Abstract
The authors examine whether predictors of adult political consumerism (i.e., boycotting and buycotting) and factors associated with youth civic and political participation also predict youth political consumerism. Data from a national mail survey of adolescents ages 12 to 17 years and their parents (n = 876) conducted in October 2012 are used to examine predictors of youth political consumerism. Factors analyzed include youth political and civic participation, parental modeling of boycotting and buycotting, and parental encouragement of following news and politics. Other factors examined include youth civic education, extracurricular participation, and youth social or civic attitudes. In addition, the authors assess differences between youth who boycott and those who buycott. The findings show that parental modeling is the most important predictor of youth political consumerism, and young political consumers also engage in civic and political activities. Moreover, youth boycotters and buycotters appear to exhibit differences in political ideology and motivations for political consumerism.
The primary forms of political consumerism are boycotting, when consumers refuse to buy products from companies having offensive policies or practices, and buycotting, when consumers purchase products to support companies having favorable policies or practices (Micheletti & Stolle, 2006, 2008). Past research has examined adult political consumerism, in which purchase decisions are made to achieve political objectives by supporting or opposing corporate policies or practices (e.g., Baek, 2010; Marien, Hooghe, & Quintelier, 2010; Neilson, 2010; Newman & Bartels, 2011; Sandovici & Davis, 2010; Shah et al. 2007; Stolle, Hooghe, & Micheletti, 2005; Ward & de Vreese, 2011). In addition to research by Micheletti and Stolle (2008), who considered the role of political consumerism and its basic forms, including boycotting and boycotting, previous research on adult political consumers has revealed higher political and civic participation (Gotlieb & Wells, 2012). This suggests that adults with higher incomes and education, as well as women, are more likely to participate in political consumerism (Baek, 2010; Marien et al, 2010; Neilson, 2010; Newman & Bartels, 2011; Sandovici & Davis, 2010; Shah et al., 2007; Stolle et al., 2005; Ward & de Vreese, 2011). Additionally, Newman and Bartels (2011) found that those in their late teenage years up to about age 30 are more likely to participate in political consumerism. More recently, Micheletti and Stolle (2012) found that political consumers are mindful of ethical and political considerations when purchasing, linking personal consumption values to the greater social good (Atkinson, 2012).
Despite these findings, there are few studies on youth political consumerism (e.g., Gidengil, O’Neill, & Young, 2010; Harp, Bachmann, Rosas-Moreno & Loke, 2010). Stolle et al. (2005) found that college-age political consumers trust others and believe in individualistic methods of political consumerism and that individual action can improve society. Newman and Bartels (2011) found that adults higher in civic initiative and duty as well as individualized activism are more likely to politically consume. Ward and de Vreese (2011) found that young adults differentiate between individualistic consumer behavior and boycotting. Gidengil et al. (2010) found that a parent’s, especially a mother’s, political activism has a role-model effect on a daughter’s adult involvement in political consumerism. Moreover, Harp et al. (2010) found that African American 12- to 17-year-olds were more likely to participate in political consumerism than White youth.
Yet no study was found that examined whether important predictors of adult political consumerism also predict youth political consumerism and whether factors predicting youth civic and political participation also predict youth political consumerism. Therefore, a national mail survey of adolescents ages 12 to 17 years and their parents (n = 876) was conducted shortly before the U.S. presidential election in October 2012 to examine the predictors of youth political consumerism. The factors examined include youth political and civic participation, parental modeling of boycotting and buycotting, and parental encouragement of offspring to follow news and politics (Shah et al., 2007; Warren & Wicks, 2011). Other possible predictors of youth political consumerism are examined including civic education (e.g., Feldman, Pasek, Romer, & Jamieson, 2007; Hess, 2000; Pasek, Feldman, Romer, & Jamieson, 2008; Torney-Purta, Barber, & Wilkenfeld, 2007; Warren, 2001; Warren & Wicks, 2011), extracurricular activities (Denault & Poulin, 2009; Fredricks & Eccles, 2006; Glanville, 1999; McFarland & Thomas, 2006; Settle, Bond, & Levitt, 2011), and social or civic attitudes (Atkinson, 2012; Micheletti & Stolle, 2012; Neilson & Paxton, 2010). In addition, all these factors are examined to assess whether they reveal any significant differences between youth who boycott and those who buycott.
