Attachment to community and civic and political engagement: a case study of students.
Boulianne, Shelley ; Brailey, Michelle
YOUTH'S LOW LEVEL of civic and political engagement
detrimentally affect the health of communities and the democratic system
(Putnam 2000; Wattenberg 2008; Zukin et al. 2006). Only 40 percent of
Canadian youth voted in the last federal elections (Elections Canada
2012). While secondary schools have successfully promoted volunteerism
among teenagers, the effects are short-lived. There is an almost 20
percentage point drop in volunteerism after high school graduation (Hall
et al. 2009; Pancer et al. 2007; Ravanera, Rajulton, and Turcotte 2003;
Vezina and Crompton 2012). While there are a variety of theories about
why youth's volunteerism drops off after high school graduation, we
are interested in the role of community attachment. The drop in
volunteer rates coincides with a drop in community attachment (Ravanera
et al. 2003). Before investigating this hypothesis, we need to rethink
how we measure community attachment, because the current
conceptualization and measurement is inappropriate for the study of
youth's connection to their communities.
This paper is an important contribution because it discusses the
challenges that youth face in building and sustaining attachment to
community. Furthermore, the paper uses a comprehensive measurement
approach to community attachment. This study explores subjective or
emotional bonds to community, as well as objective ties to community
such as length of residence. This comprehensive approach reveals
different mechanisms explaining civic and political engagement. These
different mechanisms point to different strategies to address low levels
of engagement. Finally, this paper is an important contribution because
there is little research on youth's community attachment and its
implications on civic and political engagement.
COMMUNITY ATTACHMENT AND YOUTH
Different studies have different ways of describing the phenomenon
of community attachment. We view community attachment as the emotional
and personal bonds that tie a person to the collective (Connerly and
Marans 1985; Unger and Wandersman 1985). This broad definition
encompasses feelings of belonging, sense of community, as well as
measures of community embeddedness (Davidson and Cotter 1989; Goudy
1990; Ravanera et al. 2003; Ryan et al. 2005; Wilkinson 2008). The
definition also aligns with McLeod et al.'s (1996:181) ideas about
"community integration," which includes positive feelings
toward the community, its institutions, and its problems (also see Paek,
Yoon, and Shah 2005; Shah, McLeod, and Lee 2009). The common theme is an
individual's connection to the community (see Ryan et al. 2005).
Community attachment has been measured in a variety of ways, but
years of residence in a community is the most popular method of
measurement (Goudy 1990; Jeffres, Dobos, and Sweeney 1987; Kang and Kwak
2003; McCluskey et al. 2004; Rothenbuhler et al. 1996; Ryan et al. 2005;
Shah et al. 2009; Viswanath et al. 2000). The premise of this research
is that tenure in a community is expected to develop emotional or
personal bonds to a collective (see literature review in Ryan et al.
2005). Years of residence may not work for understanding youth's
community attachment. First, youth's length of residency does not
have the same meaning for adults as it does for youth. Some youth reside
in family households with higher mobility limiting the length of
residence, but the decision to move is not their own. These youths may
be deeply connected to their community, but are forced to move with
their parents. Finally, some youth are forced to move as part of the
pursuit of employment or educational opportunities. They may have a
strong community attachment, but they must move to get a job or to
attend school. These nuances are not adequately captured in a measure of
community attachment focused on years of residence.
Given the problem with this objective measure of community
attachment, we posit that subjective measures of community attachment
are important in assessing youth's community attachment. A variety
of measures have been proposed to assess the subjective elements of
community attachment, including feelings of belonging, feeling like the
community is their home, pride in community, like living in the area,
and satisfaction with the community (Davidson and Cotter 1989; Jeffres
et al. 1987; McCluskey et al. 2004; McLeod et al. 1996; Mesch and Talmud
2010; Rothenbuhler et al. 1996). Wilkinson (2008) offers a lengthy list
of measures related to community attachment. However, the subjective
measure that has been given the most attention is the intention to move
away from (or stay in) the community (Davidson and Cotter 1989; Goudy
1990; Hays and Kogl 2007; McCluskey et al. 2004; Mesch and Talmud 2010;
Rothenbuhler et al. 1996; Ryan et al. 2005; Wilkinson 2008). Jeffres et
al. (1987) describe the history of this measure. None of these studies
have examined the relevance of this measure for capturing youth's
community attachment.
