Adolescent Civic Engagement and Perceived Political Conflict

Abstract

Adolescents are often exposed to the lasting effects of political conflict. Complementing existing research on negative outcomes in these settings, this article focuses on the role of the family (N = 731 mother/adolescent dyads, 51% female, M = 14.72, SD = 1.99, years old at Time 1) in promoting constructive youth outcomes in response to perceived conflict in Northern Ireland. Exploratory factor analyses revealed two related forms of youth civic engagement: volunteerism and political participation. Structural equation modeling revealed that compared with males, female adolescents reported more volunteerism. Older adolescents reported higher political participation and lower volunteerism. Moreover, over three time points, the primary model test revealed that the impact of perceived political conflict on adolescent volunteerism and political engagement was partially mediated by family cohesion. These findings suggest that amid protracted political conflict, the family may be a key factor underlying adolescents’ contributions to post-accord peacebuilding.

Keywords

civic engagement families resiliency political behavior prosocial involvement

Psychological research on youth and political violence has overwhelmingly explored the mechanisms surrounding negative outcomes, such as internalizing and externalizing behaviors (Boxer et al., 2013; Cummings et al., 2013b; Taylor, Merrilees, Goeke-Morey, Shirlow, & Cummings, 2016). However, there is an emerging shift in this area of research that considers other forms of youth agency, such as prosocial acts (Taylor et al., 2014). Past research has shown that a positive family environment can have implications for these adaptive youth outcomes (Cummings et al., 2010), but less is known about the processes underlying behaviors such as civic engagement that can have a potentially wider social impact. Thus, this study examines how family factors relate to youth civic engagement in Northern Ireland, a setting of protracted intergroup conflict. Understanding the different forms of, and the factors that underlie, youth civic engagement may have implications for future peacebuilding.

Protracted Intergroup Conflict

Conflicts that have evolved over generations may take generations of peacebuilding to resolve; thus, conflict transformation calls for a “decade-thinking” approach that brings attention to the involvement of youth (Lederach, 1997). Yet, the study of youth agency in settings of violent conflict has been overshadowed by the binary portrayal of youth as either perpetrators or victims (Barber, 2013). Additional research is needed to understand the processes through which youth develop as supporters and leaders of new, and potentially constructive, social interactions (Barber, 2013; Yates & Youniss, 2006). In contexts of protracted conflict, breaking the cycles of violence requires knowledge about youths’ abilities to affect social change and actively engage in rebuilding society (Corkalo Biruski, Ajdukovic, & Stanic, 2014; Bužinkić, 2013; McCouch, 2009). Identifying the factors that relate to civic engagement among youth may enhance the effectiveness of broader peacebuilding efforts (McEvoy-Levy, 2006).

Political Violence and Constructive Youth Outcomes

The harmful impact of political violence and protracted intergroup conflict on adolescents is well established (Cummings, Goeke-Morey, Merrilees, Taylor, & Shirlow, 2014). This literature demonstrates that in addition to direct exposure, perceptions of conflict and threat also have implications for mental health and well-being (Cairns & Wilson, 1984; Schmid & Muldoon, 2015; Shirlow, Taylor, Merrilees, Goeke-Morey, & Cummings, 2013). For instance, Shirlow et al. (2013) found that perceptions of sectarian crime in Northern Ireland predicted negative attitudes toward policing more strongly than recorded incidents of sectarian crime, thus reinforcing feelings of insecurity, distrust, and anxiety. Bar-Tal (2007) has described this as the sociopsychological foundation of protracted conflict, wherein beliefs about the conflict influence individuals’ identities, attitudes, and behaviors—particularly for youth (Bryne & Jarman, 2011; Hammack, 2011). This body of work highlights how young people, born after the height of intergroup violence, may have perceptions of conflict that influence their developmental outcomes (Nasie, Diamond, & Bar-Tal, 2016; Reidy et al., 2015).

Although the majority of the literature focuses on negative youth outcomes, such as internalizing and externalizing problems, a risk and resilience approach expands to include diverse ways that young people respond to adversity (Barber, 2013). Within this framework, researchers have begun to study prosocial behaviors, defined as voluntary acts that benefit others without personal profits or external awards (Bar-Tal, 1976). A recent set of studies has documented the prosocial behaviors of young people in settings of political conflict. Some found that political violence was related to fewer prosocial acts (Betancourt, Brennan, Rubin-Smith, Fitzmaurice, & Gilman, 2010; Cummings et al., 2010; Keresteš, 2006; Kithakye, Morris, Terranova, & Myers, 2010; Taylor et al., 2014), while others found that different types of war-related stress (Macksoud & Aber, 1996) and intragroup threat (Taylor et al., 2014) predicted more prosocial behaviors for youth in settings of protracted conflict. The second set of studies suggests that in response to perceived threat, youth may “become sensitive to altruistic issues, such as condemning injustice, being committed to others, helping others in need, and protecting the vulnerable” (Macksoud & Aber, 1996, p. 84).

Across both sets of studies, research has also identified how the family can foster prosocial behaviors (Cummings et al., 2010; Keresteš, 2006). For example, Keresteš (2006) found that positive parenting, such as greater acceptance and less psychological control, was associated with higher levels of prosocial behaviors across child, parent, and teacher reports. Family environments marked by cohesion, including support and feelings of closeness within the family unit (Moos & Moos, 1994), also have a positive effect on adolescent development (Taylor et al., 2016). Thus, important steps have been made to understand the role of the family in promoting prosocial behaviors at the interpersonal level. However, less is known about the processes leading to other potentially constructive youth outcomes in settings of protracted conflict.

