Relational Pathways to Sociopolitical Control: A Mixed-Methods Study

Abstract

Adolescence is a critical period for sociopolitical development, yet research has primarily focused on youth with explicit civic engagement, overlooking the role of community involvement in broader contexts. This mixed-methods study examines how adolescent community involvement—ranging from volunteering and advocacy to participation in sports, religious, and cultural activities—shapes sociopolitical control (SPC) in young adulthood. Using longitudinal quantitative survey data from 352 Canadian families, alongside qualitative interviews with 32 adult participants, we analyze how relationships with parents and peers mediate the link between community involvement and SPC. Regression analyses demonstrate that community involvement in high school predicts SPC at age 25, with parental support and positive peer relationships serving as significant mediators. Mediation analysis further reveals that relationships with mothers exert the strongest indirect effect on SPC, followed by relationships with fathers and peers. Qualitative findings highlight the mechanisms through which relational contexts foster or hinder SPC, illustrating that family values, peer norms, and early exposure to social issues shape long-term civic identity. These results underscore the importance of fostering relationally supportive environments that encourage diverse forms of adolescent community participation, contributing to both individual empowerment and broader democratic engagement.

1. Introduction

Despite being excluded from many forms of civic participation (such as voting), young people can and do take many forms of action in the sociopolitical domain. Through various forms of civic and community engagement, young people can develop a set of skills, knowledge, and perspectives that equip them to participate more effectively. Sociopolitical control (SPC) is a key construct for understanding how people perceive their capacity to participate in sociopolitical systems, influence power relationships, lead collective efforts, and enact systemic changes. Rooted in psychological empowerment theory, SPC encompasses two dimensions: leadership competence—the interpersonal and organizational skills needed to mobilize groups—and policy control—the belief in one’s ability to shape institutional decisions (Peterson et al., 2011; Zimmerman, 1995). Together, these two dimensions offer a framework for examining how people develop the agency and confidence to engage with sociopolitical structures, particularly during adolescence, a formative period for identity development and civic engagement (Christens, 2012; Flanagan & Levine, 2010). Youth with greater perceived sociopolitical control have stronger connections to their communities and participate in neighborhood and school activities more frequently than their peers (Peterson et al., 2011). For activists, sociopolitical control increases with experience and time spent in the community, which points to the importance of sustained involvement in developing civic agency (Itzhaky & York, 2000).

Much of what is known about youth sociopolitical control and civic trajectories comes from studies of highly engaged youth, including studies of youth organizers and those involved in positive youth development contexts like youth organizing initiatives, action civics classes, and community service organizations (e.g., Christens et al., 2023; J. Conner, 2014; Fernández et al., 2024; Morgan & Ballard, 2024). However, less is understood about the civic developmental trajectories of youth whose ways of participating in their communities may be less inherently sociopolitical; for example, youth who participate in organized sports, are active in religions or cultural activities, or who support their neighbors and families.

Adolescence is marked by expanding social networks and exposure to new opportunities for participation in community and civic life. Community involvement during this stage provides crucial developmental experiences, enabling youth to practice leadership, collaborate with others, and confront systemic inequities (Kirshner, 2009; Metzger et al., 2019). Activities such as volunteering and civic advocacy offer adolescents opportunities to develop skills and agency in addressing complex social issues (Hasford et al., 2017). Youth can benefit from belonging to environments where civic engagement is the norm; even the perception that their family and friends are civically engaged is associated with positive youth civic attitudes and behaviors during high school (Rossi et al., 2016). However, the extent to which community involvement in adolescence translates into sustained sociopolitical involvement (as opposed to burnout or alienation) in young adulthood depends on relational factors, including the levels of support and validation provided by others (J. O. Conner et al., 2023). Relational dynamics, including feelings of community belonging and the desire to leave a legacy, can be critical for psychological empowerment, as they enhance individuals’ ability to participate in community decision-making processes. However, little is known about the two relational contexts most central to adolescents, relationships with friends and relationships with parents, in shaping civic trajectories. Understanding how these relationships may act as mediating influences between adolescents’ involvement in community settings and their sociopolitical developmental trajectories is essential for identifying pathways to lifelong civic engagement.

This article seeks insights into how community involvement during adolescence contributes to sociopolitical development, with a particular focus on the mediating roles of family and peer relationships. By analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data, this study examines the relational contexts that may shape adolescents’ civic trajectories. The findings contribute to a growing body of literature on adolescent development, relational empowerment, and sociopolitical development, offering insights into how youth can be supported in becoming civically engaged adults.

1.1. Community Involvement as a Pathway to SPC

Community involvement during adolescence provides developmental opportunities for fostering SPC by embedding youth in contexts that require leadership collaboration and systems thinking. Structured activities like volunteering, participating in youth councils, and civic advocacy expose adolescents to real-world challenges and systems of power (Morgan et al., 2024b). These experiences allow young people to develop leadership competence and confidence in their ability to influence broader social structures (Zimmerman, 1995). Community involvement is not limited to overtly civic activities. It also includes participation in organized sports, religious and cultural activities, and even informal contributions like helping neighbors or supporting family members. These varied forms of involvement provide diverse pathways for youth to build relationships and connect with their communities.

In particular, structured out-of-school activities play a vital role in fostering youth development and cultivating SPC. Youth participation in structured community activities fosters critical consciousness and engagement in civic life, demonstrating that SPC is shaped not only by formal educational experiences but also by the broader community environments in which young people are embedded (Akiva et al., 2020). These settings offer structured opportunities for young people to develop initiative, leadership, and a sense of agency, which are key components of sociopolitical engagement (Larson, 2000). Compared to school and social settings, participation in extracurricular and community-based programs is associated with higher rates of identity exploration, teamwork, and emotional learning, which are critical for civic and political engagement (Hansen et al., 2003). Youth-driven programs, including activism and service-based initiatives, provide both a space for skill development and a sense of belonging, reinforcing pathways to empowerment (Akiva et al., 2013, 2017). However, for these opportunities to be effective, they must be culturally responsive and aligned with the lived realities of diverse youth, as integrating young people’s cultural identities and social contexts enhances their developmental benefits (Simpkins et al., 2016). These findings underscore the importance of out-of-school activities as transformative spaces where youth cultivate the skills, networks, and mindsets necessary for long-term civic participation. Fostering inclusive and supportive spaces, such as youth-centered civic programs, can help mitigate these disparities and empower young people to engage in decision making. Expanding meaningful participation requires attending not only to individual agency but also to the social contexts that enable or constrain engagement.

Relational approaches to participation emphasize that engagement is embedded in everyday interactions and social networks, rather than being an isolated activity (Kenneally, 2017). However, the extent to which youth engage in community involvement is shaped by their intersecting identities and access to enabling environments. Research on child and youth participation highlights that race, gender, socioeconomic status, and other intersecting identities influence opportunities for civic engagement, with marginalized groups often facing greater barriers (Cuevas-Parra, 2022). At the same time, fostering inclusive and supportive spaces—such as structured civic programs that prioritize youth voice—can mitigate some of these constraints and empower young people to engage in decision-making. Expanding opportunities for meaningful participation requires attention to both individual agency and the social contexts that shape engagement.

Community involvement has a range of demonstrated positive effects on youth. Participation in diverse community activities strengthens SPC by offering adolescents varied opportunities to connect their actions to collective outcomes (Hasford et al., 2017; Metzger et al., 2019). Longitudinal studies highlight that early engagement in such activities predicts sustained civic identity and agency, linking adolescent experiences to long-term sociopolitical engagement (Fletcher et al., 2000). It can foster a sense of civic responsibility and care for future generations (Soucie et al., 2018; Youniss et al., 2001). Adolescents who lack opportunities for community involvement may face challenges in developing SPC. Limited exposure to structured civic opportunities can restrict their ability to practice leadership or gain insight into how changemaking happens, potentially leading to disconnection or apathy (Zimmerman et al., 1999). Opportunities to participate are particularly beneficial for youth in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, where the involved youth often develop stronger social integration and have positive mental health outcomes due to their engagement (Hull et al., 2008).

