# data[].attributes.body
Title: Mental Health Crisis in Hong Kong: Page 4 of 4
Source: Psychiarisy Time
Credibility Evaluation :  Group 6 (News and Topical Stories from Quality Sources)
Source Bias: Slight political bias

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In response to the unmet mental health needs among people from different walks of life, the Hong Kong College of Psychiatrists launched a systematic and multi-level mental health intiative, the Care4ALL Programme. Its goal is to promote mental health resilience; knowledge posters, videos, and pamphlets have been created. The objective is to increase knowledge and skills among relevant community stakeholders in early identification and referral of people with mental health problems.

The College has more than 80 volunteer psychiatric fellows who provide psychiatric care at low cost for a limited number of sessions. Through a collaboration with the Division of Clinical Psychology, the Hong Kong Psychological Society and New Life Psychiatric Association, eligible patients receive a number of protocol-driven psychological interventions in parallel with the care offered by the volunteer psychiatrists.

This program provides a new model of mental health care that addresses the usual cost barrier associated with private psychiatric care and concerns of privacy breaches and perceived discrimination by public mental health workers. The program has received widespread media coverage and has been highly regarded by the Food and Health Bureau and Hospital Authority of Hong Kong.
Every cloud has a silver lining
Although there is ongoing political crisis in Hong Kong, many people are confident that the crisis will resolve eventually and bring about fundamental changes in the political and social landscapes. However, the mental health crisis may last for decades and affect the next two generations.

Although severe trauma can lead to stress-related disorders, the course and outcome of stress symptoms are highly variable and largely depend on posttrauma support and care. ⁴ The College will continue to take an active role in mobilizing mental health capacities in Hong Kong. It will also endeavor to assume an advocacy role to help the government develop social policies and rebuild a strong social network in schools, within families, and in workplaces. The goal is a tolerant and compassionate society that respects and values diversities in all aspects of life.
Dr Ng is Consultant Psychiatrist and Department Head, Psychiatry, Kowloon Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China; he is Chair, Coordinating Committee of Psychiatry, Hospital Authority of Hong Kong; he is also Honorary Clinical Professor, Chinese University of Hong Kong and President of the Hong Kong College of Psychiatrists. He receives research grants from the Health and Medical Research Fund of the Food and Health Bureau of the Hong Kong SAR Government.
1. Hong Kong happiness declines, survey shows, with quality of life shrinking and alarming results for mental health amid protest crisis. South China Morning Post. 11 October 2019.

2. Ahern J, Galea S, Resnick H, et al. Television images and psychological symptoms after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Psychiatry. 2002;65:289-300. 289-300.

3. Krans J, Naring G, Speckens A, Becker E. Eyewitness or ear witness: the role of mental imagery in intrusion development.

4. Bryant RA, O'Donnell M, Creamer M, et al. A multi-site analysis of the fluctuating course of post-traumatic stress disorder. JAMA Psychiatry. 2013;70:839-846.

5. Andrews B, Brewin CR, Philpott R, Stewart L. Delayed-onset post-traumatic stress disorder: a systematic review of current evidence. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;64:1319-1326.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In response to the unmet mental health needs among people from different walks of life, the Hong Kong College of Psychiatrists launched a systematic and multi-level mental health intiative, the Care4ALL Programme. Its goal is to promote mental health resilience; knowledge posters, videos, and pamphlets have been created.

# data[].attributes.body
Title: 7 Ways to Prevent Political Arguments With Family & Friends
Source: Money Crasher
Credibility Evaluation: Group 9 (Blog Article)
Source Bias: No bias
Factual Reporting:  Resolutions for family and friends
Comment: List the reasons and consquence of political conflicts and give some recommandations to avoid or deal with conflicts between family and friends.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"There cannot a greater judgment befall a country than a dreadful spirit of division as rends a government into two distinct people, and makes them greater strangers, and more averse to one another, than if they were actually two different nations."

So wrote English essayist and playwright Joseph Addison in 1711 of the hyper-partisanship that led to the English civil wars of the 17th century. Almost 100 years later, George Washington warned of the dangers of political parties in his 1796 Farewell Address. Despite these cautions, America still struggles with partisan politics, today more than ever.

Political party affiliation has become the measure we most often use to distinguish friend or foe - more defining even than race, religion, or relationship. Politics draw lines between us, creating tribes surrounded by moats of mistrust. As a result, family gatherings have become battlegrounds with each side determined to take no prisoners.

The first step to calm political strife between family and friends is to understand what causes extreme partisanship. Here's a closer look at why people hold on to their beliefs so fiercely, followed by seven ways you can defuse tensions when the topic of politics crops up at your social gatherings.

The Origins of Hyper-Partisanship

A "partisan" is a member of a group that shares similar interests and goals. Political parties and partisanship have existed since the ancient Greeks and arise when people disagree with a government's actions (or non-actions). Driven by different visions of the future, partisanship is a natural outcome of democratic government.

Political parties in the United States began as broad umbrellas under which members had similar, though not identical, interests and views on a majority of issues. Tolerating these differences was necessary to build political strength and win elections in the beginning, but in the two decades following WWII, both parties developed conservative and liberal wings. Inter-party battles over platforms were intense, concluding in compromised positions that few liked but the majority could accept. As a result, the final platforms of the two parties often resembled each other and left voters feeling that there wasn't "a dime's worst of difference between the two," as candidate George C. Wallace, who represented the American Independent Party, famously said in the 1968 presidential race.

The splits within the parties also diminished the power of party leaders to force maverick officeholders to hew to the party line. Legislation, the result of cobbling together ad hoc coalitions of officeholders, was rarely extreme and reflected the trade-offs necessary for passage.

However, as each party refined its positions on the issues of the time, leaders began to enforce orthodoxy among their membership. Members who didn't agree subsequently left their parties, leaving behind smaller cores of impassioned conservatives and liberal zealots.

During the same period, single-issue voters coalesced into blocs with the ability to swing elections in their favor. According to Gallup, one in six registered voters today selects a candidate solely by their position on abortion. One-quarter of Americans vote only for a candidate who shares their opinion on gun control. Attracting these voters, or being able to negate their influence, is essential for election success.

These zealots, or hyper-partisans, in each party provide the energy and funding needed between election cycles. Their ardor and desire to prevail at any cost escalates the conflicts between the parties. At the same time, voter interest surges as the partisan divide sharpens and the contrast between the choices becomes more distinctive.

Hyper-partisanship always hides under the guise of patriotism, with supporters of each party claiming that those on the other side are not real Americans, but traitors. Vicious personal attacks escalate as opponents resort to slurs, hyperbole, and falsehoods to brand candidates of the opposing side. During these periods of excessive emotion and mistrust, governing becomes almost impossible.

Fear Fuels Hyper-Partisanship

Intense political feelings invariably arise during periods of economic stress and social unrest. Fears about the future raise the stakes of political discussion. Stagnant incomes, widening wealth inequality, terrorism, and globalism ratchet up anxieties and anger as voters feel that party elites and monied interests control the levers of power.

The choice of which party to support has become a defensive matter, focused more on keeping the opposing party from power than favoring the candidates of one's own party. A 2016 Pew poll found that two-thirds of voters choose a political party to avoid the harm that might result if the other party was elected. In other words, people are now more likely to vote against, rather than for, a candidate. Other findings of the poll include:

Roughly one-third of voters believe that members of the opposing party are unintelligent.

Republicans tend to see Democrats as lazy and immoral, while Democrats view Republicans as closed-minded.

Republicans tend to view Democrats as "godless," while Democrats view Republicans as "gun nuts."

One-half of voters on each side say their opponents are dishonest.

CNN called the 2016 presidential election "the most emotionally draining and overwrought campaign in decades" as two of the most polarizing candidates in history faced off in a no-holds-barred, down-in-the-dirt contest. Republican candidate Donald Trump called Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton "Lying Hillary" and claimed her election would lead to the "end of America." Responding in kind, Clinton claimed that Trump was thin-skinned and inexperienced and that his ideas were "a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies."

Hyper-partisanship and hyperbole go hand-in-hand during periods of stress. Fear is the oldest and most active of man's emotions. It kicks in whenever a person feels their survival is at risk in an unknown, perilous world. Whenever you have political conflicts with family or friends, remember that each side has taken a position which they believe will save themselves, their families, and their friends from disaster.

Our Brains & Hyper-Partisanship

According to scientists, our brains continuously seek mental shortcuts to save energy and work more efficiently. This tendency underlies the effectiveness of labeling, or branding. We use labels as a method to understand the world around us and to convey information from one person to another. Yet these labels are generally based upon broad stereotypes; being described as a Republican or a Democrat, a conservative or a liberal rarely communicates the nuances of a person's political beliefs.

For example, someone may support both pro-life and pro-gun-control policies; does this mean they fit the label "Republican" or "Democrat"? As a consequence of labeling, we know very little of the actual values of the person so described. Nevertheless, labels immediately set people apart and inhibit the possibility of reaching an agreement.

Political hostility between conservatives and liberals might also be due to a difference in brain structure and the way humans process information, according to Seeker. Studies reported in Scientific American found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than liberals, more attuned to assessing potential threats, and seek stability and order. In a 2016 Salon interview, psychiatrist Gail Saltz claimed there are measurable differences in people's brains which might explain the difference in the two groups' processing of information:

Conservatives have a larger right amygdala, the brain area that processes emotional information. As a consequence, they are more likely to dislike change, seek stability and loyalty, and be more traditionally religious.

Liberals have a larger anterior cingulate gyrus, the brain area dealing with receiving and processing new information. They tend to tolerate uncertainty and conflict, enjoy change, and base their decisions on rationality.

Scientists point out that the human brain is "plastic" and capable of changing over time. They also note that there is substantial variation within each category. In other words, even though two people both claim to be conservative or liberal, their positions on the same issues could differ widely. Similarly, although two people identify with different political parties, they might have more in common than they would initially think.

Hyper-Partisanship in the 21st Century

Political parties understand that fanning the fears of the electorate spurs partisanship, enlarges party coffers, and motivates volunteers. The 21st century has been uniquely vulnerable to sponsors of partisan propaganda due to:

Gerrymandering. State legislatures redraw Congressional district lines each decade. The party in power naturally seeks to establish districts configured to capture a majority of their party's voters. Many areas are segregated along racial and economic demographics. This, combined with the power of modern technology to identify and locate favorable voters, has produced a large number of strangely configured but uncontested districts in every state. The lack of political competition in gerrymandered districts leads to hardened voter positions and unwillingness to compromise.

Campaign Lengths. Though not the longest, the American campaign and election cycle ranks near the top of all democratic countries in the world in terms of length. Hillary Clinton declared her candidacy for the 2008 presidential election in January 2007, 654 days before the election. The extended length of elections multiplies the cost of campaigns and wearies voters, who begin to "tune out" and listen only to information that confirms their beliefs.

Campaign Costs. The cost of presidential elections in the future is expected to reach $8 billion to $10 billion, the funding of which is possible only through the efficacy of the Internet. Barack Obama revolutionized campaign financing by reaching millions of small contributors over the Internet during his presidential candidacies. While individual donors and Political Action Committees (PACs) continue to be significant, online, small-amount donors provide historic levels of cash to campaign managers, who are then able to saturate public airways with their messages.

Opposition Research. Negative campaigns have been successful since the birth of politics. Modern technology such as electronic documentation and the Internet further enables researchers to expose the most private details in the lives of candidates, as well as their families, friends, and supporters. Campaign managers manipulate and release this information to do the most public harm to their opponents.

