Civic Engagement and Well-Being: Examining a Mediational Model Across Gender

Abstract

Purpose:

The relationship between civic engagement and mental health is generally positive, yet particularly complex among those from low socioeconomic backgrounds and women. The current study examined pathways between civic engagement and well-being to clarify its merit as a health promotional tool for young adults.

Design:

Cross-sectional design using an online questionnaire.

Setting:

Participants were recruited at a mid-sized Northeastern US university.

Sample:

Participants (N = 438) were primarily White (78%) and female (72%).

Measures:

Demographics, socioeconomic status, civic engagement behavior, well-being, meaning in life, self-efficacy toward service, and social support.

Analysis:

Structural equation modeling to test an a priori model of civic engagement behavior and well-being in young adults. Models were conducted across men and women, covarying for social support.

Results:

The full effects model fit well, demonstrating positive relationships between civic engagement and well-being for both men and women with mediation by service self-efficacy and meaning in life (χ²(2) = 1.05, p = .59; CFI = 1.0; RMSEA = .00, 90%CI [.00, .07]; R² = .46). Type of engagement (civic, electoral, sociopolitical) showed mixed results in relation to well-being.

Conclusion:

Civic activity was associated with well-being when mediated by service self-efficacy while sociopolitical voice correlated to stronger well-being when mediated by meaning in life. Future longitudinal studies should be conducted among more socioeconomically diverse populations to verify the role of civic engagement in health promotion.

Keywords

civic engagement well-being meaning in life self-efficacy young adults

Purpose

In young adults, approximately 29% of 18-25-year-olds are living with a diagnosable mental illness.¹ Consequently, US colleges have reported increased numbers of students seeking mental health services coupled with limited resources available to meet this growing demand.² To address this population’s rising mental health needs, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention³ has advocated for increased health promotion and disorder prevention efforts. Civic engagement—often conceptualized as “individual and collective actions designed to identify and address issues of public concern”⁴—is one potential strategy, researched across several populations with varying results in terms of its costs and benefits to health and well-being.^5

-8 Given that most college students are at a critical age for social, political, and civic identity development, more information is needed to disentangle civic engagement’s role in health and well-being if it is to be used as a point of intervention.^9,10

Civic engagement is conceptualized as 1 of 3 core tenets of social capital, or the notion that 1) networks of civic engagement (both quality and quantity of networks), 2) norms of reciprocity (I will help you today with the expectation that you will help me in the future), and 3) social trust (in individuals and institutions) all facilitate thriving communities.¹¹ Yet, the relationship between social capital and well-being is not clear-cut. Some studies have reported associations between social capital and positive health outcomes like lowered stress, fewer depressive symptoms, and declining mortality rates, particularly among low-income communities.^12,13 However, other research examining social capital shows mixed results, particularly among individuals from low to middle-income countries, as scholars posit that group involvement may place additional strain on overly burdened individuals.^6,14 Relationships between social capital and well-being are not fully understood, and the literature demonstrates additional gaps when considering civic engagement as a stand-alone health promoter. As one of the more actionable components of social capital, more research is needed to explicitly clarify the role of civic engagement on well-being among individuals from lower socioeconomic status (SES) communities.

In addition to investigating SES, the literature also suggests women may reap differential benefits from engaging civically when compared to men.^15,16 For example, a longitudinal study in Sweden showed that whereas civic engagement correlated with fewer depressive symptoms for both men and women, higher civic engagement related to lower depressive symptoms at a later timepoint only for males.¹⁶ Men more often reported participation in sports or motor activities, while women reported greater membership in humanitarian organizations. The authors suggested that perhaps men benefit from the social influence and cohesion of sport, but humanitarian work can have more of an emotionally draining effect. Thus, factors including SES, gender, and type of engagement warrant further study to elucidate their relationships to well-being.

Civic behaviors typically fall within 3 types: “civic,” which involves improving the local community (e.g., attending town halls or volunteerism), “electoral” such as voting or political campaign canvassing, and “political voice” (e.g., marching and boycotting; referred to as “sociopolitical voice” henceforth), which involves expressing opinions pertaining to social causes.^17
-19 Importantly, types of engagement have demonstrated differing associations with health and well-being. For example, Ziersch & Baum’s⁸ cross-sectional study of civil society group participation among Australian adults found an inverse relationship between physical health and civil society group participation, suggesting that participation in groups may be beneficial to the community but detrimental to the individual under certain circumstances where the task is particularly mentally or physically draining. Likewise, Ding, Berry, and O’Brien²⁰ discovered that while social connectedness and civic engagement were somewhat predictive of later mental well-being, political participation was inversely correlated with mental health. In aggregate, types of engagement may differentially help—or harm—individuals participating, underscoring the need to examine differences in health outcomes based on type of civic activity.

