Does Generation Z Need Voting to be ‘a Thing’ Before Heading to the Polls?

Does Generation Z Need Voting to be ‘a Thing’ Before Heading to the Polls?

Despite often being seen as the face and driving force of political movements and protests, youth participation in elections has shown a marked decrease over time. This trend has somehow persisted despite young voters possessing an increasing portion of the electorate. For the purposes of this research, voters will be classified by generation, and generation cutoffs will model those laid out by the Pew Research Center, with today’s ‘young voters’ represented by voting-eligible members of Generation Z: those born in 1997 and onward (Dimock, 2019). In 2016, the Millennial Generation, aged 20 to 35 at the time, comprised approximately 27% of citizens eligible to vote in the United States; comparatively, the Baby Boomer Generation surpassed them by a thin margin, representing around 31% of eligible voters (Fry, 2018a). The gap, however, is predicted to shrink to a mere 1% in 2020 with Millennials possessing 27% to the Boomers’ 28% (Cilluffo & Fry, 2019a). Generation Z, in the meantime, is expected to establish a more secure foothold in the electorate with a predicted increase from 4% in 2016 to 10% and will represent “one-in-ten eligible voters” in 2020 (Cilluffo & Fry, 2019a).

Although young voters continue to share an increasing portion of the electorate, young voter turnout rates are consistently lower than the notoriously high trends exhibited by older generations. While Millennials’ participation in elections has alternated between 46% and 50-51% for the last four presidential elections, Boomers showed a higher percentage of participation, maintaining a constant 69% over the same timespan (Fry, 2017). This trend permits older generations to wield more political influence by contributing to a higher portion of votes than their share of the electorate. For instance, in the 2016 presidential election Baby Boomers and their predecessors accounted for 49% of the votes despite only representing 43% of the electorate (Cilluffo & Fry, 2019a). Although a discrepancy of 6% may seem menial, it can potentially contribute to a misrepresentation of public opinion, which, in turn, shapes policies that affect all generations.

Although younger citizens have historically voted at lower rates than older citizens, recent trends of declining youth participation seem to go beyond typical life cycle effects. Life cycle voting models often explain low youth turnout in terms of lack of political socialization and adjustment to societal political norms, showing a positive relationship between age and likelihood to vote as young citizens become acclimated to societal civic expectations (Goerres, 2007). These models fail to explain, however, the tendency of today’s eligible young voters to vote even less than their predecessors did at the same age. Between the ages of 18 and 24, the Baby Boomer generation was voting in midterm elections at a rate of 26%; in comparison, only 20% of eligible Millennials in the same age range participated (Cilluffo & Fry, 2019b). This 6% participation gap in midterm elections doubled in size as Millennials aged into the 30 to 34-year-old bracket where 31% of their generation voted in comparison to the Boomer’s 43% (Cilluffo & Fry, 2019b). Though young voters have shown increased participation for select elections, the overall turnout percentage within their generation is still significantly lower than that of older generations. Furthermore, the trend of increased participation is exceedingly inconsistent, with voter turnout numbers falling just as quickly as they rose four years prior (Fry, 2017). Therefore, the question is posed: what motivates today’s youth to head to the polls?

Past research has sought to understand this phenomenon by investigating the relationship between electoral participation and the population’s education level, establishing a positive relationship between the two variables in the process (Sloam, 2014; Goerres, 2007). As Lyons and Alexander (2000) have pointed out, however, this relationship is self-contradictory when considering younger generations’ comparatively higher level of education in conjunction with decreasing levels of participation. This puzzling discrepancy has prompted researchers to investigate the impact of civic education in particular. Despite popular claims regarding the detrimental impact of poor civic education, Chareka and Sears (2000) found that young voters were not unaware of the importance of voting. Most were able to convey both the purpose and importance of voting in a democratic society; however, young voters are still voting in much lower numbers. Based on these findings, Chareka and Sears (2000) proposed more interactive discussions on civic engagement where prospective young voters can dialogue with each other and even directly with politicians. This conclusion is supported by findings from Frisco et al. (2004) who found a significant, positive relationship between participation in civic-minded social organizations, voter registration rates, and participation in presidential elections. These findings indicate the impact of sociopolitical encouragement: verbal or written encouragement of political discussion and participation from members of a social group. Krampen (2000) likewise suggested the encouragement of sociopolitical interactions in social settings based on the knowledge that students display more involvement in such topics when discussing them with peers. Additionally, peer-to-peer conversations may be more likely to highlight the personal relevance of civic and political matters, a quality which may be essential in encouraging electoral participation (Krampen, 2000). These conclusions regarding the comparatively stronger impact of social forms of civic education, as opposed to traditional civic education tactics, may highlight the overall importance of sociopolitical encouragement in youth voting intentions.