Subjective measures are often validated against the objective
measure of length of residence in a community. However, this method of
validation has produced some conflicting findings, which raise questions
about criterion validity. Using length of residence as a criterion
variable in studies of the adult population, some researchers find a
positive correlation with subjective measures of community attachment
(Jeffres et al. 1987; McLeod et al. 1996; Schellenberg 2004), while
others do not (Mesch and Talmud 2010; Rothenbuhler et al. 1996). As
such, our first research question is: What are effective measures of
community attachment among youth? In assessing the measurement validity,
we move beyond the focus on a single criterion variable and instead
examine a set of measures and how they relate to each other.
CIVIC AND POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT
Community attachment and its synonymous concepts of integration,
embeddedness, belonging, and sense of community have been widely used to
predict participation in civic and political life. People with high
community attachment may feel an obligation to be engaged, may feel they
have greater stakes in the allocation of community resources, and have
higher motivation to be engaged as part of helping their fellow citizens
(Davidson and Cotter 1989). The theoretical consensus is that a person
who is more attached to their community participates more in civic and
political life.
Numerous studies test the relationship between community attachment
(measured in various ways) and involvement in civic and political life
(measured in various ways). These findings are largely based on the
adult population and use measures of community attachment that are
problematic in understanding youth's experiences. However, even
among the adult population, there are questions about how to effectively
measure community attachment and its implications on engagement in civic
and political life. Again, the length of residence measure garners a lot
of attention, but it may not be the best way to measure the degree of
community attachment. For example, several studies use years of
residence and find a relationship with civic engagement (Kang and Kwak
2003; McLeod et al. 1996; Ryan et al. 2005). Others do not find a
significant effect of length of residency on civic and political
engagement (Jones 2006; McCluskey et al. 2004). Smets and van Ham's
(2013) meta-analysis identifies 18 studies assessing residential
mobility and find that only 10 of these studies affirm a correlation
with voting. Given these precedents in the adult population, we question
the relevance of this variable for understanding youth's community
attachment as well as this measure's role in predicting
youth's engagement.
Few studies measure community attachment as a subjective variable
when predicting volunteering and voting. Davidson and Cotter (1989) use
subjective measures and find a correlation between these measures and
voting. Ryan et al. (2005) also use a subjective measure, that is,
feeling at home and plans to stay in the community, and find a small
direct effect on volunteering (.04). The strongest evidence is from
McLeod et al. (1996) who use a scale of community attachment that
includes: like living in the community, likelihood of moving away, and
feeling like the area is home. They find a significant effect of
subjective measures of community attachment on civic engagement (e.g.,
working to bring about change) controlling for the objective measures of
community attachment (length of residence). However, the effect is not
significant for more politically oriented engagement, such as voting in
local elections (McLeod et al. 1996). In contrast, McCluskey et al.
(2004) find that their subjective community attachment scale affects
more politically oriented engagement, such as voting, but does not
affect more civically oriented engagement (e.g., working as part of a
social group). Both studies are based on a random sample of adult
residents in Madison, Wisconsin. The conflicting findings suggest that
there may be different mechanisms in promoting civic versus political
engagement; however, the researchers present conflicting ideas about
these mechanisms.
None of the studies mentioned above use subjective measures of
community attachment to understand youth's engagement in civic and
political life. Some youth may establish quick and strong connections to
a new community, while others view their new community as a temporary
home. These sentiments capture real variations in levels of community
attachment. We expect that sentiments are driving civic and political
engagement among youth. Our second research question is to what degree
does community attachment affect civic and political engagement among
youth?
METHODS
Sample
There are no perfect sampling frames for recruiting youth to
participate in a survey, which has led many researchers to opt for
student samples. Students are interesting as a case study of
youth's community attachment and engagement. First, many students
move to pursue postsecondary education. As such, we have a high degree
of variation among students in terms of residential mobility and thus,
variation in experiences of community attachment. Second, students are
offered plenty of opportunities to engage in civic and political life.