24/7 News Cycles. The proliferation and balkanization of news providers create a voracious demand for content and user ratings. Potential candidates are hounded around the clock by scores of reporters and photographers eager to pounce on every gaffe, mistake, and unattractive element of their issue positions, their supporters, and their appearance. Social media instantly spreads any mistake around the world.

Social Media. Websites like Facebook and Twitter attract millions of users, many of whom turn to social media before traditional news sources for their information. Nearly two-thirds (67%) of Americans report getting some or most of their news from social media, according to Pew Research Center. Unfortunately, the high shareability and lack of fact-checking inherent in social media enable the spread of rumors and misinformation at an unprecedented rate. According to a Federal Special Prosecutor's indictment, agents of Russia used social media from 2014 to 2017 to manipulate public opinion of American policies and presidential candidates.

Misinformation and Fake News. Eager for market share and revenues, media companies and website sponsors often fail to check the validity of content or the authority of a source before publishing information. This lack of editorial oversight encourages the publication of false information designed solely to breed confusion and create division.

We live in a world where "facts" can be difficult to prove. Data appears and fades in milliseconds, replaced by new information. Purveyors of disinformation know that believability is more important than honesty and dissemination is more critical than documentation, especially if the material confirms pre-established biases. Technology is not the cause of hyper-partisanship, but it expands its effects at lightning speed.

Political Differences & Family Conflict

Intense political opinions can threaten family relationships and friendships. The tensions between parents and children are especially challenging since parents often expect their children to adopt their values and party affiliations.

Early studies seemed to confirm these expectations. In 1961, experiments by psychologist Albert Bandura concluded that children model behavior learned from their parents. A 2005 Gallup poll suggested that 70% of teenagers share the same social and political ideologies as their parents. However, later studies found that parental beliefs have little or no effect on children's political views as they age into adults. The American Sociological Association found in 2015 that more than half of children rejected their parents' political parties as they become more politically aware.

This rejection rate is even higher when parents actively seek to imprint their political views on their children. According to a 2013 Cambridge University study, "Children who come from homes where politics is a frequent topic of discussion are more likely to talk about politics once they leave home, exposing them to new viewpoints - which they then adopt with surprising frequency."

Political subjects often trigger emotional responses, especially if there are other issues in a parties' relationship. In these situations, rather than viewing a difference in opinion as an opportunity for mutual exploration, the parties interpret divergence as rejection, lack of respect, or an attempt at control. Disagreement degenerates into arguments and even estrangement if not managed properly.

How to Defuse Political Hostility Among Family & Friends

Many psychologists claim that avoiding tough conversations with loved ones often leads to withdrawal and further alienation. A better approach is to learn how to disagree without animosity and recognize the validity of other's feelings without agreeing with their positions. Implementing the following actions can lower blood pressures, minimize personal attacks, and promote mutual respect.

1. Recognize the Importance of Your Relationships

Humans often go to extraordinary lengths to protect their physical and financial property while ignoring their most valuable asset: family and friends. Close relationships are critical to health and happiness throughout our lives, according to a 2017 study from Michigan State University. As researcher William Chopik notes, "The more support, the more positive interactions [with loved ones], the better. The important thing is having people you can rely on, for the good times as well as the bad."

Maintaining strong relationships requires accepting differences and flaws in those we love, just as we expect similar tolerance of our quirks from them.

2. Recognize That We All Experience the World Differently

Before demonizing those who disagree with you politically, consider that they are influenced by factors beyond their control - as are you. While humans are physically and psychologically similar, they are not identical. As a consequence, each of us experiences and responds to our environment in a unique manner. Understanding the basis for another person's opinions is the first step to reconciliation.

3. Have Realistic Expectations for Family Relations

Few people have families like the make-believe families of fiction and TV. Fathers don't always know best, mothers get frazzled and tired, and children are more often selfish brats than well-behaved angels. And as Pamela Regan, a psychologist at California State University, told Popular Science, "Because conflict is a normal part of relationships, the closer you are and the more you self-disclose, the more you hear things you don't like."

As family members grow up, move away, and start new family groups, the relationships between them become more uncertain. They experience new environments and opinions that change the way they see the world. Unfortunately, when they reunite, they often fall into old roles, behaviors, and expectations of others that no longer apply.

But differences don't have to lead to distance. Accepting our family members for who they are, rather than who we want them to be, will build trust and respect while minimizing conflict.

4. Don't Fight Battles You Can Avoid or Cannot Win

There will be times when you do not have the patience or energy to tolerate demeaning, aggressive behavior, no matter what your relationship with the offender. At such times, your best approach is to remove yourself from the situation as quickly as possible.

As Larry Sabato Jr. of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics asserted in a USA Today interview, "No one is going to change their mind because of an argument at the dinner table." Psychologists have long recognized that changing another person's political beliefs is almost impossible because they are uniquely wrapped up in our identities. Neurological studies indicate that we view ideological challenges as personal insults, stimulating our brains to react as though these challenges are an assault on our bodies.

If possible, avoid discussions about politics that might end in arguments and hurt feelings. If a controversial political subject arises, try to redirect the conversation. If you're unsuccessful, tell the others you're uncomfortable talking about the matter and ask change the subject. Do not feel that you must justify your feelings. If pressed, ask the questioner, "Why are you so determined to discuss politics?" or "Why are you concerned about getting my agreement?" If all else fails, it's perfectly acceptable to excuse yourself to avoid further conflict.

5. Avoid Labels & False Assumptions

If you do participate in political discussions, don't presume that those who disagree with you have questionable motives, lack the intelligence to understand the situation, or underestimate the impact of their positions. In other words, don't buy into the stereotypes and prejudices promoted by our political parties.

At the same time, recognize that those with whom you disagree are likely branding you with an unfavorable stereotype. To them, you might appear equally stubborn, unfeeling, and unwilling to consider information that conflicts with your conclusions. Mistrust begets mistrust, and anger responds to anger, fraying and even breaking family ties. No one likes to be reduced to a stereotype, and doing so invariably causes friction and misunderstandings.

Everyone develops mental shortcuts to quickly process information and make sense of the world around them. These shortcuts - or "schemas," in psychological terms - emerge from our experiences and produce stereotypes and prejudices, negative and positive. Be aware of your personal biases and how they might affect your feelings and opinions.

6. Establish Ground Rules for Discussion

Everyone knows someone who views conversation as an opportunity to demonstrate their superiority to their listeners. They dominate speech, interrupt others, and revel in being the center of attention. Many egoists bring up controversial subjects, especially politics, during conversation to spark disagreement and bully others into their positions. Allowing a hyper-partisan to dominate a conversation invariably ends badly.

The purpose of a discussion is to promote information exchange, not to change minds. Rather than challenging someone's political beliefs, explore the reasons underlying their position. Recognize their emotions and their right to an opinion, even when you disagree. When explaining your views on the issues, do so as objectively as possible without apologizing or justifying your feelings. When someone goads or attempts to belittle you, reject their effort in non-aggressive but clear terms.

7. Examine Your Role in Disagreements

A discussion is a chain of actions and reactions, each link a response to the facial expressions, body language, gestures, and words immediately prior. In other words, our tit invariably becomes their tat, and vice-versa. Once started, the insults and personal attacks resemble a string of cheap firecrackers - lots of noise and explosions, with nothing left but a pile of ashes.

Refuse to light the fuse by accepting statements and people without prejudgment. Ignore provocations and respond non-emotionally to anger while continuing to extend respect to the other person. Some experts suggest lowering your voice and slowing your speech to settle emotions and regain civility.

Never provoke someone intentionally, no matter how upset they might make you. Aggression toward family and friends is inappropriate and only increases conflict. If you unintentionally embarrass or insult someone, apologize and rephrase your comment is less judgmental terms.

Relationship experts recommend that a better approach to provocation is refusing to engage at all and distancing yourself from an attack by "de-personalizing" it. Take a detached view, emotionally removing yourself from the conflict, and observe it as an outsider looking in instead of as a participant. Implementing this strategy will help you maintain composure and perspective.

Final Word

Despite your best efforts to avoid political conflicts with friends and family members, you're likely to find yourself from time to time in uncomfortable situations that are unavoidable and inescapable. Some personality types enjoy battle, making a fuss about the most trivial things just to cause conflict, while others argue out of habit. Hyper-partisans, especially when they're loved ones, are difficult to handle because they genuinely believe their efforts will prevent calamity and catastrophe for the ones they love.

If you're in a position where retreat is impossible, remember that you alone control your emotions and actions. You have a choice of reactions when confronted by hateful or aggressive speakers. If you choose to respond in kind, the conflict will escalate, perhaps to levels where reconciliation is unimaginable. Remembering the above tips and putting them into practice will help you disagree, respectfully and lovingly, with others.

Do your friends and family members agree politically? Do family gatherings turn into political battles? How do you handle it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 Ways to Prevent Political Arguments With Family & Friends

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"There cannot a greater judgment befall a country than a dreadful spirit of division as rends a government into two distinct people, and makes them greater strangers, and more averse to one another, than if they were actually two different nations." So wrote English essayist and playwright Joseph Addison in 1711 of the hyper-partisanship that led [...]

# data[].attributes.body
Title: Hong Kong’s political crisis is becoming a mental health crisis
Source: QUARTZ
Credibility Evaluation: Group 6 (News and Topical Stories from Quality Sources)
Source Bias: Slight political bias
Factual Reporting: High
Comment: Besides reporting the facts and real situations in Hong Kong, this report also mention the residents mental status and remind people to pay attetion to it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A months-long crisis that has played out dramatically on the city's streets is now morphing into something more invisible but equally urgent: an epidemic of mental distress affecting large swathes of the population.

According to a study published in the Lancet medical journal Jan. 9, roughly one in three adults in Hong Kong have reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the months since large-scale protests started last June. One in five have reported probable depression or suspected PTSD, a level comparable to people experiencing large-scale disasters, armed conflicts, or terrorist attacks.

The findings are the result of a decade-long longitudinal study conducted by researchers from the University of Hong Kong, and they shed light on a major mental health burden borne by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of citizens. The research, conducted between 2009 and 2019, draws on baseline surveys of more than 18,000 Hong Kong residents, which were followed up with seven surveys of random subsets of these adults.

Months of intense conflicts marked by violence from both police and protesters have torn at the social fabric and frayed familial ties, while what many see as an increasingly repressive political environment has heightened people's sense of fear, helplessness, and anger. One local writer noted that there is now an entire generation in Hong Kong " defined and united by trauma." And the protests have become all-encompassing, no longer confined to the streets and transforming political resistance into the new normal.

Indeed, the researchers found that those who spend more than two hours a day monitoring local socio-political news on social media was "strongly associated" with probable depression and suspected PTSD.

The mental health effects of the current protests are much more pronounced than from the 2014 Umbrella Movement, also known as Occupy Central, the last major pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. The prevalence of PTSD symptoms is now more six times higher than after the 2014 protests, rising from 5% to 32%.

The researchers wrote that the mental health crisis "will require substantial increases in service surge capacity in both the health and social sectors, and in real time." Yet they worry that those who need help most won't get it, as fewer than half of affected individuals said they would seek professional care.

This could be exacerbated by people's new wariness of the public health system, especially after police arrested several protesters as they were in hospital receiving medical treatment, raising suspicions that the Hospital Authority was leaking data to law enforcement officers-an accusation that the authority has denied.

Many protesters have instead sought informal care through an underground network of psychiatrists, physicians, and traditional Chinese medical practitioners (paywall).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hong Kong's political crisis is becoming a mental health crisis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A months-long crisis that has played out dramatically on the city's streets is now morphing into something more invisible but equally urgent: an epidemic of mental distress affecting large swathes of the population. According to a study published in the Lancet medical journal Jan.

