Toward a Rational Civil Society: Deliberative Thinking,Civic Participation,and Self-Efficacy among Taiwanese Young Adults

Abstract

To explore the mechanisms that foster rational, communicative, and actionable citizenship, this research proposes a mediation as well as moderation research framework that links deliberative thinking, political self-efficacy, social capital, and civic participation. Data from 865 Taiwanese university students are analyzed with structural equation modeling, showing a positive association of deliberative thinking to political self-efficacy and civic participation, as well as a positive association between them. Moreover, the association between deliberative thinking and civic participation is signiﬁcantly and positively mediated by political self-efficacy. When background factors are controlled, only social capital is identified to be moderating any associations between variables in this study. The established association between deliberative thinking and political self-efficacy and that between deliberative thinking and the non-electoral, as well as community-based dimensions of civic participation, are significantly weaker among those possessing less social capital, while such differences are not significant in the case of gender and household income. Based on these findings, the relative roles of deliberative thinking, political self-efficacy, and social capital in promoting effective deliberative democracy will be discussed.

Keywords

rational civil society deliberative thinking social capital civic participation political self-efficacy

Introduction

University students have traditionally played a leading role in social movements in Taiwan, such as in the case of the Wild Lily movement in 1990 which urged for democracy, as well as the Sunflower movement in 2014 calling for the suspension of the China–Taiwan Free Trade Agreement. Such passion for participating in public affairs among university students, however, is not unique to Taiwan (Nie et al., 1996; Verba et al., 1995). In this regard, traditional political studies have pointed to the relevance of self-efficacy in motivating civic participation. According to Dahl (1998), a sound democratic procedure requires effective participation on the part of most community members (i.e. gaining enlightened understanding and exercising ultimate autonomy over the agenda). These standards resonate significantly with the idea of deliberative and participatory democracy: It is believed that public deliberation can help policy decisions transcend the self-interests and values of individuals engaging in collective rationality and communication (Gutmann and Thompson, 1996; Valadez, 2001). Apart from contributing to self-efficacy and willingness to participate in public affairs, deliberative thinking has gradually been integrated as a core quality of proactive citizenship in view of establishing and maintaining a rational civil society.

Since 1990, Taiwan has been democratized and engaged in reforming the tertiary education curriculum, especially in many of the liberal arts disciplines. With the presence of nascent elements of civic education such as the democratic process, human rights, constitutional laws, critical thinking, and reasoning to community engagement, it is believed that young adults in Taiwan are increasingly equipped with the sufficient knowledge and skills, as well as the deliberative thinking required for civic participation. Given this context, one core issue this study aims to address is to what extent are university students able to think rationally and communicate with fellow citizens with different interests and opinions upon receiving a formal education in the liberal arts.

In addition to the discussion regarding how deliberative thinking and self-efficacy are related to civic participation, this study explores possible background factors which could potentially condition the effectiveness of those motivators, such as gender, household income, and social capital. This article will be structured as follows: conceptual framework, method, results, discussion and implications, research limitations, and conclusion.

Conceptual Framework with Its Empirical Groundings

Political Efficacy and Participation

Political efficacy, an issue of great concern among scholars of politics for decades (Abramson and Aldrich, 1982), refers to how individuals perceive the influences of their political actions on the political system (Campbell et al., 1954) and is widely regarded as a key predictor for political participation and proxy for the public to assess government performance and their own political capacity: The higher the degree of self-efficacy, the greater the resulting political trust, support, and participation (Aleksandra et al., 2011; Almond and Verba, 1963; Craig et al., 1990; Finkel, 1985, 1987; Homero et al., 2017; Yang and DeHart, 2016). The concept can be classified into two dimensions, namely, internal political efficacy and external political efficacy (Acock et al., 1985; Anderson, 2010; Asher, 1974; Balch, 1974; Converse, 1972; Craig, 1979; Craig and Maggioto, 1982; Lane, 1959; Morrell, 2005; Niemi et al., 1991). The former indicates how citizens perceive their ability to influence the political system, whereas the latter refers to how they perceive its responsiveness (Caprara et al., 2009; Lane, 1959; Marx and Nguyen, 2016). While early studies suggest that the positive association between political participation and political self-efficacy is limited to the external one (Ginsberg and Weissberg, 1978; Salisbury, 1975), the mainstream view holds that the internal counterpart is a more important motivational factor for political participation (Finkel, 1985; Jung et al., 2011). Indeed, the significance of internal political efficacy in predicting political participation has found support from numerous studies (Condon and Holleque, 2013; Krampen, 2000; Schulz et al., 2010).

Regarding the formation of political efficacy, Abramson (1983: 152–165) proposes four theoretical accounts, namely, those from the perspectives of political education, social deprivation, intelligence position, and political reality. Previous research has focused greatly on the latter two explanations, both pointing to political socialization, that is, political education or civil education (Campbell et al., 1954; Easton and Dennis, 1967; Sears, 1975; White, 1968). Individuals with higher education typically have more time, money, skills, and information for political participation (Nie et al., 1996; Verba et al., 1995). It is believed they thus tend to be more likely to vote (Endersby et al., 2006) and engage in political campaigns or community affairs (Dalton, 2014). Scholars have also observed that those who enjoy higher socioeconomic status are more readily accessible to decision-makers and capable of choosing effective channels to participate in decision making. By contrast, the less advantaged usually have limited opportunities to approach decision-makers. Often marginalized within the system, they have no choice but to resort to exogenous approaches to address grievances, that is, demonstration, marches, and even violent means (della Porta and Diani, 2006; Harris and Gillion, 2010; Tarrow, 1998). In this connection, the political self-efficacy of citizens essentially represents the building block of civil society and serves as a cornerstone of democracy.

Some suggest that the political self-efficacy of ordinary citizens can indeed be enhanced by the increased opportunities for political participation within a participatory democracy as it closes the gap between the people and the power center and enhances their decision-making ability (Morrell, 2005; Pateman, 1970). Participatory democracy consists of various forms of public deliberation: citizen conferences, town meetings, designated deliberation times, citizen juries, deliberative polling, study circles, national issue forums, scenario workshops, social group forums, citizen communication cycles, and televised debates (Parkinson, 2006). It is believed that such varied and informed forms of participation can effectively reduce physical and social barriers to participation. In this study, the measurement of political participation includes a wide range of civic activities beyond the traditional electoral focus, such as joining or collaborating with NGOs or neighborhood associations and engaging in talks or debates on social affairs.

Deliberative Thinking and Political Deliberation

Central to public deliberation is citizens’ ability to engage in deliberative thinking. It requires a transparent and rational discussion based on public interests regardless of participants’ own stances and interests (Gutmann and Thompson, 1996). When dealing with issues of high concern, it is necessary for participants to rationally consider opposing arguments from others, that is, to comprehend and engage with opposing viewpoints, provide a persuasive argument with sufficient justification, reflect on one’s own preferences, and strive for a solution acceptable to most (Beauvais and Baechtiger, 2016; Bohman, 1996; Elster, 1998; Guttmann and Thompson, 2004).