While some evidence supports the direct relationship between civic engagement and well-being,^5,21 other research suggests that civic engagement as a health determinant may be realized more indirectly. For example, in Piliavin and Siegl’s²² 47-year longitudinal study with older adults, volunteerism predicted well-being above and beyond other social participation predictors of health. However, after controlling for “mattering”—the concept that people acknowledge their own importance and impact in the world—volunteerism was no longer predictive of well-being. This finding is consistent with much of the positive psychology literature, in which meaning in life—or connection to something greater than the self—often results in positive well-being.^23,24 Still, other studies examined how civic engagement relates to measures of empowerment and self-efficacy as opposed to specific mental and physical health outcomes.²⁵ For instance, the framework behind Brown et al.’s²⁶ weight loss intervention which incorporated a civic engagement component was based on empowerment theory concepts. Authors posited that civic engagement promotes individual and collective self-efficacy to create change for one’s community, thereby increasing feelings of empowerment and overall well-being. Civic engagement has the potential to positively bolster well-being, but its effects may be realized indirectly through more immediate predictors of well-being like meaning in life and service self-efficacy.

Prior studies have positioned civic engagement as a health behavior, and some have even gone so far as to “prescribe” volunteerism – one type of engagement – to attain health benefits.^27,28 However, relationships between civic engagement and well-being must first be clarified within the young adult population before considering civic behavior as a way to promote enhanced well-being. For this purpose, an online questionnaire was given to a convenience sample of undergraduate students. The questionnaire assessed sociodemographic factors, civic engagement, perceived social support, meaning in life, self-efficacy toward service, and well-being. The current study proposed a model in which SES predicts civic engagement, while type of engagement predicts subjective well-being, mediated by meaning in life and service self-efficacy. Based upon prior literature linking social support to the ability to engage,^29,30 perceived social support was added as a covariate, and the model was assessed separately for men, women, and combined samples, respectively (Figure 1). Specifically, the current study proposed the following 3 hypotheses:

Civic engagement will be associated with greater well-being in men compared to women.

Civic activity (e.g., volunteering) and sociopolitical voice (e.g., marching, boycotting) forms of engagement will have larger correlations with higher well-being than will electoral (e.g., voting, canvassing) engagement.

Meaning in life and service self-efficacy will mediate relationships between the 3 types of engagement and well-being.

Figure 1.

Proposed model examining the relationship between civic engagement and well-being.

Methods

Design

The current study followed a questionnaire-based cross-sectional design to assess relationships between civic engagement and well-being among collegiate young adults. In accordance with MacKinnon’s³¹ work on mediational analyses, we relied upon prior research and strong theory to support hypothesized predictions for mediational modeling in the absence of longitudinal data. Research was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board.

Procedures and Sample

Participants for this study included undergraduate students enrolled at a mid-sized university in the Northeast recruited via email and in-class announcements. At their discretion, instructors were permitted to incentivize students with course extra credit in exchange for their study participation. All 555 students consenting to participate were provided with a link to an online questionnaire platform. Students with missing data exceeding 5% and students who did not complete measures of civic engagement and well-being were not retained for analyses, reducing the final sample size to N = 438 students. Chi square tests between those included and excluded for analyses did not reveal any significant differences for rank in school, gender, race, political affiliation, or employment status. Mann-Whitney U tests did not demonstrate any significant differences for SES or age between those included and excluded from analyses. Demographic characteristics of the analyzed sample are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics for Women and Men.

Variable	Women (N = 317)	Men (N = 119)
Age	M = 20.22, SD = 3.23	M = 20.64, SD = 4.08
School Year	First Year, N = 126, 39.7%	First Year, N = 32, 26.9%
	Sophomore, N = 64, 20.2%	Sophomore, N = 34, 28.6%
	Junior, N = 60, 18.9%	Junior, N = 31, 26.1%
	Senior, N = 67, 21.1%	Senior, N = 22, 18.5%
Race	White, N = 249, 78.5%	White, N = 92, 77.3%
	Latinx, N = 25, 7.9%	Latinx, N = 11, 9.2%
	Black, N = 12, 3.8%	Black, N = 6, 5.0%
	Asian, N = 12, 3.8%	Asian, N = 6, 5.0%
	Multiracial, N = 14, 4.4%	Multiracial, N = 3, 2.5%
	Other, N = 5, 1.6%	Other, N = 1, 0.8%
Political Affiliation	Democrat, 46.4%	Democrat, 27.7%
	Republican, 13.2%	Republican, 13.4%
	Independent, 18.9%	Independent, 40.3%
	Other, 3.8%	Other, 5.0%
	Not sure, 17.7%	Not sure, 13.4%
Employment Status	None, 39.7%	None, 39.5%
	1-10 hrs/wk, 24.0%	1-10 hrs/wk, 14.3%
	11-20 hrs/wk, 24.3%	11-20 hrs/wk, 30.3%
	21-30 hrs/wk, 9.1%	21-30 hrs/wk, 9.2%
	30+ hrs/wk, 2.8%	30+ hrs/wk, 6.7%

Measures

Demographics

Students were asked about age, gender, race/ethnicity, and SES. SES was measured by surveying for the highest parental level of education, which is consistent with the literature showing education to be an acceptable proxy for SES.^10,32 Participants were asked to report the highest level of education that their mother (or legal guardian 1) and father (or legal guardian 2) received. Then the highest of the 2 reported levels was coded using the following scale: Less than high school = 1; Some high school (no diploma) = 2; Finished high school (or GED) = 3; Some college credit (no degree) = 4; Trade/technical/vocational training = 5; Associate’s degree = 6; Completed Bachelor’s degree at a college or university = 7; Master’s/Professional/Doctorate degree = 8. Higher levels of education correspond with higher levels of SES.

