Content uploaded by Hessel Nieuwelink
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hessel Nieuwelink on Sep 04, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
“Democracy Always Comes First”: Adolescents’ Views on Decision-Making
in Everyday Life and Political Democracy
Hessel Nieuwelink, Paul Dekker, Femke Geijsel & Geert ten Dam
Journal of Youth Studies, 19 (7), 990-1006
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2015.1136053
Abstract
Research shows adolescents to be positively-oriented towards democracy, but little is known
about what it actually means to them and what their views are on decision-making in both
everyday situations and political democracy. To gain insight into these aspects of adolescents’
democratic views we have interviewed 40 Dutch adolescents from second grade of different types
of high school. Potential conflict between various democratic principles prevalent in everyday
life situations were discussed and compared to how they view decision-making in political
democracy. The results of our qualitative study showed that adolescents’ views on issues
concerning collective decision-making in everyday situations are quite rich and reflect different
models of democracy (majoritarian, consensual, and deliberative). Moreover, how adolescents
deal with tensions between democratic principles in everyday life situations varies. While some
adolescents combine several principles (for instance majority rule as a last resort after trying to
find broader consensus), other adolescents tend to strictly focus on only one of these principles.
Adolescents’ views on political democracy, however, are rather limited and one-dimensional.
Those adolescents who seemed to have a more explicit picture of political democracy often
preferred a strict focus on majority rule, neglecting minority interests.
Keywords: political socialization, adolescents, decision-making, democratic views, civic
engagement
2
“Democracy Always Comes First”: Adolescents’ Views on Decision-Making
in Everyday Life and Political Democracy
For the stability of a democratic society, it is of great importance that new generations develop
democratic orientations. Yet, during the past fifteen years, studies have raised questions about
the orientations of new generations towards democracy and specific aspects thereof, such as
political interests, willingness to vote, freedom of speech, and collective decision-making.
Scholars claim that new generations are largely preoccupied with their own lives and interests,
and are therefore less focused on participation in public spheres and the common good (Galston
2001; Putnam, 2000; Ribeiro Malafaia, Neves, Ferreira, and Menezes, 2015).
Notwithstanding the concerns raised, some research conducted in recent years shows that
many adolescents still appreciate democracy and support underlying values such as tolerance and
freedom of speech (Schulz, Ainley, Fraillon, Kerr, and Losito 2010). In general, they prefer
democratic regimes above undemocratic ones and democratic ways of decision-making with
friends, in school and in leisure organizations (Helwig 1998). Although adolescents seem
positively-oriented towards democracy, a more detailed picture of their views about democratic
ways of decision-making is still lacking. For instance, adolescents are often asked in studies
whether or not they agree with democracy and/or freedom rights, but these studies do not shed
light on adolescents’ views in situations in which they are confronted with competing democratic
principles (e.g. Helwig and Turiel 2002; Schulz et al. 2010; Torney-Purta 2001). Notably, the
studies carried out focused primarily on political democracy (i.e. parliament, presidency, political
parties), while previous research has shown that adolescents have limited knowledge of and
experiences in such arenas (Galston 2001; Helwig 1998). Some studies have focused on decision-
making in situations familiar to adolescents, but participants in these studies are drawn
predominantly from the higher socio-economic milieu, which leaves differences related to
education levels or the socio-economic milieu out of the picture (e.g. Helwig and Kim 1999;
3
Helwig, Arnold, Tan and Boyd 2003). Other studies have revealed the significant impact of
education on adolescents’ democratic views, and have claimed this as a stronger explanation for
differences between young people than background characteristics such as gender, age,
religiosity, and ethnicity (e.g. Flanagan et al. 2005; Eckstein, Noack, and Gniewosz, 2012; Schulz
et al. 2010).
This article reports on a qualitative study of the democratic views of adolescents from
different educational tracks. We aimed at offering a situated understanding of adolescents’
democratic views by focusing on the different meanings of democratic decision-making in the
context of both everyday life situations and political democracy. Our interviews with adolescents
have provided in-depth insights into adolescent preferences regarding the collective decision-
making processes they encounter in different situations where aspects of democracy are at stake.
We focused on familiar situations in their daily lives in which they interact with others, such as
at home, with friends, and at school (hereafter “everyday situations”), and on adolescents’ views
about decision-making in a political democracy, meaning the institutions that constitute the
democratic characteristics of the state, such as parliament, the presidency, the constitution, and
political parties. This approach enabled us to compare adolescents’ subjective views on
democratic decision-making in different situations. Moreover, interviewing adolescents from
divergent socio-economic and socio-cultural backgrounds allowed us to explore the differences
between various groups.
The relevance of our study lies particularly in the fact that adolescence is a formative
period in a person’s political socialization (Jennings 2007; Sears and Levy 2003). The views and
orientations developed during this period affect a person’s beliefs throughout the rest of their life.
Furthermore, a large amount of research has pointed out that young people to an extent base their
attitudes towards politics and democracy on experiences with democracy in everyday life, such
as discussions and decision-making in class and whether adults are willing to listen to their
4
perspectives (Flanagan 2013; Helwig and Turiel 2002; Sapiro 2004). Everyday experiences can
influence how they view democracy, and this influence can have a lasting effect.
MODELS OF DEMOCRACY
Democracy is not an univocal concept and also democratic decision-making can take various
forms. At least three models of democracy can be distinguished: majoritarian democracy,
consensual democracy, and deliberative democracy (Dahl 1956; Goodin 2008; Held 2006;
Hendriks 2010; Keane 2009; Lijphart 1999). Within all three models of democracy discussing
viewpoints is considered a central aspect but the role of this discussion differs to large extent.