Beyond their direct intrapersonal benefits, community involvement opportunities operate as relational contexts where youth connect with peers and adults who reinforce their civic identities. Community involvement is inherently social and intergenerational; the degree to which youth and trusted adults are interconnected predicts adolescents’ civic engagement, providing supportive relationships and a sense of safety that encourages participation in civic activities (Rossi et al., 2016). Contextual factors like school connectedness and family affluence have been shown to be more important than individual factors in predicting community involvement, indicating that social environments are crucial drivers of youth’s civic engagement (Lenzi et al., 2012). Relationships formed with peers in these settings may provide an ecosystem of validation and support, amplifying the benefits of community engagement and fostering long-term SPC (Christens et al., 2022). These relational benefits are particularly powerful because they tend to be self-reinforcing. Youth who are highly involved are more likely to discuss community topics like politics, religion, and moral values with their parents and peers (Pancer et al., 2007). These conversations serve as catalysts for developing critical thinking and understanding social issues, which may lay the groundwork for sociopolitical control.

When adolescents are embedded in networks with civic-minded individuals, community involvement creates a foundation for sustained engagement and empowerment. Retrospective studies of civic engagement in youth show that adults perceive these experiences to have helped make civic engagement a salient part of their identity as they grew up (Hasford et al., 2017). Longitudinal research supports this trajectory, highlighting how early and diverse involvement establishes habits and identities that persist into adulthood, shaping both individual agency and collective impact (Metzger et al., 2019).

1.2. Family Influences on SPC

Parents play a foundational role in shaping adolescents’ civic developmental trajectories. They model civic behaviors such as voting, volunteering, and participating in community activities, scaffolding and modeling what lifelong community engagement might look like for their children. Family dynamics such as democratic parenting practices and open communication may foster closeness and encourage civic engagement (Bougher, 2017; Wray-Lake & Flanagan, 2012). Adolescents whose parents discuss political issues or model civic engagement are more likely to feel committed to social change (Diemer, 2012). Additionally, parents who emphasize compassion, fairness, and collective responsibility instill values that shape adolescents’ broader sociopolitical attitudes and behaviors (Wray-Lake & Flanagan, 2012).

Family contexts shape how youth interpret and make meaning of their civic experiences, and family influences can lead to the intergenerational transmission of civic values (Morgan et al., 2024a; Muddiman et al., 2018). Positive family relationships that are marked by open communication, cohesive dynamics, and shared civic values can amplify the benefits of community involvement, while strained or conflicting family dynamics may hinder these outcomes (Bekkers, 2007; Kelly, 2006). Parents who participate in volunteering and voting can normalize civic behaviors and reinforce their importance, even among very young children (White, 2021). Parents who emphasize the value of helping others through direct action may shape adolescents’ preferences for volunteering, while those who highlight systemic approaches to social change may guide their children toward political engagement (Walker, 2002).

Families’ narratives may shape how adolescents interpret the outcomes of their community involvement, whether as immediate, hands-on impacts or as long-term structural change. Adolescents whose parents openly discuss social and political issues are more likely to develop a sense of civic responsibility and agency (Van Goethem et al., 2014; Wray-Lake & Shubert, 2019). Such interpretations may influence the development of SPC, as youth who perceive their civic actions as meaningful and impactful are more likely to carry these beliefs into young adulthood (White, 2021). These dynamics are particularly salient for youth who are already engaged in community activities, as family validation and encouragement can strengthen their commitment to civic goals. For highly engaged youth, cohesive and supportive family environments may provide a relational foundation that reinforces their civic identities. For example, family cohesion has been shown to buffer the negative effects of political conflict, fostering resilience and adaptive civic behaviors among youth so that they remain civically engaged (Taylor et al., 2019; White, 2021). Parents with warm, positive relationships with their children have often been shown to encourage and reinforce children’s civic engagement in childhood, especially when they cannot be engaged in the community themselves (Fletcher et al., 2000). Family dynamics may influence early civic attitudes even when youth have limited opportunities for community engagement, and parental encouragement may help sustain youth’s sense of agency as they age. This pattern carries on into adulthood, in which those who had positive relationships with their parents during adolescence have been shown to be more likely to vote, volunteer, and become engaged in organizing and activism (Duke et al., 2009).

1.3. Peer Influences on SPC

In adolescence, peer networks play an important role in shaping civic beliefs and behaviors. Peer relationships provide a context for adolescents to explore social norms, practice leadership, and develop civic identities (Laursen & Veenstra, 2021), making these connections important for understanding fostering SPC. Youth higher in the policy control dimension of sociopolitical control are more likely to experience a strong sense of community, which suggests that positive peer relationships may play a role in shaping sociopolitical development (Christens et al., 2015). Youth are more likely to form friendships with peers who share similar political attitudes, which can support long-term civic attitudes and dispositions (Oosterhoff et al., 2021). Peer group norms at school shape adolescent outcomes; youth who are part of school-oriented peer groups are more likely to engage in service activities and plan to remain civically engaged than their peers (Youniss et al., 2001). Peer influences also strongly predict participation in civic behaviors like community service and volunteering, which may serve as a pathway to developing sociopolitical control (Wegemer, 2022). Through shared norms, peers reinforce each other’s perceptions of their ability to influence systems of power, while also shaping how adolescents interpret and engage with their communities. These dynamics may differ across levels of community involvement, as peers can amplify or dampen these experiences. Civically involved youth often benefit from peer validation and shared responsibility, both of which can underpin sociopolitical development. For instance, peers involved in community volunteering or civic organizations create environments where collective efficacy and civic identity are reinforced (Campos et al., 2017; Chang & Wu, 2019). These shared experiences can foster a sense of purpose and agency, encouraging youth to view themselves as capable of influencing systemic change.

The nature of a young persons’ community involvement may also interact with peer dynamics to shape adolescents’ civic beliefs. For example, youth engaged in volunteering may develop a preference for direct, hands-on approaches to helping others, while those involved in political activities may be more likely to prioritize systemic approaches to social change (Metzger et al., 2019). Peers can mediate these influences by shaping how adolescents interpret the value of their civic efforts. For example, volunteering alongside peers provides immediate feedback and visible impacts, potentially reinforcing communal values but diminishing interest in broader political engagement (Walker, 2002). Peers involved in political activities may foster greater awareness of collective action and long-term problem solving, encouraging adolescents to see themselves as capable of addressing structural challenges (Dey, 1997). Peer validation has been shown to influence youths’ decision to endorse, and ultimately participate in, prosocial behaviors like volunteering (Choukas-Bradley et al., 2015), which may contribute to higher SPC in adulthood. However, not all peer influences are positive. For example, youth with highly engaged and critically conscious friends reported higher flourishing, while those who engaged in sociopolitical action more frequently than their peers experienced greater psychological distress (Wegemer et al., 2024). Social rejection or misaligned group norms can undermine adolescents’ willingness to engage civically, particularly for those already on the margins of civic life.

2. Materials and Methods

This study is guided by two research questions: (1) How does community involvement during adolescence contribute to the development of SPC in young adulthood? (2) What roles do family and peer relationships play in mediating the effects of adolescent community involvement on SPC? To gain insights into these questions, we employed a mixed-methods approach, analyzing quantitative survey data and qualitative interview data to capture both the statistical patterns and relational dynamics influencing SPC development.

2.1. Participants and Sampling

Data were drawn from a longitudinal study tracking 1014 Canadian families from early childhood into adulthood (Dimakos et al., 2022; Nelson et al., 2012; Pancer et al., 2012). This study focuses on data collected from individuals in the 9th grade (2005), 12th grade (2008), and at age 25 (2014), with 352 participants completing a wave of data collection that included an SPC measure (Dimakos et al., 2023).

For the qualitative component (2021–2022), a subset of 32 young adults from this sample participated in semi-structured interviews alongside their parents. The present study analyzes only the young adults’ interviews, focusing on how they perceived their relationships with family and peers as shaping their SPC. Participants were recruited through general outreach to prior survey respondents, followed by the targeted recruitment of individuals with low SPC scores to ensure diversity across SPC levels.

2.2. Survey Data Collection and Measures

This study included measures related to the outcome variable—SPC at age 25—and the predictor variables assessed during adolescence, including community involvement, relational dynamics with parents and peers, and demographic covariates. Psychological empowerment theory (Zimmerman, 1995) guided the selection of the SPC measure, focusing on its dimensions of leadership competence and policy control. The predictors, including community involvement and relational dynamics, were selected based on previous research, suggesting that they may play a role in fostering sociopolitical control and agency during adolescence. By incorporating individual and relational factors, these measures enable us to examine the complex influences on sociopolitical development, which emerges through a combination of personal capacities and social contexts. Demographic covariates, such as gender, cultural identity, and parental education, were also included and may reflect additional structural and contextual influences on developmental outcomes. Each measure is described in greater detail below.