Civic Engagement Quiz (CEQ)

The CEQ is a 19-item measure assessing an array of civic engagement experiences within specific periods of time.¹⁸ The CEQ was constructed and validated in samples of American adults.³³ The measure is composed of 3 subscales: civic activity, electoral activity, and expressions of political voice (referred to as sociopolitical voice in this study). Participants select activities in which they have participated “Yes, within the past 12 months,” “Yes, but not within the past 12 months,” or “No, never.” Given that intensity and frequency of civic behavior might influence well-being, and after consulting with the scale’s developers, the decision was made to assign scale points to each level of responding (Yes, within the past 12 months = 2; Yes, but not within the past 12 months = 1; No, never = 0). A final subscale score was summed by adding the total number of points on items within a particular subscale. Internal consistency for civic, electoral, and sociopolitical voice subscales ranged from near adequate to good (α = 0.66, α = 0.75, α = 0.80, respectively). Confirmatory Factor Analyses showed that the correlated, 3-factor structure best fit the data, although a poor CFI fit index suggests that future efforts should be taken to improve upon measure development in this area (χ²(227) = 1096.47, p<.01; CFI = .63; RMSEA = .10, 90%CI [.10, .11]). The measure was preserved given its prior validation in young adult samples.

Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF)

The MHC-SF is a 14-item scale based upon Keyes’ conceptualization of well-being as either flourishing or languishing.³⁴ Participants respond to questions like “During the past month, how often did you feel satisfied with life?” on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from Never (0) to Everyday (5). The scale demonstrated good internal consistency (>.80) and discriminant validity in US college samples.³⁵ The MHC-SF is comprised of 3 subscales (emotional, psychological, and social well-being), and the current study used a composite score by summing all 3 subscales to create an overall well-being score. Confirmatory Factor Analyses showed similar fit indices across the 3-factor model with covariances fixed at 1.0 (indicating a single, general factor) and the 3-factor model with covariances freely estimated. Given appropriate loadings within the single factor model, the single factor model was retained to investigate overall well-being (χ²(77) = 463.11, p<.01; CFI = .91; RMSEA = .11, 90%CI [.10, .12]). Internal consistency within the current sample was excellent (α = 0.94).

Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ)

The MLQ is a 10-item scale with 2 subscales, presence of meaning and the search for meaning.³⁶ Participants respond to questions like “My life has a clear sense of purpose” using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from Absolutely Untrue (1) to Absolutely True (7). The MLQ demonstrated acceptable internal consistency in the current sample (α = 0.78).

Self-Efficacy Towards Service (SETS)

The SETS is a 5-item assessment using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5).³⁷ The scale measures how strongly students believe in their ability to contribute time and service to the larger community. The SETS was validated in an undergraduate sample of business majors, and demonstrated excellent internal consistency in the current sample (α = 0.90).

Interpersonal Support Evaluation List-12

The ISEL-12 is a 12-item scale designed to measure perceived level of social support.³⁸ Participants were asked to respond to questions such as “If I were sick, I could easily find someone to help me with my daily chores” using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from Definitely False (0) to Definitely True (3). Internal consistency in the current sample was good (α = 0.87).

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0 and EQS 6.3 for Windows. Data were examined for normality and completeness. The data violated assumptions of normality for variables of parental education, service self-efficacy, and electoral engagement. Parental education (SES) was transformed using square root (k-x), where k = 9 given education’s maximum value of 8; self-efficacy was transformed using square root (k-x), where k = 26 given self-efficacy’s maximum value of 25¹; electoral engagement was transformed using log10 (x+c), where c = 1 given electoral engagement’s minimum value of 0. All transformations were successful in producing values that were normally distributed for each of these variables.^39,40 Data were missing across both gender groups, particularly in the measure of civic activity. To account for missing data, full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation was employed to maintain adequate power, which has been recommended in the literature for structural equation modeling.⁴¹

