What do adolescents think about political ideologies? - The investigation of socialization effects Nóra Miklós, Dóra Hamrák, Balázs Fehér, Ágnes Szabó

Research of the Political Ideology Lab  Interdisciplinary approach of ideologies in Central and Eastern Europe  Methodological and thematical variety: from as many angles as possible (Psychology, Sociology and Political Science)

Adolescents and Politics  Why them?  adolescents’ concept of ideologies – how stable are they and what kind of factors contribute in changing them? Gustaffson (1987): parents, peers, school-mates, teachers, mass media and other different communities are all socializational mediators institutional effectspeer influence

1. Institutional influences (schools) Palonsky (1987) and Newcomb (1943) Alwin (1991), Banks and Roker (1994), Kallio and Häkli (2011) Banks and Roker (1994)  significant differences between the students of different types of schools Theoretical introduction

2. Peer influences high focus on parental influence + the neglect of role of peers BUT peer influence does exist! (e.g. Kuhn 2004; Cicognani et al. 2012, Duriez et al. 2013) social identity theorydomain relevance (Hartup 2005)Campbell’s four principles (1980)

Sample 228 adolescents (17-18-year-old) 3 types of high schools from Budapest

Method Timing: Spring, 2011 Questionnaire: Representation Five Words Associations Political orientation Left-Right bipolar scale + open- ended question Peer effects Sociometry

Social Representations Theory (Moscovici, 1984, Abric, 1994) Five Words Association Method Content analysis (Züll, Scholz & Schmitt, 2010) 9 main categories

IDEOLOGIESSOCIETAL VALUESSYMBOLIC CONTENTSTIME AND SPACESOCIAL GROUPSCURRENT POLITICAL ACTORSDIRECT REFERENCES TO POLITICAL ACTIVITYAFFECTIVE CONTENTSNOT CLASSIFIABLE ANSWERS

Results – General findings 1604 classifiable associations – 816 related to the Right – 753 related to the Left Most frequent: – Forms and methods of political activity (22,3%) – Political actors (14,5%) – Affective contents (10,75%)

Substantial differences between Left and Right Results – General findings II. BUT they are not absolute counterpoints!

Results – The structure of the representation

Conclusions #1 – The structure Symbolic, limited core Diverse, extended peripheral ring BUT Adolescents DO have social representation about political ideologies!

negative and affective contents along with actual political events + non-classifiable answers more abstract concepts + ideological contents Results – Differences between schools vocational schools high schools

Conclusions #2 – School types Vocational schools – unstable, diverse representation at both wings Right-wing: more remarkable differences  elite (+ordinary high schools): more stable + greater consensus Similarity between the 2 high schools: Jaccard-index  R: J=21% (N=70)  L: J=21% (N=56) Sharp cleavage between vocational and high schools!

Discussion Different socializational atmospheres  teachers  peers  socio-economic status of the family  attitude and vision of the school The representation of the Left- and Right-wing starts to develop in different ways!

A fruitful prospective direction: Network-analysis of the classes

The vocational school Density:.703 (168 connections); N=16

The common high school Density:.563 (453 connections); N=29

The elite high school Density:.570 (564 connections); N=32

Are friends similar in political orientation? Left-Right semantic differential scale with open- ended question People often speak about Left-Wing and Right-Wing in politics. Where do you place yourself on this scale? Left-wing Right-wing Please, explain your choice in a few words!

Some interesting cliques „not interested”; „neutral” Vocational school class N=21 „FIDESZ”; „Right-wing”; „belonged to the Right”; „need for order”

Some interesting cliques „FIDESZ”; „Christianity”; „Viktor Orbán”; „sympathy” Common high school class N=71 „do not talk about it”; „lack of interest”; „no answer”

Some interesting cliques „neutral”; „no answer”; „change, against conservatism and Right-wing” Elite high school class N=105 „liberalism, Left is better, because of parents”; „neutral”; „do not know, hate politics”

Limitations and future plans Expansion of the sample The problem of the frequency and rank More complex network analysis Involving parents Focus groups

Thank you for your attention!

T HE REPRESENTATION OF E LITE H IGH S CHOOL STUDENTS ABOUT THE R IGHT High FrequencyLow Rank Political actors (25%. 2.1) References to political activity (38%. 2.9) Ideological contents (5%. 2.7) Societal groups (3%. 2.8) High Rank Societal values (9%. 3.2) Symbolic contents (6%. 3) Time and Space (2%. 3) Affective contents (10%. 3.4)

T HE REPRESENTATION OF COMMON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ABOUT THE RIGHT High FrequencyLow Rank Political actors (25%. 2.3) Ideological contents (4%. 2) Societal values (11%. 2.8) Time and Space (11%. 2.8) Affective contents (11%. 2.9) High Rank References to political activity (36%. 3) Symbolic contents (9%. 3.2) Societal groups (3%. 3.4)

THE REPRESENTATION OF VOCATIONAL SCHOOL STUDENTS ABOUT THE RIGHT High FrequencyLow Rank Low rank Ideological contents (5%. 2.7) Symbolic contents (14%. 2.9) Time and Space (3%. 2.5) Societal groups (4%. 2.8) Political actors (18%. 2.8) Affective contents (17%. 2.8) High rankReferences to political activity (31%. 3.1) Societal values (11%. 3.2)

T HE REPRESENTATION OF E LITE H IGH S CHOOL STUDENTS ABOUT THE L EFT High FrequencyLow Rank Ideological contents (16%. 2.3) Symbolic contents (9%. 2.7) Time and Space (13%. 2.7) Political actors (19%. 2.1) High Rank References to political activity (30%. 3) Societal values(5%. 3.7) Societal groups (17%. 3.3) Affective contents (15%. 3)

T HE REPRESENTATION OF COMMON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ABOUT THE L EFT High FrequencyLow Rank Ideological contents (25%. 2.1) Political actors (20%. 2.4) Societal values (2%. 2.4) Affective contents (15%. 2.9) High Rank Political actors (36%. 3) References to political activity (29%. 3.1) Societal groups (5%. 3) Time and Space (7%. 3.1)

HE REPRESENTATION OF VOCATIONAL SCHOOL STUDENTS ABOUT THE L EFT High FrequencyLow Rank Affective contents (29%. 2.8) Ideological contents (6%. 2.9) Time and Space (3%. 2.5) Political actors (18%. 2.4) High Rank References to political activity (26%. 3.1) Societal values (3%. 3.7) Symbolic contents (12%. 3.3) Societal groups (2%. 3.8)