Youth Civic Engagement

Civic engagement may reflect the peacebuilding potential of young people (McEvoy-Levy, 2006). Distinct from prosocial behaviors, youth civic engagement involves a broader “process in which people take collective action to address issues of public concern” (Checkoway & Aldana, 2013, p. 1894); that is, it involves “promoting the quality of life in a community, through both political and non-political processes” (Ehrlich, 2000, p. 4). This definition is intentionally broad as to capture diverse forms of participation, including two primary types of engagement (Banaji, 2008; Jahromi, Crocetti, & Buchanan, 2012): (a) volunteering, such as community service or service-learning encouraged or required by schools (Bringle, 2005), and (b) political participation, such as demonstrations, boycotts, strikes, or signing petitions (Cicognani, Zani, Fournier, Gavray, & Born, 2012). The consensus across various definitions of both volunteering and political participation focuses on the “behaviours and attitudes that express [young peoples’] will to become involved in their society or community in a manner consistent with democratic principles” (Kinlen, Hansson, Keenaghan, Canavan, & O’Connor, 2013, p. 5). Thus, an approach that includes both volunteer and political activities should be considered when studying youth civic engagement.

Global explorations of civic engagement (Sherrod, Torney-Purta, & Flanagan, 2010; Yates & Youniss, 2006) have demonstrated wide-reaching implications at the individual level, incurring mental and physical health benefits (Piliavin, 2005), and at the societal level, fostering a civic consciousness about democracy and support for social reconstruction after war (Bužinkić, 2013; Checkoway & Aldana, 2013; Cheung, Lee, Chan, Liu, & Leung, 2004). Yet, despite the clear potential benefits of youth civic engagement at both the individual and societal levels, which includes benefits for peacebuilding (Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006; Taylor, 2015), the study of this construct in settings of political violence is relatively sparse (Barber & Schluterman, 2009).

As with the findings on prosocial behaviors in settings of protracted conflict, the pattern of results related to the link between political conflict and youth civic engagement is mixed. The majority of this research assesses youth exposure, but the current study will extend this to focus on the role of conflict perceptions (Bar-Tal, 2007; Shirlow et al., 2013). For example, in Uganda, former child soldiers that had been abducted reported higher levels of political leadership after reintegration, but not other forms of nonpolitical participation (Blattmann, 2009). In Gaza, although the specific patterns of activism varied by gender, both male and female Palestinian youth reported more political activism in response to the Intifada (Barber, 2008). However, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, political conflict was related to less community and political participation (McCouch, 2009). These studies present “contrasting portraits” of patterns underlying the links between intergroup conflict and youth civic and political engagement (Barber, 2008). More longitudinal research that identifies how the underlying processes among these variables may unfold over time is needed.

Moreover, in the limited research on political conflict and youth civic engagement, the role of the family is often overlooked (Muldoon, 2013). Adolescent development does not occur in a vacuum; past research has found that family factors, including the individuals’ sense of emotional security within the family, mediate the impact of violence on other youth outcomes (Cummings et al., 2010; Proctor, 2006). Family systems theory (FST; Bowen, 1978) conceptualizes the family as an emotional unit in which the relationships are interconnected and interdependent. According to FST, when members act differently than the roles they are expected to play or do not follow the rules they are expected to respect, the family system responds by forming new behavior patterns. In an intergroup context, youths’ experiences and perceptions of threat may impact the family’s equilibrium and lead to relational changes. For example, heightened tension felt by one member of the family may lead other family members to accommodate this change, thus increasing family cohesion and cooperation (Bowen, 1978). In response to youths’ perceptions of political conflict, families may try to reduce tension by pulling together and showing more support and togetherness, which may in turn shape other youth outcomes.

Outside of settings of political conflict, there is increasing attention to the role of the family as an underlying factor in youth civic engagement in particular. Parental attitudes and behaviors may influence youth engagement in volunteer and political spheres (Cheung et al., 2004), with potentially differing influences on male and female youth (Cicognani et al., 2012). In addition to factors such as the parents’ own engagement in volunteerism and political life or family discussions about such issues (Oosterhoff & Metzger, 2016), broader family processes have also been found to relate to youth civic participation. For example, the closeness between parents and their adolescent children is related to greater adolescent civic responsibility (Lenzi, Vieno, Santinello, Nation, & Voight, 2014). The positive parent–child relationship has also been shown to affect long-term political engagement, even in the face of community violence, in a prospective longitudinal study (Diemer, 2012). Although this research is not from settings of political conflict, it suggests that a family environment defined by close and warm relations may play an important role in fostering both youth volunteerism and political engagement.

Yet, in settings of protracted conflict, a note of caution is warranted. Although there is support for the relevance of civic engagement to peacebuilding, youth participation in divisive intergroup politics may actually serve to prolong conflict or even contribute to the escalation of new waves of violence (Ginges, 2005; Nordås & Davenport, 2013). This calls for a contextual understanding of these forms of engagement among young people in settings of intergroup conflict (Barber, 2013).

Current Study: Belfast, Northern Ireland

The current study explores the role of the family in youth civic engagement in Belfast, a setting of protracted political conflict. Despite the signing of the Belfast Agreement in 1998, many young people in Northern Ireland continue to be socialized in divided contexts (Shirlow & Murtagh, 2006). That is, although the constitutional dispute between Catholics/Nationalists/Republicans and Protestants/Loyalists/Unionists has largely been resolved among political elites, annual cycles of violence continue. For example, the parading season and anti-Belfast Agreement armed groups have continued a small-scale shooting and bombing campaign (Ferman, 2013). Thus, on-going sectarianism contributes to a sense of intergroup threat, and to varying degrees, perceptions that political conflict over power, resources, and territory continues.