Some schools host voting stations and others host all candidate forums
where students can learn about elections. Schools often host volunteer
fairs where students can connect with community organizations and
volunteer. Furthermore, some schools offer course credit or transcript
documentation for volunteering in community organizations. As such,
motivations, rather than structural opportunities, seem critical to
understanding who does participate and who does not participate. In this
context, community attachment is extremely important. Finally, students
are an important critical mass of youth. There are approximately 3
million students in Canada and the United States in any given year
(National Survey of Student Engagement 2013). Approximately 60 percent
of Canadian youth aged 18 to 24 years are enrolled in postsecondary
schooling (Blais and Loewen 2011; Clark 2007; Galarneau, Morissette, and
Usalcas 2013). As such, the student experience is common, rather than an
exception, in youth's life experiences.
We used a random sample of students enrolled at a Canadian
university. MacEwan University is one of Alberta's newest
universities. The institution is transitioning from a community college.
Community colleges are arguably more representative of youth in a
community than more elite universities where tuition is higher and
entrance standards more competitive (Hargittai 2010; Hooghe et al.
2010). The university has three campuses across the City of Edmonton and
offers certificate, diploma, and degree programs. The Edmonton
metropolitan area hosts approximately 218,055 youth aged 18 to 29 years
(Statistics Canada 2012).
We used a stratified random sample of 2,000 students enrolled in
the winter 2013 semester (N = 14,750). The sample frame was based on
records provided by the Registrar's Office upon ethics approval. Of
the 2,000 students asked to participate, 419 students accessed the
survey. However, there was a significant drop off after the full page
consent form on the first page of the survey and a slight drop off prior
to answering the community attachment questions. As such, we have a
functional sample size of 381. Is this sample size large enough?
According to the 2011 Census, there are approximately 5.2 million youth
aged 18 to 29 years in Canada (Statistics Canada 2012). The margin of
error for this survey is 5 percent (95 percent confidence interval),
which is well within survey research industry standards. This sampling
ratio would be akin to a sample size of 2,575 to represent the 33.5
million people in Canada. Furthermore, the sample size is similar to
other studies in this area of research (Jeffres et al. 1987; Kang and
Kwak 2003; McLeod et al. 1996; Mesch and Talmud 2010; Rothenbuhler et
al. 1996). We argue that the sample size is sufficient for our research
questions. (1)
Volunteering Voting
Civic and political engagements are measured by volunteering and
voting in the past year. We asked about volunteering to help a neighbor
or friend, volunteering as part of an education program or work
requirement, and volunteering for a group or organization. We focus on
the latter measure as this measure draws upon a higher degree of
motivation than required volunteer work, and because this type of
volunteering is most aligned with our conception of civic engagement.
Approximately half of students reported volunteering in the past year
(Table 1), which is consistent with Vezina and Crompton's (2012)
finding for this age group. Voting was measured as part of a series of
questions about involvement in political activities. Voting was the most
common political activity among these students. Because of the great
concern about youth's low voter turnout, we decided to focus on
this variable. The question asked about voting in any municipal,
provincial, or federal election. Approximately 45.31 percent of students
reported voting in the past year (Table 1), which is consistent with the
General Social Survey 2008 finding for 18- to 24-year-olds in the
Prairie provinces (Statistics Canada 2009).
Community Attachment
Both objective and subjective measures of community attachment are
used. As subjective measures, students were asked to agree or disagree
with three statements using a seven-point scale. These statements were:
"I care about others who live in the Edmonton area," "I
like living in the Edmonton area," and "I feel like a member
of the Edmonton community." In addition, we asked about their
satisfaction/dissatisfaction with living in the Edmonton area. As
mentioned, many studies examine community attachment in terms of the
intent to stay in a community. We measured this concept by asking a
question about the importance (or unimportance) of moving away from the
city after graduation, which we reversed coded into a variable about
wanting to stay. These measures also used a seven-point scale, which was
bipolar and had a neutral middle point (recoded to 0-6).