Rationality and volition are the underlying principles of such deliberative communication actions. They can be traced back to the notions of John Rawls on “public reason” and Jürgen Habermas on “communicative action,” which refer to a form of deliberation in which participants as agents can freely communicate and debate so as to reach a consensus by way of increased mutual understanding (Bächtiger et al., 2018; Fearon, 1998; Habermas, 1994, 1998; McAfee, 2004; Mouffe, 2000; Smith, 2009). Deliberative democracy features community-based communication which emphasizes equality, transparency, reciprocity, freedom from power, considered debate, accountability, and a focus on consensus or common good (Fishkin, 2011; Reuchamps and Caluwaerts, 2018; Walsh, 2007). For Sanders (1997), deliberative advocacy typically entails rationality, reserve, cautiousness, quietude, community, altruism, and universalism. Some also point out that public discussion can encourage cooperation among participants and foster trust and establish reputation, reducing dishonesty, and inappropriate decisions (Mackie, 1998).

Hence, deliberative thinking is related to the willingness and ability to communicate with fellow citizens of different viewpoints and interests, which is another important aspect of political participation. It is expected that with the increasing civic education young people are receiving in Taiwan, their participation in public affairs should be bolstered by growing skills of and motivation for deliberation. Admittedly, a citizen who regards himself or herself capable of understanding and influencing public affairs is not necessarily the one who takes part in deliberative democracy, unless they are also willing and able to communicate with others. To better identify predictors of political participation, especially those activities related to deliberative actions, the analytical framework of this study will offer an account of respondents’ inclination and ability to engage in political deliberation in addition to self-efficacy.

Political Efficacy as a Mediating Factor

According to the “deliberative participation hypothesis” (Gastil et al., 2008), the more one discusses politics, the more likely one is to feel confidence regarding their political skills, therefore eliciting a “virtuous” circle between participation and self-efficacy (Gastil and Dillard, 1999; Gastil and Xenos, 2010; Morrell, 2005; Smith, 1999). Central to this argument is indeed the indirect effects of deliberative communication on civic engagement through self-efficacy, as the former can “increase participants’ political efficacy . . . raise participants’ interest in politics . . . and increase the frequency of participants’ political information seeking and political activity” (Gastil, 2000: 117–118).

Furthermore, the theory of planned behavior argues that it is the personal sense of control and feelings of self-efficacy that initiate behavior (Ajzen, 1991, 2012; Bandura, 1977; Krampen, 2000; Steinmetz et al., 2016). It is evident in international surveys that citizenship self-efficacy is conducive to adolescents’ expectations to participate in civic activities (Manganelli et al., 2015; Schulz et al., 2010). In relation to political deliberation, a study on potential factors affecting environmental opinion leadership behaviors (i.e. informing the public about environmental issues) finds that individuals’ willingness to communicate with others on public issues is indeed predicted by self-efficacy (Dalrymple et al., 2013). Based on the findings of a deliberative field experiment on Michigan Medicaid program, Myers et al. (2020) suggest that public deliberation does not necessarily increase and broaden political engagement, as it may only occur in particularly intensive, directly empowered forms of public deliberation.

In the field of political education, there is evidence to support the view that the effects of an open classroom climate and civic education strategy on students’ civic participation are mediated by political self-efficacy (Manganelli et al., 2015; Maurissen, 2020). Similarly, in the field of media research, passive political media use, such as political late-night comedy, satire, and traditional TV news (Hoffman and Thomson, 2009; Hoffman and Young, 2011; Long et al., 2020), as well as the proactive form, such as sharing political information on social media (Halpern et al., 2017), are found to be positively associated with civic engagement through political self-efficacy. In addition to online political communication, offline interpersonal political discussion is found to have similar mediating effects (Chan et al., 2017; Jung et al., 2011).

While empirical studies in the past decade have indicated the significance of political self-efficacy as a mediator of the association between deliberative communication and the willingness to participate in civic activities, many are limited to actual activities of political discussion, sharing and information acquisition as measured by frequency. Based on Weinmann’s (2018) measurement of political deliberation, in this study we regard deliberative thinking as a core citizenship competence or inherent characteristic alongside political self-efficacy, that is, how well one has considered the diverse concerns underlying issues and how others prioritize issues differently.

Social Capital as a Moderating Factor

Citizens’ deliberative actions take place in certain social contexts. Scholars have found that benefits of deliberation are unclear when participants cannot clearly determine the veracity of others’ viewpoints (Przeworski, 1998). Studies have also showed that putting members from disparate social backgrounds together may exacerbate conflicts and prejudices (Bettencourt and Dorr, 1998; Miller and Davidson-Podgorny, 1987). In this connection, another empirical issue that this study attempts to address is the role of social capital in shaping citizens’ willingness and ability to participate in public affairs. Although deliberative thinking is expected to be relevant to civic participation, whether such effects remain present in a social setting that lacks trust is unclear.

While the concept was originally used to describe the collective characteristics of social coherence in terms of general social trust and connectedness through social networks and organization membership (Putnam, 1993, 2000), a number of empirical studies at the individual level have also confirmed that individuals who are more trusting and connected tend to be more engaged in democracy than those who are not (Booth and Richard, 1998; Cohen and Rogers, 1992; Dowley and Silver, 2002; Gibson, 2001; Mishler and Rose, 2005), especially given their relatively greater political self-efficacy (Erickson and Nosanchuk, 1990; Olsen, 1972; Verba et al., 1995) and knowledge (Ikeda et al., 2003), as well as higher degree of civic participation (Ikeda et al., 2003; Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993; Verba and Nie, 1972). This is perhaps not surprising as individuals with strong ties to the community tend to have a greater degree of access to and confidence in community resources. It is found that community integration, or a sense of community, is closely related to feelings of personal and group efficacy, ultimately promoting participation in public affairs (Chavis and Wandersman, 1990; McLeod et al., 2001).

Following the social capital argument, researchers have explored how social trust and networks, in addition to promoting civic participation directly, mediate the latter’s relationship with unemployment (Lorenzini and Giugni, 2012), ethnicity (Bevelander and Pendakur, 2007), and multimodal communication (Chan, 2018). More pertinently, Choi and Shin (2017) find that while both social capital and the use of social media to express opinions or acquire trusted information promote civic engagement, the latter two exert differential effects on civic participation, depending on the individual’s level of social capital, rather than having an equal impact on civic participation. As they noted, studies based on linear causality ignore that the impact of political use of media communication on civic participation could differ depending on social capital factors and that citizens already hold pre-existing levels of social capital in reality.

In this study, we will also explore whether social capital has such moderating effects on political self-efficacy and civic participation. Instead of applying social capital in the association model of this study as a mediator, we are more interested in its potential moderating effects that magnify the hypothesized pathways to civic participation, especially in relation to self-efficacy as well as political deliberation. It is hoped that such an approach can present a new perspective in this field of study, with special attention to how differently political deliberation will function to promote self-efficacy and civic participation in those with and without sufficient social capital as a conducive context.

Research Hypotheses

Based on the above conceptual framework, we propose the following research hypotheses to examine the roles deliberative thinking and self-efficacy play in fostering civic participation (including community participation and socio-political participation), as well as the significance of social capital in moderating those associations (Figure 1):

Direct association hypothesis

1.1. Hypothesis 1 (H1). Higher levels of political deliberation are associated with higher levels of socio-political participation.

1.2. Hypothesis 2 (H2). Higher levels of political deliberation are associated with higher levels of community participation.

1.3. Hypothesis 3 (H3). Higher levels of political deliberation are associated with higher levels of political self-efficacy.

1.4. Hypothesis 4 (H4). Political self-efficacy is associated with higher levels of community participation.

1.5. Hypothesis 5 (H5). Political self-efficacy is associated with higher levels of socio-political participation.

Mediating effect hypothesis

2.1. Hypothesis 6 (H6). Political self-efficacy would mediate the association between political deliberation and community participation.