There has been some progress toward consolidation of peace, however. Throughout the past decades of violence, efforts have been made to support civic engagement through programs such as inclusive citizenship (Arlow, 2001), among others. These efforts have grown since 1998 with the increase in funding from the European Union to promote peacebuilding in Northern Ireland, particularly among young people (McKeown & Cairns, 2012). Many of these interventions occur in the school setting, attempting to address both the legacy of a divided society as well as the challenges of social reconstruction (Arlow, 2001). Despite challenges posed by a largely segregated educational system, previous research in Northern Ireland has found that “post-primary education plays a crucial role in fostering learning, action and critical awareness for the engagement of young people in their schools and wider communities” (Kinlen et al., 2013, p. 2). Thus, as annual cycles of violence continue alongside intensified efforts to promote peace through civic involvement, some youth may be left feeling “‘stuck’ somewhere between the ceasefire mentality of paramilitaries and the ambiguous messages of peacebuilding” (Harland, 2011, p. 14). In times of uncertainty or threat, youth may turn to their families (Bowen, 1978) to decide how to navigate the path of on-going sectarianism or conflict transformation.

Thus, the current study investigates two related research questions:

Research Question 1: How do youths’ perceptions of continued political conflict affect adolescent civic engagement over time?

Research Question 2: What is the role of family cohesion in the link between these factors?

For the first question, given the mixed findings about the relation between political conflict and civic engagement, the direction of this path is not hypothesized. For the second question, based on the community violence literature, it is hypothesized that family cohesion will mediate the link between perceived political conflict and youth civic engagement. Importantly, both mother and adolescent reports will be included to limit the potential confounds of mono-reporter bias. Based on the theory above, an example of this underlying process might be youth perceive intergroup threat, and talk to their families, which in turn pull together to support the young person through more cohesion. This sense of togetherness in the family helps to give the youth a firm foundation and the motivation to engage in civic life. By identifying such processes underlying youth civic engagement, the article will conclude with implications for policy and practice in Belfast and other settings of protracted conflict.

Method

Participants and Procedures

This study included mother–adolescent dyads (N = 731) drawn from the last three annual waves of a larger longitudinal project examining the impact of political violence on youth and families in Belfast, Northern Ireland. All data were collected in the spring: Time 1 was collected in 2010, Time 2 in 2011, and Time 3 in 2012. The mean age of adolescents at Time 1 was 14.72 years old (SD = 1.99) with an even split between gender (51% female, 49% male). Consistent with the traditional demographics of Northern Ireland, the families were White European and slightly overrepresented Protestant backgrounds (59%) compared with Catholic backgrounds (41%). Attrition analyses showed that there were no significant differences in the study variables of interest between participants in Times 1 and 2 (perceptions of political conflict) and Times 2 and 3 (family cohesion). At the trend level, adolescents who perceived more political conflict at Time 1 were less likely to return to the study by Time 3, t(328) = 1.78, p < .10.

The surveyed neighborhoods were selected by an expert in the political geography of Northern Ireland (for more details, see Cummings et al., 2013a). Each neighborhood in Belfast was relatively homogeneous in terms of Catholic/Protestant identity and social deprivation (Northern Ireland Neighbourhood Information Service [NINIS], 2011), and the majority were interfaced (i.e., adjacent to a neighborhood comprised of the other community). Stratified random sampling was then used to select families within these neighborhoods, from which the mother and one of her children between the ages of 10 and 17 years old participated in the study.

All interviews were conducted face-to-face in the participants’ homes by trained staff from an established market research firm, lasting approximately 60 minutes for the mother and 30 minutes for the adolescent. Families received £40 at Time 1 and £50 at Times 2 and 3 for their participation. Mothers and adolescents were interviewed separately, and both provided informed consent and assent, respectively, prior to participating, consistent with institutional review board (IRB) approval at all participating universities.

Measures

Perceptions of political conflict in Northern Ireland

Youth reports were used to gauge perceptions of on-going conflict; each adolescent at Time 1 was asked, “Is there still political conflict in Northern Ireland?” and responded with 1 (yes) or 0 (no). This item derives from the Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey (NILT), which comprises questionnaire data collected annually since 1998 on a range of issues related to political attitudes and community relations in Northern Ireland (Access Research Knowledge [ARK], 2014). Thus, this question was specifically designed to assess the overall perception of intergroup tension in Northern Ireland.

Family cohesion

To reduce the potential threat of mono-reporter bias, mother-reports on the nine-item Family Cohesion subscale of the Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1994) were used to assess the amount of support and togetherness in each family at Time 2. This subscale has been shown to have adequate test–retest reliability with normative and distressed families (Moos & Moos, 1994), with lower internal consistencies (Lucia & Breslau, 2006). This measure has previously been used in Northern Ireland to assess how family cohesion relates to adolescents’ aggression (Taylor et al., 2016), overall adjustment, emotional security, and prosocial behavior (Cummings et al., 2010). In this study, mothers were presented with nine items related to family cohesion and reported a 1 (true) or 0 (false) for each statement. Sample items include “People in my family really back each other up” and “We really get along well with each other.” The internal consistency was .48, calculated using the Kuder–Richardson statistic because of the binary nature of the data.