2.2.1. Sociopolitical Control

The Sociopolitical Control Scale (Peterson et al., 2006) measured SPC at age 25, capturing two dimensions: leadership competence (e.g., “I would rather have a leadership role when I’m involved in a group project”) and policy control (e.g., “It is important to me that I actively participate in local issues”). Participants rated nine items on a five-point scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). Composite scores were calculated by summing the responses, with Cronbach’s alpha at α = 0.79 indicating acceptable reliability.

2.2.2. Community Involvement

The Youth Community Involvement Index measured adolescents’ participation in various community activities during high school. Participants reported their involvement over the past 12 months in seven categories: (1) supporting a cause, (2) fundraising, (3) helping in the community, (4) religious or cultural activities, (5) organized sports, (6) helping neighbors or relatives, and (7) other volunteer activities. Responses were binary and a composite score was calculated by adding the responses across the seven categories, with higher scores indicating greater levels of community involvement. Data were collected at two time points: 9th grade and 12th grade. To represent community involvement across high school, the average of the 9th- and 12th-grade composite scores was used.

2.2.3. Relational Variables

The Relationship with Mother Scale and Relationship with Father Scale (Booth & Amato, 2001) were used to measure the quality of adolescents’ relationships with their parents in the 9th and 12th grades. Each scale included four items assessing understanding, fairness, affection, and overall closeness in the parent–child relationship. Example items include “How well do you feel that your mother understands you?” and “How much affection do you receive from your father?”. Participants rated each item on a three-point scale, with responses reverse-coded so that higher values indicated more positive relationships. A composite score for each scale was calculated by summing the reverse-coded responses across the four items, with higher scores reflecting stronger, more supportive relationships. To capture an overall measure of the relationship quality across high school, the composite scores from the 9th and 12th grades were averaged. The internal consistency for the scales was good, with Cronbach’s alpha at α = 0.81 and 0.874 for both the mother and father scales.

The Relationship with Friends Scale (Statistics Canada, 1996) was used to measure the quality of adolescents’ relationships with their peers. This scale included four items assessing dimensions of social acceptance, friendship quality, and ease of interaction with others. Example items include, “I have many friends” and “I get along easily with others my age”. Participants rated each item on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (False) to 4 (True), with higher scores reflecting more positive peer relationships. A composite score was calculated by summing the re-coded responses across the four items, with higher values indicating stronger and more supportive peer relationships. To capture an overall measure of the relationship quality across high school, the composite scores from the 9th and 12th grades were averaged. The internal consistency of the scale was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, which demonstrated good reliability (α = 0.83).

2.2.4. Covariates

The General Self-Esteem Scale (Statistics Canada, 1996) was used to measure adolescents’ self-esteem. Participants responded to four items, including statements such as “In general, I like the way I am” and “Overall, I have a lot to be proud of”, rated on a five-point scale from 0 (False) to 4 (True). Responses were re-coded to a 1–5 scale for consistency, and a composite score was calculated by summing the four items, with higher scores indicating greater self-esteem. To capture an overall measure of students’ self-esteem across high school, the composite scores from the 9th and 12th grades were averaged. Self-esteem was treated as a covariate to account for its potential role in influencing SPC (Zimmerman et al., 1999).

Gender was assessed with a binary measure in the 9th grade, asking participants, “How do you identify your gender?” with response options coded as 1 (Man) and 2 (Woman) (see limitations in Section 5.1). Gender was included as a covariate in the analyses to examine its potential role in shaping SPC (e.g., Speer et al., 2013).

The respondents’ cultural identity was measured in the 9th grade using a variable that categorized participants into four groups based on their birthplace, language use, and self-identified cultural background. Participants were classified as Anglo (1) if their birthplace indicated English or French origins and their interview language was English or French. Those identifying as French or meeting the language-based criteria for bilingual or francophone profiles were categorized as Franco (2). Participants were classified as Native (3), if they self-identified as Native, while all other participants were categorized as Other (4), a classification used to account for multiethnic or racially diverse identities that did not fit within the predefined categories (see limitations in Section 5.1). This variable was included as a covariate in the analyses to account for potential cultural influences on developmental outcomes.

Parent education level was measured as the highest level of education completed by the participant’s parent, ranging from 1 year of schooling to 20 years, which reflects post-secondary and advanced degrees. This measure was based on reported years of schooling and the highest level of formal educational attainment (see Limitations in Section 5.1). Parent education was included as a covariate to account for its potential influences on positive youth outcomes such as SPC (Assari et al., 2019).

2.3. Dyadic Interview Data Collection and Measures

Using an embedded mixed-methods research design (Plano Clark et al., 2008), qualitative interviews were conducted with 32 dyads of adult children and their parents when the children were 29 years old. Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured life story interview protocol designed to capture participants’ narratives about their experiences, values, and turning points in their lives (Atkinson, 1998). A separate-but-simultaneous dyad interview approach was used, which allowed each participant to freely share their experiences and perspectives, reducing the potential influence of the other person’s presence and ensuring richer, more independent narratives (Hertz, 1995). Participants were initially recruited through general outreach to all respondents from the age-25 wave of data collection. As the interviews progressed, targeted recruitment efforts focused on enrolling individuals with low SPC scores to ensure representation across high, medium, and low SPC levels. Interviews were conducted in English or French over Zoom, with only audio recordings saved for transcription.

The interview protocol for adult children explored their community involvement during adolescence, relationships with parents and peers, and how these relationships shaped their civic engagement (see Appendix A for the full protocol). Parents were asked about their own community involvement and how they supported or influenced their child’s development. Both protocols included questions about the values, motivations, and experiences shaping civic behavior. All participants provided informed consent before the interviews and were assured of confidentiality. As a thank you, both the young adult participants and the parent participants received a CAD 25 gift card. These interviews provided rich narrative data that complemented the survey findings, offering insight into how family and peer relationships influence civic involvement and the trajectories of SPC.

2.4. Quantitative Analytical Approach

Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 29 (IBM Corp, 2023). To examine the relationships among the variables, descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations were calculated as an initial step. This yielded bivariate associations between community involvement, relational dynamics, and SPC, providing insights into the strength and direction of these relationships. Alongside the theoretically driven hypotheses, significant correlations informed the selection of variables for subsequent regression analyses.

Participants were required to have completed the age-25 wave of data collection to be included in the study. Consequently, cases with missing outcome data (sociopolitical control at age 25) were listwise deleted before imputation, reducing the original sample from over 1014 participants to 352. After restricting the sample to individuals with complete outcome data, multiple imputation was applied to address missing data on predictor variables, including community involvement, relational variables, and demographic covariates. This approach maximized data retention while ensuring that all included cases had a valid measure of sociopolitical control at age 25. To assess whether missing data within the retained sample followed a random pattern, Little’s MCAR test was conducted (Little, 1988). The test yielded a chi-square value of 4661.982 with 4716 degrees of freedom, p = 0.709. As the p-value exceeded the conventional threshold of 0.05, the missing data were deemed missing completely at random (MCAR), supporting the use of multiple imputation to address missing values.

Multiple linear regression was then employed to assess the unique contributions of each predictor at adolescence to SPC at age 25, while controlling for covariates such as self-esteem, gender, cultural identity, and parental education level. This approach was chosen because it allows for the simultaneous analysis of multiple predictors, isolating the unique effect of each variable while accounting for potential confounding influences (Denis, 2018). This approach explored the analysis of direct effects and clarified the relative importance of each variable in predicting SPC.

Mediation analysis was then conducted using the SPSS PROCESS macro 4.3.1 (Hayes, 2022) to test whether relationships with parents or friends mediated the association between youth community involvement and SPC. Bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals based on 1000 iterations were used to determine the significance of the indirect effects. For all analyses, statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. The inclusion of pooled results from multiple imputations ensured that missing data did not bias the conclusions drawn from the analyses.

2.5. Qualitative Analytical Approach

Qualitative data were analyzed using MaxQDA 2024. Our approach is situated within a constructivist paradigm, recognizing reality as socially constructed through relational, cultural, and historical contexts. Epistemologically, we take an interpretivist stance, understanding knowledge as co-constructed through researcher–participant interactions. We used flexible coding (Deterding & Waters, 2021), which balances structured analysis with adaptability for emergent themes.

