Search

We explore the roots of tolerance for immigration-related diversity from a political socialization perspective. Among rural adolescent respondents, we find that attitudes toward immigrants are surprisingly variable along a number of important dimensions: anticipated socioeconomic status, family longevity in the community, and employment in agriculture. The extent to which an adolescent's family is anchored in the community proves to be an important determinant of diversity attitudes. Tolerance for diversity is also contextually conditioned by the percentage of immigrants settled in a neighborhood, and the percentage of the local population employed in farming. Interestingly, lower income youth are more welcoming of immigration than the affluent, particularly when they live near them. Without quite labeling these rural adolescent populations racially "progressive," the youth we encountered mostly expressed the norms of tolerance and civility essential for avoiding unpleasant intergroup conflict. (Contains 2 figures, 3 tables, and 4 footnotes.)

The beliefs and behaviors of U.S. adults are increasingly sorted and polarized along partisan lines. We draw on studies of partisanship and social identity formation to argue that children develop partisanship as a social identity during the political socialization process. For a group of children, their partisan social identity produces an affective (and largely negative) evaluation of the political world. Analyzing survey data collected from 1500+ children ages 6–12 in 2017 and 2018, we show that some children develop a partisan identity as they learn about politics that operates similarly to other social identities like gender and race. Children's partisanship is associated with negative affective evaluations of politics, particularly leaders of the other political party. Using an innovative measurement tool, we show affective, negative reactions in children's open-ended responses, including when they are asked to draw a political leader. Other children simply learn about politics without developing partisan identities and thus hold more positive affective evaluations of the political system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article develops and tests a new theoretical framework, gendered political socialization, which offers important insights into how children perceive gender in politics and the consequences of these perceptions on sex differences in political interest and ambition. Based on data from 1,604 children who live in four different regions across the United States, we find that children not only perceive politics to be a male-dominated space, but with age, girls increasingly see political leadership as a "man's world." Simultaneously, as children grow older, they internalize gendered expectations, which direct their interests toward professions that embody the gendered traits that fit with their own sex. One result of this mismatch between women and politics is that girls express lower levels of interest and ambition in politics than do boys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While early gendered messages mold children's expectations about the world, we know relatively little about the depictions of women in politics and exposure to gender stereotypes in elementary social studies curricula. In this article, we examine the coverage of political leaders in the children's magazine TIME for Kids, a source commonly found in elementary school classrooms. Coding all political content from this source over six years, we evaluate the presence of women political leaders and rate whether the leaders are described as possessing gender-stereotypic traits. Our results show that although TIME for Kids covers women leaders in greater proportion than their overall representation in politics, the content of the coverage contains gendered messages that portray politics as a stereotypically masculine field. We show that gendered traits are applied differently to men and to women in politics: feminine and communal traits are more likely to be applied to women leaders, while men and women are equally described as having masculine and agentic traits. Portrayals of women political leaders in stereotype-congruent ways is problematic because early messages influence children's views of gender roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What do children think about political leaders? In classic political socialization studies of the late 1950s, children tended to hold idealized views of political leaders. In spite of enormous changes in the political landscape, we know little about how these attitudes have changed in the last 60 years. To assess the views of children today, we surveyed over 500 elementary school children (grades 1–6) in the United States. Children no longer possess favorable views of the president. However, the institution of the presidency continues to be held in high esteem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent work suggests that girls learn more about politics and are more efficacious in places with less conflict and greater homogeneity. Given that rural communities are often more homogeneous than metropolitan areas across several dimensions, this article asks whether young girls growing up in rural communities have higher levels of political knowledge and efficacy than those in more urban, diverse communities. It argues that the average girl benefits from the stronger social bonds between residents in smaller places, but young women who hold minority views about the importance of equality are likely to suffer in their levels of knowledge and efficacy. Being in the minority seems to be particularly difficult for girls in smaller places. This article raises questions about the ways in which gender gaps vary across different places and the varying effects of minority status. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective. Although political scientists studying the role of schools on political socialization have focused most of their efforts on curriculum, mainly civic education, education scholars have long recognized that schools influence outcomes through much more than curriculum and have examined school organization extensively, including school size. Much of the recent literature on school size supports smaller schools. The objective of this article is to examine the effect of school size on two political socialization outcomes: adolescent participation in school activities and volunteering. These outcomes are important because they are related to later adult participation. Method. A nationwide survey is used to conduct regression analyses as the primary method. Results. The results show limited support for smaller schools, even for those groups who are believed to benefit most significantly from small schools: racial minorities, low-income students, and underachievers. Conclusion. I conclude with an appeal for caution among education reformers seeking to downsize schools and a recommendation to political socialization scholars to expand their analyses beyond civic education curriculum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many take for granted that children living in impoverished communities are disadvantaged on several social outcomes, including civic knowledge, because of their poverty and the circumstances that go along with this condition. However, most analyses of poor communities are conducted only in urban neighborhoods. In this article, the author examines the paradox of small-town life: On one hand, many rural areas and small towns are just as or even more impoverished than many urban neighborhoods; on the other hand, these same communities are praised as the most civically minded and politically knowledgeable places within the United States. How can two similarly poor community types produce such different outcomes? The author shows that the best explanation for these differences is the social interaction that characterizes small towns and rural areas. Political discussion within smaller towns is beneficial for adolescents' levels of political knowledge, whereas this discussion in urban areas is associated with lower levels of knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]