To address all 3 main research questions, indirect, direct, and full effects models (i.e., including both indirect and direct pathways) were examined for men and women, separately, and then in a combined sample. To test Hypothesis 1, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) constructed from standard errors of the estimates were compared across the men’s and women’s samples, where no CI overlap would indicate statistically significant differences across gender. To test Hypothesis 2, researchers analyzed both CIs constructed from the unstandardized estimates, as well as standardized path coefficients to determine strength of relationships between different types of engagement and well-being. Cohen’s⁴² guidelines of .1 (small), .3 (medium), and .5 (large) were used to characterize the relative magnitude of the path coefficient effect sizes. To test Hypothesis 3, researchers examined fit indices and conducted chi square difference testing to assess which model best fit the data (i.e., to determine the importance of including indirect, direct, or full effects when examining the way in which independent and dependent variables are related). Second, researchers examined path coefficients between all key variables in the models; a significant indirect effect (i.e., a*b) and a non-significant direct effect (i.e., c’) indicates full mediation. Partial mediation is indicated when both indirect and direct effects are significant. Inconsistent mediation occurs when the indirect and direct effects have different signs. Additionally, Sobel tests were used to determine mediational effects.⁴³ All significance tests were conducted with alpha set at .05.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics were calculated on all variables for men and women (Table 2). Only 2 of 438 respondents identified with a gender other than “man” or “woman.” Given this limited sample, these 2 cases were not included in analyses examining gender differences, although future research would benefit from including larger populations of gender non-binary respondents. The study sample did not significantly differ from the university student body’s racial-ethnic breakdown, although the sample did include significantly more women than men compared to the university’s student body (72% women vs. 57% women; χ²(1) = 9.18, p<.01). Students were most likely to engage in civic activity, followed by sociopolitical activity and then electoral activity. Importantly, the electoral engagement area encompasses activities like canvassing and fundraising that do not require an individual to be at least 18 years of age in the way that voting does; however, it is quite possible that students participating in this Spring 2018 study had not been of voting age during the 2016 election, which may have influenced the likelihood of them engaging in other types of electoral activity.

Table 2.

Descriptive Data for Selected Measures by Gender.

Variable (scale)	Gender
Variable (scale)	N	Women (M, SD)	N	Men (M, SD)
SES (Highest Parental Education)^a	315	6.41, 1.80	119	6.22, 1.94
Civic (0-18)	267	^b6.37, 3.14	105	^b5.60, 3.53
Electoral (0-10)	312	1.59, 1.95	116	2.04, 2.44
Sociopolitical Voice (0-18)	310	4.87, 4.02	117	4.61, 4.35
Well-Being (0-70)	298	45.51, 14.15	115	45.18, 14.51
Meaning in Life (10-70)	300	^b50.95, 8.36	114	^b48.29, 10.25
Service Self-Efficacy (5-25)	307	20.24, 3.68	116	19.97, 3.53
Perceived Social Support (0-36)	296	26.14, 7.01	110	24.75, 6.41

^aEducation is measured on a scale from 1-8, where 1 represents less than a high school education (low SES) and 8 represents graduate-level education (high SES).

^bp < .05, ANOVA and Welch’s F-test results.

One-way analyses of variance examined whether differences between men and women existed on each variable to be used in the models. As the assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated for variables of meaning in life and electoral activity, Welch F-tests were used for these variables. Findings demonstrated that compared to men, women reported significantly higher levels of meaning in life [F(1,173) = 6.15, p = 0.01] and civic activity [F(1,370) = 4.23, p = 0.04)].

Hypothesis 1: Examining Gender Differences

Results from the 3 predictive models can be found in Table 3 and Figures 2 –4. Overall, fit indices (chi square close to number of degrees of freedom, non-significant p values, CFI ≥0.95, RMSEA<0.10) indicated that the full model provided the best fit in all 3 gender groupings with very large R-squared effect sizes.⁴⁴ The full model (Figure 4) fit the overall sample and the women’s only sample better than the men’s only sample, although all 3 groupings produced relatively good fit. Table 3 presents findings from the 95% confidence intervals constructed using unstandardized path coefficients for women and men. Hypothesis 1 was disconfirmed: all CIs between women and men overlapped, suggesting no statistical differences in parameters between women and men.

Table 3.

95% Confidence Intervals for Unstandardized Path Coefficients.

Parameter	Women	Men	Combined
SES to Civic	.68, 2.14^a	.71, 3.07^a	.98, 2.24^a
SES to Electoral	−.01, .11	−.02, .18	.001, .12^a
SES to Sociopolitical	.73, 2.45^a	−.66, 2.24	.62, 2.10^a
SES to Social Support	1.70, 4.68^a	−.06, 4.30	1.74, 4.20^a
SES to Well-Being	−1.29, 3.01	−1.66, 6.30	−1.01, 3.19
Civic to Meaning	−.35, .31	−.63, .63	−.22, .36
Civic to Service Self-Efficacy	.01, .05^a	−.01, .07	.01, .05^a
Civic to Well-Being	.18, 1.04^a	−.96, .52	−.02, .72
Electoral to Meaning	−6.59, 1.21	−4.6, 10.76	−5.03, 2.07
Electoral to Service Self-Efficacy	−.13, .53	−.41, .69	−.19, .39
Electoral to Well-Being	1.27, 11.35^a	−5.08, 11.38	1.11, 9.61^a
Sociopolitical to Meaning	−.02, .52	−.18, .92	.06, .56^a
Sociopolitical to Service Self-Efficacy	.004, .04^a	−.01, .07	.004, .04^a
Sociopolitical to Well-Being	−.96, −.22^a	−.87, .27	−.84, −.22^a
Social Support to Meaning	.20, .48^a	−.12, .50	.19, .43^a
Social Support to Service Self-Efficacy	.02, .06^a	.004, .04^a	.01, .05^a
Social Support to Well-Being	.52, .92^a	.25, .91^a	.48, .80^a
Meaning to Well-Being	.40, .72^a	.36, .84^a	.43, .71^a
Service Self-Efficacy to Well-Being	1.05, 4.81^a	1.87, 8.29^a	2.05, 5.27^a

a Significant where the 95% Confidence Interval does not include 0.