# data[].attributes.body
Title: Political discussions with family and friends: exploring the impact of political distance
Source: Wiley Online Library
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12263
Credibility Evaluation: Group 1 (Scholarly Books and Articles)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Young people's engagement in political discussions with parents and friends represents a significant component of the political socialization process and can be seen as an activity where they learn some very basic democratic skills. Based on data from qualitative interviews and a questionnaire survey, this article explores how young people experience political discussions in their everyday life. Our data indicate that young people who feel that their father, mother or friends, respectively, hold more distant political views are less likely to engage in political discussions with each of them. These findings support previous studies in political communication suggesting that people tend to avoid social situations where political disagreements are likely to appear. Furthermore, the results show that there are significant gender differences when analysing the role of the parents as political discussion partners.

Introduction

With a few exceptions (Jennings, 1983; Bloemraad and Trost, 2008; Quintelier, 2011), political socialization research has focused almost exclusively on the generational transfer of political attitudes, values and party identification from parents to their offspring, typically measured as the statistical correlation between parents' and children's political views (Hyman, 1959; Greenstein, 1965; Hess and Torney, 1967; Jennings and Niemi, 1968; Easton and Dennis, 1969). This intergenerational transmission perspective has led to a number of interesting results, indicating that family influence is continual and that parents' socio‐economic background and political attitudes are significant predictors of the attitudes of their children (Jennings and Langton, 1969; Jennings and Niemi, 1968, 1971; Beck and Jennings, 1975; McGlenn, 1980; Nieuwbeerta and Wittebrood, 1995; Jennings, 2007; Jennings et al., 2009) and also intentions to vote (Hooghe and Boonen, 2013).

However, less attention has been paid to those aspects of political socialization that relate to political engagement within the family and everyday relations with friends. Young people's engagement in political discussions with parents and friends represents a significant component of the political socialization process and can be seen as an activity where they learn some very basic democratic skills. People who engage in political discussions with family and friends tend to be more engaged in other forms of political participation. This applies to voting at elections and participation in extra‐parliamentary activities such as petitions and participation in demonstrations (Gundelach and Levinsen, 2011), and also on measures of civic behaviour, attitudes and skills. McIntosh et al. ( 2007) suggest that face‐to‐face discussion is important for the development of civic competencies. They found that adolescents who discuss politics and current events with their parents, peers or teachers tend to score higher on measures of civic behaviour, attitudes and skills. In addition, previous qualitative studies of political mobilization emphasize the positive role of political discussion between generations and propose that family members provide direct political stimulation through discussions (Bloemraad and Trost, 2008). Jennings et al. ( 2009) notes that the character of family discussions and political conversation determines parents' influence on their children. In families with high levels of political engagement and political discussion, there is more consonance between parent and child regarding important controversial political issues as well as preferences for political parties and presidential candidates (Jennings et al., 2009).

Few studies have investigated the consequences of political discussions among peers (Amnå, 2009). Quintelier ( 2011) finds that peers, together with family and voluntary engagement, are the most important predictors of political participation. She finds that the more young people discuss politics with their peers, the more likely they will engage in politics. Ekström and Östman ( 2013) find that civic talk with peers is more strongly correlated with young people's civic orientation than civic talk with parents, and Quintelier ( 2015) finds that discussion among peers has a higher positive effect on political engagement than discussion in the family.

This article explores how young people experience political discussions in their everyday lives and how perceived political distance between respondents and their family members and their friends affects the level of political discussion. We find this perspective particularly interesting as it may also help clarify whether attitudinal factors affect the level of engagement in political discussions. In a questionnaire survey of young Danes and a number of qualitative face‐to‐face interviews, we asked respondents how they experience engagement in political discussions with family and friends, and how close or distant their own political views are to the views of their discussion partners. This means that we are able to explore to what extent political differences, as perceived by respondents, shape the pattern and frequency of political discussions. Our study also provides an opportunity to critically examine whether perceived political distance plays a role for engagement in political discussions among people who basically have close relationships - namely, young people, their parents and friends.

Previous studies show that citizens' engagement in political discussion is affected by the social and attitudinal similarities of their potential discussion partners. In many ways participation in political discussions constitutes the essence of the democratic citizen. Discussion develops individuals' ability to clarify their own attitudes towards others, listen to others' political views and arrive at new insights and perhaps joint decisions. Political discussions typically differ from other types of social communication in that they focus on public issues and involve the exchange of ideological views. In addition, political discussions reflect that the partners may have different interests. Thus, disagreement is typically both a condition and a challenge, which, according to deliberative democrats, requires that partners listen to each other and adjust their own views after listening to other arguments (Conover et al., 2002; Gutmann and Thompson, 2004; Esterling et al., 2010). Seen from a participatory and deliberative point of view, we should expect that political disagreement between individuals nurtures political discussions and promotes further democratic engagement.

Research in political psychology and communication, however, seems to indicate that this is not necessarily the case. Most people find it uncomfortable to encounter political disagreements when they discuss politics with other people. Thus, generally speaking, people are likely to avoid social settings and situations where political disagreements occur. A number of studies have confirmed these findings, which basically support the thesis of 'enclave deliberation' and 'political homophily' suggesting that people typically engage in discussions with like‐minded people (Mutz, 2002, 2006; Mutz and Martin, 2001; Morrell, 2005; Huber and Malhotra, 2013). However, none of these studies have explored these mechanisms in the family sphere and in close social relationships. This is the intention in this article.

There are a number of reasons why family and friendships are interesting contexts to explore. In contrast to political discussions in the public sphere, family and friendships are characterized by stronger emotional ties, and, in many cases, young people are still financially dependent on their parents. This may have implications for involvement in political discussions, because the discussion partners are more attentive to protecting the social order and stability of the social relations. On the other hand, the family especially can be seen as the 'natural' arena of intergenerational conflicts between parents and children, which is likely to be reflected in political discussions.

Based on the literature we expect that the tendency to avoid political disagreements will also exist in close social relationships; between young people and their parents and between young people and their friends. Aware of the fact that it is usually very difficult to determine the causal directions in these social mechanisms, we hope to shed light on this problem by also exploring qualitatively how young people describe situations where they disagree with political discussion partners.

Data and methods

Our analyses are based on two different sources of data assembled by the Danish part of the European FP7 research project MYPLACE: a questionnaire survey data set, involving a sample of 936 young Danes; 1 and 60 qualitative individual interviews with respondents drawn from the list of survey participants. The survey sample was generated from populations of young citizens from two different areas of Odense, the third largest city in Denmark (193,370 inhabitants). The Danish National Register of Persons provided us with a list of the total population (age 16-25) for each of the two areas, and a random sample was drawn from each of these lists. The response rate, measured by the proportion of full face‐to‐face interviews by successful contacts (phone or face‐to‐face) was 34 per cent for the Odense East sample and 55 per cent for Odense Centre sample. The two different city areas were chosen in order to compare variations in political engagement across different socio‐geographical settings. In order to establish a sound statistical basis for our analysis, we have pooled our data from the two areas into a single data file. Therefore our statistical analyses are based on the total number of respondents, adding a control for city area. 2

The analyses of survey data include variables measuring the frequency of respondents' involvement in political discussions with family members and friends, perceived political distance to these persons, respondents' ideological orientation and political engagement and relevant socio‐demographic variables (see Appendix, Table A1).

Always

Often

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

N

Note

Survey question: 'How often do you discuss political issues when you get together with the following people?'

Source: MYPLACE survey, 2012-13.

Father

Mother

Best friend

B

SE

B

SE

B

SE

High school education

0.083

0.022

0.074

0.130

0.078

Father high school education

0.094

-

-

-

-

Mother high school education

−0.061

0.087

0.073

0.109

0.087

Mother higher occupation

0.047

0.091

0.079

0.117

0.094

Following politics in media

0.205

0.184

0.194

Political interest

0.148

0.133

0.141

Political distance: father

0.129

Political distance: mother

-

-

0.118

R ²
0.196

0.164

0.189

Adj. R ²

0.185

0.155

0.179

Note

OLS regression: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Source: MYPLACE survey, 2012-13.

Respondents in the qualitative study were selected in accordance with a maximum variation principle, based on two criteria: the prospective respondent's score on the political participation scale, and their scores on the tolerance scale used in the survey questionnaire. Our selection also ensured variation in terms of age, gender, education, ethnicity, citizenship and nationality in each subsample. Hence, our respondents in the qualitative interviews cover activity levels from very active to passive and tolerance levels from very tolerant to very intolerant. 3

The interviews were semi‐structured and we asked questions about respondents' social and political engagement and their political attitudes to a number of different issues (for example, welfare, immigration and environmental issues). The data originates from the early part of the interview, where respondents were asked about what was currently going on that really affected people in the country, and whether this affected them or their family personally. This was the opportunity to explore whether the respondents talked to other people, such as friends or members of their family, about such issues, and to further inquire with whom and what about they had the most recent discussions. The interview sequence was concluded with a reflexive question asking about whom they considered to have been particularly influential in terms of the impact of their views upon them. 4

The purpose of the qualitative interviews was to obtain a deeper insight and understanding of young people's political communication patterns. By adopting a mixed methods approach, we engage both quantitative and qualitative data in a parallel analytical process. Our two different types of data allow for analytical triangulation. 5 The qualitative interviews provided contextualized 'thick descriptions' of how young people themselves experience the social and political climate in their everyday lives and in their familial context; and our survey data made it possible to analyse the impact of multiple underlying variables.

In the following analyses we present our findings in thematic sections. First, using the results of the semi‐structured interviews, we provide an insight into how young people themselves experience political discussions with their parents and friends. Secondly, we examine the questionnaire survey data to analyse how often young people are engaged in political discussions and who are the most prominent discussion partners. The finding that fathers are the preferred discussion partner is further analysed by means of scrutinizing the qualitative interview data. Thirdly, we explore the complex relationship between perceived political distance and engagement in political discussions by use of multivariate statistics and qualitative inquiry.

Political discussion with family and friends

In general, politics is given limited attention by young people. Typically, other things seem to be much more relevant and urgent; challenges related to their education, finding a place to live and, especially, staying connected with friends and partners. That said, our experience was that young people - especially in the context of high unemployment - seem to be very concerned about their own prospects in the labour market and also how the political challenges of, for example, increasing unemployment, climate change and immigration are handled by politicians.

Most of the politically active young people in our qualitative sample describe their family and peers as the main actors in discussions about current social issues and politics. Almost consistently, those of our respondents who express high levels of political engagement in the local and national societal environment see the family as a 'natural' social arena for discussions about society and politics. These respondents typically had grown up in families with a vibrant culture of debating political issues, while the politically inactive came from families where political discussions were almost completely absent.

Several of the politically engaged young people recount how political discussions in the family have had an impact on the development of their own political identity and parents are often credited with having fostered political thinking. It is characteristic for this kind of interaction that most discussions with parents are seen as enriching and enjoyable, especially when they are able to manage disagreements and establish discussions based on mutual respect:

My father might have influenced me by pushing me to think about things. I may not always agree with him, but he had me think about things. (Brian, Centre)

We have always discussed a lot, and we have always challenged each other very much at home, so I have really got a pretty good base to form my own opinions, and I do not always agree with my [parents], but I have to give a lot of credit to my mum and her husband. That is because they have - what can I say? - they have encouraged me to take a position on what is happening in society. So they have not consciously foisted any position on me, but they have certainly helped me to shape and develop one. [...] We have always discussed a lot, and it has meant that I have been forced to take a position on it because I could not just come with empty arguments. (Ann, Centre)

Although there are exceptions, politically inactive respondents typically come from families where politics were not part of the everyday conversations. Many of these young people describe a family life where almost no political and societal discussions take place:

Interviewer: Through your childhood and until you left home, did you discuss politics and things like that?

