemistry Secondary Education
o Chemistry and Biochemistry Department
Computer Science
o Computer Science Department
Criminal Justice
o Sociology-Anthropology Department
Data Science
o Computer Science Department
Digital Media Production
o Communications Department
Early Childhood Education
o Education Department
Economics
o Business Department
Elementary/ Middle-Level Education

104

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

o Education Department
Engineering
o Engineering and Physics Department
English
o English Department
English Secondary Education
o English Department
Environmental Science
o Biology Department
Exercise Science, Major
o Interdisciplinary
Finance
o Business Department
Financial Economics
o Business Department
Fine Arts
o Division of Fine and Performing Arts
French
o Modern Language Department
German
o Modern Language Department
Graphic Design
o Division of Fine and Performing Arts
Health Sciences
o Occupational Therapy Department
History
o History Department
Information Systems
o Computer Science Department
Interfaith Leadership Studies
o Interdisciplinary Studies
International Business
o Business Department
Japanese
o Modern Languages Department
Journalism
o Communications Department
Legal Studies
o Political Science and Legal Studies Department
Marketing
o Business Department
Mathematical Business

105

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

o Mathematical Sciences Department
Mathematics
o Mathematical Sciences Department
Mathematics Secondary Education
o Mathematical Sciences Department
Media Analytics and Social Media
o Communications Department
Music
o Division of Fine and Performing Arts Department of Music
Music Education
o Division of Fine and Performing Arts Department of Music
Music Therapy
o Division of Fine and Performing Arts Department of Music
Neuroscience
o Psychology Department
Physics
o Engineering and Physics Department
Physics Secondary Education
o Engineering and Physics Department
Political Sciences
o Political Science and Legal Studies Department
Public Relations
o Communication Department
Psychology
o Psychology Department
Religious Studies
o Religious Studies Department
Social Studies Education
o Interdisciplinary
Social Work
o Social Work Department
Sociology-Anthropology
o Sociology-Anthropology Department
Spanish
o Modern Languages Department

Are you a United States citizen? USCITZN
•
•

Yes
No

What state do you reside in? (when you are not on the E-town campus) STATE
•

Alabama

106

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee

107

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

108

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

APPENDIX C: Interview Questions and Consent Script

109

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

110

Interview Questions
Hello, thank you for taking the time to be here for this interview today. My name is Jessica and I
am a senior Sociology/Anthropology major conducting research for my Honors in the Discipline
Thesis. During this semi-structured interview I will be taking notes as I ask the questions. The
goal of this interview is to learn more about the political engagement of college students. The
results from this study will be presented at Scholarship and Creative Arts Day at Elizabethtown
College, as well as at the Mid-Atlantic Undergraduate Social Research Conference. Just a
reminder that this process is voluntary and your name and identity will be kept confidential. If
you would like a copy of the completed research, please let me know at the end of the interview.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

In the last 12 months, how engaged were you with the presidential election?
In what ways did you engage with the past presidential election?
Did you vote in the last presidential election? Was this your first time voting?
What does being politically engaged mean to you?
How has the past election influenced your engagement with politics?
How confident did you feel when you participated in the 2020 election (e.g. when
voting, registering to vote, donating to a campaign).
7. How necessary do you believe it is to be educated about the political process, and
keep up with the news cycle in order to participate in the presidential election?
8. Did you understand the information you consumed? Did you feel more confident in
participating in the political process after consuming political content?
9. If a friend came to you to ask a question about the presidential election, how
confident would you be to answer their questions?
10. How satisfied were you with your political knowledge this past presidential election?
11. Compared to others how politically informed do you believe you are?
12. How much control do you believe you have over your life choices and outcomes?
13. How much influence do you believe your voice has in the political process?
14. What did your parents believe about politics?
15. What do you believe you have learned from your parents about politics?
16. Growing up, in what ways did you notice your parents engaging with political
activities?
17. What is your relationship like now with your parents in terms of discussing politics?
18. In comparison to your parents, who do you believe in more politically engaged and
why?

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

APPENDIX D: Faculty Email

111

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

112

Subject Line: Political Engagement Survey
Hello [Insert Professor Name],
My name is Jessica Cox and I am conducting a research project on the political engagement of
college students for my senior sociology Honors in the Discipline project. I would be extremely
grateful if you encouraged your students in _________ to complete this survey.
The link and a short description are located below to send to students via email. This survey is
currently open and should take about 10- 15 minutes to complete.
Here is the survey description in case you want to email your current students:
This survey will assess your sense of political engagement to better understand how college
students become engaged and active in the political process. I would greatly appreciate your
participation and help in data collection. Thank you!
Here is the link to the survey: ________.
Thank you for your consideration, time, and support of student research. Please let me know if
you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Jessica Cox

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

APPENDIX E: Survey Consent Form

113

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

114

Survey Consent Form
Title of Research: To Vote or Not To Vote: The Effects of Political Information Efficacy, Locus
of Control, and Parental Socialization on the Political Engagement of College Students
Principal Investigator: Jessica Cox
Purpose of Research
The purpose of this survey is to measure your political engagement and see if your engagement
is related to how politically informed you are, how confident you are about politics, how you
perceive control, and how you were influenced by your parents. In this study, political
engagement includes voting, watching presidential debates, volunteering as a poll working, and
discussing politics with your friends. You will be asked about how you consume political
information, how you have participated in political activities, and how your parents interact with
politics.
You are NOT asked which political party you voted for and at no time will be asked about your
party affiliation.
Procedures
I will complete the following online Microsoft Forms questionnaire honestly and to the best of
my ability. I understand the questionnaire will take me about 20 minutes.
Risks and Discomforts
I understand that the risk or discomfort from participation in this research study are no greater
than those experienced in everyday life.
Benefits
I will receive no direct benefits from being in this study; however, my participation may help me
reflect on my political engagement.
Compensation:
I understand that I will not receive any immediate or guaranteed compensation for participating
in this study.
Confidentiality
The information gathered during this study will remain confidential. All data collected will be
kept on a password protected computer and only accessible to the principal investigator and
faculty advisor of this study. The results of this research will be published in an undergraduate
paper and may be published in a professional journal or presented at professional meetings. The
researcher will not provide any identifying information in the report or publication.
Withdrawal without Prejudice
I understand my participation in this study is strictly voluntary. My refusal to participate will
involve no penalty. I understand I am free to withdraw at any time while participating.

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
Contacts and Questions
If I have any questions concerning the research project, I may contact Jessica Cox at
coxj1@etown.edu. Additionally, if I want a copy of this consent form, I will email
coxj1@etown.edu. Should I have any questions about my participant rights involved in this
research I may contact the Elizabethtown College Institutional Review Board Submission
Coordinator, Susan Mapp at (717) 361-1990 or via email at mapps@etown.edu.
Statement of Consent:
I am 18 years of age or older.
I have read the above information. I have asked questions and received answers. I am
willing to participate in this study.
By answering “Yes” I agree to participate in this study.
By answering “No” I agree not to participate in this study and will exit the survey.

115

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

APPENDIX F: CITI Certificate

116

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

117