Literature Review
Political Consumerism
Micheletti and Stolle (2008) identified political consumerism as “the use of the market as an arena for politics” (pp. 750-751). Political consumerism provides an important means of public expression and participation (Marien et al., 2010) to foster social change (Neilson & Paxton, 2010; Shah, Friedland, Wells, Kim & Rojas, 2012) and develop the type of society consumers desire (Simon, 2011). Simon (2011) argued that political consumerism fills a void when consumers feel that elected officials cannot deal with an issue or are unresponsive to their concerns.
Specifically, Micheletti and Stolle (2008) defined a boycott as asking consumers to reject products by not purchasing them. The same research team of Micheletti and Stolle (2006, 2008) defined buycotts as when consumers buy goods on the basis of special purchasing guidelines such as buying from environmentally responsible firms using fair trade or sustainable practices. Buycotts represent “politically-motivated shopping” whereby “labeling schemes and shopping guides” such as “green, organic, and fair trade” are used to make purchase decisions (Micheletti & Stolle, 2008, pp. 750-751). Buycotting directs rather than prohibits shopping, providing a constructive way to consume while supporting causes and values. Atkinson (2012), Baek (2010), Neilson and Paxton (2010), and Newman and Bartels (2011) also reported that consumers reward a company having favorable social, political, or ethical values or practices via buycotting.
Studies have shown that various demographic and ideological factors are associated with boycotting and buycotting. Baek (2010, p. 1079) reported that lower income and less educated consumers tend to buycott, whereas higher income and educated consumers tend to boycott because they have the opportunities and resources to reach out to political groups. Buycotters tend to be Republican and conservative, whereas boycotters tend to be Democratic or liberal (Baek, 2010; Friedman, 1999). On the other hand, Sandovici and Davis (2010) found buycotters to be left leaning.
However, unlike traditional political participation activities such as voting, youth can participate and express their social values via boycotting and buycotting. Marien et al. (2010) found that noninstitutionalized forms of political action such as political consumerism lead to a more inclusive society. Boycotting and buycotting allow underrepresented groups such as women and young people to have their views heard in the political marketplace.
Atkinson (2012), Baek (2010), Neilson and Paxton (2010), Newman and Bartels (2011), and Simon (2011) are among scholars examining how consumers use boycotting or buycotting to support or oppose corporate policies. Political consumerism research among adults suggests that women, Whites, and those with higher socioeconomic status, including higher education, occupation, and income levels, participate more in political consumerism (Gidengil et al., 2010; Marien et al., 2010; Neilson & Paxton, 2010; Newman & Bartels, 2011; Sandovici & Davis, 2010; Shah et al. 2007; Stolle et al., 2005). Youth from higher socioeconomic backgrounds are more politically and civically engaged than those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (Fisher, 2012; McFarland & Thomas, 2006; White & Gager, 2007), suggesting that affluent youth may have higher levels of engagement in political consumerism as well.
African Americans are more likely to participate politically than Whites (Fisher, 2012) and are more likely than White youth to participate in political consumerism (Harp et al., 2010). Gidengil et al. (2010) found that a girl’s parents influenced her participation in market-oriented or protest activities as an adult. Having a politically active mother had a role-model effect in engendering political participation and knowledge in adult women. Youth raised by politically active parents participate in more diverse political activities in adulthood, such as boycotting and buycotting.
Social or Civic Responsibility and Political Consumerism
Atkinson (2012) argued that socially conscious consumption stems from different motives than boycotting, which punishes companies and brands, and buycotting, which rewards brands via purchase. Socially conscious consumers buy because of a motivation to “bring about the kind of environment that benefits society as a whole” (p. 194). For example, a socially conscious consumer buys blueberries only when in season to reduce stress on the environment, considering the public consequences of private consumption. Harp et al. (2010) argued that if political socialization includes youth’s attitudes about social justice, an adolescent better appreciates how his or her actions affect society and, moreover, that having a sense of moral obligation to society may encourage participation in political consumerism.
Finally, Micheletti and Stolle (2012) contended that political consumers exhibit solidarity citizenship, which involves empathizing with and supporting the rights of the less fortunate or vulnerable, such as the poor. Youth may feel that being a good citizen involves supporting one’s values by considering the effects of one’s consumption on society. Thus, solidarity citizenship and supporting one’s values may be important aspects of political consumerism.