Further investigating this vein of research, recent articles have demonstrated the effect of in-group sociopolitical encouragement on voting intentions. Based on their findings, Lyons and Alexander (2000) propose that declining engagement with political parties might be a potential cause of reduced voter turnout in younger generations. The potential effect of sociopolitical encouragement on voter turnout is further highlighted in a study conducted by McDevitt and Sindorf (2014), which saw increased voter turnout in ethnic populations that reported more political conversations and expression of political opinions at home. Sloam (2018) inadvertently demonstrated a similar effect when conducting research on youth voter engagement on his own campus; students demonstrated a clear preference for engaging in political discussions with research assistants when operations were moved to a more social environment on campus, making the experience feel like a conversation between friends. Additionally, Sloam (2014) demonstrated that although youth electoral engagement is undoubtedly on the decline in the U.S., youth participation in more social forms of civic engagement, like boycotts, campaigning, and collective political action, remain impressive, even when compared to countries with notoriously higher voter turnout like Germany. Finally, Blais and Rubenson (2013) cite declining political efficacy as potential contributor of declining youth electoral participation, a quality which, according to Krampen (2000), can be strengthened by increased political socialization in social groups.

While a variety of studies have indirectly examined the impact of select forms of sociopolitical encouragement on voting intentions, a comprehensive study encompassing numerous forms of sociopolitical encouragement has yet to be conducted. Frisco et al. (2004) investigated the effects of membership in “voluntary associations,” but neglected to account for potential political socialization and encouragement in other social groups or in the family (p. 660). Krampen (2000) pioneered the use of social-cognitive action theory variables in the study of political socialization and voter turnout but concluded his study by echoing the need for further research on how various social groups or “social antecedents” impact voting behavior (p. 293). The purpose of my research is to propose that sociopolitical encouragement incurred from membership in social groups which value voting will result in voting being seen as a more favorable or ‘fun’ activity by young eligible voters. For the purposes of this study, “membership in social groups” will be defined as identification and interaction with a group of individuals in person or online. To “value voting” is to see voting as an integral part of the democratic system and make efforts to vote when possible. “Voting intentions” will refer to the declared intention to vote in presidential elections in particular. Based on prior studies, it is hypothesized that membership in social groups which value voting will be positively related to voting intentions. Similarly, sociopolitical encouragement within a social group is hypothesized to be positively related to voting intentions.

Method

Participants

Participants will consist of 200 undergraduate students at Auburn University recruited from a variety of colleges, majors, and social groups by posting flyers in well-traversed common areas like dining halls and residence halls, as well as the student center, recreation center, and library. For incentive, participants will be entered into a raffle for two sideline passes to the next Auburn home football game. For the purposes of this research, participation will be restricted to members of Generation Z with U.S. citizenship to clearly demarcate their status as ‘young eligible voters;’ therefore, participants must be born either in or after 1997. Because participants will not be recruited from traditionally female-dominated psychology classes, participant gender is predicted to be more balanced in this study. Participants will also be asked to self-report variables such as age, race, ethnicity, type of secondary education attained (public, charter, private, etc.), residency status (in-state vs. out-of-state), state of origin (if out-of-state), and socioeconomic status.

Materials

Participant voting intentions will be assessed in a self-report survey using four items from the 2016 pre-election National Election Survey created by American National Election Studies (ANES, 2016). Items will be modified to reflect 2020 election dates, and answer choices will be forced choice yes-no responses. Because reported voting intentions can be higher than actual voter turnout, participants will also be asked to self-report electoral participation in the week following the election. Once this data has been collected, the items will be evaluated for reliability. To assess sociopolitical encouragement, participants will respond to 8 items from the CIRCLE 2012 post-election survey measured by a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘never’ to ‘always’ where high scores (4 or 5) indicate a higher exposure to sociopolitical encouragement (CIRCLE, 2012). Based on their scores, participants will be sorted into categories (occasional, moderate, and frequent) based on the level of sociopolitical encouragement they experience. Finally, membership in social groups which value voting will be evaluated by 3 items from the same CIRCLE post-election survey, where participants can self-report the number of social groups they belong to (0-2, 3-5, 6-8). The relationship between the three variables will then be assessed via multiple regression analysis to determine whether membership in social groups and/or exposure to sociopolitical encouragement are related to declared voting intentions. Due to the straightforward, highly objective nature of Circle’s self-report survey questions, validity and reliability have not been reported.