Our research team included both Canadian and U.S.-based researchers, each contributing different perspectives. The Canadian team had deep familiarity with the Better Beginnings, Better Futures (BBBF) project and its dataset, while the U.S. team joined later, focusing on sociopolitical control. This cross-national collaboration informed our epistemological approach, with the Canadian team providing the historical context and the U.S. team offering theoretical insights into the outcome variable. Given this structure, flexible coding allowed us to integrate multiple perspectives, iteratively refine themes, and balance systematic coding with responsiveness to emerging findings.

Interviews were transcribed verbatim and labeled as high, medium, or low SPC based on the participants’ SPC scores at age 25, which provided a comparative framework for analysis. Two coders independently conducted the open coding and memoing of each transcript to identify initial themes. Codes were organized to reflect the themes of parental relationships, friendships, and community involvement, aligning with the quantitative findings. Through iterative discussions, the coders refined the codebook, adding subcodes to capture nuances in the relationship dynamics, such as “parental support”, “peer networks”, and “s alignment”. The next phase of coding involved a comparative analysis across SPC groups to identify patterns in how participants described relationships and their influence on sociopolitical development. Special attention was given to cases that either confirmed or contradicted the quantitative findings. Analytical memos were used to connect the qualitative themes with the quantitative trends, providing richer explanations for the observed relationships. This approach illustrated the pathways through which relationships influence SPC and highlighted unique narratives to expand on the statistical results.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

The descriptive statistics for the study variables are summarized in

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

	Min	Max	Mean	SD
Sociopolitical Control	9	45	29.394	6.447
Community Involvement	0	7	2.538	1.323
Relationship with Mother	4	12	10.393	1.686
Relationship with Father	4	12	9.245	2.297
Relationship with Friends	4	16	13.212	2.473
Self-Esteem in HS	8.5	20	16.917	2.377
Child Gender	1	2	1.58	0.494
Child Cultural Identity	1	4	2.39	1.230
Parent Education Level	4	19	14.13	2.283

. SPC scores at age 25 ranged from 9 to 45, with a mean of 29.39 (SD = 6.45). Community involvement, assessed during high school, ranged from 0 to 7 distinct activities, with a mean of 2.54 (SD = 1.32), indicating moderate engagement in community activities among participants. Participants reported slightly stronger relationships with their mothers than fathers during high school, with mean scores of 10.39 and 9.25, respectively (minimum possible score of 4 and maximum possible score of 12). The Relationship with Friends scale had a mean score of 13.21 (SD = 2.47, with a possible range of 4 to 16), reflecting generally positive peer relationships. Self-esteem, measured during high school, ranged from 8.5 to 20, with a mean of 16.92 (SD = 2.38), suggesting that participants had moderately high self-perceptions. For demographic variables, child gender had a mean of 1.58 (SD = 0.49, with male coded as “1” and female coded as “2”), reflecting a slightly higher proportion of female participants. Child cultural identity, ranging from 1 to 4, had a mean of 2.39 (SD = 1.23), indicating diversity in cultural backgrounds. The majority of respondents identified as either Franco (n = 102), Anglo (n = 95), or Other (n = 103), with smaller numbers identifying as Native (n = 12). Parent education level, years of schooling, ranged from 4 to 19, with a mean of 14.13 (SD = 2.28), suggesting that many parents had completed at least some post-secondary education.

A correlation analysis highlights several relationships between sociopolitical control (SPC) and factors from adolescence that influence it (See

Table 2. Zero-order correlations.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Sociopolitical Control	1
2. Community Involvement in HS	0.223 ***	1
3. Relationship with Mother	0.214 ***	0.108	1
4. Relationship with Father	0.198 ***	0.134 *	0.459 ***	1
5. Relationship with Friends	0.190 ***	0.238 ***	0.209 ***	0.249 ***	1
6. Self-Esteem in HS	0.283 ***	0.155 **	0.356 ***	0.366 ***	0.499 ***	1
7. Child Gender	0.008	0.090	−0.104	−0.198 ***	−0.080	−0.219 ***	1
8. Child Cultural Identity	0.180 **	0.146 **	0.150 **	0.198 ***	0.133 *	0.198 ***	−0.090	1
9. Parent Education Level	0.212 ***	0.067	0.028	0.124 *	0.115	0.040	−0.139 *	−0.001	1

Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

). SPC was positively linked to community involvement in high school (r = 0.223, p < 0.001), as well as to relationships with mothers (r = 0.214, p < 0.001), fathers (r = 0.198, p < 0.001), and friends (r = 0.190, p < 0.001).

Community involvement in high school was also tied to stronger friendships (r = 0.238, p < 0.001) and higher self-esteem (r = 0.155, p < 0.01), suggesting that social and psychological support during adolescence can foster a sense of community engagement or vice versa. Self-esteem, in turn, was connected to all the relational variables, including relationships with mothers (r = 0.356, p < 0.001), fathers (r = 0.366, p < 0.001), and friends (r = 0.499, p < 0.001), indicating a link between self-perception and the quality of adolescent relationships. Child cultural identity was positively associated with SPC (r = 0.180, p < 0.01), as well as relationships with mothers (r = 0.150, p < 0.01) and fathers (r = 0.198, p < 0.001). Parent education level was positively associated with SPC (r = 0.212, p < 0.001) and with relationships with fathers (r = 0.124, p < 0.05), indicating that parental resources might help shape young adults’ intrapersonal empowerment.

3.2. Regression Analysis

A pooled multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the extent to which relational and contextual factors during adolescence predicted SPC at age 25. Predictors included parental education level during high school; youth’s relationships with friends, mother, and father during high school; youth’s community involvement during high school; perception of social support; gender; and cultural identity (see

Table 3. Results of pooled multiple linear regression.

			95% CI
	β	SE	LL	UL	t	p
Constant	0.273	0.473	−6.55	1.200	0.576	0.564
Community Involvement	0.095	0.038	0.021	0.170	2.154	0.012
Relationship with Mother	0.079	0.038	0.005	0.153	2.080	0.038
Relationship with Father	0.032	0.028	0.087	0.222	1.116	0.244
Relationship with Friends	0.060	0.018	0.024	0.095	3.294	<0.001
Self-Esteem in HS	0.067	0.023	0.022	0.113	2.892	0.023
Child Gender	0.017	0.011	−0.004	0.037	1.551	0.121
Child Cultural Identity	0.067	0.040	−0.012	0.146	1.653	0.098
Parent Education Level	0.063	0.021	0.022	0.113	3.009	0.021

). The overall model was statistically significant across all datasets, F(8, 178) = 5.27, p < 0.001 (original data) and F(8, 189) = 6.81, p < 0.001 (imputed data). The predictors explained approximately 19.4% to 21.3% of the variance in SPC (R² = 0.194 to 0.213) across datasets.

Youth community involvement during high school was a significant predictor of SPC, β = 0.095, SE = 0.038, t = 2.15, p = 0.012. Parent education level also positively predicted SPC, β = 0.063, SE = 0.021, t = 3.01, p = 0.021. Relationships with friends during high school significantly contributed to the model, β = 0.060, SE = 0.018, t = 3.29, p = 0.001, as did positive relationships between children and their mothers, β = 0.079, SE = 0.038, t = 2.08, p = 0.038. Youth self-esteem during high school was another significant predictor, β = 0.067, SE = 0.023, t = 2.27, p = 0.023. In contrast, relationships with fathers, gender, and cultural identity were not significant predictors, indicating that these factors did not independently explain the additional variance in SPC when controlling for other variables in the model.

3.3. Mediation Analysis

A PROCESS mediation model (Hayes, 2022) was conducted to determine the mediation effects on the relationship between community involvement in high school and SPC at the age of 25. Three potential mediators were tested: relationships with mother, father, and friends. The results revealed significant direct and indirect effects (see

Table 4. Direct and indirect effects on child sociopolitical control at age 25.

			95% CI
Relationship	Direct Effect	Indirect Effect	LL	UL	p
Community Involvement →	0.125	0.0246	0.0139	0.0367	<0.001
Relationship with Mother →		0.0131	0.0139	0.0367
Relationship with Father →		0.0063	0.0059	0.0226
Relationship with Friends →		0.0052	0.0001	0.0107
Sociopolitical Control

).