Political and Civic Engagement and Political Consumerism
Gotlieb and Wells (2012) found that political consumerism predicts political participation or efforts to affect the electoral process, government action, or public policy. Political participation includes activities such as voting, writing to political representatives, working for political parties or candidates, and attending political meetings or debates regarding public policy or issues (Dalton, 2008; Marien et al., 2010; Putnam, 2000; Skocpol, 1996; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995; Warren & Wicks, 2011). Neilson and Paxton (2010) found that “individuals who are more interested in politics or who have more definite political opinions are more likely to politically consume” (p. 18).
On the other hand, civic engagement includes activities that improve social welfare or help others via nonprofit, church, or community service organizations (Andolina, Jenkins, Zukin, & Keeter, 2003; Dudley & Gitelson, 2002; Eliasoph, 2011; Flanagan & Levine, 2010; McFarland & Thomas, 2006; Warren & Wicks, 2011; Zukin, Keeter, Andolina, Jenkins, & Delli Carpini, 2006). Specifically, youth civic participation includes working or volunteering for charities, religious or community service organizations, fund-raising, working for environmental causes or projects, and helping with disaster or social relief efforts (e.g., Andolina et al., 2003; Dudley & Gitelson, 2002; Eliasoph, 2011; Flanagan & Levine, 2010; McFarland & Thomas, 2006; Morimoto & Friedland, 2013).
Politically and civically active youth are more likely to be politically involved adults and participate in civic groups and activities (Fisher, 2012; McFarland & Thomas, 2006; Oesterle, Johnson, & Mortimer, 2004). Oesterle et al. (2004) found that youth who volunteer are more likely to volunteer as adults. Through volunteerism and civic participation, youth develop the relationships and knowledge that lead to such participation as adults (Fisher, 2012). A relationship was found between adult political consumerism, political interest (Neilson & Paxton, 2010), and political participation (Gotlieb & Wells, 2012), so youth who participate politically and civically may be more likely to participate in political consumerism as well.
Parental Modeling or Socialization
Youth develop the knowledge and skills to participate politically and civically through the guidance of their parents. McLeod and Shah (2009), Shah, McLeod, and Lee (2009), and Warren and Wicks (2011) are among those who identified key political and civic socialization factors, including the family, schools, the media, and peers, that recur throughout the literature. Warren and Wicks (2011) found that a parent’s discussion and modeling of political and civic behavior socialize youth into political and civic participation. Shah et al. (2007) found that information seeking via news consumption encourages discussion of politics and issues, which encourages political consumerism. McLeod and Shah (2009) reported that parents who encourage their children to consume news and freely express views are more likely to produce politically engaged children.
Harp et al. (2010) agreed that by discussing and modeling political and civic behavior, parents develop increased levels of the same behaviors in their children. Shah et al. (2009) reported that family communication increases civic activism, with media use and interpersonal communication key factors in youth socialization. When parents and children view negative political advertising and discuss those messages together, parents socialize their children in political and civic responsibilities (Austin & Pinkleton, 2001). Parents encourage their offspring to consume news media, perhaps making these youth more likely to discuss political information with their parents and participate civically and politically (Boyd, Zaff, Phelps, Weiner, & Lerner, 2011).
Gidengil et al. (2010) found that having a politically active parent increases a youth’s future participation in political activities in adulthood. Both fathers and mothers affected a youth’s probability of engaging in market-oriented activities such as political consumerism. Neilson and Paxton (2010) reported that knowing someone in a social movement is a strong predictor of participation. Trust in information sources, such as one’s parents, increases the chance that one will act on information obtained about marketplace practices. Hence, if a parent is involved in a boycott or buycott, it increases his or her child’s likelihood of participating in a boycott or buycott as well.
Civic Education
Young people have a variety of ideas about what citizenship entails: doing what is expected, being obedient, following the law (Conover & Searing, 2000, Flanagan, Syvertsen, Gill, Gallay, & Cumsille, 2009, Sherrod, 2008), engaging in social activism (Gordon & Taft, 2011), demonstrating civic responsibility (Sherrod, 2008), as well as one’s racial identity (Jensen, 2008; Morimoto, 2013). However, they do not necessarily associate citizenship with traditional political activities (Sherrod, 2008). Civic education or having youth discuss politics in class, participate in political role-playing, complete political or civic assignments, and/or read political news online helps youth better understand citizenship and become politically and civically engaged as adults (Feldman et al., 2007; Pasek et al., 2008; Torney-Purta et al., 2007; Warren, 2001; Warren & Wicks, 2011).