2.2. Hypothesis 7 (H7). Political self-efficacy would mediate the association between political deliberation and socio-political participation.

Moderating effect hypothesis

3.1. Hypothesis 8 (H8). Social capital would moderate the association between political deliberation and political self-efficacy.

3.2. Hypothesis 9 (H9). Social capital would moderate the association between political deliberation and socio-political participation.

3.3. Hypothesis 10 (H10). Social capital would moderate the association between political deliberation and community participation.

3.4. Hypothesis 11 (H11). Social capital would moderate the association between political self-efficacy and socio-political participation.

3.5. Hypothesis 12 (H12). Social capital would moderate the association between political self-efficacy and community participation.

Figure 1.

Research SEM Model.

Method

Participants and Procedure

In early June 2020, we invited participants studying in higher education institutions (HEIs) in Taiwan to take part in a self-administered online survey. We randomly selected three universities from four different regions of Taiwan (North, East, Middle, and South) and online questionnaires were distributed to each university. The final dataset was collected from the 12 universities, including 8 public HEIs and 4 private HEIs. Out of the 1600 questionnaires distributed, 980 were returned, yielding a response rate of 61.25%. To identify careless responses and ensure a high-quality dataset, we used two qualifiers and only included those who finished the whole survey in 10 minutes or more, resulting in a final sample of 865 respondents (559 females, 64.60%; M_age = 20.18, SD_age = 1.40, age range = 18–24 years).

Measures

Table 1 shows the detailed corresponding scale items used to measure each variable including political deliberation, political self-efficacy, community and socio-socio political participation, and social capital, along with background variables.

Table 1.

Summary of Constructs and Its Corresponding Scale Items.

Construct	Items	Minimum	Maximum	Means	SE	SD	Variance
Community participation	1. I belong to/collaborate with an NGO, association, or social collective (e.g. neighborhood association, cultural society, PTA, volunteer group, sports club, etc.)	1	5	3.26	0.038	1.112	1.237
	2. I attend meetings/activities organized by an NGO, or other association (e.g. neighborhood association, cultural society, PTA, volunteer group, sports club, etc.)	1	5	3.17	0.037	1.096	1.201
	3. I actively defend my point of view in conversations on social issues and current affairs (neighborhood, employment, ecology, etc.)	1	5	3.35	0.036	1.070	1.144
	4. I attend talks or debates on social issues and current affairs (neighborhood, employment, ecology, etc.)	1	5	3.40	0.035	1.028	1.056
	5. I take part in activities organized in my neighborhood, community and/or city (bike trails, recreational community activities, street parties, etc.)	1	5	3.15	0.034	0.988	.977
Socio-political participation	1. I sign petitions, asking for social change (protest, to help other collectives, change in laws, etc.)	1	5	3.78	0.037	1.082	1.171
	2. I am a member of/collaborate in meetings/activities organized by trade unions or political parties.	1	5	3.18	0.036	1.066	1.136
	3. I actively participate in the various electoral processes (vote, attend rallies, know the election manifestos of the parties, etc.)	1	5	4.00	0.034	1.000	1.021
	4. I take part in activities/actions that promote social change (demonstrations, protest action, etc.).	1	5	2.65	0.036	1.054	1.110
	5. I participate in organizing activities/actions that promote social change (send out leaflets, give informative talks, etc.)	1	5	3.33	0.034	1.011	1.002
Political Deliberation	1. I have sought out opportunities to learn of others’ experiences and relevant expert analyses.	1	5	3.99	0.027	0.807	0.652
Political Deliberation	2. I have considered the diverse concerns underlying issues and how others prioritize issues differently.	1	5	4.03	0.027	0.792	0.627
	3. I have learned about how I and others think about addressing a problem.	1	5	3.77	0.028	0.819	0.671
	4. I have reassessed my biases favoring or opposing different solutions.	1	5	3.92	0.027	0.802	0.643
	5. After listening to the advice of experts, partisans, and others I have taken responsibility for making up my own mind about the topic.	1	5	3.85	0.029	0.862	0.743
	6. I have simulated several opinions about the topic.	1	5	3.86	0.029	0.844	0.713
	7. I have thought about arguments for and against my own as well as others’ opinions about the topic.	1	5	4.02	0.028	0.827	0.684
	8. I have evaluated the arguments that speak for and against my own as well as for and against others’ opinions.	1	5	3.92	0.029	0.846	0.716
Social proactivity	1. Have you ever picked up other people’s rubbish in a public place?	1	4	2.43	0.028	0.815	0.664
	2. Do you go outside your local community to visit your family?	1	4	2.59	0.032	0.927	0.860
	3. If you need information to make a life decision, do you know where to find that information?	1	4	2.83	0.027	0.788	0.620
	4. If you disagree with what everyone else agreed on, would you feel free to speak out?	1	4	2.60	0.030	0.882	0.778
	5. If you have a dispute with your neighbors (e.g., over fences or dogs) are you willing to seek mediation?	1	4	2.80	0.024	0.711	0.505
Social trust	1. Do you feel safe walking down your street after dark?	1	4	2.67	0.026	0.760	0.577
	2. Do you agree that most people can be trusted?	1	4	2.80	0.023	0.674	0.455
	3. If someone’s car breaks down outside your house, do you invite them into your home to use the phone?	1	4	2.17	0.026	0.763	0.583
	4. Does your area have a reputation for being a safe place?	1	4	2.93	0.023	0.681	0.464
	5. Does your local community feel like home?	1	4	2.89	0.025	0.737	0.543
Political self-efficacy	1. Promote public initiatives to support political programs that you believe are just.	1	5	3.34	0.039	1.153	1.329
	2. Maintain personal relationships with representatives of national government authorities.	1	5	2.63	0.040	1.189	1.413
	3. Promote effective activities of information and mobilization in your own community (of work, friends, and family), to sustain political programs in which you believe.	1	5	2.78	0.040	1.170	1.369
	4. Use the means you have as a citizen to critically monitor the actions of your political representatives	1	5	2.94	0.041	1.197	1.433

SE: standard error; SD: standard deviation; NGO: non-governmental organization.

Political Deliberation

A “Deliberation Within” scale was measured with four validated items (Weinmann, 2018). Eight items were carefully translated and back-translated by separate Chinese–English bilinguals and the final Chinese version was approved by two linguist cross raters. The respondents were asked whether each item (e.g. Promote public initiatives to support political programs that you believe are just) could describe their political deliberation (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = totally agree). The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.943.

Political Self-Efficacy

Political self-efficacy scale was measured according to four validated items (Vecchione et al., 2014). The items were carefully translated and back-translated by separate Chinese–English bilinguals and the final Chinese version was approved by two linguist cross raters. Respondents indicated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (totally agree), the level with which they have perceived their political self-efficacy (e.g. Promote public initiatives to support political programs that you believe are just) could describe their internal political efficacy. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.883.

Community and Socio-Political Participation

A community and socio-political participation scale was assessed by a Chinese version of the 10-item global citizenship scale (Moreno-Jiménez et al., 2013). All items were carefully translated and back-translated by separate Chinese–English bilinguals, and inconsistencies were resolved in a final discussion of the translation. The respondents indicated on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very often) the extent to which they engage in community participation (five items; α = 0.906) and socio-political participation (five items; α = 0.889). A sample item tapping community participation is “I belong to/collaborate with an NGO, association or social collective, such as neighborhood association, cultural society, PTA, volunteer group, sports club, etc.” A sample item regarding socio-political participation is “I sign petitions, asking for social change, such as protest, to help other collectives, change in laws, etc.”