Civic engagement

Youth reports on items from the 2004 Young Life and Times (YLT; ARK, 2006) were used to measure adolescents’ civic engagement at Time 3. Since 2003, the YLT has surveyed 16-year-olds living in Northern Ireland on an annual basis to document and understand the firsthand accounts of young people regarding their experiences of school and their views on politics, sectarianism, and other social issues. In the current study, each adolescent was asked to indicate how frequently in the past 12 months they had participated in a list of events on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 = never to 4 = always. The items were compared with other scales; two nonoverlapping civic participation items were added from Zaff, Boyd, Li, Lerner, and Lerner (2010): “Helped out at your school” and “Volunteered your time.” Higher scores indicated more engagement; as indicated below, preliminary analyses identified two 4-item subscales, each with good internal consistency: Volunteering subscale (α = .83; volunteered your time, helped with fundraising and collected money [for charity], helped out at your school, taken part in a sponsored event) and Political subscale (α = .73; signed a petition, boycotted certain products, campaigned on behalf of a group [or charity], became a leader in a group or organization).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Table 1 includes the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for all study variables. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted in SPSS 20.0 to examine the relations among the civic engagement items. Maximum likelihood was used and promax rotation allowed the factors to be correlated. The results revealed two distinct, yet related (r = .50, p < .01), types of civic engagement in the pattern of participants’ responses: volunteering and political participation.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations for All Study Variables (N = 731).

Variables	M	SD	Range	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Female	50.89%	Female		—
2. Catholic	40.90%	Catholic		−.02	—
3. Age (T1)	14.72	1.99	10-19	−.01	.03	—
4. Youth perceptions of political conflict in Northern Ireland (T1)^a	0.61	0.49	0-1	−.04	.34**	−.02	—
5. Family cohesion (T2)^b	6.94	1.55	0-9	.01	.22**	−.02	.24**	—
6. Youth political engagement (T3)^a	0.59	1.53	0-13	−.01	.09	.08	.06	.15**	—
7. Youth volunteerism (T3)^a	3.24	3.12	0-14	.11*	.02	−.24**	.11	.18**	.50**

Adolescent’s report.

Mother’s report.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Latent variables for family cohesion, volunteering, and political engagement were constructed using parcels to increase the efficiency of estimation (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). Aggregating multiple items into a manifest variable (or parcel) achieves a more normal distribution with smaller intervals between points on the original scale of items. In addition, latent variables with three parcels have a stable factor solution among the items (Little et al., 2002). The items-to-construct balance approach was used to create three parcels for each of the latent variables. In this procedure, the factor loadings are ranked from highest to lowest. The three items with the highest loading are allocated to each parcel, while the remaining loadings are assigned in snake order (e.g., 1, 6; 2, 5; 3, 4) to achieve balance within each parcel. The nine-item Family Cohesion subscale had three items allocated to each parcel. The four-item Volunteering and Political Engagement subscales each included the fourth item on the parcel with the largest loading.

Primary Analyses

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used in Amos Graphics 22 to test family cohesion at Time 2 as a mediator between adolescents’ perceptions of political conflict at Time 1 and their volunteering and political engagement at Time 3. The primary model was tested using maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption that data are missing at random (Enders & Bandalos, 2001). Model fit was assessed using the following guidelines: χ²/df index ≤ 5 (Wheaton et al., 1977), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) and comparative fit index (CFI) ≥ .90, and a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

The full structural equation model is shown in Figure 1, including both direct and indirect effects. Overall, the model adequately fit the data, N = 731, χ²(51) = 203.37, p < .001, χ²/df = 3.99; TLI = .84; CFI = .91; RMSEA = .055 (confidence interval [CI] = [.047, .063]). Regarding the control variables, both age and gender had significant effects on civic engagement; older participants reported more political engagement (β = .09, p < .05) and younger participants reported greater volunteerism (β = −.25, p < .001). In addition, female adolescents reported higher levels of volunteerism than males (β = .13, p < .05), whereas political engagement did not vary by gender. The effect of Catholic/Protestant identity was nonsignificant for both volunteering and political engagement.

Figure 1.

Structural equation model of family cohesion as a mediator between youth perceptions of political conflict in Northern Ireland and their levels of political engagement and volunteerism.

To test the hypothesis that family cohesion mediates the link between youth perceptions of political conflict in Northern Ireland and their civic engagement, the direct and indirect effects were analyzed. Perceived political conflict significantly predicted greater family cohesion a year later (β = .29, p < .001), and in turn, greater cohesion was positively related to both political engagement (β = .21, p < .01) and volunteerism (β = .22, p < .01) over time. The direct effect of perceived political conflict on adolescents’ political engagement 2 years later was nonsignificant. However, the direct effect of perceived political conflict on volunteerism remained marginally significant (β = .14, p < .10). Amos does not allow for estimation of bootstrapped CIs for the indirect effects with missing data; therefore, the Sobel method was adopted as simulations have shown it to produce unbiased estimates for similar models with sample sizes of at least n = 400 (Stone & Sobel, 1990). The Sobel test found that family cohesion acted as a significant mediator between youth’s perceived conflict in Northern Ireland and both their volunteering (z = 2.08, p < .05) and political engagement (z = 2.25, p < .05). As a robustness check, the same model was run in Amos on complete case data and found the same pattern of results. Thus, family cohesion partially mediated the link between adolescents’ perceptions of political conflict in Northern Ireland and later volunteerism and political engagement.