Sanne: No, we have never done that, we watched the news while we ate, but there was never really any discussion of what was said. (Sanne, East)

It is not that we sat and discussed over the dinner table. It has been more like this: 'What did you do today?' 'And what have you achieved today?' More practical things, you know. [...] That is how we do it. (Gurli, Centre)

For politically inactive respondents societal and political issues outside the family sphere and everyday life are rarely the subject of discussion, and politics is considered to be somewhat distant and irrelevant to daily life. However, some respondents from families where no political discussions took place have gained inspiration from outside their own family. Such an example is given by a young woman, who experienced the 'world of politics' when she met her boyfriend's family:

Yes, I did actually [take an interest in politics] when I got together with my boyfriend because his family talked a lot about politics and expressed political opinions. [...] I began, suddenly, to think that this was really an exciting issue, which I certainly could be interested in too. Then I started to keep up with politics [...] because there was someone to talk to about it. (Doris, Centre)

This illustrates that inspiration to engage in political discussions also comes from outside the family. Discussions with peers are the second main arena in which young people engage in informal political discussions. Most of the respondents seem to have a quite tolerant relationship to their friends where politics is concerned and many refer to their friends and partners when talking about political issues and how they discuss politics.

It is perhaps not surprising that politically active respondents are also more involved in political discussions with family and friends than those who are politically inactive. However, it is worth noting that most of the active respondents seem to be very much aware of the role of parents and friends in shaping their political skills and identity, and during the qualitative interviews they provided a number of interesting and detailed descriptions of how they themselves experienced political communication with family and friends. Before continuing with the interpretation of these issues, however, the survey data provide an opportunity to analyse how often young people engage in political discussions and the frequency of discussion with different partners.

Our findings are in line with previous research indicating a significant gender difference between the roles of the parents; within the family, fathers appear to be the most frequent political discussion partners. As shown in Table 1, 28 per cent of the respondents indicate that they 'always' or 'often' talk about political issues with their father, while only 15 per cent of respondents talk politics with their mother. The reason that there are slightly fewer respondents who answered the question on political discussion with their father is that some respondents have grown up in single parent families.

Partners and best friends are also reported to be political discussion partners. Among respondents in a relationship, 28 per cent responded that he/she always or often discusses politics with their partner. Best friends are also relatively frequent discussion partners (24 per cent), while siblings and grandparents are significantly less prominent.

Evidently, the items measuring political discussion with different persons are positively correlated, especially when it comes to political discussion with parents. Thus, for example, young people who frequently engage in political discussions with their father will be more likely to discuss politics with their mother etc. (see Appendix, Table A2). However, instead of constructing a single variable measuring the overall level of political discussion, we are more interested in looking at the different patterns of discussion related to each of the discussion partners, especially the father, mother and best friend.

The dominance of the father as the most frequent political discussion partner in the family is also expressed by several of the respondents in our qualitative studies. When it comes to involvement in political discussions with fathers, two types of experiences are found: those based on basic political agreement; and those characterized by a serious disagreement. Examples of engaged fathers who feed into political discussions are typically found among respondents coming from well‐educated middle‐class families:

If we hear something on television, read something in the newspaper, or just pick it up somewhere, then we discuss it. My father knows a lot. Then he asks questions - 'How is it that...?' [...] - and then the discussion gets going. (Bente, East)

I am very much in agreement with my father, because of the examples he provides. [...] It is mostly my father and I [that discuss things]. Because of his working hours, 3-11pm, we do not watch television much together but we can sit together and talk about, for example, that I think we might need a new government. 'Why is that? I think things are going well'. So, we may sit and talk about the things that crop up. [...] I would say that my father and I can discuss politics no matter what. I think every time I get hold of my dad on the phone [...] half of the conversation concerns politics. (Freja, East)

There are also several examples of discussions where the father and son/daughter disagree. The picture is drawn of fathers being more engaged but, in some cases, also more patronizing. One respondent characterizes her father as very eager to debate things. However, when he speaks, it often turns into a polemical speech:

With my father, it is more factual, but [he] is also more loud‐mouthed and passionate; to put it in a nice way, it is very passionate. Sometimes, it gets a bit blunt, the way things are said, but discussions develop in different ways. (Elin, Centre)

In sum, our analysis of the qualitative interviews as well as the survey data shows that the father is the dominant political discussion partner in the family. This also indicates a possible source of a continuing gender bias in the political socialization process, which obviously requires further examination.

Perceived political distance and political discussion

The respondents in our qualitative interviews seem to engage in discussion with parents, and predominantly with their fathers, when they feel they are respected and 'stand on common ground'. However, findings also indicate that young people tend to avoid discussions with their parents when this is not the case. An extreme case is captured in the following example where a young woman reacts against a dogmatic left‐wing father:

I think perhaps that when I was 16-17 years old, I rebelled a little against my father, because he is [supporting a left‐wing party]. It is the workers, etc. I thought this is nonsense. [...] We do not discuss it in my family because it ends in a fight and my mum crying, because he is convinced that it is the workers that make all the difference for Denmark. (Britt, Centrum)

The behaviour adopted by this respondent is typical within family situations where parents and offspring disagree. This constellation is also found in an example provided by another respondent, where the father has not stopped disagreeing but has accepted that he cannot influence his daughter:

My father, he might get mad because I have opinions of my own. Then he can be a little more, 'Then let's talk about something else' or turn on the TV. Then we do not need to discuss anymore and can just be good friends and not talk [laughs]. [...] When my father gets angry, he closes up. It's not that we are screaming. [...] He has his own way which is slightly less constructive perhaps than to sit and argue his point. (Ida, East)

Parents' behavioural and communicative style might be influenced by the gender of the young people and the parents but this cannot be concluded from the qualitative interviews. Despite a tendency for young people to avoid conflicts when they engage in political discussions with parents, the relationship need not become antagonistic. Despite the difficulties, openings still exist. As one respondent reports, he often talks politics with his mother and with friends. However 'my father tends to disagree with me, but I try [to discuss with the father] sometimes, when I have the courage to do it' (Brian, Centre). This happens when they sit at the dinner table, where the father comments upon the news and is provoked by what he has heard.

A similar example of conflict avoidance is reported by this male respondent who supports a neo‐liberal political viewpoint, while his mother's political attitude is more to the left. The young man supports Liberal Alliance (neo‐liberal) although he had previously supported Venstre (centre‐right), which is the party his father supports. The women in the family, his mother and sister, support Socialdemokraterne (the Social Democrats):

Chris: My father and I have a lot [...] we share the same opinion. However, with my mother I do not share as many opinions. Not that I do not love her, but we just do not agree on things. My father and I always [...] It's probably my dad I've got my thoughts and ideologies from.

Interviewer: You go to your dad when you need to talk. When you talk to your mother, you end up arguing once in a while?

Chris: No, there are no arguments. I'm fine with her, but we just do not talk about our thoughts and what we think in political terms. [...] It's mostly with my dad that I talk about these things. (Chris, Centre)

Political disagreement does not necessarily lead to family problems. However, as in these cases it seems that some young people tend to avoid political discussions with their parents when they do not agree politically. As mentioned in the introduction this perspective calls for further investigation.

According to the literature we should expect that people usually prefer to discuss politics with people with whom they know they agree while avoiding situations where they are likely to face political disagreement (Mutz, 2002, 2006; Morrell, 2005). The question posed here is whether this is also a general social mechanism in young people's communication with their family and friends?

In order to further investigate this we continue our analysis drawing on the survey data. We apply a multivariate regression analysis which tests the statistical relationships between perceived political distance and engagement in political discussions with father, mother and friends respectively. Furthermore, the statistical analysis also gives us the opportunity to explore potential social and gendered patterns in political discussions with parents and friends.

The main explanatory variable, 'perceived political distance', is measured by asking the respondents how close or distant their political views are to the views of family members, partners and friends, respectively. Answers were given on a 10‐point scale, where 0 is close and 10 is distant (see Appendix, Table A1). Research into political socialization and participation shows that various kinds of formal and informal social networks in which children and young citizens are involved - parents, friends, educational environment, as well as the media - play an important role (McLeod, 2000; McLeod et al., 2010). Therefore the statistical analysis includes a number of variables, which, typically, are positively correlated with the levels of political engagement. Based on the literature on gender socialization, we should expect male respondents to be more frequently engaged in discussions than female respondents (Jennings and Niemi, 1971; Jennings, 1983; Verba et al., 1997; Burns et al., 2001; Coffé and Bolzendahl, 2010). We are also aware that there may prove to be gender‐specific patterns in respondents' discussions with mothers and fathers, respectively. Previous studies have shown that daughters often use their mothers as role models when it comes to political engagement (Gidengil et al., 2011).

Furthermore, in the statistical analysis we include relevant socio demographic variables: respondents' age, as we expect that the level of political discussion increases as people grow older; respondents' and parents' level of education, because higher education usually strengthens rhetorical skills and knowledge on societal and political issues. Typically, better educated parents will encourage their children to express opinions freely, thereby also being more likely to motivate their children to read newspapers, gain knowledge, form opinions and take part in political discussions. Furthermore, as proxies for social class we included variables on mothers' and fathers' occupations.

The majority of respondents below the age of 20 are still living together with their parents. For this reason we have applied a variable measuring whether respondents are living together with their parents or not. We expect that living together with parents will increase the frequency of political discussions with one or both of them. Furthermore, we have applied ethnicity (Danish/not Danish), regious orientation and area of residence (Centre/East) as control variables.

As shown in Table 2, we have chosen to conduct the analyses in three separate models, because we want to examine whether there are different patterns across the different discussion partners. Furthermore, it should be noted that results presented in this table are based first on a series of stepwise regressions and backward elimination of statistically insignificant variables. Full models are shown in Appendix (Table A3). Altogether, we should also note that the variance explained by the variables included in the three models is quite modest (Adj. R ² = 0.155-0.185), indicating that the models far from explain a high proportion of the variation in the frequency of political discussion among respondents.

Our multivariate analyses reveal that not all of our initial expectations are confirmed. First, statistically significant gender differences are absent in the frequency of discussions with both parents when controlling for the impact of a number of other individual and social background variables. It is interesting to note, however, that male respondents are more engaged in political discussions with their best friends than females. Age is not associated with frequency of political discussions with parents, possibly due to a quite narrow age span in our sample (16-25 years). We do find, however, a minor age effect in discussions with friends.

Respondents with higher education tend to engage more frequently in political discussions with their father; however, the effect is not statistically significant for discussion with mother and best friend. The most significant background variable affecting the level of political discussion with mothers is the reported level of mothers' education. As expected, we also find a relatively strong correlation between political interest, use of media for political information and the level of engagement in political discussion. This is consistent with the results of the qualitative interviews, where several respondents said that political issues in the media often lead to political discussions with parents and friends. Quite surprisingly there are no effects for ethnicity in discussing politics with parents but we do find a slight negative effect for friends; Muslim respondents tend to be more involved in political discussions with their friends than the Christian and non‐religious majority.

The main question in this part of the analysis is how far perceived political distance affects the level of engagement in political discussions with parents and friends? As expected, our results reveal negative associations of perceived political distance for all models, indicating that respondents who feel that their father, mother or friends, respectively, hold more distant political views are less likely to engage in political discussions with each of them. This is an interesting finding, especially when we consider that these effects seem to be stronger in the analysis of political discussion with the father. We think this possibly also reflects that political socialization within the family is gendered, not only regarding how much young people discuss politics with parents and friends, but also when considering the consequences of perceived political distance.