Social Capital

We used the validated Chinese version of the social capital scale, which is designed to measure important aspects of social proactivity (five items) and social trust (five items) (Chen et al., 2007; Onyx and Bullen, 2000). Participants rated each item on a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). A sample item of social proactivity asks: “If you disagree with what everyone else agreed on, would you feel free to speak out?,” and one of social trust states “My social relationships are supportive and rewarding.” The Cronbach’s alpha α = 0.642 and 0.760, respectively. Normally the accepted value of Cronbach’s alpha α is 0.70, however, some recent studies have also found that values above 0.60 are also acceptable (Taber, 2018; van Griethuijsen et al., 2015). Due to the modest reliability of two constructs, its results should be interpreted and discussed with caution.

Background Variables

The questionnaire also consisted of demographic information, including respondents’ age, gender, the region of hukou (certifying that the holder is a legal resident of a particular area; that is, Northern, Middle, Southern, Eastern, Western regions and Outer Islands in Taiwan), household income and perceived social class status, which is an indicator of socioeconomic status.

Data Analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS 27.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and Mplus 8.3. We first examined the descriptive statistics among all variables before proceeding to test our proposed model. Second, we examined the discriminant and convergent validity of the measurement model with a series of conﬁrmatory factor analyses (CFA). Following the CFA analyses, a latent mediation analysis was conducted to determine whether the relationship between political deliberation and community/socio-political would be mediated among Taiwanese undergraduate students. The model fit was also assessed by chi-square (χ²) index, a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), a comparative fit index (CFI), a Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and a standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). We also executed 5000 bootstrapped resamples for bootstrapped mediation test. Finally, we also further examine the coefficient of the mediated moderation effect of social capital on the relationships between political deliberation and political self-efficacy, as well as between political deliberation and community/socio-political participation.

Results

Descriptive Profile

Table 2 displays descriptive statistics for our variables of interest. In terms of gender, 35.4% respondents were male and 64.6% were female. The age of most respondents was 19 (27.5%) and the others were 20 (27.2%), 21(20.0%), 22(10.9%), 18 (8.4%) 23 and above 23 (6.0 %). As for household income, 16.1% identified their income as TWD 70,000 to 99,999, 15.5% TWD 100,000 to 199,999, 15.5% TWD 50,000 to $69,999, 12.7% TWD 30,000 to 49,999, 8.5% indicated an income below 30,000, 5.1% indicated an income above TWD 200,000, and 3.6% reported no household income. After household income, in regards to perceived social class status, 62.9% respondents identified as middle class, 17.2% lower middle class, 15.0% upper middle class, 4.2% lower class, and 0.7% identifying as upper class. In terms of hukou, 34.0% reported living in the Middle region of Taiwan, 32.5 % in the North region, 27.9% in the South region, 1.0% in the East region, and a total of 4.6% in the Outer Island and other.

Table 2.

Survey Respondent Profile (N = 865).

Variables	Category	Frequency	%
Gender	Male	306	35.4
Gender	Female	559	64.6
Age (years)	18	73	8.4
	19	238	27.5
	20	235	27.2
	21	173	20.0
	22	94	10.9
	23	27	3.1
	24	25	2.9
Hukou	Northern region	281	32.5
	Middle region	294	34.0
	Southern region	241	27.9
	Eastern region	9	1.0
	Outer Islands	24	2.8
	Other	16	1.8
Household income	No income	31	3.6
	Below TWD 15,000	20	2.3
	TWD 15,000 to 30,000	54	6.2
	TWD 30,000 to 50,000	110	12.7
	TWD 50,000 to $70,000	134	15.5
	TWD 70,000 to 100,000	139	16.1
	TWD 100,000 to 200,000	134	15.5
	TWD 200,000 to 300,000	20	2.3
	TWD above 300,000	24	2.8
	Unknown	199	23
Perceived social class status	Lower class	36	4.2
	Lower middle class	149	17.2
	Middle class	544	62.9
	Upper middle class	130	15.0
	Upper class	6	0.7

CFA Analysis

This study employed a CFA to test composite reliability (CR), convergent validity, and discriminant validity. First, as shown in Table 4, the CFA indicated that the standardized factor loadings of the 22 observed variables (ranging from 0.62–0.86) were statistically significant (t-value > 1.96), and all observed variables were greater than the 0.5 criterion, which suggested the data was properly fit in the proposed model (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1996). Second, the CR ranged from 0.81 to 0.94, and the average variance extracted (AVE) ranged from 0.47 to 0.70, three of which were higher than the recommended values of 0.60, other than the latent construct of socio-political participation (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Hence, the internal consistency of the research model was acceptable, and the scale items exhibited reliability and convergent validity. Following this analysis, a low correlation between the two constructs demonstrated discriminant validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). According to Anderson and Gerbing (1988), the correlation coefficients between constructs should be lower than the square root of the AVE. In this study, the figure ranged from 0.68 to 0.84 (see Table 3), which was higher than the inter-correlation coefficient between each of the constructs. Based on the rigorous examination of measurement criterion, most of the constructs met the academic standard of discriminant validity.

Table 3.

Squared Correlations for the Complete Sample and AVE (N = 865).

Construct	NI	SFL	CR [95% CI]	AVE[95% CI]	Correlation coefficient
Construct	NI	SFL	CR [95% CI]	AVE[95% CI]	Deli	EFF	CP	PP
Deli	8	0.796–0.858	0.944[0.927, 0.956]	0.677[0.613, 0.732]	0.823
EFF	4	0.785–0.855	0.885[0.852, 0.911]	0.659[0.591, 0.719]	0.403***	0.812
CP	5	0.781–0.898	0.920[0.900, 0.937]	0.698[0.643, 0.749]	0.509***	0.388***	0.835
PP	5	0.620–0.806	0.811[0.754, 0.854]	0.466[0.643, 0.749]	0.507***	0.563***	0.596***	0.683

NI: number of items; SFL: standardized factor loading; CR: composite validity; AVE: average variance extracted; Deli: political deliberation; EFF: political self-efficacy; CP: community participation; PP: socio-political participation.

***

p < 0.001.

Table 4.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for the Complete Sample.

Latent variables	M (SD)	UFL (SE)	SFL
Political deliberation
Deli1	3.99 (0.807)	1.000	0.796
Deli2	4.03 (0.792)	1.050 (0.064)	0.824
Deli3	3.77 (0.819)	1.065 (0.067)	0.805
Deli4	3.92 (0.802)	1.143 (0.066)	0.855
Deli5	3.85 (0.862)	1.180 (0.068)	0.857
Deli6	3.86 (0.844)	1.136 (0.065)	0.858
Deli7	4.02 (0.827)	1.138 (0.065)	0.849
Deli8	3.92 (0.846)	1.166 (0.068)	0.796
Political self-efficacy
EFF1	3.34 (1.153)	1.000	0.841
EFF2	2.63 (1.189)	0.972 (0.061)	0.785
EFF3	2.78 (1.170)	1.022 (0.057)	0.853
EFF4	2.94 (1.197)	1.039 (0.057)	0.855
Community participation
CP1	3.26 (1.112)	1.000	0.830
CP2	3.17 (1.096)	0.992 (0.053)	0.865
CP3	3.35 (1.070)	0.884 (0.055)	0.781
CP4	3.40 (1.028)	0.984 (0.050)	0.898
CP5	3.15 (0.988)	0.937 (0.052)	0.849
Socio-political participation
PP1	3.78 (1.082)	1.000	0.678
PP2	3.18 (1.066)	1.129 (0.098)	0.779
PP3	4.00 (1.010)	0.896 (0.091)	0.645
PP4	2.65 (1.054)	0.943 (0.099)	0.620
PP5	3.33 (1.001)	1.143 (0.097)	0.806

M (SD): means (standard deviation); USF (SE): unstandardized factor loadings (standard error); SFL: standardized factor loadings; Deli: political deliberation; EFF: political self-efficacy; CP: community participation; PP: socio-political participation.