Additionally, civic education provides youth with the knowledge and skills to be useful and successful members of society. Youth who develop relationships with peers having similar views about social issues is key to the association between political participation and political consumerism (Gotlieb & Wells, 2012). Thus, youth participation in civic education should enable youth to make the connections central to participating in political consumerism as well.
Harp et al. (2010) said that parent-child interactions and civic education influence a youth’s political views. And Warren and Wicks (2011) identified important youth political and civic socialization factors, including parental political and civic engagement, civic education, and participation in extracurricular activities. More recently, Kahne, Crow, and Lee (2013) found that political and civic participation are facilitated by civic education. Gidengil et al. (2010) found that civic education helps students acquire the skills, knowledge, and values that produce politically and civically active citizens. Thus, as civic education predicts youth political and civic participation, which are associated with political consumerism, civic education may also predict youth political consumerism.
Extracurricular Activities
Youth participation in extracurricular clubs and activities such as student government, student media, the arts or drama, and service organizations is positively associated with political participation in adulthood (Denault & Poulin, 2009; Fredricks & Eccles, 2006; Glanville, 1999; McFarland & Thomas, 2006). Settle et al. (2011) found that becoming socially integrated with student peers through participation in extracurricular activities increases the likelihood of adult political participation. Youth who are civically and politically engaged may be involved in more extracurricular activities. However, family resources may have an influence, as youth from families with greater financial concerns and lower incomes were less likely to participate in extracurricular activities (White & Gager, 2007).
Neilson and Paxton (2010, p. 8) reported that involvement in organizations or groups increases the number of social connections in an individual’s network. Participating in activities or civic education at school enables youth to discuss politics or social issues among peers, creating social networks that are important to participation (Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Metzger, 2006). Consequently participation in extracurricular activities may provide access to ideas and information that influence youth participation in political consumerism.
Neilson and Paxton (2010, p. 19) also found that having a positive, general trust in society and being involved in civic or political groups are positively associated with political consumerism. Youth may engage in boycotting and buycotting because they have trustworthy sources of information, such as parents and peers. They may trust people in the stores where they shop. These connections may help adolescents develop a sense of kinship that encourages them to act on behalf of the common good (Neilson & Paxton, 2010; Micheletti & Stolle, 2008, 2012).
Hypotheses and Research Questions
The literature review suggests that factors associated with adult political consumerism, as well as factors associated with youth civic and political participation, may predict youth political consumerism. Political and civic participation predict adult political consumerism, so these factors are examined among youth. Parental modeling by participating in boycotting or buycotting and encouraging their children to discuss and follow the news and politics may predict youth political consumerism. Just as for youth civic and political participation, civic education and participation in extracurricular activities may predict youth political consumerism. It also appears that civic responsibility, individual activism, and political attitudes may be associated with political consumerism, possibly helping distinguish between youth boycotters and buycotters. Therefore the following hypotheses and research question are posited:
Hypothesis 1: Youth who engage in boycotting are more likely to have parents who also engage in boycotting and encourage them to follow and discuss news and politics, are more involved in political and civic participation, have more civic education, and are more involved in extracurricular activities than youth who engage less frequently or do not engage in boycotting.
Hypothesis 2: Youth who engage in buycotting are more likely to have parents who also engage in buycotting and encourage them to follow and discuss news and politics, are more involved in political and civic participation, have more civic education, and are more involved in extracurricular activities than youth who engage less frequently or do not engage in buycotting.
The literature review suggests that civic responsibility and individual activism may be related to political consumerism. Political consumers link personal values to the greater social good when making purchase decisions and support the rights of the less fortunate, such as the poor, exhibiting a sense of moral obligation to society (Micheletti & Stolle, 2012). Those more interested in politics and holding definite political opinions were more likely to be political consumers (Neilson & Paxton, 2010). Yet the literature does not clearly indicate how such attitudes may vary among youth boycotters and buycotters, so a research question is posed:
Research Question 1: Do youth attitudes about civic responsibility or helping the poor, individual activism or acting to support one’s values, and political issues vary by boycotting and buycotting?