The direct effect of community involvement on SPC remained significant, even after accounting for the mediators, β = 0.125, p < 0.0001. This suggests that community involvement in high school has direct positive effects on SPC in young adulthood, independent of relationships with parents or friends. The total indirect effect of community involvement on SPC through the three mediators was also significant, β = 0.0246, 95% CI [0.0139, 0.0367], confirming the presence of mediation. Among the individual mediators, relationships with mothers demonstrated the strongest indirect effect, β = 0.0131, 95% CI [0.0059, 0.0226]. Relationships with fathers also showed a significant indirect effect, β = 0.0063, 95% CI [0.0059, 0.0226], as did relationships with friends, β = 0.0052, 95% CI [0.0001, 0.0107]. Standardized estimates indicated that the total indirect effect explained approximately 4.23% of the variance in adult SPC, with relationships with mother accounting for the largest proportion (2.24%), followed by relationships with father (1.09%) and relationships with friends (0.90%). Pairwise contrasts revealed no statistically significant differences in the strength of the mediation effects across the three mediators.

The total effect of community involvement on SPC, combining both direct and indirect effects, was significant, β = 0.1496, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.1194, 0.1799]. The overall model incorporating the direct and indirect effects is robust, with R² = 0.1477. This indicates that 14.77% of the variance in SPC is explained by youth community involvement and the three mediators combined. These findings suggest that while the direct effect of community involvement on SPC is strong, positive relationships with parents and friends during high school contribute additional explanatory power to this relationship.

3.4. Qualitative Results

Qualitative interviews provided deeper insight into how relationships with parents and peers shaped participants’ sociopolitical development. While the quantitative findings demonstrated significant associations between community involvement, relational support, and SPC, the narratives captured in the interviews helped to illustrate the mechanisms underlying these relationships. These themes emerged across different levels of SPC, highlighting both reinforcing and constraining dynamics within relational contexts.

3.4.1. Family Influence

Family relationships often provide the foundational values and support systems that shape how adolescents interpret their community involvement and develop SPC. In interviews, many respondents described the ways in which parental values, behaviors, and interactions shaped the relationship between their community engagement during high school and their sociopolitical development. For example, one respondent reflected on how their family’s shared love for animals and early exposure to environmental issues influenced their long-term civic engagement:

I’ve always loved animals[…]my parents bought me a lot of National Geographic books[…]which then eventually led me to reading about global warming and learning about organizations like PETA[…]My dad was a wildlife photographer for a while[…]we kind of always grew up in a family that was interested in animals, and it blossomed from there[…]I still feel very passionately about those causes[…]Now I volunteer with the Boston Terrier Rescue of Canada (Mid SPC).

It is evident that family influences shaped this respondent’s early passions, which later translated into civic engagement. The family’s shared love for animals and the father’s role as a wildlife photographer nurtured an interest in environmental and animal rights issues. Over time, the respondent noted that their views became “less extreme,” reflecting a shift toward service-oriented work, such as volunteering at an animal rescue, rather than systemic change efforts like environmental activist groups they were interested in during their adolescence. Another respondent echoed the idea that family values can encourage civic engagement, reflecting on their mother’s lessons about taking small actions to care for their community:

My mom […]was always very much like, ‘Don’t litter […]Can’t you see it takes two seconds to pick that Tim Hortons cup up and walk it over to that garbage can?’[…]Now I do a fair amount of cleanup around here. But there’s a lot of garbage, so it’s hard to do it on my own (High SPC).

This quote illustrates how family values can shape children’s sense of responsibility and engagement. This participant’s mother’s focus on small actions, like picking up litter, left a lasting impact and encouraged environmental care. However, the respondent’s comment that “it’s hard to do it on my own” demonstrates the importance of relationships in fostering long-term engagement. Although their family taught them the importance of individual actions, the lack of broader support seems to have made it difficult to sustain their efforts.

Another respondent shared how family values centered on generosity and helping others shaped their long-term commitment to community involvement:

They told us, always help somebody. Even if you know you don’t have much to donate […] And just like helping other people in the community […].As much as you can offer, you should. It doesn’t mean you have to be a millionaire to help somebody out. It still goes a long way, and I still do that now. (High SPC).

This respondent’s family instilled the importance of generosity and helping others, regardless of how much they had to give. Their values extended beyond financial donations to include small acts of service. The respondent’s reflection, “I still do that now”, shows how these early lessons shaped their ongoing commitment to supporting others. These family teachings fostered a sense of responsibility and connection to the community, contributing to their broader engagement during adolescence and later in adulthood. The importance of family values in shaping civic engagement is further emphasized in another respondent’s reflection, though with a focus on political education and awareness:

My father has a degree in political science […]he always told us, we need to go vote […]He always tried to educate us on […]international things […]So I think that was a very big [part of our] upbringing, just having that awareness (High SPC).

The positive relationship between this respondent and his father played a role in fostering his political engagement, not just by encouraging voting but also by ensuring that others in the family were informed about both local and international issues. By emphasizing the importance of civic responsibility and political awareness, their family instilled a foundation of sociopolitical understanding. This reflects how early exposure to political knowledge can contribute to leadership and decision making in adulthood. The respondent’s acknowledgment of their father’s influence as “a very big [part of our] upbringing” demonstrates how family education helped build their sense of sociopolitical agency.

Another respondent explained how family circumstances and parental involvement influenced their community engagement in high school, hinting at ways this might impact long-term SPC:

My parents were too busy, they were always working[…]I was more encouraged to actually get up and start making money. We were never really pushed to actually be part of the community unless we willingly said that we wanted to participate in sports or whatever, outside of school […]like after school activities […]I wouldn’t have the transportation because again, my parents were constantly working. And then after school, I had a child at 18. Today, I’m more involved with my kids in school (Low SPC).

The respondent described a positive relationship with her parents, particularly her mother, but noted that their ability to support her involvement was constrained by external factors, as they were “always working”. This left the respondent without transportation or encouragement for community engagement unless she initiated it and said she “wanted to participate”. These constraints shaped her early experiences, leading to limited community involvement during her youth. However, in adulthood, the respondent reflected on her own parenting, emphasizing a desire to be more involved in her children’s school as a form of shared community involvement. This shift points to her intention to provide her children with opportunities for engagement that were not possible for her.

Not all respondents pointed to parents’ community involvement as playing a crucial role in their own long-term community involvement. For example, one respondent’s reflection offered a different perspective on parental influence, explaining how challenging family dynamics shaped their early experiences and ultimately contributed to their perspective on substance use and their eventual career:

My dad […] was a recovering alcoholic. So for me, [drinking] was like […] taboo, you couldn’t do those things. And again, he was […] quite abusive. So I just was afraid to even explore that. And then once I left his house, I guess I just kind of grabbed onto marijuana and alcohol just trying it for myself, like just exploring, as I think a lot of kids do. But it never ended up being a problem. But I think it was just maybe a part of it also was to escape, just from my past with him […] I’m a nurse now […] So now I actually take care of these people and try to rehab them, and it’s just […] it’s sad because it’s a demon that can’t be fixed (Mid SPC).

Here, the respondent provided a nuanced view of how early family dynamics shaped their perspective and their professional path. Despite reflecting on an abusive relationship, these experiences seem to have given the respondent a grounded and realistic outlook on addiction, as reflected in their statement that it is “a demon that can’t be fixed”. Despite this lack of optimism about fully solving the problem, the respondent has channeled their experiences into a professional commitment to helping others through their profession. This balance between acknowledging systemic challenges and continuing to address them demonstrates an awareness of their limits in making change while still striving to make a difference.

3.4.2. Peer Influence

Relationships with friends are also key contexts for adolescents to explore and reinforce values tied to community involvement and SPC development. In the interviews, many respondents described how friendships and peer networks supported their community involvement in high school, ultimately supporting the development of SPC in young adulthood. For instance, one respondent reflected on how a local community center and the friendships he made there provided a sense of stability and purpose during adolescence:

When I was a teenager, I worked at the Teen Center […]That was my big anchor, I went there a lot […]they were the closeness that kept me away from drugs, alcohol, debauchery […]the community center helped keep me grounded for sure […]It was kind of nice knowing that I had somewhere that I could go (High SPC).

As this quote illustrates, peer social networks can be built in community spaces and may support community engagement and the development of a sense of belonging. The Teen Center provided the respondent with both structure and a peer group that fostered positive behaviors during a time when they lacked guidance at home. Describing it as an “anchor”, the respondent highlighted how the center’s environment and friendships helped them avoid risky behaviors like drug and alcohol use. In the interview, this respondent went on to share that his young family “go[es] to do community center things all the time here, we go to all sorts of community-based things going on here all the time”. Although this respondent lives far from the community center he frequented as a teen, having a strong positive peer network during adolescence may have set the pace for a lifetime of local engagement in his community.