The cross‐sectional survey data do not allow the definitive determination of the causal mechanisms behind these negative relationships; however, the qualitative data can give us a hint as to what is at stake here. As mentioned earlier some of the young people in the qualitative interviews say that they prefer to stay out of political discussions because they want to avoid further disagreements. In some cases they do this because they are looking after their own feelings and well‐being, and the general atmosphere in the family. In most of the qualitative interviews this seems to be a social behaviour chosen by the young people themselves; however, in some cases it is also one of the parents (typically the mother) who abstains from engaging in political discussions.

On the one hand this type of social behaviour can be seen as a considerate way to avoid conflicts within the family and with friends. But seen from a deliberative democratic point of view, it is a rather problematic way of handling political disagreements. Not only because it may reflect a lack of recognition and respect for others' individual political views, but also in a wider perspective because patterns of communication in the family may influence social and political behaviour later in young peoples' life. Although our design and data do not allow further analysis of socialization effects over time, we do believe that it is likely that tendencies of public 'enclave deliberation' and 'political homophily' found in previous studies (Mutz, 2002, 2006; Mutz and Martin, 2001; Morrell, 2005; Huber and Malhotra, 2013) may be rooted in familial socialization patterns.

Conclusion

In this paper we have explored the political socialization of young people by looking at patterns in young people's political discussion with their parents and friends. The analysis of our survey data revealed that young people with high (perceived) political distance to their father, mother and/or friend discuss politics less frequently. However, the impact of political distance is strongest in discussions with fathers. Judging from what our respondents told us in the qualitative interviews, this seems to be a consequence of negative experiences from prior discussions; when political discussions with parents turn into a fixed pattern of disagreement, there is a tendency to withdraw from the discussion.

Despite the fact that Denmark is usually regarded as a country with a fairly high degree of gender equality in social as well as in political life, our study has shown that gender‐based differences in parental political communication processes still exist. We can conclude that the father remains the most frequent discussion partner. Friends and partners are also frequent discussion partners and young men discuss politics more frequently with their friends than do young women. Based on the qualitative data, it seems that parental political socialization, to some extent, is rooted in traditional gender roles where fathers are more likely to be a source of information about societal issues while mothers tend towards giving advice on personal matters.

Whether these gendered patterns of political discussion with parents are established by the parents or their children is a moot point, although it is to be expected that children respond to parental behaviour. Gender differences within the family mainly exist among the parents as discussion partners and not the respondents. This might indicate that gender differences in political engagement are significantly less pronounced among the younger generations. This said, however, we do find that the young men are more involved in political discussions with their friends than the young women.

Not surprisingly, the respondents' own interest in politics influences how much they engage in political discussions. Our respondents' level of education pulls in the same direction. This is, however, only the case for discussions with fathers. Among the parents, only the mothers' level of education influences levels of political discussion with respondents. Furthermore, our analyses suggest that the influence of the media on engagement in political discussions with parents and friends should not be underestimated. We found a relatively strong correlation between political media use and the level of engagement in political discussions. In the qualitative interviews, there are indications that several patterns of use are in play. Some people use the media in the classic way, that is, as sources of information, while many others use the media as an initiator and extension of face‐to‐face political discussions.

Finally, returning to the main question of distance and engagement in political discussions, this study has shown that perceived political distance matters. Previous studies in political psychology and communication suggested that people tend to avoid social situations where political disagreements are likely to appear. We have explored whether these mechanisms exists in the family sphere and in close social relationships with friends, and our findings support this thesis: perceived political distance tends to reduce the likelihood of engagement in political discussions. However, so far our studies have focused on young people's political orientation and involvement in political discussions at a very general level. We suggest that further studies are needed with regard to the question of how specific policy issues, political events and conflicts affect political discussions and political engagement and with regard to the impact of different types of communication patterns in the family.

Acknowledgements

We thank Gary Pollock (Manchester Metropolitan University), Hilary Pilkington (University of Manchester), David Nicolas Hopmann (University of Southern Denmark) and Sebastián Valenzuela (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) for helpful and constructive feedback on earlier drafts of this article. This research received funding from the The European Commission 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.

Notes

1 The Danish survey data set includes 109 respondents, who are 26-28 years old, who were included in the statistical analyses for this article but who were removed from the merged data set in order to ensure conformity to the MYPLACE project research design (see the article by Pilkington and Pollock in this volume).

2 A more detailed report on sampling procedures, characteristics of the test population and the various questionnaire items can be found in the Danish part of MYPLACE Work Package 4: Measuring participation report (http://www.fp7‐myplace.eu/deliverables.php).

3 The distinction between politically active and inactive has been measured as the level of activity within a range of items within the last 12 months before the interview. The ordinal measurement scale was divided into the levels 'never', 'once', 'twice', and 'three times or more'. The distinction of active and inactive was relative within the sample; it distinguished between those who scored highest and those who scored lowest. Political activity was an aggregated measure of twenty types of political activity: volunteering in election campaigns, contacting politicians, attending meetings, signing petitions or collecting signatures, voting for student councils, giving speeches, distributing leaflets, making consumer boycotts, writing graffiti, wearing badges, participating in demonstrations or strikes, donating money, writing articles or emails, uploading on the Internet, participating in violent events, occupying buildings or blocking streets, or participating in flash mobs.

4 All qualitative interviews were recorded, transcribed, anonymized and imported into the data analysis software, NVIVO 9.2, and coded by three coders.

5 Contemporary, state‐of‐the‐art mixed methods research highlights four approaches: a sequential explanatory; an exploratory design; a parallel design (triangulation); and an embedded design (Bryman, 2007; Plano Clark et al., 2008, Creswell, 2009). Due to the origin of data established in parallel, we have adopted triangulation as the appropriate method of data analysis (Greene, 2008; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007; Plano Clark et al., 2008; Creswell, 2009).

Appendix

Variables

Questions, answer categories/scales, and coding

Political discussion: Separate variables for:

'Your father',

'Your mother',

'The brother or sister that you are closest to'

'The grandparent that you are closest to',

'Your boyfriend/girlfriend/ partner',

'Your best friend'

Q4: How often do you discuss political issues when you get together with the following people?

Answer: Always (1), Often (2), Sometimes (3), Rarely (4), Never (5), Don't know (‐1).

Recoded: Always (4), Often (3), Sometimes (2), Rarely (1), Never (0),

Perceived political distance: Separate variables for:

'Your father',

'Your mother',

'The brother or sister that you are closest to'

'The grandparent that you are closest to',

'Your boyfriend/girlfriend/ partner',

'Your best friend'

Respondent's age

In years

Respondents high school education

What is the highest level of qualification that you have received from school, college or since leaving school? 17 categories recoded into high school (1) or not (0)

Father high school education

Q73: What is the highest level of qualification that your father received from school/college or university? 17 categories recoded into high school (1) or not (0)

Mother high school education

Q77: What is the highest level of qualification that your mother received from school/college or university? 17 categories recoded into high school (1) or not (0)

Following politics in the media

On an average day, how much time do you spend keeping yourself informed about politics and current affairs using the following media? The radio (Q3_1); The Internet (Q3_2), TV (Q3_3), Newspapers (Q3_4).

Additive index variable:

Q3_1 + Q3_2 + Q3_3 + Q3_4.

Danish ethnicity

Q58: What is your ethnic group? Choose one option that best describes your ethnic group or background. Recoded: Danish (1); Else (0)

Religion

Recoded into dummy categories:

Not religious (1); Else (0)

Christian (1); Else (0)

Muslim (1); Else (0)

Other (1); Else (0)

Source: MYPLACE survey, 2012-13.

Notes

Survey question: 'How often do you discuss political issues when you get together with the following people? All correlations are significant at the 0.01 level (2‐tailed).

Source: MYPLACE survey, 2012-13.

Father

Mother

Best friend

B

SE

B

SE

B

SE

Gender (male)

−0.116

0.075

0.070

0.073

Age

0.014

0.019

−0.004

0.017

0.018

High school education

0.086

0.073

0.080

0.069

0.083

Father high school education

0.100

0.051

0.091

−0.028

0.095

Mother high school education

−0.077

0.090

0.084

0.089

0.087

Mother higher occupation

0.097

0.097

0.090

0.017

0.094

Muslim

0.111

0.184

−0.080

0.171

0.177

Following politics in media

0.215

0.200

0.208

Political interest

0.154

0.143

0.150

Political distance: father

0.135

R ²
0.192

0.159

0.180

Adj. R ²

0.172

0.138

0.160

Note

OLS regression: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Source: MYPLACE survey, 2012-13.

Abstract

Young people's engagement in political discussions with parents and friends represents a significant component of the political socialization process and can be seen as an activity where they learn some very basic democratic skills. Based on data from qualitative interviews and a questionnaire survey, this article explores how young people experience political discussions in their everyday life. Our data indicate that young people who feel that their father, mother or friends, respectively, hold more distant political views are less likely to engage in political discussions with each of them. These findings support previous studies in political communication suggesting that people tend to avoid social situations where political disagreements are likely to appear. Furthermore, the results show that there are significant gender differences when analysing the role of the parents as political discussion partners.

Introduction

With a few exceptions (Jennings, ; Bloemraad and Trost, ; Quintelier, ), political socialization research has focused almost exclusively on the generational transfer of political attitudes, values and party identification from parents to their offspring, typically measured as the statistical correlation between parents' and children's political views (Hyman, ; Greenstein, ; Hess and Torney, ; Jennings and Niemi, ; Easton and Dennis, ). This intergenerational transmission perspective has led to a number of interesting results, indicating that family influence is continual and that parents' socio‐economic background and political attitudes are significant predictors of the attitudes of their children (Jennings and Langton, ; Jennings and Niemi, , 1971; Beck and Jennings, ; McGlenn, ; Nieuwbeerta and Wittebrood, ; Jennings, ; Jennings et al., ) and also intentions to vote (Hooghe and Boonen, ).

However, less attention has been paid to those aspects of political socialization that relate to political engagement within the family and everyday relations with friends. Young people's engagement in political discussions with parents and friends represents a significant component of the political socialization process and can be seen as an activity where they learn some very basic democratic skills. People who engage in political discussions with family and friends tend to be more engaged in other forms of political participation. This applies to voting at elections and participation in extra‐parliamentary activities such as petitions and participation in demonstrations (Gundelach and Levinsen, ), and also on measures of civic behaviour, attitudes and skills. McIntosh et al. () suggest that face‐to‐face discussion is important for the development of civic competencies. They found that adolescents who discuss politics and current events with their parents, peers or teachers tend to score higher on measures of civic behaviour, attitudes and skills. In addition, previous qualitative studies of political mobilization emphasize the positive role of political discussion between generations and propose that family members provide direct political stimulation through discussions (Bloemraad and Trost, ). Jennings et al. () notes that the character of family discussions and political conversation determines parents' influence on their children. In families with high levels of political engagement and political discussion, there is more consonance between parent and child regarding important controversial political issues as well as preferences for political parties and presidential candidates (Jennings et al., ).

Few studies have investigated the consequences of political discussions among peers (Amnå, ). Quintelier () finds that peers, together with family and voluntary engagement, are the most important predictors of political participation. She finds that the more young people discuss politics with their peers, the more likely they will engage in politics. Ekström and Östman () find that civic talk with peers is more strongly correlated with young people's civic orientation than civic talk with parents, and Quintelier () finds that discussion among peers has a higher positive effect on political engagement than discussion in the family.