Discussion

Building on the growing body of research that focuses on political violence and youth adaptive outcomes (Keresteš, 2006; Macksoud & Aber, 1996; Taylor et al., 2014), this study attends to resilience processes in the face of adversity (Barber, 2013). The results identified two forms of engagement—volunteerism and political participation—among youth in Belfast, a setting of protracted intergroup conflict. Older adolescents reported higher levels of political engagement, such as boycotting products, while younger adolescents endorsed more volunteerism, such as helping at school. Female youth also reported higher levels of volunteerism compared with males. Supporting FST, the SEM with multiple reporters across three time points revealed that family cohesion was a significant partial mediator between perceived political conflict and youth volunteerism and political engagement. That is, perceiving political conflict related to increased support and togetherness among youth and their families, which in turn related to more youth political engagement and volunteerism in their schools and communities. These findings have implications not only for individuals but also for civic and political spheres.

The inclusive definition of civic engagement allowed for the meaningful differentiation between volunteerism and political forms of youth participation, with similar patterns found in other cross-cultural studies (Checkoway & Aldana, 2013; Jahromi et al., 2012; McCouch, 2009; Yates & Youniss, 2006). For example, volunteerism as a form of civic engagement is related to participation in school, community service, and charity events; these types of behaviors may be the antecedents to peacebuilding (Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006; Taylor, 2015). In addition, the political forms of civic engagement included in the current study represent important building blocks for democratic participation and nonviolent means to resolve intergroup differences (Bužinkić, 2013; Checkoway & Aldana, 2013; De Maio, 2013). Moreover, civic engagement during adolescence may have long-term implications for societal involvement and participation (Finlay, Wray-Lake, & Flanagan, 2010; Zaff, Malanchuk, & Eccles, 2008).

The findings also support previous research that has found a cohesive family environment may lead to more positive youth outcomes (Cummings et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2016), with strong family bonds relating to youths’ volunteerism and political participation (Zaff et al., 2008), particularly for marginalized adolescents (Diemer, 2012). Prior research has also found that family life influences the development of civic engagement, such as volunteerism, over the life course (Lancee & Radl, 2014). Consistent with FST, in the current study, youth who perceive greater political conflict may turn to their families for support, strengthening the cohesive bonds over time. This suggests that practitioners who aim to promote greater civic engagement among young people should take the family environment into account (Bringle, 2005).

Although there were no differences by Catholic/Protestant identity, the gender- and age-related main effects warrant some discussion. Consistent with previous research, females were more likely to be engaged in volunteerism, such as charity work (Einolf, 2011). However, both male and female adolescents participated in the political forms of civic life, in line with other research (Cicognani et al., 2012). With regard to age, on one hand, older youth reported more political engagement; older adolescents may have greater autonomy which allows them to increase participation or take on more leadership roles. On the other hand, younger participants reported greater volunteerism. This finding may be related to the fact that youth in Northern Ireland have the opportunity to leave formal schooling at age 16. Thus, one possibility is that the older youth had dropped or aged out of schooling, lowering the possibility for volunteering through the school. This suggests that the formal school environment may be a key space of civic engagement (Finlay et al., 2010; Flanagan & Levine, 2010). Outside of the home, educational institutions have become central in promoting social engagement in civic life (Cheung et al., 2004); therefore, greater efforts may be needed to include and motivate participation of older teens and emerging adults in volunteerism.

Despite the study’s strengths, limitations of the current approach may be addressed in future research. First, the longitudinal design allowed for assessing the sequence of effects; however, limited assessment occasions did not permit controlling for earlier time points (i.e., stability coefficients). Using Amos limited the ability to test for bootstrapped CIs for the indirect effects; however, our sample size was large in relation to the model, which allows the Sobel method to be used for assessing the indirect effects (Stone & Sobel, 1990). With longitudinal data, future research could also examine developmental trajectories of other factors related to youth civic engagement in settings of protracted conflict (Youniss, 2006; Zaff et al., 2010).

Second, although measurement error was accounted for in the SEM, future research could refine and expand measurement. For example, the low alpha for family cohesion in the current study, perhaps related to the binary nature of the response scale or the high number of reverse-coded items, could be addressed in future research that includes other family constructs to complement the Family Cohesion subscale. For example, additional mediators such as family communication or family ethnic socialization may also be considered in future research. Follow-up studies could also apply other measures of civic engagement, as the ones utilized were developed in Northern Ireland to increase contextual validity. Additional forms of assessment may help to address uncertainty around adolescents who responded “no” to perceived political conflict; that is, responses in the current study could be due to lack of direct exposure, low levels of political awareness, or desensitization, for example. In addition, in the current study, youth reported on perceived political conflict and civic engagement, so mother-reports of family cohesion were included to avoid mono-reporter bias. Future research should continue to include multiple reporters, as possible.

Finally, as noted previously, in settings of protracted conflict, it is necessary to understand the context shaping various forms of volunteerism and political engagement. That is, extending the exploratory factor analysis in this article, future research could also seek qualitative information about types of civic engagement and the targets of such acts, including the potential dark side of participation in civic life (Banaji, 2008). However, in other settings, higher levels of civic engagement is related to less youth delinquency (Gatti, Tremblay, & Larocque, 2003). That is, when youth feel connected to the social institutions around them, even if a majority are in-group members, they are less likely to engage in violent or disruptive behaviors (Eccles & Gootman, 2002). Therefore, future research should continue to unpack the potential peacebuilding implications of youth civic engagement in settings of protracted conflict.

Implications for Policy and Practice

This study points to the need to understand the ways young people growing up in situations of political conflict may engage and participate in civic and political life, highlighting the role of the family in fostering prosocial behaviors (Barber, 2013). Adopting a competence-based approach that recognizes youth agency, this article found that youth may be the drivers of positive social change, not merely the beneficiaries. Policy makers and practitioners should cooperate with youth as partners and encourage intergenerational collaboration in research and interventions. Moreover, there is global support for this direction through the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC; 1989). This agreement establishes that youth have a right to participate in decision making that affects their lives, to express their views and be heard, to create and join associations, to assemble peacefully, and to participate in change processes (CRC, 1989).