Of the various items used to measure community attachment as a
subjective factor, the measures "caring about others who live in
the Edmonton area" and "like living in the Edmonton area"
had the highest averages (Table 1). Conversely "wanting to stay in
this city after graduation" had the lowest average. In other words,
students reported that they cared about others in this city and liked
living in the city, but they were indifferent about living in the city
after graduation.
To isolate the effects of community attachment, we control for home
ownership and having children, which are discussed as correlates of
community attachment in the adult population (Kang and Kwak 2003;
McCluskey et al. 2004; Mesch and Talmud 2010; Paek et al. 2005;
Viswanath et al. 2000). Only 15.22 percent of respondents own their own
house or apartment. Approximately 11.05 percent of respondents have
children. These low frequencies are expected in a study of youth.
Findings
Among the community attachment measures, the highest correlations
are among the subjective measures of community attachment (Table 2). For
example, there was a high correlation among responses about whether one
likes living in this city and satisfaction with living in this city (r =
.784, p < .001). There are some significant correlations between the
subjective and objective measures of community attachment. For example,
length of residency and feeling like a member of the community are
correlated (r = .190, p <.001).
In terms of measuring community attachment, we look at the content
validity of the measures of community attachment as well as scale
reliability. Based on an assessment of the scale reliability for the
five subjective items using differing seven-point scales
(Cronbach's alpha = .806), we decided to construct a four-item
scale and exclude the variable about staying in the city after
graduation (Cronbach's alpha = .826). The other reason to exclude
this item from the scale is there is a separate literature addressing
this measure. As mentioned, of the measures of subjective attachment,
students report the lowest levels of attachment using this measure than
the other measures.
As the four-item community attachment measure increases, the
likelihood of volunteering increases (Exp(B) = 1.09, p < .001; Table
3). For each unit increase on this scale, which ranges in values between
0 and 24, the odds of students volunteering increase by 9 percent. In
the multivariate model, intention to stay in the city after graduation
decreases likelihood of volunteering (Exp(B) = .83, p = .017). In other
words, as intent to stay in the city increases by one unit, the odds of
students volunteering decrease by 17 percent. These subjective measures
of community attachment are the only significant predictors of
volunteering.
For voting, length of residency (ExpCB) = 1.55, p = .003) increases
the likelihood of voting. The four-item community attachment measure
predicts who votes (Exp(B) = 1.06, p = .025). For each unit increase on
this scale, which ranges in values between 0 and 24, the odds of
students voting increase by 6 percent. Unlike volunteering, intention to
stay in the city does not have a significant effect on voting among
students (Exp(B) = .92, p = .290).
DISCUSSION
This study is an important contribution to the study of
youth's community attachment and its connection to civic and
political engagement. Little research has been done on this topic. This
study offers a comprehensive look at youth's community attachment
and its impact on engagement.
Subjective measures of community attachment, such as caring for
others in the city and feeling like a member of the community, were
related to volunteering and voting. The effects are consistent with the
little research that exists on this topic (Davidson and Cotter 1989;
McCluskey et al. 2004; McLeod et al. 1996; Ryan et al. 2005). Our study
validates this finding for a subsection of the population. Unlike other
studies, we find the effects of subjective measures of community
attachment to be significant for both voting and volunteering, whereas
other researchers find the effects for one type of engagement and not
the other (see previous discussion of McCluskey et al. 2004; McLeod et
al. 1996). A direct comparison of effect sizes for this study and the
other studies is not possible, because all of these other studies used
multiple-item scales to measure the dependent variables (Davidson and
Cotter 1989; Kang and Kwak 2003; McCluskey et al. 2004; McLeod et al.
1996; Paek et al. 2005; Rothenbuhler et al. 1996; Shah et al. 2009). We
would argue that focusing on these variables in their singularity adds
much needed clarity about the effects of community attachment on
volunteering compared to voting. The findings have clear policy
implications. Efforts to build emotional bonds to a community will have
payoffs in terms of both civic and political engagement. However, to
address political engagement, specifically, requires programs that
reduce residential mobility.