Figure 2.

Mediation model in the combined sample.

Figure 3.

Direct model in the combined sample.

Figure 4.

Full model with direct and indirect effects in the combined sample.

Hypothesis 2: Types of Civic Engagement

Standardized path coefficients in Figure 4 demonstrated a positive relationship between SES and all 3 types of engagement such that an incremental increase in SES was associated with an incremental increase in engagement. Social support had very small coefficients with all 3 types of engagement, contrary to previous research. However, links with meaning in life, service self-efficacy, and well-being were stronger for social support than for any of the 3 types of engagement. In the full model, sociopolitical voice showed the strongest coefficients with meaning in life (.14), service self-efficacy (.13), and well-being (-.15) compared to civic and electoral forms of engagement, although all 3 types of engagement had relatively small coefficients with meaning, service self-efficacy, and well-being. Hypothesis 2 was disconfirmed: findings showed that electoral activity demonstrated a positive correlation with well-being, sociopolitical activity and well-being were inversely correlated, and civic activity demonstrated a positive but non-significant correlation with well-being.

Hypothesis 3: Meaning in Life and Service Self-Efficacy as Mediators

This study had 2 proposed layers of mediation: Type of civic engagement followed by meaning in life and service self-efficacy. The full effects model demonstrated stronger fit indices and significantly fit the data better than the direct effects model (χ²(14) = 258.55, p<.05), suggesting the importance of mediational pathways (Table 4). Sobel tests of significance can be found in Table 5. The standardized coefficient between meaning in life and well-being demonstrated moderate strength (.36) while service self-efficacy and well-being demonstrated a small to moderate positive relationship (.20). Hypothesis 3 was partially confirmed. In the combined sample, results indicated that meaning in life partially mediated the relationship between social support and well-being, while it was an inconsistent mediator between sociopolitical voice and well-being. Service self-efficacy mediated the relationship between civic activity and well-being, and partially mediated the relationship between social support and well-being.

Table 4.

Fit Indices of 3 Models Across Gender Groupings.

Model	Grouping
	Women & Men	Women only	Men only
Mediation	χ²(7) = 80.02, p<.01	χ²(7) = 74.0, p<.01	χ²(7) = 22.98, p<.01
	CFI = .90	CFI = .87	CFI = .93
	RMSEA = .15,	RMSEA = .16,	RMSEA = .13,
	90%CI [.12, .18]	90%CI [.13, .20]	90%CI [.06, .19]
	R² = .35	R² = .31	R² = .42
Direct	χ²(16) = 258.55, p<.01	χ²(16) = 186.45, p<.01	χ²(16) = 91.49, p<.01
	CFI = .65	CFI = .66	CFI = .65
	RMSEA = .18,	RMSEA = .17,	RMSEA = .19,
	90%CI [.16, .20]	90%CI [.15, .20]	90%CI [.15, .23]
	R² = .25	R² = .31	R² = .17
Full	χ²(2) = 1.05, p = .59	χ²(2) = 1.19, p = .55	χ²(2) = 8.02, p = .02
	CFI = 1.0	CFI = 1.0	CFI = .97
	RMSEA = .00,	RMSEA = .00,	RMSEA = .15,
	90%CI [.00, .07]	90%CI [.00, .09]	90%CI [.05, .27]
	R² = .46	R² = .46	R² = .49

Table 5.

Sobel Tests of Significance for Indirect Effects.

Pathway	Women	Men	Combined
Civic – Meaning – Well-Being	−.12	.01	.47
Civic – Service Self-Efficacy – Well-Being	2.14^a	1.35	2.49^a
Electoral – Meaning – Well-Being	−1.33	.78	−.81
Electoral – Service Self-Efficacy – Well-Being	1.10	.49	.66
Sociopolitical – Meaning – Well-Being	1.73^b	1.28	2.29^a
Sociopolitical – Service Self-Efficacy – Well-Being	1.67^b	1.35	1.83^b
Social Support – Meaning – Well-Being	3.47^a	1.16	4.36^a
Social Support – Service Self-Efficacy – Well-Being	2.58^a	1.68^b	2.49^a

^a p<.05.

^b p<.10.

Discussion

This study investigated several factors to elucidate for whom, in what ways, and under what circumstances civic engagement is associated with well-being. The present study assessed the relationship between civic engagement and well-being while accounting for complex associations between SES, gender, type of engagement, social support and mediational factors. Further, the present study investigated these associations through recruitment of a young adult sample – a developmental period known to be crucial for social and political identity formation, and a group that has been largely understudied amidst the civic engagement literature.^9,10,45 Using cross-sectional data from a relevant undergraduate sample, findings indicated that: 1) the full model fit best for male and female subsamples, with no differences in associations across constructs between women and men; 2) civic activity showed no significant direct association with well-being, whereas electoral activity was positively associated with well-being, and sociopolitical activity was negatively associated with well-being; and 3) meaning in life and service self-efficacy mediated relationships between various types of engagement and well-being. Taken together, findings enrich the discussion of civic engagement and health promotion, particularly for young adults, while guiding the field toward next steps in this area.