SEM with Latent Mediation Analysis

To account for the shared association among predictors in the latent mediation model estimated, the political deliberation variable was included in the model for political self-efficacy (mediator) and community and socio-political participation (outcomes). All model coefficients are shown in Table 5. With 204 degrees of freedom, it produced a normed chi-square of 3.63 (p < 0.001), an RMSEA of 0.086, a CFI of 0.905, a TLI of 0.900, and an SRMR of 0.063. All of these indicators are regarded as an acceptable fit for the data (Kline, 2005). In order to test Hypotheses 1 to 5, we followed Baron and Kenny’s (1986) suggestion to assess the first condition of mediation. The standardized direct association indicated that political deliberation is positively and signiﬁcantly related to political self-efficacy (β = 0.40, p < 0.01), community participation (β = 0.42, p < 0.01) and socio-political participation (β = 0.33, p < 0.01); political self-efficacy is signiﬁcantly related to community participation (β = 0.22, p < 0.01) and socio-political participation (β = 0.43, p < 0.01). Therefore, Hypotheses 1 to 5 were all supported (Table 6). For Hypotheses 6 and 7, we assessed the indirect associations of mediation with percentile and bias-corrected percentile bootstrapping based upon 5000 bootstrapping resamples at a 95% conﬁdence interval. We estimated the lower and upper bounds of conﬁdence intervals to investigate whether the mediating relations were signiﬁcant. The bootstrapping test results identify the positive and signiﬁcant indirect association of political self-efficacy on the relationship between political deliberation and community participation (β = 0.088, p < 0.01, bias-corrected 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.083, 0.0183]) and between political deliberation and socio-political participation (β = 0.193, p < 0.01, bias-corrected 95% CI = [0.143, 0.244]). As a result, Hypotheses 6 and 7 were supported (Table 6; Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Standardized structural equation model with maximum-likelihood (ML) estimation.

Table 5.

Bootstrapping Analyses of the Hypothesized Model.

	Regression weights (β)	SE	Bootstrapping method				Two-tailed signiﬁcance
			Percentile 95% CI		Bias-corrected percentile 95% CI		Two-tailed signiﬁcance
			Lower	Upper	Lower	Upper
Standardized direct association
H1:Deli → PP	0.334	0.048	0.241	0.428	0.241	0.428	0.000***
H2:Deli → CP	0.421	0.036	0.351	0.491	0.351	0.491	0.000***
H3:Deli → EFF	0.403	0.036	0.333	0.473	0.333	0.473	0.000***
H4:EFF → CP	0.219	0.039	0.143	0.295	0.143	0.295	0.000***
H5:EFF → PP	0.428	0.046	0.337	0.519	0.337	0.519	0.000***
Standardized indirect association
H6:Deli → EFF → CP	0.088	0.018	0.080	0.181	0.083	0.183	0.000***
H7:Deli → EFF → PP	0.173	0.024	0.139	0.240	0.143	0.244	0.000***

SE: standard error; EFF: political self-efficacy; CP: community participation; PP: socio-political participation. N = 865. Standardized estimation of 5000 bootstrap samples.

***p < 0.001.

Table 6.

Results of Hypothesis Testing.

Association type	Hypothesis	Path	Result
Direct Association	H1	Deli → PP	Accepted
	H2	Deli → CP	Accepted
	H3	Deli → EFF	Accepted
	H4	EFF → CP	Accepted
	H5	EFF → PP	Accepted
Mediating effect	H6	Deli → EFF → CP	Accepted
Mediating effect	H7	Deli → EFF → PP	Accepted
Moderating effect	H8	Moderating effect on the relationship between deli and EFF	Accepted
	H9	Moderating effect on the relationship between deli and PP	Rejected
	H10	Moderating effect on the relationship between deli and CP	Accepted
	H11	Moderating effect on the relationship between EFF and PP	Rejected
	H12	Moderating effect on the relationship between EFF and CP	Rejected

Deli: political Deliberation; PP: socio-political participation; CP: community participation; EFF: political self-efficacy.

SEM with Latent Moderation Analysis

We constrained the path of political deliberation to political self-efficacy, the path of political deliberation to community participation, and the path of political deliberation to socio-political participation to assess the moderating effects of social capital, indicated by social proactivity and social trust. The result showed that social capital significantly moderated the association between political deliberation and political self-efficacy, β = 0.057, SE = 0.013, t = 4.453, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.032, 0.082]; community participation, β = 0.033, SE = 0.013, t = 2.617, p = 0.009, 95% CI = [0.008, 0.058]; while not moderating the association between political deliberation and socio-political participation, β = 0.015, SE = 0.021, t = 0.740, p = 0.459, 95% CI = [–0.025, 0.056].

Furthermore, we constrained the path of political self-efficacy to community participation, and the path of political self-efficacy to socio-political participation to verify the moderating effects of social capital. The result demonstrated that social capital did not significantly moderate the association between political self-efficacy and socio-political participation, β = 0.049, SE = 0.030, t = 1.606, p = 0.108, 95% CI = [–0.011, 0.108], nor did it significantly moderate the association between political self-efficacy and community participation, β = 0.027, SE = 0.022, t = 1.211, p = 0.226, 95% CI = [–0.017, 0.070]. Table 6 also revealed the moderating effects of binary levels (high and low levels) of social capital on the relation between political deliberation and political self-efficacy, as well as between political deliberation and community participation. As a result, Hypotheses 8 and 10 were confirmed (Table 6).

Discussion and Implications

The first finding of this study pertains to the positive association of deliberative thinking to political self-efficacy, community participation and socio-political participation in Taiwan, on top of a positive association among the latter three. This study resonates with traditional political studies on political self-efficacy and civic participation (Acock et al., 1985; Asher, 1974; Balch, 1974; Converse, 1972; Craig, 1979; Craig and Maggiotto, 1982 ; Lane, 1959; Niemi et al., 1991) and adds the observation that deliberative thinking is also instrumental in motivating citizens to take part in public affairs. More importantly, respondents who are active in public affairs are not just those who regard themselves as capable of understanding and influencing decision making, but also those who are willing and able to communicate with others of different opinions and interests. This suggests, at least among young university students, passion of participation in public affairs is bolstered by growing skills and motivation of deliberation in Taiwan. In other words, civic participation on the part of university students in Taiwan can be seen as deliberative in nature. For example, on 30 March 2014, a grass-roots social movement including university students and civil society actors gathered outside the Presidential Office in Taipei to protest a trade deal with China. The supporters of the movement, which subsequently came to be known as the “Sunflower Movement,” have been described as embodying “an awakening of civil society within Taiwan” and the emergence of “a third political force” in Taiwanese politics (Lowther, 2014). The protests reshaped and shifted Taiwanese people’s attention to precipitating institutional forms of politics, joining existing political parties, or even establishing new ones, which presents significant ramifications for maintaining and facilitating the democratization in Taiwan. It perhaps manifests a “deliberative turn” in the paradigm of university students’ civic participation going beyond “competitive elitist democracy” or “aggregative democracy” (Dryzek, 2000).