The findings raise questions about the appropriateness of popular
measures of community attachment. In particular, the findings suggest
that the intent to remain in a community is not good measure of
community attachment among students. This variable does not strongly
correlate with other measures. In the multivariate model, this measure
produced counterintuitive results. If students believed that it was
important to stay in the community, then students were less likely to
volunteer. Perhaps the findings reflect the unique situation of
students, but maybe the results are reflective of youth's
contemporary sentiments around community attachment. Their attachment to
community may be strong, but without long-term commitment. This finding
merits further research. Ideally, this research would be qualitative
research in which youth could discuss their sense of community
attachment and the challenges of forming and sustaining attachments to
community.
Length of residence in community did not have a substantive effect
on volunteering, replicating findings by Jones (2006) and McCluskey et
al. (2004). However, this measure did predict voting. As such, there
seems to be different mechanisms at work in explaining the propensity to
volunteer versus vote. The reasons for the greater strength of this
measure in predicting political engagement, as opposed to civic
engagement, are unclear. Perhaps length of residence in a community
increases awareness of candidates and local issues and thus, indirectly
increases the odds of voting. We recommend further research in this
area.
Do the findings apply to youth in general? (2) While students are
an interesting case study of community attachment and civic and
political engagement, they are only a subset of the population of youth.
The findings in this paper are reflected in surveys of the general
population in the United States (Davidson and Cotter 1989; Jones 2006;
McCluskey et al. 2004; McLeod et al. 1996; Ryan et al. 2005). As such,
it seems reasonable to expect the same pattern of effects between
attachment and engagement for youth in general. While our findings are
consistent with other studies, none of these studies include a lengthy
list of measures of community attachment, nor do they offer a
comprehensive assessment of the relationship between community
attachment and engagement. We believe that the correlations among
subjective measures of community attachment and engagement would also
appear among a broader cross-section of youth.
Further research should go beyond a cross-sectional design and
examine longitudinal data to examine how community attachment evolves
over time and how this evolution affects engagement. This longitudinal
design would be better at examining the possibility of a reciprocal
relationship between community attachment and engagement. A longitudinal
design would also help untangle the causal ordering of the different
measures, for example, does length of residence cause changes in
subjective measures of community attachment?
References
Blais, A. and P. Loewen. 2011. Youth Electoral Engagement in
Canada. Elections Canada. Retrieved July 11, 2012
(http://www.elections.ca/res/rec/part/youeng/youth_electoral_engagement_e.pdf).
Clark, W. 2007. "Delayed Transitions of Young Adults."
Canadian Social Trends. Statistics Canada. Retrieved August 22, 2013
(http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11--008x/2007004/10311-eng.htm).
Connerly, C.E. and R.W. Marans. 1985. "Two Global Measures of
Perceived Neighborhood Quality." Social Indicators Research
17(1):29-47.
Davidson, W.B. and P.R. Cotter. 1989. "Sense of Community and
Political Participation." Journal of Community Psychology
17:119-25.
Elections Canada. 2012. Estimation of Voter Turnout by Age Group
and Gender at the 2011 Federal General Election. Retrieved July 18, 2012
(http://www.elections.ca/res/rec/part/estim/estimation41_e.pdf).
Galarneau, D., R. Morissette and J. Usalcas. 2013. What Has Changed
for Young People in Canada? Statistics Canada. Retrieved October 18,
2013 (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-006-x/2013001/article/11847-eng.pdf).
Goudy, W.J. 1990. "Community Attachment in a Rural Region
"Rural Sociology 55(2):178-98.
Groves, R., F.C. Fowler, P. Mick, J.M. Lepkowski, E. Singer and R.
Tourangeau. 2009. Survey Methodology. 2d ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Groves, R.M. and E. Peytcheva. 2008. "The Impact of
Nonresponse Rates on Nonresponse Bias: A Meta-Analysis." Public
Opinion Quarterly 72(2):167-89.
Hall, M., D. Lasby, S. Ayer and W.D. Gibbons. 2009. Caring
Canadians, Involved Canadians: Highlights from the 2007 Canada Survey of
Giving, Volunteering, and Participating. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.