Given prior literature examining how contextual factors like gender and socioeconomic status might alter the relationship between civic engagement and well-being, the current study provides some clarification in addressing who might benefit from civic engagement. Contrary to Hypothesis 1, civic engagement was not associated with greater well-being in men than women. If anything, the models indicated a better fit in the women’s sample compared to the men’s sample. Moreover, CI estimates overlapped across gender, suggesting no differences in these relationships between constructs for men and women. These results run counter to prior research that found that men and women may participate in different types of engagement, and hence, they may experience different levels of well-being as a result.¹⁶ One explanation may be that women in the current study reported higher levels of civic activity, which encompasses activities like belonging to community organizations and acts of volunteerism. While certainly not all civic activity can be construed as burden-free, perhaps the women in this sample chose to engage in less-burdensome activities, resulting in a null or positive change in well-being. This is consistent with other research where female adolescents report more volunteering whereas older adolescents report greater political activism.⁴⁶

Similarly, Ehsan & De Silva⁶ have highlighted the impact of socioeconomic status on ability to participate among those already feeling overburdened. The current findings are consistent with previous literature regarding individuals from lower SES communities engaging less than those from higher SES communities.^10,47 However, for those who did choose to engage, the relationship between engagement and well-being appeared to be a positive one when meaning in life and service self-efficacy acted as mediators. Taken together, these findings suggest that women’s civic engagement is not necessarily associated with lower well-being contrary to some prior literature, nor is civic engagement inevitably ill-advised for those from low-SES communities. However, more research is needed to illuminate why someone from these or other marginalized identities may choose to engage or abstain from involvement, and the mechanisms by which that engagement may or may not impact their mental health.

Meaning in life and service self-efficacy played important roles in mediating the relationship between type of engagement and well-being in our study. Of note, sociopolitical voice demonstrated a significantly negative association with well-being, although pathways to meaning in life and service self-efficacy were significantly positive. In this instance, a suppression effect may be operating where the predictive power for sociopolitical voice is increased after adding meaning in life and service self-efficacy to the model.⁴⁸ Thus, the analysis might be capturing different associations across different individuals, so longitudinal studies are indicated to further explore intraindividual change within these relationships. It could be that individuals who make concerted efforts to engage socio-politically may become disillusioned if they are unable to see the fruits of their labor. Oftentimes, sociopolitical activities like marching and calling congress people require significant emotional time and energy. Yet, it is equally important to consider the pathway by which individuals with low well-being may turn to sociopolitical activism to resolve feelings of frustration or disillusionment. By comparison, civic activity like volunteering at a local soup kitchen or fundraising money during a bike-a-thon may produce instantaneous good will, consistent with the relationship between civic activity and well-being in the direct effects model. Further, discrete, one-time electoral acts like voting may also produce instantaneous goodwill, although the field would benefit from additional research examining a population who more strongly endorses this typology. Alternatively, perhaps less time-intensive or conflict-driven acts are more appealing to those already battling mental illness while trying to muster energy to engage.

Thus, it is important to consider what drives people to engage in the first place – are they participating out of internal conflict or desire to change policy (as is likely with sociopolitical engagers), to reap potential material or social benefits that may coincide with civic forms of participation, or perhaps some combination of both?¹⁰ If the motivational drive is due to conflict, perhaps meaning in life and service self-efficacy become more central to attenuating the relationship between civic engagement and well-being. Exploring motivational factors is a natural next step for this line of research to more adequately clarify associations between engagement and well-being.

Several limitations of the current study should be noted. The predictive models were based on a priori information from previous literature on civic engagement and health factors, but relationships from this cross-sectional design are correlational rather than causal. It is certainly plausible that greater well-being leads to more meaning-in-life and service self-efficacy, which in turn might promote more engagement. Longitudinal designs could help to verify some of the preliminary findings noted above and clarify directionality of results. Prior research has shown mixed relationships between type of engagement and well-being, particularly for the sociopolitical domain,^47,49 so our findings run counter to some studies while replicating others. These cross-sectional results capture a snapshot in time of complex relationships that will need to be replicated in longitudinal models. The field would also benefit from future measure development studies, as the course of civic activity has changed since this measure’s inception and CFA data indicate that factor structure could be improved.

Further, this research was conducted in a sample of predominantly white, female undergraduates. While the racial-ethnic demographic breakdown of this sample did not significantly differ from its student body, students who have reached the point of a college education already experience certain privileges that make them more or less likely to civically engage. For these reasons, these findings may not be generalizable to other young adults. Thus, it is with caution that these results be used to suggest to women and those from lower SES communities that civic engagement is associated with greater well-being—indeed, it might be, but further information is required before making a definitive claim.

It should also be noted that sample size, missing data, and normality were problematic in the current study. The analyses would have been optimized with sample sizes of at least 150-200 participants for both men and women⁴⁴; while the women’s sample was adequate, the smaller men’s sample may not have been sufficiently powered for these analyses. FIML estimation for missing data and transforming data for non-normality may have also introduced greater error potential in the results. This body of research would greatly benefit from replication studies using larger, diverse samples to mitigate potential concerns about power and generalizability.