Since Taiwan became democratic in 1990, in addition to many elections, abundant social activities have served as channels for political participation. During the process of its burgeoning political participation, heated debates over a variety of issues have become increasingly commonplace, such as the cross-strait relationship with Mainland China, nuclear power and the abolishment of the death penalty. It is argued that such debate is, in fact, a search for a solution acceptable to all (Bohman, 1996; Elster, 1998; Guttmann and Thompson, 2004). This search may also manifest in the various ways that interest groups and university students engage in the discourse, including TV debates and online forums (Parkinson, 2006). All have contributed to the normalization of rational public discourse and furthered the public consensus (Fearon, 1998; Habermas, 1998; McAfee, 2004; Mouffe, 2000). The findings of this study therefore identify the maturation of democracy in Taiwan in terms of the practice of deliberation in civil society and enlightened reforms in liberal art education that encourage students’ enthusiasm, as well as tolerance, self-reflection and willingness to communicate with fellow citizens in civic participation.

Another finding of this study is in relation to the mediating effects of political self-efficacy between deliberative thinking and civic participation. While both political self-efficacy and deliberative thinking are found to be closely interrelated and helpful in fostering civic participation, the former is considered by the authors to be a more significant factor in the association model, as the latter predicts civic participation largely through it. This lends support to one of the theory of planned behavior’s central premises which holds that the initiation of behavior is predicated on personal sense of control and feelings of self-efficacy (Ajzen, 1991; Bandura, 1977; Dalrymple et al., 2013; Krampen, 2000). This implies if those who are willing and able to communicate with others do not perceive themselves as capable of influencing decision making in public affairs, they may remain unwilling to participate in the process. The samples of this study were collected from an educational setting where the background of respondents is relatively homogeneous. Yet, it must be noted that the role of political self-efficacy is still unneglectable. The practical implication is that apart from educational reforms that promote deliberative thinking, the capacity of the political system itself to engage citizens from different backgrounds is an issue that should not be overlooked in future endeavors to promote inclusive democracy.

The third finding of this study supports the claim that deliberative thinking and self-efficacy are moderated through social capital in their association with community participation (the less formal or electoral dimensions of civic participation). The moderating models in this study suggest that when social capital is lower, those willing to communicate with others are less likely to regard themselves as efficacious and active in community affairs. Considering the established positive association of deliberative thinking to civic participation, this finding does not reject deliberative thinking as an important driver of civic participation, but rather highlights the social conditions for such a motivator to become less effective. This echoes Choi and Shin’s (2017) finding on the moderating effects of social capital on the association between political communication on social media, but we extend the measurement of the concept of political deliberation to the inclination to communicate with others, beyond the frequency those communicative actions. Theoretically, there are other potential moderating factors such as respondents’ gender and income, but their moderating effects are not found in any established correlations in this study. This underscores the relative significance of social capital in conditioning the effects of community participation as a motivating factor as compared to other background factors.

Notably, no moderating effects of social capital are found between political self-efficacy and any forms of civic participation. Our correlation coefficient test shows that social capital is highly correlated to all of the other variables (deliberative thinking, political self-efficacy and civic participation), which is in line with previous mainstream studies on the significance of social capital in fostering citizenship (Chavis and Wandersman, 1990; McLeod et al., 2001; Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993; Verba and Nie, 1972). However, our moderated model additionally notes that the role social capital plays in civic participation remains somewhat unclear, especially when political self-efficacy is taken into consideration. The joint association of political trust and self-efficacy to political mobilization has long been observed by researchers (Fraser, 1970; Gamson, 1968). A previous study using European Social Survey data on civic participation (Hooghe and Marien, 2013) found that the positive association of political trust is dependent on self-confidence regarding one’s capability of understanding politics. This study generates similar results using measurements for general social trust.

Research Limitations

Despite the abovementioned contributions to academic and practical discussion, there are several research limitations in this study. First, while the sample has included every region of Taiwan by proportion of their population sizes, this study is not fully cross-sectional as the sampling of research subjects was limited to university students. The results may therefore not be entirely representative of the overall democratic life of citizens from all backgrounds in the country. For instance, age is widely considered a significant controlling factor of civic participation but is lacking in our model. Second, this study is only a snapshot of 2020 and lacks tracking data to generate any comparable longitudinal results. Moreover, as a result of the first limitation regarding the lack of cross-sectional data, our findings should be interpreted as mainly associative rather than causative. Based on this study, future research efforts may extend the scope to the general population and track the time-series difference.

Conclusion

In sum, deliberative thinking represents a characteristic which has become closely related with political self-efficacy among active participants of public affairs in Taiwan, as it should be in a mature democracy. At the same time, the results of this study indicate that political self-efficacy remains a primary driver of civic participation as its association with deliberative thinking is largely subject to the mediating effects of the former and the moderating effects of social capital.

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 iD

Chao-Lung Liu

Author Biographies

Ming-Lun Chung is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Public Affairs and Civic Education, National Changhua University of Education (Taiwan), currently conducting research on issues of youth political participation and subjective well-being as well as social policy with reference to older adults well-being and welfare needs in Taiwan.

Dr Ken Ka-wo Fung is based in the Department of Social Work, Soochow University, Taipei, Taiwan. His research interests encompass welfare policy, youth studies and education. Prior to entering academia, he was a policy researcher in the Hong Kong legislature.

Eric MP Chiu is a Distinguished Professor at the Graduate Institute of National Policy and Public Affairs at the National Chung Hsing University in Taiwan. His research concentrates on how political regimes interact with macroeconomic stability such as currency crises and international capital movement, with specific focus on emerging market economies.

Chao-Lung Liu is an Associate Professor at the Department of Public Affairs and Civic Education, National Changhua University of Education (Taiwan), carrying out work on issues of local governance and democratic governance.

References

Abramson

(1983) Political Attitudes in America: Formation and Change. New York: Freeman and Company Press.

Abramson

Aldrich

(1982) The Decline of Electoral Participation in America. American Political Science Review 76 (3): 502–521.

Acock

Clarke

Stewart

(1985) A New Model for Old Measures: A Covariance Structure Analysis of Political Efficacy. The Journal of Politics 47 (4): 1062–1084. Available at: https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2130807

Ajzen

(1991) The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 (2): 179–211.

Ajzen

(2012) The Theory of Planned Behavior. In: Lange

PAM

Kruglanski

Higgins

(Eds) Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, vol. 1. London: SAGE Publishing, pp.438–459.

Aleksandra

Schwarzer

Lippke

, et al. (2011) Self-Efficacy as a Moderator of the Planning-Behaviour Relationship in Interventions Designed to Promote Physical Activity. Psychology and Health 26 (2): 151–166.

Almond

Verba

(1963) The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Anderson

Gerbing

(1988) Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3): 411–423.

Anderson

(2010) Community Psychology, Political Efficacy and Trust. Political Psychology 31: 59–84.

10.

Asher

(1974) The Reliability of the Political Efficacy Items. Political Methodology 1 (2): 45–72. Available at: https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/25791376

11.