Hargittai, E. 2010. "Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet
Skills and Uses among Members of the 'Net Generation.'"
Sociological Inquiry 80(1):92-113.
Hays, R.A. and A.M. Kogl. 2007. "Neighborhood Attachment,
Social Capital Building, and Political Participation: A Case Study of
Low- and Moderate-Income Residents of Waterloo, Iowa "Journal of
Urban Affairs 29(2):181-205.
Hooghe, M., D. Stolle, V. Maheo and S. Vissers. 2010. "Why
Can't a Student Be More Like an Average Person? Sampling and
Attrition Effects in Social Science Field and Laboratory
Experiments." Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science 628(1):85-96.
Jeffres, L.W., J. Dobos and M. Sweeney. 1987. "Communication
and Commitment to Community." Communication Research 14(6):619-43.
Jones, K.S. 2006. "Giving and Volunteering as Distinct Forms
of Civic Engagement: The Role of Community Integration and Personal
Resources in Formal Helping." Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly 35(2):249-66.
Kang, N. and M. Kwak. 2003. "A Multilevel Approach to Civic
Participation: Individual Length of Residence, Neighborhood Residential
Stability, and Their Interactive Effects with Media Use."
Communication Research 3(1):80-106.
Kermalli, S. 2013. "Why Canada Still Needs Census in Age of
Data Mining Experts and Consultants Say Stats Can Survey Still Best Way
to Collect Data on Canadians." CBC News, August 15. Retrieved
September 2, 2014 (http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/1.1383200).
Klofstad, C.A. 2011. Civic Talk: Peers, Politics and the Future of
Democracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
McCluskey, M.R., S. Deshpande, D. Shah and D.M. McLeod. 2004.
"The Efficacy Gap and Political Participation: When Political
Influence Fails to Meet Expectations." International Journal of
Public Opinion Research 16(4):437-55.
McLeod, J.M., K. Daily, Z. Guo, W.P. Eveland, J. Bayer, S. Yang and
H. Wang. 1996. "Community Integration, Local Media Use, and
Democratic Processes." Communication Research 23(2):179-209.
Mesch, G.S. and I. Talmud. 2010. "Internet Connectivity,
Community Participation, and Place Attachment: A Longitudinal
Study." American Behavioral Scientist 53(8):1095-110.
Millar, M. and D.A. Dillman. 2011. "Improving Response to Web
and Mixed Mode Surveys." Public Opinion Quarterly 75(2):L249-69.
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). 2013. NSSE 2013
Overview. Retrieved September 2, 2014
(http://nsse.iub.edu/2013Jnstitutional_Report/pdfTSTSSE_2013_Overview.pdf).
O'Neill, B. 2007. Indifferent or Just Different? The Political
and Civic Engagement of Young People in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Policy
Research Networks. Retrieved July 2, 2010
(http://www.cprn.org/documents/48504_EN.pdf).
Paek, H., S. Yoon and D. Shah. 2005. "Local News, Social
Integration, and Community Participation: Using Hierarchical Linear
Modeling to Explore Contextual and Cross-Level Effects." Journalism
& Mass Communication Quarterly 82(3):587-606.
Pancer, S.M., M. Pratt, B. Hunsberger and S. Alisat. 2007.
"Community and Political Involvement in Adolescence: What
Distinguishes the Activists from the Uninvolved?" Journal of
Community Psychology 35(6):741-59.
Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of
American Community. New York: Touchstone.
Ravanera, Z.R., F. Rajulton and P. Turcotte. 2003. "Youth
Integration and Social Capital: An Analysis of the Canadian General
Social Surveys on Time Use." Youth & Society 35(2): 15882.
Rothenbuhler, E.W., L.J. Mullen, R. DeLaurell and C.R. Ryu. 1996.
"Communication, Community Attachment, and Involvement."
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 73(2):445-66.
Ryan, V.D., K.A. Agnitsch, L. Zhao and R. Mullick. 2005.
"Making Sense of Voluntary Participation: A Theoretical
Synthesis." Rural Sociology 70(3):287-313.