The association between peer friendship networks and various forms of community engagement may be bidirectional. For example, in some instances, respondents described how friendships were an important part of their decisions to engage in structured community opportunities, which ultimately had longer-term effects on their civic engagement in adulthood.

I was selected in eighth grade for a Youth Advisory Committee […] I was all about the missing class and seeing friends […] It was basically like a mini city council […]In 10th grade […]I got to go to [Eastern Ontario Leadership Seminar] and they invited me back the next year as a camp leader […]At the time, I undervalued it […]but someone somewhere saw me as a future leader. And it’s funny now as I reflect back, because in my professional life, I’m very much a leader (High SPC).

Initially, the opportunity for “missing class and seeing friends” was a driving factor in their decision to become involved in youth leadership activities, but by mid-high school, peer and mentor recognition reinforced their leadership potential and shifted their perspective. This progression demonstrates how structured opportunities can provide positive peer environments, as these leadership opportunities contribute to sustained leadership roles in adulthood, both in “work” and in their “kids sporting events”. These experiences likely enhanced their sense of sociopolitical control by fostering confidence in their ability to influence and engage within their community. Other respondents described similar moments of engaging with peers to address local challenges as a catalyst for their long-term leadership. For example, one respondent described their first meaningful involvement in community organizing during their late teens. Motivated by the threat of losing a traveling library program that had deeply impacted their own childhood, they organized a rally, engaged their peers, created awareness, and mobilized support within the community:

In my late teens […]we had […] a traveling library that went from low-income communities and traveled around the city. And their funding was getting cut. So I helped organize a rally to try to save the program, because […] I was a part of [it] growing up […] And I felt like it was an important aspect to keep for other children […] So that’s really the first time that I truly got involved in my community to try to rally for something […] It wasn’t easy. We tried to get signatures, we rallied at City Hall. We had posters, I had made up buttons to have other kids share. We had a decent turnout of people coming out and supporting but the amount of people who had no idea that this program even existed was sad to me […]. Programs like that are extremely important. I now work at [an early childhood center], which is very similar to what the [travelling library] was. I feel like there’s an extreme value to exposing the children to interactions with other children and having those early learning experiences (Mid SPC).

Here, the respondent described how a collaborative experience of engaging in collective action with their peers shaped them. By involving other children in the campaign through activities like “sharing buttons” and “rallying at City Hall”, the respondent learned how to mobilize peers toward a shared goal. However, the challenge of low public awareness also highlighted the barriers that young organizers often face when advocating for under-resourced programs. Importantly, this early exposure to community organizing and its limitations influenced their professional trajectory, as they now work in a field with similar values. Alternatively, one respondent with a low SPC reflected on how peer influences and their tendency toward introversion may have thwarted their ability to grow in high school and develop a stronger sense of agency:

I had the same group of friends growing up from like, kindergarten, early grade school through to even the end of high school […]I did a little bit of volunteering and some club stuff in high school. I was, I’ve never been the most outgoing person […] So I would say that’s probably defined my willingness to, I guess, actively participate in communities […]I’ve always been fine to do things, you know, if I’m with my friends, and you know, they’re doing something […]. So that was always a way to encourage me to do something, but to go out and do it on my own. It’s always difficult for me to motivate myself to do something like that […]sometimes I wonder if maybe I didn’t waste some of my time, particularly like in my high school years not doing more, not trying more things, getting involved in more groups. Maybe I spent too much time to myself or just to myself and with my friends (Low SPC).

This respondent highlighted how personality and peer dynamics intersect in shaping community involvement, which may limit opportunities to develop SPC. The respondent described their close-knit friendships as a motivator for involvement “with my friends” and a limitation for involvement, while noting that their introversion made it difficult to pursue activities independently. Though they engage in some volunteering and clubs, they reflect on missed opportunities. This perspective reveals how reliance on familiar peers can encourage selective engagement, which underscores the importance of accessing peers who are engaged in the community for fostering SPC in adolescents.

3.4.3. Combined Influence

Finally, some respondents described how family and peer relationships work together to shape adolescents’ values, behaviors, and sociopolitical awareness. For example, one respondent reflected on how their family’s involvement and values, alongside early exposure to systemic inequalities through their proximity to a friend’s family, shaped their understanding of social issues:

We had a family that lived in the unit above us […]three Indigenous boys who were like the same age as my brothers and I […]seeing the trajectory of where those kids ended up, compared to us […]my mom was very involved and active compared to their mom who had substance abuse issues […]The trajectory of their lives is completely different than ours […]In southern Ontario […]I was in a social justice program that was almost all white folks […]I felt like a lot of them had never met an Indigenous person in their whole life […]I struggled with those issues, because I had seen them (High SPC).

This quote highlights the interplay between family dynamics, peer relationships, and sociopolitical awareness. The respondent reflected on how their mother’s “active” involvement provided stability, compared to a neighboring family dealing with substance abuse and instability, which led to very different life outcomes. A childhood friendship with one of the Indigenous boys in that family gave the respondent early exposure to systemic inequalities like poverty and addiction. Later, in a predominantly white social justice program, they struggled with the disconnect between their firsthand experiences and the more theoretical understanding of peers who had little exposure to Indigenous communities. This mix of family values and early exposure to inequality helped shape their strong awareness of social issues. This ability to see and articulate how personal experiences relate to wider societal systems is a characteristic often associated with higher sociopolitical control.

Another respondent highlighted the combined influence of family values and peer support in shaping their behaviors and attitudes during adolescence:

There were some people who were in the same situation as me. And because their parents were working long hours, they’re like, you know, what, screw this, my parents aren’t here. I can do whatever I want, I can drink, I can smoke, I can go out with my friends. And, you know, there’s no consequence. But […] I think, you know, they’re doing this for you. They’re struggling out there, and […] they want you to do well, and you’re just an idiot to kind of just throw that in their face. So I think me and all my friends, like, we’re from similar backgrounds, and we’re like, no, we’re going to work hard. We’re going to be honest, we’re going to be transparent, and we’re going to try to do the best that we can, and just not make that sacrifice go in vain. So I think that was really important for us (High SPC).

Here, the respondent reflected on recognizing their parents’ sacrifices, contrasting their own dedication to hard work and responsibility with peers who used parental absence as an excuse for risky behaviors. Shared values within their friend group reinforced this commitment, as they collectively chose to honor their parents’ efforts and strive for success. This focus on hard work, honesty, and respecting family sacrifices highlights leadership competence and a sense of agency, both of which are key components of SPC. The respondent’s determination to ensure that their parents’ sacrifices did not “go in vain” also demonstrates an awareness of systemic challenges, such as economic struggles, and a commitment to act responsibly within those constraints.

Among respondents with low levels of SPC in adulthood, community involvement in high school still seemed to have an influence on adult definitions of community, shaping SPC. For example, one respondent described how community involvement in their adolescence revolved around shared interests with friends and family that brought joy and connection:

I’ve always loved sports, anything adrenaline-based. […] So [in the] wintertime, all the kids go outside to go play hockey, [in the] summertime, we used to play soccer, basketball […]that’s just a natural thing to do growing up exploring, going hikes and stuff. My mom has a lot to do with getting me out in nature. So I just always gravitated to that. […] But being involved in communities and going to group meetings and trying to solve problems within the community, that kind of stuff has zero interest to me, the whole political science governing and enforcing rules and trying to change people. I didn’t care about that shit. I was just focused on myself and having fun.

This respondent’s perspective on community rejected structured efforts like “meetings” and “trying to change people”, focusing instead on enjoyment and personal connection through shared activities. This interpretation of community as a space for fun and shared passion rather than formal problem solving continued to shape their adult life:

I moved to Whistler to work. I mean, Whistler gets six and a half million skiers a year […] there’s only 10,000 people [that] actually live there. And we employ over 8000 just in the winter season. So we have people from all over the world who come for a season to work, so I got to meet some fucking really rad people from all over the world and build these cool little communities with them (Low SPC).

In adulthood, the respondent’s sense of community remains aligned with their childhood perspective. As a snowboarding instructor in a prominent ski town, they continue to build connections centered around shared interests and passions. Their idea of community is not rooted in formal civic engagement but in fostering relationships through activities that bring people together organically. This trajectory demonstrates that meaningful involvement can emerge in ways that reflect their early experiences and personal interpretations of what community means.

Taken together, these qualitative findings illustrate the range of relational dynamics that shaped SPC.

Table 5. Summary of qualitative themes.