The current study also points to a set of policy recommendations for young people in postaccord Belfast. For example, since 2007, citizenship curricula in schools have already been shown to foster civic attitudes and behaviors (O’Connor, Beattie, & Niens, 2009). This approach to local and global citizenship has been perceived to be “process-orientated learning, directed at participation in all aspects of society, including party politics, volunteering, business and social life” (Niens & McIlrath, 2010, p. 77), in line with the current findings related to forms of civic engagement such as volunteerism and political participation. In addition, school initiatives in Northern Ireland have fostered school–community partnerships through the voluntary sector that have a wider community impact (Kinlen et al., 2013). However, agencies and institutions interested in promoting greater participation among youth should also include factors outside of school, such as families (Diemer, 2012; Zaff et al., 2008). Working with parents to support their children to participate in constructive forms of civic and political life may yield stronger results. In addition, programs should be developed that encourage volunteerism among older teens and those outside formal schooling in the transition to emerging adulthood (Henn & Foard, 2014). Given the potentially divisive nature of politics in Northern Ireland, the impact of programs should also be critically evaluated to promote constructive and nonviolent forms of civic engagement to increase the peacebuilding potential of youth (McKeown & Cairns, 2012).

Overall, these findings support a “decades thinking” approach to conflict transformation in settings of protracted conflict (Lederach, 1997). The focus on adolescent agency and constructive behaviors that may help to rebuild society (Corkalo Biruski et al., 2014; Bužinkić, 2013; McCouch, 2009) addresses the question of whether young people in Northern Ireland will be “troublemakers or peacemakers” (McEvoy-Levy, 2006).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the many families in Northern Ireland who have participated in the project. They also express their appreciation to project staff, graduate students, and undergraduate students at the University of Notre Dame and the University of Ulster.

Authors’ Note

This work is in memory of Ed Cairns, one of the leaders of this project.

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: This research was supported by a NICHD Grant 046933-05 to E. Mark Cummings. Partial support was also provided by the Office of First Minister & Deputy First Minister awarded to E. Mark Cummings.

Author Biographies

Laura K. Taylor, PhD, is a lecturer/assistant professor in the School of Psychology, Queen’s University Belfast. Her research interests focus on social and developmental processes that relate to constructive youth outcomes and influence risk and resilience processes for youth in settings of protracted conflict.

Dana Townsend, MA, is a PhD student in a dual degree in psychology and peace studies at the University of Notre Dame. Her research interests include a mixed methods approach to examine the role of macrosystemic factors in settings of politcal conflict.

Christine E. Merrilees, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Psychology Department at SUNY Geneseo. Her research interests focus on the role of group based process that affect youth development in contexts of political violence and ethnic divide.

Marcie C. Goeke-Morey, PhD, is an associate professor in the psychology department of The Catholic University of America. Her research interests focus on family relationships and the processes underlying children’s social and emotional development within the context of the family and culture.

Peter Shirlow, DPhil FaCSS, is a director of the Institute of Irish Studies at the University of Liverpool. His research interests focus on political conflict and covers analysis of Ireland, Iraq, Bahrain and the Balkans.

E. Mark Cummings, PhD, is a professor in the psychology department at the University of Notre Dame. His research interests focus on family factors and child development, especially socio-emotional processes, associated with normal development and the development of psychopathology.

References

Access Research Knowledge (Distributor). (2006). Young Life and Times Survey, 2004 [Computer file]. Retrieved from www.ark.ac.uk/ylt

Access Research Knowledge (Distributor). (2014). Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey, 2006-2013 [Computer file]. Retrieved from www.ark.ac.uk/nilt

Arlow

(2001, December 5-8). The challenges of social inclusion in Northern Ireland: Citizenship and life skills. Paper presented at the Conference for Curriculum Development for Social Inclusion, Vilnius, Lithuania. Retrieved from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/curriculum/Balticpdf/vilnius.pdf

Banaji

(2008). The trouble with civic: A snapshot of young people’s civic and political engagements in twenty-first-century democracies. Journal of Youth Studies, 11, 543-560.

Barber

B. K.

(2008). Contrasting portraits of war: Youths’ varied experiences with political violence in Bosnia and Palestine. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 298-309.

Barber

B. K.

(2013). Annual research review: The experience of youth with political conflict—Challenging notions of resilience and encouraging research refinement. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 54, 461-473.

Barber

B. K.

Schluterman

J. M.

(2009). Adolescents and political violence: A review of the empirical literature. In Barber

B. K.

(Ed.), Adolescents and war: How youth deal with political violence (pp. 35-61). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bar-Tal

(1976). Prosocial behavior: Theory and research. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing.

Bar-Tal

(2007). Sociopsychological foundations of intractable conflicts. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1430-1453.

10.

Betancourt

T. S.

Brennan

R. T.

Rubin-Smith

Fitzmaurice

G. M.

Gilman

S. E

. (2010). Sierra Leone’s former child soldiers: A longitudinal study of risk, protective factors and mental health. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 49, 606-615.

11.

Biruski

D. C.

Ajdukovic

Stanic

A. L.

(2014). When the world collapses: Changed worldview and social reconstruction in a traumatized community. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 5, article 24098.

12.

Blattmann

(2009). From violence to voting: War and political participation in Uganda. American Political Science Review, 103, 231-247.

13.

Bowen

(1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York, NY: Jason Aronson.