This article explores how young people experience political discussions in their everyday lives and how perceived political distance between respondents and their family members and their friends affects the level of political discussion. We find this perspective particularly interesting as it may also help clarify whether attitudinal factors affect the level of engagement in political discussions. In a questionnaire survey of young Danes and a number of qualitative face‐to‐face interviews, we asked respondents how they experience engagement in political discussions with family and friends, and how close or distant their own political views are to the views of their discussion partners. This means that we are able to explore to what extent political differences, as perceived by respondents, shape the pattern and frequency of political discussions. Our study also provides an opportunity to critically examine whether perceived political distance plays a role for engagement in political discussions among people who basically have close relationships - namely, young people, their parents and friends.

Previous studies show that citizens' engagement in political discussion is affected by the social and attitudinal similarities of their potential discussion partners. In many ways participation in political discussions constitutes the essence of the democratic citizen. Discussion develops individuals' ability to clarify their own attitudes towards others, listen to others' political views and arrive at new insights and perhaps joint decisions. Political discussions typically differ from other types of social communication in that they focus on public issues and involve the exchange of ideological views. In addition, political discussions reflect that the partners may have different interests. Thus, disagreement is typically both a condition and a challenge, which, according to deliberative democrats, requires that partners listen to each other and adjust their own views after listening to other arguments (Conover et al., ; Gutmann and Thompson, ; Esterling et al., ). Seen from a participatory and deliberative point of view, we should expect that political disagreement between individuals nurtures political discussions and promotes further democratic engagement.

Research in political psychology and communication, however, seems to indicate that this is not necessarily the case. Most people find it uncomfortable to encounter political disagreements when they discuss politics with other people. Thus, generally speaking, people are likely to avoid social settings and situations where political disagreements occur. A number of studies have confirmed these findings, which basically support the thesis of 'enclave deliberation' and 'political homophily' suggesting that people typically engage in discussions with like‐minded people (Mutz, , ; Mutz and Martin, ; Morrell, ; Huber and Malhotra, ). However, none of these studies have explored these mechanisms in the family sphere and in close social relationships. This is the intention in this article.

There are a number of reasons why family and friendships are interesting contexts to explore. In contrast to political discussions in the public sphere, family and friendships are characterized by stronger emotional ties, and, in many cases, young people are still financially dependent on their parents. This may have implications for involvement in political discussions, because the discussion partners are more attentive to protecting the social order and stability of the social relations. On the other hand, the family especially can be seen as the 'natural' arena of intergenerational conflicts between parents and children, which is likely to be reflected in political discussions.

Based on the literature we expect that the tendency to avoid political disagreements will also exist in close social relationships; between young people and their parents and between young people and their friends. Aware of the fact that it is usually very difficult to determine the causal directions in these social mechanisms, we hope to shed light on this problem by also exploring qualitatively how young people describe situations where they disagree with political discussion partners.

Data and methods

Our analyses are based on two different sources of data assembled by the Danish part of the European FP7 research project MYPLACE: a questionnaire survey data set, involving a sample of 936 young Danes; 1 and 60 qualitative individual interviews with respondents drawn from the list of survey participants. The survey sample was generated from populations of young citizens from two different areas of Odense, the third largest city in Denmark (193,370 inhabitants). The Danish National Register of Persons provided us with a list of the total population (age 16-25) for each of the two areas, and a random sample was drawn from each of these lists. The response rate, measured by the proportion of full face‐to‐face interviews by successful contacts (phone or face‐to‐face) was 34 per cent for the Odense East sample and 55 per cent for Odense Centre sample. The two different city areas were chosen in order to compare variations in political engagement across different socio‐geographical settings. In order to establish a sound statistical basis for our analysis, we have pooled our data from the two areas into a single data file. Therefore our statistical analyses are based on the total number of respondents, adding a control for city area. 2

The analyses of survey data include variables measuring the frequency of respondents' involvement in political discussions with family members and friends, perceived political distance to these persons, respondents' ideological orientation and political engagement and relevant socio‐demographic variables (see Appendix, Table A1).

Respondents in the qualitative study were selected in accordance with a maximum variation principle, based on two criteria: the prospective respondent's score on the political participation scale, and their scores on the tolerance scale used in the survey questionnaire. Our selection also ensured variation in terms of age, gender, education, ethnicity, citizenship and nationality in each subsample. Hence, our respondents in the qualitative interviews cover activity levels from very active to passive and tolerance levels from very tolerant to very intolerant. 3

The interviews were semi‐structured and we asked questions about respondents' social and political engagement and their political attitudes to a number of different issues (for example, welfare, immigration and environmental issues). The data originates from the early part of the interview, where respondents were asked about what was currently going on that really affected people in the country, and whether this affected them or their family personally. This was the opportunity to explore whether the respondents talked to other people, such as friends or members of their family, about such issues, and to further inquire with whom and what about they had the most recent discussions. The interview sequence was concluded with a reflexive question asking about whom they considered to have been particularly influential in terms of the impact of their views upon them. 4

The purpose of the qualitative interviews was to obtain a deeper insight and understanding of young people's political communication patterns. By adopting a mixed methods approach, we engage both quantitative and qualitative data in a parallel analytical process. Our two different types of data allow for analytical triangulation. 5 The qualitative interviews provided contextualized 'thick descriptions' of how young people themselves experience the social and political climate in their everyday lives and in their familial context; and our survey data made it possible to analyse the impact of multiple underlying variables.

In the following analyses we present our findings in thematic sections. First, using the results of the semi‐structured interviews, we provide an insight into how young people themselves experience political discussions with their parents and friends. Secondly, we examine the questionnaire survey data to analyse how often young people are engaged in political discussions and who are the most prominent discussion partners. The finding that fathers are the preferred discussion partner is further analysed by means of scrutinizing the qualitative interview data. Thirdly, we explore the complex relationship between perceived political distance and engagement in political discussions by use of multivariate statistics and qualitative inquiry.

Political discussion with family and friends

In general, politics is given limited attention by young people. Typically, other things seem to be much more relevant and urgent; challenges related to their education, finding a place to live and, especially, staying connected with friends and partners. That said, our experience was that young people - especially in the context of high unemployment - seem to be very concerned about their own prospects in the labour market and also how the political challenges of, for example, increasing unemployment, climate change and immigration are handled by politicians.

Most of the politically active young people in our qualitative sample describe their family and peers as the main actors in discussions about current social issues and politics. Almost consistently, those of our respondents who express high levels of political engagement in the local and national societal environment see the family as a 'natural' social arena for discussions about society and politics. These respondents typically had grown up in families with a vibrant culture of debating political issues, while the politically inactive came from families where political discussions were almost completely absent.

Several of the politically engaged young people recount how political discussions in the family have had an impact on the development of their own political identity and parents are often credited with having fostered political thinking. It is characteristic for this kind of interaction that most discussions with parents are seen as enriching and enjoyable, especially when they are able to manage disagreements and establish discussions based on mutual respect:

My father might have influenced me by pushing me to think about things. I may not always agree with him, but he had me think about things. (Brian, Centre)

We have always discussed a lot, and we have always challenged each other very much at home, so I have really got a pretty good base to form my own opinions, and I do not always agree with my [parents], but I have to give a lot of credit to my mum and her husband. That is because they have - what can I say? - they have encouraged me to take a position on what is happening in society. So they have not consciously foisted any position on me, but they have certainly helped me to shape and develop one. [...] We have always discussed a lot, and it has meant that I have been forced to take a position on it because I could not just come with empty arguments. (Ann, Centre)

Although there are exceptions, politically inactive respondents typically come from families where politics were not part of the everyday conversations. Many of these young people describe a family life where almost no political and societal discussions take place:

Interviewer: Through your childhood and until you left home, did you discuss politics and things like that?

Sanne: No, we have never done that, we watched the news while we ate, but there was never really any discussion of what was said. (Sanne, East)

It is not that we sat and discussed over the dinner table. It has been more like this: 'What did you do today?' 'And what have you achieved today?' More practical things, you know. [...] That is how we do it. (Gurli, Centre)

For politically inactive respondents societal and political issues outside the family sphere and everyday life are rarely the subject of discussion, and politics is considered to be somewhat distant and irrelevant to daily life. However, some respondents from families where no political discussions took place have gained inspiration from outside their own family. Such an example is given by a young woman, who experienced the 'world of politics' when she met her boyfriend's family:

Yes, I did actually [take an interest in politics] when I got together with my boyfriend because his family talked a lot about politics and expressed political opinions. [...] I began, suddenly, to think that this was really an exciting issue, which I certainly could be interested in too. Then I started to keep up with politics [...] because there was someone to talk to about it. (Doris, Centre)

This illustrates that inspiration to engage in political discussions also comes from outside the family. Discussions with peers are the second main arena in which young people engage in informal political discussions. Most of the respondents seem to have a quite tolerant relationship to their friends where politics is concerned and many refer to their friends and partners when talking about political issues and how they discuss politics.

It is perhaps not surprising that politically active respondents are also more involved in political discussions with family and friends than those who are politically inactive. However, it is worth noting that most of the active respondents seem to be very much aware of the role of parents and friends in shaping their political skills and identity, and during the qualitative interviews they provided a number of interesting and detailed descriptions of how they themselves experienced political communication with family and friends. Before continuing with the interpretation of these issues, however, the survey data provide an opportunity to analyse how often young people engage in political discussions and the frequency of discussion with different partners.

Our findings are in line with previous research indicating a significant gender difference between the roles of the parents; within the family, fathers appear to be the most frequent political discussion partners. As shown in Table 1, 28 per cent of the respondents indicate that they 'always' or 'often' talk about political issues with their father, while only 15 per cent of respondents talk politics with their mother. The reason that there are slightly fewer respondents who answered the question on political discussion with their father is that some respondents have grown up in single parent families.

Partners and best friends are also reported to be political discussion partners. Among respondents in a relationship, 28 per cent responded that he/she always or often discusses politics with their partner. Best friends are also relatively frequent discussion partners (24 per cent), while siblings and grandparents are significantly less prominent.

Evidently, the items measuring political discussion with different persons are positively correlated, especially when it comes to political discussion with parents. Thus, for example, young people who frequently engage in political discussions with their father will be more likely to discuss politics with their mother etc. (see Appendix, Table A2). However, instead of constructing a single variable measuring the overall level of political discussion, we are more interested in looking at the different patterns of discussion related to each of the discussion partners, especially the father, mother and best friend.

The dominance of the father as the most frequent political discussion partner in the family is also expressed by several of the respondents in our qualitative studies. When it comes to involvement in political discussions with fathers, two types of experiences are found: those based on basic political agreement; and those characterized by a serious disagreement. Examples of engaged fathers who feed into political discussions are typically found among respondents coming from well‐educated middle‐class families:

If we hear something on television, read something in the newspaper, or just pick it up somewhere, then we discuss it. My father knows a lot. Then he asks questions - 'How is it that...?' [...] - and then the discussion gets going. (Bente, East)

I am very much in agreement with my father, because of the examples he provides. [...] It is mostly my father and I [that discuss things]. Because of his working hours, 3-11pm, we do not watch television much together but we can sit together and talk about, for example, that I think we might need a new government. 'Why is that? I think things are going well'. So, we may sit and talk about the things that crop up. [...] I would say that my father and I can discuss politics no matter what. I think every time I get hold of my dad on the phone [...] half of the conversation concerns politics. (Freja, East)

There are also several examples of discussions where the father and son/daughter disagree. The picture is drawn of fathers being more engaged but, in some cases, also more patronizing. One respondent characterizes her father as very eager to debate things. However, when he speaks, it often turns into a polemical speech:

With my father, it is more factual, but [he] is also more loud‐mouthed and passionate; to put it in a nice way, it is very passionate. Sometimes, it gets a bit blunt, the way things are said, but discussions develop in different ways. (Elin, Centre)

In sum, our analysis of the qualitative interviews as well as the survey data shows that the father is the dominant political discussion partner in the family. This also indicates a possible source of a continuing gender bias in the political socialization process, which obviously requires further examination.