Methods
Sample
Although this report focuses on youth political consumers, a national mail survey of dyads of parents and youth ages 12 to 17 years was conducted from October 1 to October 30, 2012, using a seven-page, legal-sized questionnaire administered by the Ipsos Home Testing Institute and commissioned by the University of Arkansas. Except for responses pertaining to annual household income, frequency of parental boycotting and buycotting and frequency of parents encouraging their children to follow and talk about the news and politics, the data presented in this report are based on the responses of adolescents ages 12 to 17. The sample population was balanced to represent the proportions of respondents found in the nine U.S. census divisions by age, income, and gender. Respondents were informed that the study’s purpose was to examine the effect of schools, family, peers, and the media on youth engagement and socialization. The survey had a 41% response rate, or 876 completions out of 2,160 sampled households.
Measures
The dependent variables, the frequency of youth boycotting (“boycotted products or companies that offended my values”) and youth buycotting (“bought products from companies because they align with my values”), were measured on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all to 5 = very frequently). As noted earlier, the responses of parents were used to measure three independent variables: parental boycotting and buycotting, encouraging my child to discuss and follow the news, and household income (see Table 1 for income categories). The same measures of boycotting and buycotting used in the adolescent section of the questionnaire were used in the parent section of the questionnaire to measure how frequently parents boycotted and buycotted.
Characteristics of Youth Who Boycott (n = 190) and Buycott (n = 298).
Additive scales were used for several independent variables, as found in previous research (e.g., Harp et al., 2010). The individual items for the following independent variables were measured on 5-point scales (1 = not at all to 5 = very frequently). Parents’ responses to five items were summed to measure how frequently parents encouraged their children to follow and discuss news and politics (Cronbach’s α = .92): (a) talked to my child about the news, (b) talked to my child about politics, (c) talked to my child about political advertising, (d) encouraged my child to talk about politics, and (e) encouraged my child to follow the news. Scores ranged from 5 for parents who never encouraged to 25 for parents who most frequently encouraged their children to follow and discuss news and politics.
Additive scales were also used for independent variables on the basis of youth responses. Responses to five civic activities were summed to measure youth civic participation (Cronbach’s α = .85). The scores ranged from a low of 5 for youth who never participate civically to a high of 25 for youth participating most frequently in five activities: (a) worked to raise money for a charitable cause; (b) did volunteer work to help groups such as the poor, homeless, or elderly; (c) did volunteer work to benefit my community; (d) worked on solving a problem in my community; and (e) participated in a church-organized service project.
Youth political participation was measured by summing responses to eight items (Cronbach’s α = .81): (a) attended a political meeting, rally, or speech; (b) participated in a political protest activity; (c) participated in a church-organized political program or protest; (d) worked for a political party or candidate; (e) displayed a political campaign button, sticker, or sign; (f) watched political debates; (g) watched political candidate or election videos online; and (h) contributed money to a political cause.
Youth civic education was measured by summing responses to five items (Cronbach’s α = .87): (a) followed the news as a class assignment, (b) learned about how government works in class, (c) discussed or debated political or social issues in class, (d) participated in political role-playing in class, and (e) encouraged by teachers to make up my own mind about issues in class. Youth indicated whether they did (coded 1) or did not (coded 0) participate in organized activities, including sports or cheerleading; student media; churches or other religious groups; music, drama, or the arts; political or community service clubs; political simulations (model United Nations); student council or government; debate or forensics; and other group activity. Youth responses for these categories were summed to measure the total number of extracurricular activities in which a youth participated (Marien et al., 2010; Neilson & Paxton, 2010).
The civic responsibility, individual activism, and political issue items were measured on 5-point scales (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Past research has suggested that political consumers support those less fortunate, such as the poor, so the civic responsibility item was “I favor eliminating assistance to Americans below the poverty level.” The individual activism item was “Being a good citizen requires that you take action supporting your values.” For the political issue, in January 2012, 65% of voters who were aware of the Supreme Court’s decision on independent political advertising spending by unions and corporations felt that it negatively affected the 2012 presidential campaign. Majorities of all groups surveyed agreed that it had a negative effect, and no major differences in awareness on the basis of age or region of the country were found (Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 2012). Therefore, the political item was “I favor the Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to make unlimited donations to Political Action Committees [PACs] for presidential political advertising.” The control trust item asked youth to indicate how much they trusted “The people who work in the stores where you shop” (4 = a lot, 3 = some, 2 = a little, and 1 = none). Demographic measures including gender, race, religion, political affiliation, and ideology were also examined.