Schellenberg, G. 2004. "Perceptions of Canadians: A Sense of
Belonging, Confidence and Trust." Canadian Social Trends 75:16-21.
Shah, D.V., J.M. McLeod and N. Lee. 2009. "Communication
Competence as a Foundation for Civic Competence: Processes of
Socialization into Citizenship." Political Communication
26(1):102-17.
Smets, K. and C. van Ham. 2013. "The Embarrassment of Riches?
A Meta-Analysis of Individual-Level Research on Voter Turnout."
Electoral Studies 22:344-59.
Statistics Canada. 2009. "2008 General Social Survey--Selected
Tables on Social Engagement." Statistics Canada Catalogue No.
89-640-X. Ottawa. Released June 2009. Retrieved August 30, 2013
(http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89--640-x/89--640-x2009001-eng.pdf).
Statistics Canada. 2012. "Edmonton, Alberta (Code 835) and
Canada (Code 01) (table). Census Profile. 2011 Census." Statistics
Canada Catalogue No. 98-316-XWE. Ottawa. Released October 24, 2012.
Retrieved May 6, 2014
(http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/censusrecensement/2011/dppd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E).
Unger, D.G. and A. Wandersman. 1985. "The Importance of
Neighbors: The Social, Cognitive, and Affective Components of
Neighboring." American Journal of Community Psychology
13(2):139-69.
Vezina, M. and S. Crompton. 2012. "Volunteering in
Canada." Canadian Social Trends. Statistics Canada. Retrieved
August 15, 2012 (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008x/2012001/article/11638-eng.pdf).
Viswanath, K., G.M. Kosicki, E.S. Fredin and E. Park. 2000.
"Local Community Ties, Community-Boundedness, and Local Public
Affairs Knowledge Gaps." Communication Research 27(1):27-50.
Wattenberg, M. 2008. Is Voting for Young People? With a Postscript
on Citizen Engagement. Cranbury, NJ: Pearson Education.
Wilkinson, D. 2008. "Individual and Community Factors
Affecting Psychological Sense Of Community, Attraction, and Neighboring
in Rural Communities." Canadian Review of Sociology 43(3):305-29.
Zukin, C., S. Keeter, M.W. Andolina, K. Jenkins and M.X. Delli
Carpini. 2006. A New Engagement? Political Participation, Civic Life,
and the Changing American Citizen. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
SHELLEY BOULIANNE
Grant MacEwan University
MICHELLE BRAILEY
University of Alberta
(1.) Using the American Public Association of Public Opinion
Research Response Rate 2 formula, the overall response rate was 19.05
percent with females more likely to respond than males. The response
rate is typical for student surveys (Klofstad 2011; Millar and Dillman
2011; National Survey of Student Engagement [NSSE] 2013). Although the
response rate was less than 20 percent, the response rate is not the
only indicator of data quality (Groves et al. 2009:59). While high
response rates are thought to decrease the risk of nonresponse bias
(Groves et al. 2009:59), research does not support this conclusion
(Groves and Peytcheva 2008). To assess nonresponse bias, we compared the
respondents to the survey to those students who were in the sample frame
and to students who were in the population frame as recommended by
Groves et al. (2009). We found consistency in terms of the distributions
of gender, age, and year of study.
(2.) Another related question is whether the results are specific
to a particular city and thus have limited generalizability. Most of the
literature faces the same issue, because research is based on city
samples, not national samples (see Connerly and Maras 1985; Davidson and
Cotter 1989; Jeffres et al. 1987; Kang and Kwak 2003; McCluskey et al.
2004; McLeod et al. 1996; Mesch and Talmud 2010; Rothenbuhler et al.
1996; Viswanath et al. 2000).
Shelley Boulianne, Department of Sociology, Grant MacEwan
University, Rm 6-394, 10700 104 Avenue, Edmonton, AB, Canada T5J 4S2.