Procedure

After registering for the study through SONA and providing informed consent, participants will be provided with a link to the survey conducted through Qualtrics to complete on their personal computer. Once registered, participants will have 48 hours to access and complete the study. Because participants will not be exposed to varying conditions, random assignment will not be necessary. The objective nature of the survey questions is believed to mitigate order effects; hence, item order will not be randomized. Questions regarding voting intentions will be strategically ordered such that certain questions will be presented depending on the participant’s prior answer. For example, should a participant indicate that he/she is not registered to vote, the following question will inquire as to whether or not he/she intends to register prior to the election (ANES, 2016). Once participants have completed the survey, they will be contacted again in the week following the presidential election. To obtain an accurate assessment of electoral participation, the brief follow-up survey will ask participants to indicate whether or not they cast a ballot. Participants will not be asked to indicate which candidate or party they voted for.

References

ANES. (2016). ANES 2016 time series pre-election questionnaire. American National

Election Studies. https://electionstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/anes_timeseries_-2016_qnaire_pre.pdf

Blais, A. & Rubenson, D. (2013). The source of turnout decline: New values or new contexts?

Comparative Political Studies, 46(1), 95-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414012453032

Chareka, O. & Sears, A. (2000). Civic duty: Young people’s conceptions of voting as a means

of political participation. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(2), 521-540. https://doi.org/10.2307/20054175

Cilluffo, A. & Fry, R. (2019a, January 30). An early look at the 2020 electorate. Pew

Research Center. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/an-early-look-at-the-2020-electorate/

Cilluffo, A. & Fry, R. (2019b, May 29). Gen Z, Millennials and Gen X outvoted older

generations in 2018 midterms. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/29/gen-z-millennials-and-gen-x-outvoted-older-generations-in-2018-midterms/

CIRCLE. (2012). 2012 post-election survey. Center for Information & Research on Civic

Learning and Engagement. www.civicyouth.org

Dimock, M. (2019, January 17). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and

Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/

Frisco, M. L., Muller, C., & Dodson, K. (2004). Participation in voluntary youth-serving

associations and early adult voting behavior. Social Science Quarterly, 85(3), 660-676. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00238.x

Fry, R. (2017, July 31). Gen Zers, Millennials, and Gen Xers outvoted Boomers and older

generations in the 2016 election. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/31/gen-zers-millennials-and-gen-xers-outvoted-boomers-and-older-generations-in-2016-election/

Fry, R. (2018a, April 3). Millennials approach Baby Boomers as America’s largest

generation in the electorate. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/03/millennials-approach-baby-boomers-as-largest-generation-in-u-s-electorate/

Fry, R. (2018b, June 14). Younger generations make up a majority of the electorate, but

may not be a majority of voters this November. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/06/14/younger-generations-make-up-a-majority-of-the-electorate-but-may-not-be-a-majority-of-voters-this-november/

Goerres, A. (2007). Why are older people more likely to vote? The impact of ageing on

electoral turnout in Europe. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 9(1), 90-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856x.2006.00243.x

Klecka, W. R. (1971). Applying political generations to the study of political behavior: A

cohort analysis. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 35(3), 358-373. https://doi.org/10.1086/267921

Krampen, G. (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), 277-297. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00188

Lyons, W. & Alexander, R. (2000). A tale of two electorates: Generational replacement and

the decline of voting in presidential elections. The Journal of Politics, 62(4), 1014-1034. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00044

McDevitt, M. & Sindorf, S. (2014). Casting youth as information leaders: Social media in

Latino families and implications for mobilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(5), 701-714. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213515222

Sloam, J. (2014). New voice, less equal: The civic and political engagement of young people

in the United States and Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 47(5), 663-688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414012453441

Sloam, J. (2018). #Votebecause: Youth mobilization for the referendum on British

membership of the European Union. New Media & Society, 20(11), 4017-4034. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818766701