Results
Table 1 shows the characteristics of youth who boycott or buycott. Of 876 youth respondents, 681 reported that they never boycott (77.7%), while 190 (21.7%) have boycotted, and 5 youth did not respond. For buycotting, 572 youth never buycotted (65.3%), while 298 (34.0%) reported buycotting, and 6 did not respond. Both youth who boycott, χ2(1, N = 871) = 6.708, p = .010, and those who buycott χ2(1, N = 870) = 18.85, p = .000, were significantly more likely than expected to plan to attend college full-time after graduation from high school.
Hypotheses 1 and 2 posited that factors predicting adult political consumerism and youth political and civic participation also predict youth political consumerism. Hypothesis 1 predicted that youth boycotters are more likely to have parents who boycott and encourage them to follow and discuss news and politics, are more involved in political and civic participation, are more involved in extracurricular activities, and have more civic education than youth who engage less or do not engage in boycotting. As the frequency of youth boycotting increased, the frequency of parental boycotting and youth political and civic participation increased (see Table 2). Hypothesis 1 is partially supported, as parents were not significantly more likely to encourage youth boycotters to follow and talk about news and politics. Youth boycotters were not more likely to have civic education or participate in extracurricular activities. Student media was the only extracurricular activity in which youth boycotters participated more than expected, χ2(2, N = 871) = 15.00, p = .001.
Predictors of Youth Boycotting and Buycotting (Stepwise Method).
Note. PAC = political action committee.
p < .05. ***p < .001.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that youth who buycott are more likely to have parents who buycott and encourage them to follow and discuss news and politics, are more involved in political and civic participation and extracurricular activities, and have more civic education than youth who buycott less frequently or do not buycott. As expected, as the frequency of youth buycotting increased, the frequency of parental buycotting increased, and youth political and civic participation increased (see Table 2). Hypothesis 2 is partially supported because, contrary to prediction, youth buycotters participated in fewer extracurricular activities, their parents were not more likely to encourage them to follow and talk about news and politics, and they were not more likely to participate in civic education.
The number of extracurricular activities of youth who never buycott (or responded 1 [not at all]), buycott some (responded 2 or 3), and buycott most (responded 4 or 5 [most frequently]) were examined. Although the overall mean was 1.72 extracurricular activities (SD = 1.12), youth who never buycott participated in the fewest activities (M = 1.61, SD = 1.09) compared with youth who buycott some (M = 1.89, SD = 1.14) and those who buycott most (M = 2.00, SD = 1.19). Youth who buycott most participated more than expected in student media, χ2(2, N = 870) = 11.09, p = .004; music, drama, or the arts, χ2(2, N = 870) = 10.94, p = .004; and student council or government, χ2(2, N = 870) = 10.34, p = .006.
Research Question 1 asked whether youth attitudes about civic responsibility or helping the poor, political issues or the Supreme Court PAC ruling, and individual activism or acting on one’s values vary by boycotting and buycotting. Youth boycotters were more likely to favor eliminating assistance to the poor (see Table 2). Youth boycotters were less likely to favor the Supreme Court ruling on unlimited donations to PACs for presidential political advertising. Individual activism and trusting people at the stores where they shop were not significant factors for youth participation in boycotting.
Again, categories of youth who never boycott or buycott (or responded 1 [not at all]), boycott or buycott some (responded 2 or 3), and boycott or buycott most (responded 4 or 5 [most frequently]) were examined. For youth boycotter responses to “I favor eliminating assistance to Americans below the poverty level” (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), the overall mean was 2.01 (SD = 1.16). Those who never boycott (M = 1.95, SD = 1.12) disagreed most. Youth who boycott some also disagreed (M = 2.10, SD = 1.18), and youth who boycott most disagreed (M = 2.46, SD = 1.45) but appeared less sympathetic to helping the poor. Youth boycotters as a whole (M = 2.19, SD = 1.10) disagreed with the Supreme Court’s PAC ruling. Youth who never boycott (M = 2.21, SD = 1.10) and boycott some (M = 2.19, SD = 1.07) did not disagree as strongly as youth who boycott most (M = 2.00, SD = 1.22).