Theme	Parent Influence	Peer Influence
Values: Supporting the community	Emphasizing the responsibility to help others and the community	Participation in service activities with peers reinforcing the importance of service to the community
Modeling: Performing small acts of service	Helping people at work Picking up litter together Donating money
Modeling: Staying informed about local and international issues	Discussing current issues and civic responsibility at home	Learning how to organize a rally with peers to save a library program
Support: Sense of belonging	Shared interests (animals, global warming, environment)	Peer networks and friendships formed during youth programs
Support: Sense of structure	Access to transportation and resources to participate in community programs Feelings of safety at home	Access to community centers and shared spaces with peers
Support: Sense of confidence		Exposure to structured leadership opportunities with peers

provides a summary of some of the most prominent parental and peer influences observed in our analysis.

As outlined above, the participants discussed the influence of their relationships with their parents and peers on their community involvement in terms of shared values, modeled behaviors, and access to physical and emotional support. Parents often instilled foundational values based on supporting one’s community by helping others and practicing generosity by contributing when and how they could. These values were reinforced in peer interactions as participants learned about the importance of service in community outreach activities. Beyond just discussing values, parents also modeled this commitment to community involvement via small acts of service and political engagement. Some participants pursued political engagement with their peers from a young age. For example, one interviewee organized a rally to save a local traveling library program, learning about political advocacy in the process. Both these discussions about local issues with parents and actions with peers instilled both the importance of staying informed and a sense of agency in addressing problems. Finally, both parents and peers helped participants develop the sense of belonging, structure, and confidence necessary to sustain community involvement. This included having access to leadership opportunities and shared spaces with peers, often dependent on resources like reliable transportation. Taken together, the participants’ reflection on community-centered values, exposure to modeled community involvement, and access to support both encouraged community involvement and the development of socio-political control.

4. Discussion

Understanding the trajectories of sociopolitical development has far-reaching implications for supporting positive youth development and strengthening democracy. At the societal level, SPC encourages individuals to engage in civic processes, from voting to policy advocacy, which shape their lives and communities. SPC promotes collective action, which is essential for addressing systemic injustices. Strong SPC within a population contributes to a more robust civic life and a democratic culture. At the personal level, SPC helps youth develop a sense of purpose, emotional resilience, and psychological empowerment. SPC is associated with many long-term benefits for youth as they transition to adulthood, including developing a sense of belonging and sustaining community engagement. Understanding the dual significance of SPC highlights the importance of identifying factors that foster its development, particularly in the developmentally formative years.

This study sought insights into the factors that shape the differential trajectories of sociopolitical development across adolescence and young adulthood. Quantitative findings show that alongside more established predictors (such as community involvement), relationships with parents and peers during adolescence are uniquely influential in determining the trajectories of sociopolitical development that persist into adulthood. Qualitative findings add descriptive detail on the various ways that relationships with parents and peers during adolescence exert these longer-term influences on civic and community engagement and perceptions of sociopolitical control.

Table 6. Overview of key findings.

Finding	Quantitative Evidence	Qualitative Insights
Community involvement and SPC	Regression analysis showed that community involvement during high school was a significant predictor of SPC at age 25 (β = 0.095, p = 0.012).	Many high-SPC participants described early structured opportunities (e.g., youth councils and mentoring programs) as the key to developing agency and leadership skills. Some lower-SPC participants reflected on missed opportunities or barriers to participation.
Parental support and SPC	Relationships with mothers had the strongest indirect effect, accounting for 2.24% of the variance in adult SPC, while relationships with fathers accounted for 1.09%.	Participants with high SPC often had parents who actively encouraged civic engagement (e.g., discussing politics, modeling civic behavior). Others developed SPC despite limited parental engagement, sometimes due to a desire to do things differently than their parents.
Peer relationships and SPC	Peer relationships in high school significantly predicted SPC (β = 0.060, p < 0.001). Relationships with friends had a significant indirect effect on SPC, accounting for 0.9% of the variance in adult SPC.	High-SPC participants described friendships that reinforced engagement, such as youth organizing or community service. In contrast, low-SPC participants often had peer groups that were disengaged from civic life, limiting their exposure to civic opportunities.
Structural constraints and SPC	Parent education level was a significant predictor of SPC (β = 0.063, p = 0.021), reflecting socioeconomic influences.	Some participants faced barriers like transportation, work obligations, or lack of parental support, limiting their ability to engage in community involvement despite their interest. Others found creative ways to engage despite constraints.

integrates the quantitative and qualitative findings to illustrate how community involvement, relational support, and structural factors shape sociopolitical control.

The sections that follow examine the following four key findings from this study: (1) the role of community involvement in fostering SPC, (2) the mediating influence of parental relationships, (3) the impact of peer networks in reinforcing or limiting civic engagement, and (4) the structural constraints that shape access to these developmental opportunities. By integrating quantitative trends with the participants’ narratives, we have explored how relational and contextual factors interact to support or hinder the development of SPC in young adulthood.

4.1. Community Involvement

Community involvement during adolescence serves as a critical pathway for the development of SPC in adulthood. Prior research has demonstrated that community involvement offers adolescents developmental opportunities to practice leadership, collaborate with others, and navigate complex social systems (Kirshner, 2009; Metzger et al., 2019). This study’s quantitative analyses confirm that structured engagement in civic activities, such as volunteering, youth councils, and mentorship programs, significantly predicts SPC at the age of 25. This relationship holds true, even when controlling for other relational influences, underscoring the importance of structured opportunities that embed adolescents in environments where they can develop agency, leadership, and a sense of collective responsibility.

The qualitative findings further illustrate how these experiences shape SPC trajectories. Participants with high SPC described early structured civic opportunities, such as youth advisory councils, community service programs, and grassroots activism, as formative spaces for leadership development and civic confidence. These settings provided decision-making power, mentorship, and engagement with local governance, aligning with research that emphasizes hands-on participation fosters SPC by demonstrating the impact of civic actions (Augsberger & Collins, 2024).

However, access to these opportunities was uneven. Some participants described barriers such as transportation challenges, family obligations, or limited awareness of available programs. This is consistent with research showing that youth in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas benefit most from structured civic opportunities but also face the greatest barriers to participation (Hull et al., 2008; Lenzi et al., 2012), although some participants actively sought out these opportunities independently or developed civic agency despite a lack of support.

These findings highlight the need for accessible and equitable civic opportunities for all youth. Participation in out-of-school activities fosters teamwork, identity exploration, and civic skills (Hansen et al., 2003). Community-based programs that prioritize youth voice, leadership roles, and mentorship provide key developmental contexts for SPC, offering pathways for both immediate civic action and long-term engagement. Programs like youth councils and participatory governance initiatives are particularly effective in equipping youth with decision-making power and competencies such as negotiation, organizing, and collective problem solving—skills that contribute to sustained sociopolitical control into adulthood.

4.2. Parent Influences

Parents play a key role in civic socialization by modeling engagement in activities like voting and volunteering, providing early exposure to civic life (Wray-Lake & Flanagan, 2012). Democratic parenting and open communication further support adolescents’ sense of agency, encouraging discussions on political and social issues that foster SPC (Bougher, 2017). These mechanisms help explain why parental relationships remain significant predictors of SPC, even after accounting for other relational influences. Quantitative analyses revealed that positive relationships with parents are critical predictors of SPC, mediating the effects of community involvement during adolescence and supporting the development of long-term civic agency. These findings suggest that supportive parental relationships amplify the benefits of community involvement by fostering the conditions necessary for youth to develop sustained SPC.

The qualitative findings further illustrate how parents model civic behaviors and instill values that shape long-term sociopolitical development. Parents who engaged in civic activities, such as volunteering or environmental activism, provided tangible examples that influenced their children’s commitments. Additionally, parents who encouraged discussions about social and political issues created environments that nurtured SPC, aligning with research on the role of civic discourse in adolescent development (Van Goethem et al., 2014; Wray-Lake & Shubert, 2019). Challenging family dynamics also shaped SPC in unexpected ways, demonstrating alternative pathways to civic identity formation. While much of the literature on SPC development focuses on highly engaged youth with civically active parents (Bekkers, 2007; Morgan et al., 2024a), some participants developed critical consciousness, despite structural or interpersonal challenges at home.

4.3. Peer Influences

Peer relationships play a critical role in shaping adolescents’ engagement in civic life and their development of SPC. During adolescence, friendships serve as important relational contexts where youth explore shared values, practice leadership, and engage in civic behaviors (Laursen & Veenstra, 2021). The quantitative findings indicate that positive peer relationships during high school significantly predict SPC in young adulthood. Peer relationships also serve as a pathway through which community involvement translates into higher SPC, though these indirect effects are smaller than those observed for parental relationships. These findings suggest that, while parents may provide early exposure to civic values, peers reinforce and expand these experiences by creating opportunities for collective engagement and validation.