Bächtiger

Dryzek

Mansbridge

, et al. (2018) The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

12.

Bagozzi

(1988) On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16 (1): 74–94.

13.

Balch

(1974) Multiple Indicators in Survey Research: The Concept “Sense of Political Efficacy.” Political Methodology 1 (2): 1–43. Available at: https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/25791375

14.

Bandura

(1977) Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review 84 (2): 191–215.

15.

Baron

Kenny

(1986) The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6): 1173–1182.

16.

Beauvais

Baechtiger

(2016) Taking the Goals of Deliberation Seriously: A Differentiated View on Equality and Equity in Deliberative Designs and Processes. Journal of Public Deliberation 12 (2): 1–20.

17.

Bettencourt

Dorr

(1998) Cooperative Interaction and Intergroup Bias: Effects of Numerical Representation and Cross-Cut Role. Assignment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24 (12): 1276–1293.

18.

Bevelander

Pendakur

(2007) Minorities, Social Capital and Voting. IZA DP no. 2928. Available at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp2928.pdf

19.

Bohman

(1996) Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

20.

Booth

Richard

(1998) Civil Society, Political Capital, and Democratization in Central America. The Journal of Politics 60 (3): 780–800. Available at: https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2647648

21.

Campbell

Gurin Wand Miller

(1954) The Voter Decides. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

22.

Caprara

Vecchione

Capanna

, et al. (2009) Perceived Political Self-Efficacy: Theory, Assessment, and Applications. European. Journal of Social Psychology 39 (6): 1002–1020.

23.

Chan

(2018) Digital Communications and Psychological Well-Being across the Life Span: Examining the Intervening Roles of Social Capital and Civic Engagement. Telematics and Informatics 35 (6): 1744–1754.

24.

Chan

Chen

Lee

(2017) Examining the Roles of Mobile and Social Media in Political Participation: A Cross-National Analysis of Three Asian Societies Using a Communication Mediation Approach. New Media & Society 19 (12): 2003–2021.

25.

Chavis

Wandersman

(1990) Sense of Community in the Urban Environment: A Catalyst for Participation and Community Development. American Journal of Community Psychology 18 (1): 55–82.

26.

Chen

M-H

Chang

Y-C

Hung

(2007) Social Capital and Creativity in R&D Project Teams. R and D Management 38 (1): 21–34.

27.

Choi

Shin

(2017) A Dialectic Perspective on the Interactive Relationship between Social Media and Civic Participation: The Moderating Role of Social Capital. Information, Communication & Society 20 (2): 151–166.

28.

Cohen

Rogers

(1992) Secondary Associations and Democratic Governance. Politics and Society 20 (4): 393–472.

29.

Condon

Holleque

(2013) Entering Politics: General Self-Efficacy and Voting Behavior among Young People. Political Psychology 34 (2): 167–181.

30.

Converse

(1972) Change in the American Electorate. In: Campbell

Converse

(eds) The Human Meaning of Social Change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp.263–338.

31.

Craig

(1979) Efficacy, Trust, and Political Behavior: An Attempt to Resolve a Lingering Conceptual Dilemma. American Politics Quarterly 7 (2): 225–239.

32.

Craig

Maggiotto

(1982) Measuring Political Efficacy. Political Methodology 8 (3): 85–109. Available at: https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/25791157

33.

Craig

Niemi

Silver

(1990) Political Efficacy and Trust: A Report on the NES Pilot Study Items. Political Behavior 12 (3): 289–314. Available at: https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/586303

34.

Dahl

(1998) On Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

35.

Dalrymple

Bret

Brossard

(2013) Following the Leader: Using Opinion Leaders in Environmental Strategic Communication. Society & Natural Resources 26 (12): 1438–1453.

36.

Dalton

(2014) Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

37.

della Porta

Diani

(2006) Social Movements: An Introduction, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.

38.

Dowley

Silver

(2002) Social Capital, Ethnicity and Support for Democracy in the Post-communist States. Europe-Asia Studies 54 (4): 505–527. Available at: https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/826422

39.

Dryzek

(2000) Deliberative Democracy and beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

40.

Easton

Dennis

(1967) The Child’s Acquisition of Regime Norms: Political Efficacy. American Political Science Review 61 (1): 25–38. Available at: https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/1953873

41.

Elster

(1998.) Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

42.

Endersby

Petrocik

Shaw

(2006) Electoral Mobilization in the United States. In: Katz

Crotty

(eds) Handbook of Party Politics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing, pp.316–336.

43.

Erickson

Nosanchuk

(1990) How an Apolitical Association Politicizes. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 27 (2): 206–219.

44.

Fearon

(1998) Deliberation as Discussion. In: Elster

(ed.) Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.44–68.

45.

Finkel

(1985) Reciprocal Effects of Participation and Political Efficacy: A Panel Analysis. American Journal of Political Science 29 (4): 891–913. Available at: https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2111186

46.

Finkel

(1987) The Effects of Participation on Political Efficacy and Political Support: Evidence from a West German Panel. Journal of Politics 49 (2): 441–464. Available at: https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2131308

47.

Fishkin

(2011) When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

48.

Fraser

(1970) The Mistrustful-Efficacious Hypothesis and Political Participation. Journal of Politics 32 (2): 444–449. Available at: https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2128662

49.

Gamson

(1968) Power and Discontent. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

50.

Gastil

(2000) By Popular Demand: Revitalizing Representative Democracy through Deliberative Elections, Illustrated edn. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

51.

Gastil

Dillard

(1999) Increasing Political Sophistication through Public Deliberation. Political Communication 16: 3–23.

52.

Gastil

Xenos

(2010) Of Attitudes and Engagement: Clarifying the Reciprocal Relationship between Civic Attitudes and Political Participation. Journal of Communication 60: 318–343.

53.

Gastil

Deess

Weiser

, et al. (2008) Jury Service and Electoral Participation: A Test of the Participation Hypothesis. The Journal of Politics 70 (2): 351–367.

54.

Gibson

(2001) Elections Online: Assessing Internet Voting in Light of the Arizona Democratic Primary. Political Science Quarterly 116 (4): 561–583. Available at: https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/798221

55.

Ginsberg

Weissberg

(1978) Elections and the Mobilization of Popular Support. American Journal of Political Science 22 (1): 31–55. Available at: https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2110668

56.

Gutmann

Thompson

(1996) Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

57.

Guttmann

Thompson

(2004) Why Deliberative Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

58.

Halpern

Valenzuela

Katz

(2017) We Face, I Tweet: How Different Social Media Influence Political Participation through Collective and Internal Efficacy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 22 (6): 320–336.

59.

Habermas

(1994) Three Normative Models of Democracy. Constitutionalism and Democracy 1 (1): 1–10.

60.

Habermas

(1998) The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

61.

Harris

Gillion

(2010) Expanding the Possibilities: Reconceptualizing Political Participation as a Toolbox. In: Leighley

(ed.) The Oxford Handbook of American Elections and Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.144–161.

62.

Hoffman

Thomson

(2009) The Effect of Television Viewing on Adolescents’ Civic Participation: Political Efficacy as a Mediating Mechanism. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 53 (1): 3–21.

63.

Hoffman

Young

(2011) Satire, Punch Lines, and the Nightly News: Untangling Media Effects on Political Participation. Communication Research Reports 28: 159–168.

64.