Despite its limitations, the current study helps to clarify relationships between civic engagement and well-being, particularly with regard to the interplay between gender, SES, and type of engagement. Further, results underscore the importance of helping individuals identify meaningful ways in which they can engage while simultaneously strengthening their self-efficacy to do so. Certainly, many forms of civic engagement are necessary and important to contribute to a well-functioning society, even if they create some frustration and stress among engagers. Alternatively, civic engagement may be an avenue through which frustrated and stressed individuals address concerns and seek resolution for problems they face. Interventions should consider instilling the requisite attitudes, knowledge, and skill-building among young adults during a time period that is highly critical to their civic identity development. Moreover, by fostering awareness of activities that are likely to produce greater meaning in life, individuals may more confidently and mindfully choose engagement known to offer a quick boost while protecting against feelings of disillusionment.

So What?

What is already known on this topic?

The relationship between civic engagement and well-being is typically positive in existing literature. However, this relationship is more complex particularly for women and those from low-SES backgrounds.

What does this article add?

This study examined relationships between well-being and gender, SES, type of civic engagement, social support, service self-efficacy and meaning in life amidst a college population known to be at the peak of their civic and emotional identity development. Results clarify relationships between civic engagement and mental well-being for young adult women, while underscoring the need for future studies with more diverse non-collegiate samples to verify findings.

What are the implications for health promotion practice or research?

Practitioners might help young adults identify meaningful forms of civic engagement while educating them with the tools to engage efficaciously. Above all, practitioners should consider the unique needs of individuals before encouraging civic engagement indiscriminately.

Footnotes

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Natalie Fenn

Lisa Harlow

Note

References

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. PEP20-07-01-001, NSDUH Series H-55). Rockville, MD: Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. Published 2020. Accessed March 2, 2021. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/

Novotney

.Students under pressure: College and university counseling centers are examining how best to serve the growing number of students seeking their services. Monit Psychol. 2014;45(September):36. Published 2014. Accessed August 19, 2020. http://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/09/index.aspx

Czeisler

MÉ

Lane

Petrosky

, et al. Mental Health, Substance Use, and Suicidal Ideation During the COVID-19 Pandemic — United States, June 24–30, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69:1049–1057. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6932a1

American Psychological Association. Civic Engagement. Published 2009. Accessed August 19, 2020. https://www.apa.org/education/undergrad/civic-engagement

Chan

Reynolds

. Adolescent civic engagement and adult outcomes: An examination among urban racial minorities. J Youth Adolesc. 2014;43(11):1829–1843. doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0136-5

Ehsan

De Silva

. Social capital and common mental disorder: A systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;69(10):1021–1028. doi:10.1136/jech-2015-205868

Wray-Lake

DeHaan

Shubert

Ryan

. Examining links from civic engagement to daily well-being from a self-determination theory perspective. J Posit Psychol. 2019;14(2):166–177. doi:10.1080/17439760.2017.1388432

Ziersch

Baum

. Involvement in civil society groups: Is it good for your health?. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(6):493–500. doi:10.1136/jech.2003.009084

Amnå

. How is civic engagement developed over time? Emerging answers from a multidisciplinary field. J Adolesc. 2012;35(3):611–627. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.04.011

10.

Verba

Schlozman

Brady

. Voice and Equality : Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Harvard University Press; 1995.

11.

Putnam

BRD

. Social capital and public life. Am Prospect. 1993;4:35–42.

12.

Frank

Davis

Elgar

. Financial strain, social capital, and perceived health during economic recession: A longitudinal survey in rural Canada. Anxiety, Stress Coping. 2014;27(4):422–438. doi:10.1080/10615806.2013.864389

13.

Kawachi

Kennedy

Lochner

Prothrow-Stith

. Social capital, income inequality, and mortality. Am J Public Health. 1997;87(9):1491–1498.

14.

De Silva

McKenzie

Harpham

Huttly

SRA

. Social capital and mental illness: A systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59(8):619–627. doi:10.1136/jech.2004.029678

15.

Khawaja

Tewtel-Salem

Obeid

Saliba

Civic engagement, gender and selfrated health in poor communities: Evidence from Jordan’s refugee camps. Heal Sociol Rev. 2006;15(2):192–208. doi:10.5172/hesr.2006.15.2.192

16.

Landstedt

Almquist

Eriksson

Hammarström

. Disentangling the directions of associations between structural social capital and mental health: Longitudinal analyses of gender, civic engagement and depressive symptoms. Soc Sci Med. 2016;163:135–143. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.07.005

17.

Adler

Goggin

. What Do We Mean By “Civic Engagement”? J Transform Educ. 2005;3(3):236–253. doi:10.1177/1541344605276792

18.

Andolina

Keeter

Zukin

Jenkins

. A Guide to the index of civic and political engagement.; 2003.

19.

Pancer

. The psychology of citizenship and civic engagement. oxford scholarship online; 2014. doi:10.1093/acprof: oso/9780199752126.001.0001

20.