Adolescents embedded in peer groups that prioritize civic engagement may experience stronger SPC development, as friendships provide opportunities for collaborative problem solving, shared advocacy efforts, and mutual encouragement in civic participation. Peer networks often serve as a bridge to intergenerational civic engagement, introducing adolescents to mentors, community leaders, and broader social movements. However, not all peer influences contribute positively to SPC. This suggests that reliance on familiar peer networks can encourage selective participation, reinforcing existing patterns of engagement or disengagement (Oosterhoff et al., 2021). Additionally, the absence of peer encouragement may discourage youth from stepping beyond their comfort zones to participate in broader community initiatives. These findings highlight the role of peer networks in shaping adolescent pathways to SPC. While family relationships provide foundational civic values, peer relationships offer spaces to practice and refine civic engagement. When youth are in networks where civic engagement is normalized, peer relationships can amplify the developmental benefits of community involvement, ultimately fostering stronger SPC in young adulthood.

4.4. Structural Constraints

While community involvement plays a significant role in shaping SPC, structural barriers limit access to these opportunities for many adolescents. Quantitative analyses indicate that parent education level significantly predicts SPC, reflecting the role of socioeconomic background in shaping civic engagement. These findings suggest that adolescents from higher-educated families may have greater access to structured civic programs, mentorship, and extracurricular opportunities that facilitate SPC development. This aligns with prior research indicating that higher parental education levels often correlate with increased adolescent civic engagement, as parents with greater resources are better positioned to provide access to civic and extracurricular opportunities (White & Mistry, 2015).

The qualitative findings provide further insight into how structural constraints shape civic trajectories. Some participants described limited access to civic opportunities due to family obligations or other factors beyond their control, which affected their ability to participate in community activities. However, parental support—even in the absence of direct civic engagement—still influenced sociopolitical development. Some parents though not civically engaged themselves, encouraged their children’s involvement or motivated them to approach community participation differently in adulthood. One respondent expressed a commitment to doing things differently for their own children, demonstrating how indirect parental support can still foster SPC. This finding complicates traditional assumptions that parental civic engagement is the primary mechanism for fostering SPC (Bekkers, 2007; Wray-Lake & Flanagan, 2012). Instead, parents facing structural constraints may model resilience, independence, and adaptability, which contribute to their children’s civic development. These findings highlight the importance of considering broader relational and contextual dynamics in SPC development, rather than focusing solely on structured civic opportunities. While some participants found alternative pathways to engagement despite barriers, others noted how structural constraints shaped their civic trajectories in more indirect ways. This reinforces the need to reduce systemic barriers and ensure that all youth, regardless of background, have access to the skills, networks, and opportunities necessary for long-term civic engagement (Soucie et al., 2018; Youniss et al., 2001).

5. Conclusions

By examining the influence of community involvement in adolescence on levels of SPC in young adulthood and the affiliated role of family and peer relationships, this study expanded on prior understandings of adolescence as a critical time point for civic engagement. First, this study broadened the considerations of community involvement from explicitly sociopolitical activities to include practices like fundraising, religious and cultural activities, organized sports, and helping neighbors. While these actions do not necessarily offer deliberate learning opportunities about social structures and power (which might typically be associated with leadership competence and policy control, the two arms of SPC), they may also contribute to the development of SPC, particularly when paired with positive parent–child relationships that center on democratic, open communication. This was seen in the example of an interviewee carrying out donation practices learned from a caregiver.

Second, by taking into account the role of relationships with caregivers and peers, this study considered not only access to community engagement activities but also whether their participation was encouraged. As demonstrated by the qualitative data, many adolescents are driven by a need for belonging; therefore, there could be a risk of peer social rejection, which leads to selective participation in some forms of community engagement. Conversely, when peers support participation in activities like youth councils and volunteering clubs, adolescents may find a sense of community and belonging by opting into participation. Parental support of community engagement was also significant, even when their children did not have the opportunity to participate due to economic constraints. When parents spoke positively of community involvement, they shared values like helping others and collectivism with their children, which encouraged later engagement when their children did have the opportunity to participate as emerging adults. The consideration of these relationships with both peers and caregivers demonstrates the importance of understanding community engagement activities as relational contexts where adolescents are learning to make sense of social systems and developing leadership skills.

5.1. Limitations and Strengths

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. The reliance on self-reported data introduces the possibility of social desirability bias, where participants may respond in a manner they perceive as favorable or acceptable, potentially skewing the findings. The use of a binary gender variable excludes nonbinary and gender-diverse identities. The education variable reports only the education level of the parent participating in the study, without considering that of a second caregiver. The categorization of cultural identity also presents limitations, particularly the use of the “Other” category. This broad classification encompassed a diverse range of participants who did not fit into the predefined Anglo, Franco, or Native classifications, yet their distinct cultural experiences were not systematically disaggregated. As a result, our ability to examine intersectional influences on sociopolitical control within this group was constrained. While this categorization was retained to align with the dataset’s original classification scheme, we acknowledge that it may obscure meaningful within-group differences and limit insights into how cultural identity intersects with relational pathways to SPC. Future research should incorporate more granular measures of cultural identity to facilitate a deeper understanding of how intersectional factors shape sociopolitical development.

Much of the literature has focused on sociopolitical development among somewhat exceptional, highly involved youth. There have been few opportunities to gain insights into sociopolitical development among more population-representative samples. Much of the research on sociopolitical development has been cross-sectional, limiting insights into causal mechanisms. The current study’s design provided insights into the long-term developmental trajectories of participants across various levels of perceived sociopolitical control. The mixed-methods design of the study and the stratified sampling strategy enabled us to link participants’ responses to both quantitative and qualitative forms of data collection, providing explanatory details on the mediational mechanisms that were observed in the quantitative data. However, the qualitative approach was primarily designed to contextualize the quantitative findings rather than to independently generate new themes. While this approach allowed for a deeper understanding of the mechanisms behind SPC development, it may have constrained the ability to surface novel insights beyond the scope of the survey results. Future research should consider a more exploratory qualitative design to capture emergent themes that may not be identified through structured survey instruments.

5.2. Implications

Sociopolitical control is important for both individuals and communities. At the individual level, understanding how to foster SPC may inform positive youth development practices, and at the community level, it has implications for encouraging and sustaining democratic life and collective action. Given that community involvement at adolescence is associated with higher levels of SPC at adulthood, educational contexts like schools could further emphasize community involvement in their curriculum, and caregivers could emphasize the importance of civic participation via their own actions and how they convey their democratic values via conversations with their children. Adolescent civic engagement programs like leadership councils could target social networks by using incentives for bringing a friend and foster feelings of belonging by promoting inclusivity.

5.3. Future Directions

This study considered only the adult child interviews, as the quantitative variable of interest was the adult child’s perception of the parent–child relationship (rather than the parent’s perception of the relationship). Further study could expand on a comparative qualitative analysis of parent–child dyads of varying levels of SPC. Additionally, many of the adult children’s reflections on past community engagement included experiences from early childhood, many of which they may no longer remember even if these experiences continue to influence them today. Therefore, future work could include parents’ descriptions of their children’s community engagement. Incorporating parents’ perspectives could provide insights into intergenerational patterns of civic engagement, examining how community involvement is shaped across four generations—from how young adult participants’ parents were raised by their own parents (the grandparents), to how they raised their adult children, and now how those adult children are raising the next generation. These dyadic perspectives would offer a richer understanding of both continuity and change in civic engagement practices over time, revealing how relational and structural factors influence SPC development across multiple generations. This study also emphasized values like open, democratic communication within the family, as perceived by the adult child, and further studies could include parents’ reflections on their parenting practices and how they intended to implement these or other values. Doing so could then inform suggestions into parenting practices that encourage community engagement and the development of SPC.

Moreover, this study identified the key role of values (democratic participation, helping others, etc.) in parent influences on community involvement and SPC. Future work could look at the values held by peer groups and how they relate to adolescents’ engagement. Finally, a subsequent study could measure both parent levels of SPC (looking at the relationships between parent SPC, parent community involvement, parent’s encouragement of child’s community involvement, child’s community involvement, and adult child’s SPC) and the SPC of the child over time, considering how SPC levels covary with community involvement and parent–child relationships.