E-mail: sjboulianne@gmail.com
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Respondents
Population Sample Respondents
Gender
Female 64.13% 50.0% 60.63%
Male 35.87% 50.0% 39.37%
Year of study
First year 43.61% 42.65% 45.41%
Second year 36.25% 36.45% 37.53%
Third year 10.17% 10.65% 7.87%
Fourth year 9.96% 10.25% 9.19%
Age 25.00 (7.35) 25.12 (7.42) 25.93 (8.25)
Engagement
Volunteering -- -- 50.94%
in past year
Voting in past year -- -- 45.31%
Community attachment
Like living
in this city -- -- 4.38 (1.58)
Care about others
in this city -- -- 4.54 (1.35)
Feel like a member
of this city -- -- 3.66 (1.67)
Satisfied with
living in this city -- -- 3.99 (1.58)
Want to stay in this
city after graduate -- -- 3.22 (1.70)
Length of residency -- -- 1.06 (.82)
in city (coded
as less than
four years,
more than four years,
entire life)
Other covariates
Employed -- -- 62.50%
Own apartment or house -- -- 15.22%
Have children -- -- 11.05%
Table 2
Correlation Matrix of Measures of Community Attachment
Like Care Member Satisfied
Like living in this city 1.00
Care about others .408 1.00
in this city <.001
Feel like a member .551 .533 1.00
of this city <.001 <.001
Satisfied with living .784 .380 .573 1.00
in this city <.001 <.001 <.001
Stay in this city .476 .164 .298 .401
after graduate <.001 .002 <.001 <.001
Length of .104 .089 .190 .095
residency in city .046 .088 <.001 .069
Stay Residency
Like living in this city
Care about others
in this city
Feel like a member
of this city
Satisfied with living
in this city
Stay in this city 1.00
after graduate
Length of .063 1.00
residency in city .226
Note: p-values are listed below each coefficient.
Table 3
Multivariate Logistic Regression of Community
Attachment on Engagement
Volunteer
Model 1
Odds ratio p
Exp (B)
Constant .47 .059
Subjective measures of
community attachment
Community attachment 1.09 <.001
four-item measure
Stay in this city after .83 .015
graduate
Objective measures of
community attachment
Length of residency
in city .90 .440
Other covariates
Female = 1 -- --
Year of study -- --
Employed = 1 -- --
Own apartment
or house = 1 1.65 .153
Have children = 1 1.46 .332
Age -- --
Cox & Snell [R.sup.2] = 4.68%
Log likelihood = 468.13
p = .005
Volunteer
Model 2
Odds ratio P
Exp (B)
Constant .61 .413
Subjective measures of
community attachment
Community attachment 1.09 <.001
four-item measure
Stay in this city after .83 .017
graduate
Objective measures of
community attachment
Length of residency
in city .92 .566
Other covariates
Female = 1 .96 .872
Year of study .98 .895
Employed = 1 .81 .378
Own apartment
or house = 1 1.81 .130
Have children = 1 1.49 .353
Age .99 .750
Cox & Snell [R.sup.2] = 4.96%
Log likelihood = 465.13
p = .038
Voting
Model 1
Odds ratio P
Exp (B)
Constant .22 <.001
Subjective measures of
community attachment
Community attachment 1.06 .021
four-item measure
Stay in this city after .93 .335
graduate
Objective measures of
community attachment
Length of residency
in city 1.68 .001
Other covariates
Female = 1 -- --
Year of study -- --
Employed = 1 -- --
Own apartment
or house = 1 3.32 .002
Have children = 1 .43 .046
Age -- --
Cox & Snell [R.sup.2] = 8.93%
Log likelihood = 449.09
p <.001
Voting
Model 2
Odds ratio P
Exp (B)
Constant .183 .010
Subjective measures of
community attachment
Community attachment 1.06 .025
four-item measure
Stay in this city after .92 .290
graduate
Objective measures of
community attachment
Length of residency
in city 1.55 .003
Other covariates
Female = 1 .74 .203
Year of study 1.07 .601
Employed = 1 1.58 .063
Own apartment
or house = 1 3.80 .001
Have children = 1 .48 .112
Age 1.00 .996
Cox & Snell [R.sup.2] = 10.38%
Log likelihood = 443.48
p <.001