Homero

Diehl

Ardévol-Abreu

(2017) Internal, External, and Government Political Efficacy: Effects on News Use, Discussion, and Political Participation. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 61 (3): 574–596.

65.

Hooghe

Marien

(2013) A Comparative Analysis of the Relation between Political Trust and Forms of Political Participation in Europe. European Societies 15 (1): 131–152.

66.

Ikeda

Yamada

Masaru

(2003) Influence of Social Capital on Political Participation in Asian Cultural Context. Democracy Governance and Development Working Paper Series 10: 1–30.

67.

Jöreskog

Sörbom

(1996) LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

68.

Jung

Kim

de Zúñiga

(2011) The Mediating Role of Knowledge and Efficacy in the Effects of Communication on Political Participation. Mass Communication and Society 14 (4): 407–430.

69.

Kline

(2005) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Press.

70.

Krampen

(2000) Transition of Adolescent Political Action Orientations to Voting Behavior in Early Adulthood in View of a Social-Cognitive Action Theory Model of Personality. Political Psychology 21 (2): 277–299. Available at: https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/3791791

71.

Lane

(1959) Political Life: Why People Get Involved in Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

72.

Long

Jeong

Lavis

(2020) Political Comedy as a Gateway to News Use, Internal Efficacy, and Participation: A Longitudinal Mediation Analysis. Human Communication Research 47: 166–191.

73.

Lorenzini

Giugni

(2012) Employment Status, Social Capital, and Political Participation: A Comparison of Unemployed and Employed Youth in Geneva. Swiss Political Science Review 18: 332–351.

74.

Lowther

(2014) Sunflower Leaders Urge US to Drop “One China” Policy. Taipei Times, 23 August. Accessed at: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2014/08/23/2003598054 (accessed 18 April 2021).

75.

Mackie

(1998) All Men Are Liars: Is Democracy Meaningless?. In: Elster

(ed.) Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.69–96.

76.

Manganelli

Lucidi

Alivernini

(2015) Italian Adolescents’ Civic Engagement and Open Classroom Climate: The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 41: 8–18.

77.

Marx

Nguyen

(2016) Are the Unemployed Less Politically Involved? A Comparative Study of Internal Political Efficacy, European Sociological Review 32 (5): 634–648.

78.

Maurissen

(2020) Political Efficacy and Interest as Mediators of Expected Political Participation among Belgian Adolescents. Applied Developmental Science 24 (4): 339–353.

79.

McAfee

(2004) Three Models of Democratic Deliberation. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy: New Series 18 (1): 44–59. Available at: https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/25670496

80.

McLeod

Zubric

Keum

, et al. (2001) Reflecting and Connecting: Testing a Communication Mediation Model of Civic Participation. Paper Presented to the Communication Theory and Methodology Division; The Meeting of Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington, DC, 4–7 August.

81.

Miller

Davidson-Podgorny

(1987) Theoretical Models of Intergroup Relations and the Use of Cooperative Teams as an Intervention for Desegregated Settings. In: Hendrick

(ed.) Review of Personality and Social Psychology: Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, vol. 9. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing, pp.41–67.

82.

Mishler

Rose

(2005) What Are the Political Consequences of Trust? A Test of Cultural and Institutional Theories in Russia. Comparative Political Studies 38 (9): 1050–1078.

83.

Moreno-Jiménez

Rodríguez

MLR

Martín

(2013) Construction and Validation of the Community and Socio-political Participation Scale (SCAP). The Spanish Journal of Psychology 16: E42.

84.

Morrell

(2005) Deliberation, Democratic Decision-Making and Internal Political Efficacy. Political Behavior 27: 49–69.

85.

Mouffe

(2000) The Democratic Paradox. Brooklyn, NY: Verso Books.

86.

Myers

Gordon

Kim

, et al. (2020) Does Group Deliberation Mobilize? The Effect of Public Deliberation on Willingness to Participate in Politics. Political Behavior 42: 557–580.

87.

Nie

Junn

Stehlik-Barry

(1996) Education and Democratic Citizenship in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

88.

Niemi

Craig

Mattei

(1991) Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review 85 (4): 1407–1413. Available at: https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/1963953

89.

Olsen

(1972) Social Participation and Voting Turnout: A Multivariate Analysis. American Sociological Review 37 (3): 317–333.

90.

Onyx

Bullen

(2000) Measuring Social Capital in Five Communities. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 36 (1): 23–42.

91.

Parkinson

(2006) Deliberating in the Real World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

92.

Pateman

(1970) Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

93.

Przeworski

(1998) Deliberation and Ideological Domination. In: Elster

(eds) Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.140–160.

94.

Putnam

(1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

95.

Putnam

(2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

96.

Reuchamps

Caluwaerts

(2018) The Legitimacy of Citizen-Led Deliberative Democracy (The G1000 in Belgium). London: Routledge.

97.

Rosenstone

Hansen

(1993) Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.

98.

Salisbury

(1975) Research on Political Participation. American Journal of Political Science 19 (2): 323–341. Available at: https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2110440

99.

Sanders

(1997) Against Deliberation. Political Theory 25 (3): 347–376.

100.

Schulz

Ainley

Fraillon

, et al. (2010) Civic Knowledge, Attitudes and Engagement among 13 Secondary School Students in 38 Countries. ICCS 2009 International Report. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).

101.

Sears

(1975) The Problem of Generations: A Social Psychologist’s Perspective. In: Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, 1–5 September.

102.

Smith

(2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

103.

Smith

(1999) The Delegates Experience. In: McCombs

Reynolds

(eds) The Poll with a Human Face: The National Issues Convention Experiment in Political Communication. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center, pp.39–58.

104.

Steinmetz

Knappstein

Ajzen

, et al. (2016) How Effective Are Behavior Change Interventions Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior? A Three-level Meta-analysis. Zeitschrift für Psychologie 224 (3): 216–233.

105.

Taber

(2018) The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Research in Science Education 48: 1273–1296.

106.

Tarrow

(1998) Fishnets, Internets, and Catnets: Globalization and Transnational Collective Action. In: Hanagan

Moch

te Brake

(eds) Challenging Authority: The Historical Study of Contentious Politics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp.228–244.

107.

Valadez

(2001) Deliberative Democracy: Political Legitimacy and Self-determination in Multicultural Societies. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

108.

van Griethuijsen

RALF

van Eijck

Haste

, et al. (2015) Global Patterns in Students’ Views of Science and Interest in Science. Research in Science Education 45 (4): 581–603.

109.

Vecchione

Caprara

, et al. (2014) The Perceived Political Self-Efficacy Scale–Short Form (PPSE-S): A Validation Study in Three Mediterranean Countries. Cross-Cultural Research 48 (4): 368–384.

110.

Verba

Nie

(1972) Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. Manhattan, NY: Harper and Row.

111.

Verba

Schlozman

Brady

(1995) Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism .In American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

112.

Walsh

(2007) The Democratic Potential of Civic Dialogue. In: Rosenberg

(ed.) Deliberation, Participation and Democracy: Can the People Govern? New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.45–63.

113.

Weinmann

(2018) Measuring Political Thinking: Development and Validation of a Scale for “deliberation Within.” Political Psychology 39 (2): 365–380.

114.

White

(1968) Intelligence and Sense of Political Efficacy in Children. Journal of Politics 30 (3): 710–731. Available at: https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2128802

115.

Yang

DeHart

(2016) Social Media Use and Online Political Participation among College Students during the US Election 2012. Social Media and Society 2 (1): 1–18.