Acting individually on their beliefs was significantly more important to youth buycotters, who agreed that “Being a good citizen requires that you take action supporting your values” (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The overall mean was 3.64 (SD = 1.05), and youth who never buycott (M = 3.49, SD = 1.06) did not agree as strongly as youth who buycott some (M = 3.78, SD = 0.97) and those who buycott most (M = 4.17, SD = 0.97).
There were few differences in the characteristics of youth boycotters and buycotters in Table 1. Significantly more youth boycotters than expected were liberal and conservative, while fewer than expected were moderates, χ2(2, N = 791) = 12.38, p = .002; results were not significant for buycotters, χ2(2, N = 792) = 4.34, p = .114. If youth could vote for president in 2012, intentions did not differ for youth who do and do not boycott, χ2(3, N = 849) = 7.28, p = .063. However, significantly more youth buycotters than expected would vote for Barack Obama or another candidate besides Mitt Romney, while fewer than expected would not vote, χ2(3, N = 850) = 11.10, p = .011.
Discussion
Overall, youth political consumers tend to be young women, White, and from higher income families, but results were not significant. Youth boycotters and buycotters plan to attend college full-time, and results are significant, suggesting that young political consumers believe they have the resources or ability to continue their educations. Most young political consumers affiliated with religions, held moderate political views, and classified themselves as independents. Most would vote for Obama if they could vote, although only buycotters were significantly more likely to do so. Parental modeling of boycotting and buycotting was the most important predictor of youth political consumerism. When parents are political consumers, their children are more likely to politically consume as well.
Youth political consumers are more likely to engage in civic and political activities but do not participate as much as predicted in extracurricular activities. Future research should examine whether participating in civic activities, political activities and political consumerism activities precludes youth participation in extracurricular activities. Qualitative research might discern how, when, and why youth select activities for participation.
The results for parents encouraging their children to discuss and follow the news and politics differ from those of previous research on youth political and civic participation. Parental modeling of following and discussing the news and politics was not associated with youth political consumerism. As this survey occurred right before the 2012 presidential election, perhaps families were discussing presidential politics rather than issues related to political consumerism. Future research should examine whether parental modeling of discussing and following politics and the news varies by election versus nonelection seasons.
It appears that youth boycotters and buycotters exhibit important differences. Youth boycotters appeared less sympathetic to aiding the poor, perhaps exhibiting less civic responsibility than young buycotters. Youth boycotters disagreed most with the Supreme Court’s decision allowing unlimited donations to PACs, suggesting that young boycotters are motivated by their political beliefs rather than altruistic beliefs. Although most youth boycotters were moderates, they were significantly more likely than expected to be liberal and conservative. Thus, youth boycotters may be committed to liberal or conservative causes, indicating that political beliefs or ideology may be associated with boycotting, as suggested in previous research.
In contrast, youth buycotters appeared to exhibit a belief in individual activism. They were significantly more likely to report that being a good citizen requires one to take action supporting one’s values. Youth buycotters were significantly more likely than expected to participate in student media, the arts, and student government. Perhaps their involvement in a wider variety of extracurricular activities than young boycotters suggests that they take individual action wherever they can express important personal values or interests. It appears that young buycotters may act to express their individual values and interests in a variety of settings.
Limitations and Conclusions
Among the limitations of this study is the possibility that some youth did not understand or were unaware of the political attitude item, as 24 youth did not answer the question about the Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited donations to PACs. We assumed that youth involvement in civic and political activities would engender relationships among peers that are important to political consumerism. Although civic and political participation were significant predictors, we did not measure actual interactions among youth.
The results suggest that some of the same factors are key to youth political consumerism and youth civic and political participation. Parental modeling appears most important in developing future political consumers. Future qualitative research may reveal the aspects of the parent-child relationship that foster youth political consumerism.
Future research should explore the differences in individual and political beliefs to learn whether and how these motivate youth boycotters and buycotters. Are young boycotters motivated by political issues and ideology, and if so, which issues or beliefs have the strongest influence and why? Are youth buycotters motivated by individual values, and if so, which values have the most influence, and when or where do youth exhibit individual activism? This study, similar to past research among adults, suggests that there are indeed important differences between youth boycotters and buycotters.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the generous support from the Bernice Jones Chair in Community, the Vice Provost for Research and Economic Development, and The Diane D. Blair Center of Southern Politics & Society at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The University of Arkansas paid for the survey to be conducted.