Perceived political distance and political discussion

The respondents in our qualitative interviews seem to engage in discussion with parents, and predominantly with their fathers, when they feel they are respected and 'stand on common ground'. However, findings also indicate that young people tend to avoid discussions with their parents when this is not the case. An extreme case is captured in the following example where a young woman reacts against a dogmatic left‐wing father:

I think perhaps that when I was 16-17 years old, I rebelled a little against my father, because he is [supporting a left‐wing party]. It is the workers, etc. I thought this is nonsense. [...] We do not discuss it in my family because it ends in a fight and my mum crying, because he is convinced that it is the workers that make all the difference for Denmark. (Britt, Centrum)

The behaviour adopted by this respondent is typical within family situations where parents and offspring disagree. This constellation is also found in an example provided by another respondent, where the father has not stopped disagreeing but has accepted that he cannot influence his daughter:

My father, he might get mad because I have opinions of my own. Then he can be a little more, 'Then let's talk about something else' or turn on the TV. Then we do not need to discuss anymore and can just be good friends and not talk [laughs]. [...] When my father gets angry, he closes up. It's not that we are screaming. [...] He has his own way which is slightly less constructive perhaps than to sit and argue his point. (Ida, East)

Parents' behavioural and communicative style might be influenced by the gender of the young people and the parents but this cannot be concluded from the qualitative interviews. Despite a tendency for young people to avoid conflicts when they engage in political discussions with parents, the relationship need not become antagonistic. Despite the difficulties, openings still exist. As one respondent reports, he often talks politics with his mother and with friends. However 'my father tends to disagree with me, but I try [to discuss with the father] sometimes, when I have the courage to do it' (Brian, Centre). This happens when they sit at the dinner table, where the father comments upon the news and is provoked by what he has heard.

A similar example of conflict avoidance is reported by this male respondent who supports a neo‐liberal political viewpoint, while his mother's political attitude is more to the left. The young man supports Liberal Alliance (neo‐liberal) although he had previously supported Venstre (centre‐right), which is the party his father supports. The women in the family, his mother and sister, support Socialdemokraterne (the Social Democrats):

Chris: My father and I have a lot [...] we share the same opinion. However, with my mother I do not share as many opinions. Not that I do not love her, but we just do not agree on things. My father and I always [...] It's probably my dad I've got my thoughts and ideologies from.

Interviewer: You go to your dad when you need to talk. When you talk to your mother, you end up arguing once in a while?

Chris: No, there are no arguments. I'm fine with her, but we just do not talk about our thoughts and what we think in political terms. [...] It's mostly with my dad that I talk about these things. (Chris, Centre)

Political disagreement does not necessarily lead to family problems. However, as in these cases it seems that some young people tend to avoid political discussions with their parents when they do not agree politically. As mentioned in the introduction this perspective calls for further investigation.

According to the literature we should expect that people usually prefer to discuss politics with people with whom they know they agree while avoiding situations where they are likely to face political disagreement (Mutz, , 2006; Morrell, ). The question posed here is whether this is also a general social mechanism in young people's communication with their family and friends?

In order to further investigate this we continue our analysis drawing on the survey data. We apply a multivariate regression analysis which tests the statistical relationships between perceived political distance and engagement in political discussions with father, mother and friends respectively. Furthermore, the statistical analysis also gives us the opportunity to explore potential social and gendered patterns in political discussions with parents and friends.

The main explanatory variable, 'perceived political distance', is measured by asking the respondents how close or distant their political views are to the views of family members, partners and friends, respectively. Answers were given on a 10‐point scale, where 0 is close and 10 is distant (see Appendix, Table A1). Research into political socialization and participation shows that various kinds of formal and informal social networks in which children and young citizens are involved - parents, friends, educational environment, as well as the media - play an important role (McLeod, ; McLeod et al., ). Therefore the statistical analysis includes a number of variables, which, typically, are positively correlated with the levels of political engagement. Based on the literature on gender socialization, we should expect male respondents to be more frequently engaged in discussions than female respondents (Jennings and Niemi, ; Jennings, ; Verba et al., ; Burns et al., ; Coffé and Bolzendahl, ). We are also aware that there may prove to be gender‐specific patterns in respondents' discussions with mothers and fathers, respectively. Previous studies have shown that daughters often use their mothers as role models when it comes to political engagement (Gidengil et al., ).

Furthermore, in the statistical analysis we include relevant socio demographic variables: respondents' age, as we expect that the level of political discussion increases as people grow older; respondents' and parents' level of education, because higher education usually strengthens rhetorical skills and knowledge on societal and political issues. Typically, better educated parents will encourage their children to express opinions freely, thereby also being more likely to motivate their children to read newspapers, gain knowledge, form opinions and take part in political discussions. Furthermore, as proxies for social class we included variables on mothers' and fathers' occupations.

The majority of respondents below the age of 20 are still living together with their parents. For this reason we have applied a variable measuring whether respondents are living together with their parents or not. We expect that living together with parents will increase the frequency of political discussions with one or both of them. Furthermore, we have applied ethnicity (Danish/not Danish), regious orientation and area of residence (Centre/East) as control variables.

As shown in Table 2, we have chosen to conduct the analyses in three separate models, because we want to examine whether there are different patterns across the different discussion partners. Furthermore, it should be noted that results presented in this table are based first on a series of stepwise regressions and backward elimination of statistically insignificant variables. Full models are shown in Appendix (Table A3). Altogether, we should also note that the variance explained by the variables included in the three models is quite modest (Adj. R ² = 0.155-0.185), indicating that the models far from explain a high proportion of the variation in the frequency of political discussion among respondents.

Our multivariate analyses reveal that not all of our initial expectations are confirmed. First, statistically significant gender differences are absent in the frequency of discussions with both parents when controlling for the impact of a number of other individual and social background variables. It is interesting to note, however, that male respondents are more engaged in political discussions with their best friends than females. Age is not associated with frequency of political discussions with parents, possibly due to a quite narrow age span in our sample (16-25 years). We do find, however, a minor age effect in discussions with friends.

Respondents with higher education tend to engage more frequently in political discussions with their father; however, the effect is not statistically significant for discussion with mother and best friend. The most significant background variable affecting the level of political discussion with mothers is the reported level of mothers' education. As expected, we also find a relatively strong correlation between political interest, use of media for political information and the level of engagement in political discussion. This is consistent with the results of the qualitative interviews, where several respondents said that political issues in the media often lead to political discussions with parents and friends. Quite surprisingly there are no effects for ethnicity in discussing politics with parents but we do find a slight negative effect for friends; Muslim respondents tend to be more involved in political discussions with their friends than the Christian and non‐religious majority.

The main question in this part of the analysis is how far perceived political distance affects the level of engagement in political discussions with parents and friends? As expected, our results reveal negative associations of perceived political distance for all models, indicating that respondents who feel that their father, mother or friends, respectively, hold more distant political views are less likely to engage in political discussions with each of them. This is an interesting finding, especially when we consider that these effects seem to be stronger in the analysis of political discussion with the father. We think this possibly also reflects that political socialization within the family is gendered, not only regarding how much young people discuss politics with parents and friends, but also when considering the consequences of perceived political distance.

The cross‐sectional survey data do not allow the definitive determination of the causal mechanisms behind these negative relationships; however, the qualitative data can give us a hint as to what is at stake here. As mentioned earlier some of the young people in the qualitative interviews say that they prefer to stay out of political discussions because they want to avoid further disagreements. In some cases they do this because they are looking after their own feelings and well‐being, and the general atmosphere in the family. In most of the qualitative interviews this seems to be a social behaviour chosen by the young people themselves; however, in some cases it is also one of the parents (typically the mother) who abstains from engaging in political discussions.

On the one hand this type of social behaviour can be seen as a considerate way to avoid conflicts within the family and with friends. But seen from a deliberative democratic point of view, it is a rather problematic way of handling political disagreements. Not only because it may reflect a lack of recognition and respect for others' individual political views, but also in a wider perspective because patterns of communication in the family may influence social and political behaviour later in young peoples' life. Although our design and data do not allow further analysis of socialization effects over time, we do believe that it is likely that tendencies of public 'enclave deliberation' and 'political homophily' found in previous studies (Mutz, , 2006; Mutz and Martin, ; Morrell, ; Huber and Malhotra, ) may be rooted in familial socialization patterns.

Conclusion

In this paper we have explored the political socialization of young people by looking at patterns in young people's political discussion with their parents and friends. The analysis of our survey data revealed that young people with high (perceived) political distance to their father, mother and/or friend discuss politics less frequently. However, the impact of political distance is strongest in discussions with fathers. Judging from what our respondents told us in the qualitative interviews, this seems to be a consequence of negative experiences from prior discussions; when political discussions with parents turn into a fixed pattern of disagreement, there is a tendency to withdraw from the discussion.

Despite the fact that Denmark is usually regarded as a country with a fairly high degree of gender equality in social as well as in political life, our study has shown that gender‐based differences in parental political communication processes still exist. We can conclude that the father remains the most frequent discussion partner. Friends and partners are also frequent discussion partners and young men discuss politics more frequently with their friends than do young women. Based on the qualitative data, it seems that parental political socialization, to some extent, is rooted in traditional gender roles where fathers are more likely to be a source of information about societal issues while mothers tend towards giving advice on personal matters.

Whether these gendered patterns of political discussion with parents are established by the parents or their children is a moot point, although it is to be expected that children respond to parental behaviour. Gender differences within the family mainly exist among the parents as discussion partners and not the respondents. This might indicate that gender differences in political engagement are significantly less pronounced among the younger generations. This said, however, we do find that the young men are more involved in political discussions with their friends than the young women.

Not surprisingly, the respondents' own interest in politics influences how much they engage in political discussions. Our respondents' level of education pulls in the same direction. This is, however, only the case for discussions with fathers. Among the parents, only the mothers' level of education influences levels of political discussion with respondents. Furthermore, our analyses suggest that the influence of the media on engagement in political discussions with parents and friends should not be underestimated. We found a relatively strong correlation between political media use and the level of engagement in political discussions. In the qualitative interviews, there are indications that several patterns of use are in play. Some people use the media in the classic way, that is, as sources of information, while many others use the media as an initiator and extension of face‐to‐face political discussions.

Finally, returning to the main question of distance and engagement in political discussions, this study has shown that perceived political distance matters. Previous studies in political psychology and communication suggested that people tend to avoid social situations where political disagreements are likely to appear. We have explored whether these mechanisms exists in the family sphere and in close social relationships with friends, and our findings support this thesis: perceived political distance tends to reduce the likelihood of engagement in political discussions. However, so far our studies have focused on young people's political orientation and involvement in political discussions at a very general level. We suggest that further studies are needed with regard to the question of how specific policy issues, political events and conflicts affect political discussions and political engagement and with regard to the impact of different types of communication patterns in the family.

Acknowledgements

We thank Gary Pollock (Manchester Metropolitan University), Hilary Pilkington (University of Manchester), David Nicolas Hopmann (University of Southern Denmark) and Sebastián Valenzuela (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) for helpful and constructive feedback on earlier drafts of this article. This research received funding from the The European Commission 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.

1 The Danish survey data set includes 109 respondents, who are 26-28 years old, who were included in the statistical analyses for this article but who were removed from the merged data set in order to ensure conformity to the MYPLACE project research design (see the article by Pilkington and Pollock in this volume).

2 A more detailed report on sampling procedures, characteristics of the test population and the various questionnaire items can be found in the Danish part of MYPLACE Work Package 4: Measuring participation report (http://www.fp7‐myplace.eu/deliverables.php).