14.

Boxer

Rowell

Dubow

E. F.

Landau

S. F.

Gvirsman

S. D.

Shikaki

Ginges

(2013). Exposure to violence across the social ecosystem and the development of aggression: A test of ecological theory in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Child Development, 84, 163-177.

15.

Bringle

R. G.

(2005). Designing interventions to promote civic engagement. In Omoto

A. M.

(Ed.), Processes of community change and social action (pp. 167-187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

16.

Bryne

Jarman

(2011). Ten years after Patten: Young people and policing in Northern Ireland. Youth & Society, 43, 433-452.

17.

Bužinkić

(2013). Croatian youth corner: Youth participation and civic education from practitioners’ eyes. In Roholt

R. V.

Baizerman

Hildreth

R. W.

(Eds.), Civic youth work: Cocreating democratic youth spaces (pp. 139-147). Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.

18.

Cairns

Wilson

(1984). The impact of political violence on mild psychiatric morbidity in Northern Ireland. British Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 631-635.

19.

Checkoway

Aldana

(2013). Four forms of youth civic engagement for diverse democracy. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 1894-1899.

20.

Cheung

Lee

Chan

Liu

Leung

(2004). Developing civic consciousness through social engagement among Hong Kong youths. The Social Science Journal, 41, 651-660.

21.

Cicognani

Zani

Fournier

Gavray

Born

(2012). Gender differences in youths’ political engagement and participation. The role of parents and of adolescents’ social and civic participation. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 561-576.

22.

Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989). United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx

23.

Cummings

E. M.

Goeke-Morey

M. C.

Merrilees

C. E.

Taylor

L. K.

Shirlow

(2014). A social-ecological, process-oriented perspective on political violence and child development. Child Development Perspectives, 8, 82-89.

24.

Cummings

E. M.

Merrilees

C. E.

Taylor

L. K.

Shirlow

Goeke-Morey

M. C.

Cairns

(2013a). Longitudinal relations between sectarian and non-sectarian community violence and child adjustment in Northern Ireland. Development and Psychopathology, 25, 615-627.

25.

Cummings

E. M.

Taylor

L. K.

Merrilees

C. E.

Goeke-Morey

M. C.

Shirlow

Cairns

(2013b). Relations between political violence and child adjustment: A four-wave test of the role of emotional insecurity about community. Developmental Psychology, 49, 2212-2224.

26.

Cummings

E. M.

Schermerhorn

A. C.

Merrilees

C. E.

Goeke-Morey

M. C.

Shirlow

Cairns

(2010). Political violence and child adjustment in Northern Ireland: Testing pathways in a social-ecological model including single- and two-parent families. Developmental Psychology, 46, 827-841.

27.

De Maio

. (2013). Engaging youth to transform conflict: A study of youth and the reduction of war in Africa. In Roholt

R. V.

Baizerman

Hildreth

R. W.

(Eds.), Civic youth work: Cocreating democratic youth spaces (pp. 126-138). Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.

28.

Diemer

M. A.

(2012). Fostering marginalized youths’ political participation: Longitudinal roles of parental political socialization and youth sociopolitical development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 246-256.

29.

Eccles

J. S.

Gootman

J. A.

(Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development/committee on community-level programs for youth. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

30.

Ehrlich

(2000). Civic responsibility and higher education. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx.

31.

Einolf

C. J.

(2011). Gender differences in the correlates of volunteering and charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 1092-1112.

32.

Enders

C. K.

Bandalos

D. L.

(2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 430-457.

33.

Ferman

(2013). A parade or a riot: A discourse analysis of two ethnic newspapers on the 2011 marching season in Northern Ireland. Journal of Media and Religion, 12, 55-70.

34.

Finlay

Wray-Lake

Flanagan

(2010). Civic engagement during the transition to adulthood: Developmental opportunities and social policies at a critical juncture. In Sherrod

L. R.

Torney-Purta

Flanagan

(Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 277-305). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

35.

Flanagan

Levine

(2010). Civic engagement and the transition to adulthood. The Future of Children, 20, 59-179.

36.

Gatti

Tremblay

R. E.

Larocque

(2003). Civic community and juvenile delinquency: A study of the regions of Italy. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 22-40.

37.

Ginges

(2005). Youth bulges, civic knowledge, and political upheaval. Psychological Science, 16, 659-660.

38.

Hammack

P. L.

(2011). Narrative and the politics of identity: The cultural psychology of Israeli and Palestinian youth. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

39.

Harland

(2011). Violent youth culture in Northern Ireland: Young men, violence, and the challenges of peacebuilding. Youth & Society, 43, 414-432.

40.

Henn

Foard

(2014). Social differentiation in young people’s political participation: The impact of social and educational factors on youth political engagement in Britain. Journal of Youth Studies, 17, 360-380.

41.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.

42.

Jahromi

Crocetti

Buchanan

C. M.

(2012). A cross-cultural examination of adolescent civic engagement: Comparing Italian and American community-oriented and political involvement. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 40, 22-36.

43.

Keresteš

(2006). Children’s aggressive and prosocial behavior in relation to war exposure: Testing the role of perceived parenting and child’s gender. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 227-239.

44.

Kinlen

Hansson

Keenaghan

Canavan

O’Connor

(2013). Education for civic engagement in post-primary schools in Ireland and Northern Ireland: A rights perspective. The Children and Youth Programme. Retrieved from http://www.nuigalway.ie/media/ilascfrc/reports/cyp_book_5_full_report.pdf

45.

Kithakye

Morris

A. S.

Terranova

A. M.

Myers

S. S.

(2010). The Kenyan political conflict and children’s adjustment. Child Development, 81, 1114-1128.