Ding

Berry

O’Brien

. One-year reciprocal relationship between community participation and mental wellbeing in Australia: A panel analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2015;128:246–254. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.01.022

21.

Flanagan

. Youth finding meaning through a larger sense of community. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2015;85(6):S70–S78. doi:10.1037/ort0000105

22.

Piliavin

Siegl

. Health benefits in the wisconsin of volunteering longitudinal study. J Health Soc Behav. 2007;48(4):450–464.

23.

Chen

Kim

Koh

Frazier

Vanderweele

. Sense of mission and subsequent health and well-being among young adults: An outcome-wide analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2019;188(4):664–673. doi:10.1093/aje/kwz009

24.

Peterson

Park

Seligman

MEP

. Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. J Happiness Stud. 2005;6(1):25–41. doi:10.1007/s10902-004-1278-z

25.

Gullan

Power

Leff

. The Role of empowerment in a school-based community service program with inner-city, minority youth. J Adolesc Res. 2013;28(6):664–689. doi:10.1177/0743558413477200

26.

Brown

AGM

Hudson

Chui

, et al. Improving heart health among Black/African American women using civic engagement: A pilot study. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):1–13. doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3964-2

27.

Jenkinson

Dickens

Jones

, et al. Is volunteering a public health intervention? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the health and survival of volunteers. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):773. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-773

28.

Post

SG.

Rx It’s good to be good (G2BG) 2017 commentary: Prescribing volunteerism for health, happiness, resilience, and longevity. Am J Heal Promot. 2017;31(2):163–172. doi:10.1177/0890117117691705

29.

Dolan

. Social support, social justice, and social capital: a tentative theoretical triad for community development. Community Dev. 2008;39(1):112–119. doi:10.1080/15575330809489745

30.

Bennett

. The impact of mandatory community service and social support on urban high school seniors’ civic engagement orientations. Theory Res Soc Educ. 2009;37(3):361–405. doi:10.1080/00933104.2009.10473402

31.

MacKinnon

. Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2008.

32.

Diemer

Mistry

Wadsworth

López

Reimers

. Best practices in conceptualizing and measuring social class in psychological research. Anal Soc Issues Public Policy. 2013;13(1):77–113. doi:10.1111/asap.12001

33.

Keeter

Mason

Zukin

Andolina

Jenkins

. Improving the Measurement of Political Participation.; 2002.

34.

Lamers

SMA

Westerhof

Bohlmeijer

Ten Klooster

Keyes

CLM

. Evaluating the psychometric properties of the mental health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF). J Clin Psychol. 2011;67(1):99–110. doi:10.1002/jclp.20741

35.

Robitschek

Keyes

CLM

. Keyes’s model of mental health with personal growth initiative as a parsimonious predictor. J Couns Psychol. 2009;56(2):321–329. doi:10.1037/a0013954

36.

Steger

Frazier

Kaler

Oishi

The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. J Couns Psychol. 2006;53(1):80–93. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80

37.

Weber

Sleeper

Schneider

. Self-efficacy toward service, civic participation and the business student: Scale development and validation. J Bus Ethics. 2004;49(4):359–369. doi:10.1023/B: BUSI.0000020881.58352.ab

38.

Cohen

Mermelstein

Kamarck

Hoberman

. Measuring the Functional Components of Social Support. In: Social Support: Theory, Research and Applications. Springer Netherlands; 1985:73–94. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-5115-0_5

39.

Howell

. Statistical Methods for Psychology. 6th ed. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth; 2007.

40.

Tabachnick

Fidell

. Using Multivariate Statistics 5. 5th ed. Allyn and Bacon;2007. doi:10.1037/022267

41.

Enders

Bandalos

. The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5

42.

Cohen

. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. San Diego: Academic Press; 1988.

43.

Sobel

. Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models. Sociol Methodol. 1982;13:290. doi:10.2307/270723

44.

Harlow

. The Essence of Multivariate Thinking: Basic Themes and Methods , 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 2014. doi:10.4324/9781315832746

45.

Bowman

Brandenberger

Lapsley

Hill

Quaranto

. Serving in college, flourishing in adulthood: Does community engagement during the college years predict adult well-being? Appl Psychol Heal Well-Being. 2010;2(1):14–34. doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01020.x

46.

Taylor

Townsend

Merrilees

Goeke-Morey

Shirlow

Cummings

. Adolescent civic engagement and perceived political conflict: the role of family cohesion. Youth Soc. 2019;51(5):616–637. doi:10.1177/0044118X17697236

47.

Ballard

Hoyt

Pachucki

. Impacts of adolescent and young adult civic engagement on health and socioeconomic status in adulthood. Child Dev. 2018;90(4):1138–1154. doi:10.1111/cdev.12998

48.

Ludlow

Klein

. Suppressor variables: The difference between “Is” versus “Acting As.” J Stat Educ. 2014;22(2):1–28. doi:10.1080/10691898.2014.11889703

49.

Klar

Kasser

Some benefits of being an activist: Measuring activism and its role in psychological well-being. Polit Psychol. 2009;30(5):755–777. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00724.x