3 The distinction between politically active and inactive has been measured as the level of activity within a range of items within the last 12 months before the interview. The ordinal measurement scale was divided into the levels 'never', 'once', 'twice', and 'three times or more'. The distinction of active and inactive was relative within the sample; it distinguished between those who scored highest and those who scored lowest. Political activity was an aggregated measure of twenty types of political activity: volunteering in election campaigns, contacting politicians, attending meetings, signing petitions or collecting signatures, voting for student councils, giving speeches, distributing leaflets, making consumer boycotts, writing graffiti, wearing badges, participating in demonstrations or strikes, donating money, writing articles or emails, uploading on the Internet, participating in violent events, occupying buildings or blocking streets, or participating in flash mobs.

4 All qualitative interviews were recorded, transcribed, anonymized and imported into the data analysis software, NVIVO 9.2, and coded by three coders.

5 Contemporary, state‐of‐the‐art mixed methods research highlights four approaches: a sequential explanatory; an exploratory design; a parallel design (triangulation); and an embedded design (Bryman, ; Plano Clark et al., , Creswell, ). Due to the origin of data established in parallel, we have adopted triangulation as the appropriate method of data analysis (Greene, ; Creswell and Plano Clark, ; Plano Clark et al., ; Creswell, ).

Appendix

Variables

Questions, answer categories/scales, and coding

Political discussion: Separate variables for:

'Your father',

'Your mother',

'The brother or sister that you are closest to'

'The grandparent that you are closest to',

'Your boyfriend/girlfriend/ partner',

'Your best friend'

Q4: How often do you discuss political issues when you get together with the following people?

Answer: Always (1), Often (2), Sometimes (3), Rarely (4), Never (5), Don't know (‐1).

Recoded: Always (4), Often (3), Sometimes (2), Rarely (1), Never (0),

Perceived political distance: Separate variables for:

'Your father',

'Your mother',

'The brother or sister that you are closest to'

'The grandparent that you are closest to',

'Your boyfriend/girlfriend/ partner',

'Your best friend'

Respondent's age

In years

Respondents high school education

What is the highest level of qualification that you have received from school, college or since leaving school? 17 categories recoded into high school (1) or not (0)

Father high school education

Q73: What is the highest level of qualification that your father received from school/college or university? 17 categories recoded into high school (1) or not (0)

Mother high school education

Q77: What is the highest level of qualification that your mother received from school/college or university? 17 categories recoded into high school (1) or not (0)

Following politics in the media

On an average day, how much time do you spend keeping yourself informed about politics and current affairs using the following media? The radio (Q3_1); The Internet (Q3_2), TV (Q3_3), Newspapers (Q3_4).

Additive index variable:

Q3_1 + Q3_2 + Q3_3 + Q3_4.

Danish ethnicity

Q58: What is your ethnic group? Choose one option that best describes your ethnic group or background. Recoded: Danish (1); Else (0)

Religion

Recoded into dummy categories:

Not religious (1); Else (0)

Christian (1); Else (0)

Muslim (1); Else (0)

Other (1); Else (0)

Notes

Survey question: 'How often do you discuss political issues when you get together with the following people? All correlations are significant at the 0.01 level (2‐tailed).

Source: MYPLACE survey, 2012-13.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Political discussions with family and friends: exploring the impact of political distance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Young people's engagement in political discussions with parents and friends represents a significant component of the political socialization process and can be seen as an activity where they learn some very basic democratic skills. Based on data from qualitative interviews and a questionnaire survey, this article explores how young people experience political discussions in their everyday life.

# data[].attributes.body
Title: Threat to democracy: Physical and mental health impact of democracy movement in Hong Kong
Source: Science Direct
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.07.005
Credibility Evaluation: Group 1 (Scholarly Books and Articles)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Background

This study examined the prevalence and critical predictors of anxiety and depressive symptoms and self-rated health, following the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong. Methods: Random digit dialing recruited a population-representative sample of 1208 Chinese Hong Kong citizens (mean age=46.89 years; 63% female) in the first two weeks of February 2015. Respondents gave their informed consent and reported personal, social, and economic resource loss since the Umbrella Movement (Conservation of Resources-Evaluation), current anxiety symptoms (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory) and depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), and self-rated health (1= very good, 4= very bad).

Results

A total of 47.35% (95% CI=44.55, 50.17) respondents reported moderate/severe anxiety symptoms and 14.4% (95% CI=12.54, 16.50) reported moderate/severe depressive symptoms; 9.11% (95% CI=7.61, 10.86) reported "poor" or "very poor" health. Multivariable regressions revealed that personal and social resource loss was associated with higher anxiety and depressive symptoms and greater odds of "very poor" health (adjusted odds ratios/incidence rate ratios=5-102%), independent of lower education level and income and being unmarried.

Limitations

This study was cross-sectional in nature and thus could not determine causality from the associations between resource loss and outcome variables. Second, the telephone survey relied on self-reports; response bias and social desirability could influence respondents' answers and discount data validity. Third, potential confounders such as preexisting mental and physical health issues and concurrent predictors like exposure to the Umbrella Movement were not assessed.

Conclusions

This is one of the first studies following any recent political movement (e.g., The Arab Spring) to quantify distress and the associated correlates of distress among affected citizens. Perceived psychosocial resource losses were critical predictors of poor outcomes.

View full text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Threat to democracy: Physical and mental health impact of democracy movement in Hong Kong

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This study examined the prevalence and critical predictors of anxiety and depressive symptoms and self-rated health, following the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong. Methods: Random digit dialing recruited a population-representative sample of 1208 Chinese Hong Kong citizens (mean age=46.89 years; 63% female) in the first two weeks of February 2015.

# data[].attributes.body
Title: Loss of social resources predicts incident posttraumatic stress disorder during ongoing political violence within the Palestinian Authority
Source : Springer Link
DOI: None
Credibility Evaluation: Group 1 (Schholarly Books and Articls)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Loss of social resources predicts incident posttraumatic stress disorder during ongoing political violence within the Palestinian Authority

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Background Exposure to ongoing political violence and stressful conditions increases the risk of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in low-resource contexts. However, much of our understanding of...

# data[].attributes.body
Title: Crisis of trust: Socio-economic determinants of Europeans’ confidence in government
Source: SAGE Journals
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1465116517723499
Credibility Evaluation: Group 1 (Scholaerly Books and Articles)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Europeans' confidence in political institutions has dropped precipitously since the onset of the Euro-crisis in 2009. The decline in trust in government varies across countries and occupational and educational groups. Economic factors explain much of the cross-national and over-time variation. The baseline level of trust is influenced by a person's position in the labor market: across European countries, citizens with more education and higher levels of skills trust government more than those educational and occupational groups that have benefited less from European integration. Residents of debtor countries with high unemployment rates are also much less likely to trust national government than those in creditor countries that have fared better during the economic crisis, while the unemployed have lost faith in government to a greater degree than other parts of the population. Cultural, ideational, and political factors remain important for baseline levels of trust, but cannot explain the acute, asymmetrical decline in citizen trust observed over the last decade.

References

Alonso S (2014) 'You can vote but you cannot choose': Democracy and the sovereign debt crisis in the Eurozone. Carlos III-Juan March Institute of Social Sciences, Working Paper 282. Available at: https://e-archivo.uc3m.es/bitstream/handle/10016/18315/IC3JM-2014-282.pdf?sequence=3 (accessed 23 June 2017).
Google Scholar

Anderson, CJ, Reichert, MS (1995) Economic benefits and support for membership in the E.U.: A cross-national analysis. Journal of Public Policy 15(3): 231-249.
Google Scholar

Armingeon, K, Guthmann, K (2013) Democracy in crisis? The declining support for national democracy in European countries, 2007-2011. European Journal of Political Research 53(2): 423-442.
Google Scholar

Carey, S (2002) Undivided loyalties: Is national identity an obstacle to European integration? European Union Politics 3(4): 387-413. |
Google Scholar SAGE Journals

Frieden, J (2016) The crisis, the public and the future of European integration. In: Caselli, F, Centeno, M, Tavares, J (eds) After the Crisis: Reform, Recovery, and Growth in Europe, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 146-170.
Google Scholar

Inglehart, R (1977) The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar

Inglehart, R (1989) Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar

Inglehart R and Norris P (2016) Trump, Brexit, and the rise of populism: Economic have-nots and cultural backlash. HKS Working Paper No. RWP16-026. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2818659 (accessed 23 June 2017).
Google Scholar

Lawrence, RZ (1997) Is it really the economy, stupid? In: Nye, JS, Zelikow, P, King, DC (eds) Why People Don't Trust Government., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 111-132.
Google Scholar

Mansbridge, J (1997) Social and cultural causes of dissatisfaction with U.S. government. In: Nye, JS, Zelikow, P, King, DC (eds) Why People Don't Trust Government, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 133-154.
Google Scholar

Magalhães PC (2012) Economy, ideology, and the elephant in the room: A research note on the elections of the great recession in Europe. Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122416 (accessed 23 June 2017).
Google Scholar

Muñoz J, Torcal M and Bonet E (2011) Trust in the European Parliament: From Affective Heuristics to Rational Cueing. European Union Politics 12(4): 551-574.
Google Scholar

Sánchez-Cuenca, I (2000) The political basis of support for European integration. European Union Politics 1(2): 147-171. |
Google Scholar SAGE Journals

Schmidt, V (2013) Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: Input, output, and throughput. Political Studies 61(1): 2-22.
Google Scholar

Van Erkel, P, Van Der Meer, TWG (2016) Macroeconomic performance, political trust and the great recession: A multilevel analysis of the effects of within-country fluctuations in macroeconomic performance on political trust in 15 EU countries, 1999-2011. European Journal of Political Research 55(1): 177-197.
Google Scholar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Crisis of trust: Socio-economic determinants of Europeans' confidence in government - Chase Foster, Jeffry Frieden, 2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Europeans' confidence in political institutions has dropped precipitously since the onset of the Euro-crisis in 2009. The decline in trust in government varies across countries and occupational and educational groups. Economic factors explain much of the cross-national and over-time variation.

# data[].attributes.body
Title: Co-victimization of African-American children who witness violence: effects on cognitive, emotional, and behavioral development.
Source: National Medical Association
DOI: None
Credibility Evaluation :  Group 1 ( Scholarly Books and Articles)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

This article reports the prevalence of violence and co-victimization among African-American youth in Chicago. Results of a violence screening survey were compiled on 1035 school children, aged 10 to 19 years. Police crime statistics are compared to illustrate the magnitude of the problem of youth and violence. Results indicate that 75% of the participating boys and 10% of participating girls had witnessed the shooting, stabbing, robbing, or killing of another person in their own lives. The survey itself did not identify the effects of co-victimization on the participants. Previous research is incorporated in the development of tentative hypotheses for intervention in public schools.

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (927K), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

Terr LC. Children of Chowchilla: a study of psychic trauma. Psychoanal Study Child. 1979;34:547-623. [[PubMed] Google Scholar]

LOVAAS OI. Effect of exposure to symbolic aggression on aggressive behavior. Child Dev. 1961 Mar;32:37-44. [[PubMed] Google Scholar]

Dodge KA. Social cognition and children's aggressive behavior. Child Dev. 1980 Mar;51(1):162-170. [[PubMed] Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the National Medical Association are provided here courtesy of National Medical Association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Co-victimization of African-American children who witness violence: effects on cognitive, emotional, and behavioral development.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article reports the prevalence of violence and co-victimization among African-American youth in Chicago. Results of a violence screening survey were compiled on 1035 school children, aged 10 to 19 years. Police crime statistics are compared to illustrate the magnitude of the problem of youth and violence.