46.

Lancee

Radl

(2014). Volunteering over the life course. Social Forces, 93, 833-862.

47.

Lederach

J. P.

(1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.

48.

Lenzi

Vieno

Santinello

Nation

Voight

(2014). The role played by the family in shaping early and middle adolescent civic responsibility. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 34, 251-278.

49.

Little

T. D.

Cunningham

W. A.

Shahar

Widaman

K. F.

(2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151-173.

50.

Lucia

Breslau

(2006). Family cohesion and children’s behavior problems: A longitudinal investigation. Psychiatry Research, 141, 141-149.

51.

Macksoud

M. S.

Aber

J. L.

(1996). The war experiences and psychosocial development of children in Lebanon. Child Development, 67, 70-88.

52.

McCouch

R. J.

(2009). The effects of wartime violence on young Bosnians’ postwar behaviors: Policy contours for the reconstruction period. In Barber

B. K.

(Ed.), Adolescents and war: How youth deal with political violence (pp. 177-204). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

53.

McEvoy-Levy

(Ed.). (2006). Troublemakers or peacemakers? Youth and post-accord peacebuilding. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press.

54.

McKeown

Cairns

(2012). Peace-programmes in Northern Ireland. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 4, 69-75.

55.

Moos

(1994). Family Environment Scale manual: Development, applications, research (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

56.

Muldoon

(2013). Understanding the impact of political violence in childhood: A theoretical review using a social identity approach. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 929-939.

57.

Nasie

Diamond

A. H.

Bar-Tal

(2016). Young children in intractable conflicts: The Israeli case. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 365-392.

58.

Niens

McIlrath

(2010). Understandings of citizenship education in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: Public discourses among stakeholders in the public and private sectors. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 5, 73-87.

59.

Nordås

Davenport

(2013). Fight the youth: Youth bulges and state repression. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 926-940.

60.

Northern Ireland Neighbourhood Information Service. (2011). Multiple deprivation rankings by Ward. Available from http://www.ninis.nisra.gov.uk/

61.

O’Connor

Beattie

Niens

(2009). An evaluation of the introduction of local and global citizenship to the Northern Ireland curriculum. Belfast, Northern Ireland: Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment.

62.

Oosterhoff

Metzger

(2016). Mother–adolescent civic messages: Associations with adolescent civic behavior and civic judgments. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 43, 62-70.

63.

Paffenholz

Spurk

(2006). Civil society, civic engagement, and peacebuilding (Social development papers: Conflict prevention & reconstruction, Paper No. 36). Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCPR/Resources/WP36_web.pdf

64.

Piliavin

J. A.

(2005). Feeling good by doing good: Health consequences of social service. In Omoto

A. M.

(Ed.), Processes of community change and social action (pp. 29-50). Claremont, CA: Psychology Press.

65.

Proctor

L. J.

(2006). Children growing up in a violent community: The role of the family. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 558-576.

66.

Reidy

C. M.

Taylor

L. K.

Merrilees

C. E.

Ajduković

Čorkalo Biruški

Cummings

E. M.

(2015). The political socialization of youth in a post-conflict community. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 45, 11-23.

67.

Schmid

Muldoon

O. T.

(2015). Perceived threat, social identification, and psychological well-being: The effects of political conflict exposure. Political Psychology, 36, 75-92.

68.

Sherrod

L. R.

Torney-Purta

Flanagan

C. A.

(Eds.). (2010). Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

69.

Shirlow

Murtagh

(2006). Belfast: Segregation, violence and the city. London, England: Pluto Press.

70.

Shirlow

Taylor

L. K.

Merrilees

C. E.

Goeke-Morey

M. C.

Cummings

E. M.

(2013). Hate crime: Record or perception? Space & Polity, 17, 237-252.

71.

Stone

C. A.

Sobel

M. E.

(1990). The robustness of estimates of total indirect effects in covariance structure models estimated by maximum likelihood. Psychometrika, 55, 337-352.

72.

Taylor

L. K.

(2015). Impact of political violence, social trust, and depression on civic participation in Colombia. Peace & Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 22, 145-152.

73.

Taylor

L. K.

Merrilees

C. E.

Goeke-Morey

M. C.

Shirlow

Cairns

Cummings

E. M.

(2014). Political violence and adolescent outgroup attitudes and prosocial behaviours: Implications for positive intergroup relations. Social Development, 23, 840-859.

74.

Taylor

L. K.

Merrilees

C. E.

Goeke-Morey

M. C.

Shirlow

Cummings

E. M.

(2016). Trajectories of adolescent aggression and family cohesion: The potential to perpetuate or ameliorate political conflict. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 45, 114-128.

75.

Wheaton

Muthen

Alwin

D. F.

Summers

(1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology, 8, 84-136.

76.

Yates

Youniss

K. J.

(Eds.). (2006). Roots of civic identity: International perspectives on community service and activism in youth. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

77.

Youniss

(2006). Reshaping a developmental theory for political-civic development. In Levine

Youniss

(Eds.), Youth civic engagement: An institutional turn (pp. 53-54). Medford, MA: The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE).

78.

Zaff

J. F.

Boyd

Lerner

J. V.

Lerner

R. M.

(2010). Active and engaged citizenship: Multi-group and longitudinal factor analysis of an integrated construct of civic engagement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 736-750.

79.

Zaff

J. F.

Malanchuk

Eccles

J. S.

(2008). Predicting positive citizenship from adolescence to young adulthood: The effects of a civic context. Applied Development Science, 12, 38-53.