Selecting one from several competing options stands central in the majoritarian model of
democracy. Discussion is supposed to inform people about the available options. Therefore,
discussion is considered an instrument that enables people to voice their viewpoints and to
persuade others after which “the winner takes all” via a voting procedure. In the consensual
model of democracy, the focus is on finding agreement via negotiation involving as many
participants as possible and thereby taking as many minority interests into account as possible.
Discussion is basically negotiation to find a compromise. In the deliberative model of democracy,
preferences of actors become fluid and participants are focused upon developing new
perspectives and finding win-win options by deliberation. Discussion is here the method that is
used to come to a decision. By discussing all given viewpoints objectively, people must come to
an understanding about what for all people involved the most reasonable option is.
Coming to a decision through voting, negotiating, or deliberating confronts people with
contradictory principles; particularly between freedom and equality, majority rule and minority
interests, and the power of numbers or the power of arguments. Within these three models of
democracy, no fixed balance between democratic principles can be found. The balance can shift
depending on the time, place, and preferences of the individuals involved (Thomassen 2007).
5
However, because of a focus on one decision-making procedure, each of the respective models
implies tensions between certain competing principles in particular. In the majoritarian model,
potential conflicts primarily exist between majority vote, the power of arguments, and interests
of minorities. In the consensual model, potential conflicts mainly exist between negotiating
agreements, the necessity of collective decision-making, and the power of arguments. In the
deliberative model, potential conflicts between deliberation, power of numbers, and the necessity
to come to a collective decision are accentuated. A more comprehensive understanding of
democracy would therefore suggest that several of these principles are taken into account when
arguing about aspects of democracy. To observe a deeper and more complex understanding of
Dutch adolescents’ democratic orientations, these models of democracy and their encompassing
potentially conflicting principles were used as a theoretical frame for this research.
ORIENTATIONS TOWARDS DEMOCRACY AND DECISION-MAKING
Some research has been conducted about the question what adolescents know about
democracy and how they feel about it. The few available studies of adolescents’ views on
democracy indicate that they on average have only limited insight into the meaning of this
concept. Many adolescents are not able to define democracy or provide a coherent description of
it. Those who are able to define democracy, moreover, typically do so in terms of such
characteristics as individual rights and freedoms, democratic representation, majority rule and/or
civic equality (Husfeldt and Nikolova 2003; Flanagan, Gallay, Gill, Gallay, and Nti 2005;
Flanagan 2013). Only a small group of adolescents have been shown to be able to provide a more
comprehensive account of the concept of democracy by mentioning several key characteristics,
relating these to each other and explaining why they constitute a democracy (Sigel and Hoskin
1981; De Groot 2013). In other international research, adolescents were shown to be able to judge
what is good and bad for democracy when confronted with statements about political institutions
6
(Torney-Purta 2001). Comprehension of democracy seems to be related to the ability to
understand what a democratic way of dealing with a situation entails. An older study among
adolescents in the USA has shown that those who were able to provide a more comprehensive
account of democracy also provided more often a democratic solution for a problem as opposed
to a more self-centered approach (Sigel and Hoskin 1981).
All in all, adolescents appear to have trouble defining democracy despite having some
basic knowledge of what it entails. The inability of many adolescents to give a definition of
democracy that encompasses several characteristics does not mean, however, that they are
indifferent to the existence of democracy. An international study comprising 38 countries showed
that the overwhelming majority of adolescents from all participating countries to (strongly)
concur with statements expressing such democratic principles as freedom of speech, equal rights
for all, and free elections (Schulz et al. 2010). To date, hardly any research has been conducted
about the question whether adolescents vary in their preferences for a certain model of democracy.
One study among Canadian children documented a preference for a representative democracy,
consensual democracy, or direct democracy as opposed to a meritocracy or oligarchy (Helwig
1998).
Studies indicate that democratic views among adolescents are not equally distributed.
With regard to educational track, students in college bound tracks are often more positively
oriented towards democracy, possess more comprehension of democracy, and have a better
understanding of democratic institutions (such as parliament, constitution, and presidency) than
those in vocational tracks (Flanagan et al. 2005; Eckstein, Noack, and Gniewosz, 2012; Schulz
et al. 2010). It is therefore relevant to take educational track and the related differences in social-
economic and social cultural background (OECD, 2014) into account when studying adolescents’
views on democratic decision-making.
7
To be able to gain insight into the adolescents’ preferences regarding decision-making
in situations that are familiar to them, some research has focused on everyday situations, such as
the classroom and with friends. These studies showed that even children at the age of six approve
of majoritarian decisions in classroom and with friends. However, studies in different cultural
contexts have shown that, with age, children become more hesitant to approve majority decisions
when these concern personal matters, individual rights, or repeated decisions with a fixed
majority and minority (Moessinger 1981; Mann, Tan, MacLeod-Morgan, and Dixon 1984;
Kinoshita 1989, 2006). These studies further showed early adolescents (age 10 to 12 years) to
have started to develop a sensitivity to tensions and dilemma’s that are central to democratic
decision-making. Yet, the participants in these studies were not presented with several decision-
making procedures, for example majority rule, negotiating agreement or deliberation. More
generally, scholars have concentrated on the elements of one type of democracy, namely a
majoritarian democracy. In a study of 6- to 11-year-old Canadian children (Helwig and Kim 1999)
and a study of 13- to 16-year-old Chinese adolescents (Helwig et al. 2003), however, the
participants were explicitly asked about which type of decision-making process they would
prefer: consensual, majoritarian, or authority-based. Most Canadian children stated that majority
decision-making with peers and family and at school for field trips is a legitimate way but most
of them preferred consensual decision-making. The majority of the Chinese adolescents preferred
majority decision-making. The participants in these studies had predominantly a higher social
class-background and none of these studies have thus been able to explore differences between
different social groups
In the present study we follow this line of research by focusing on decision-making in
adolescents’ daily lives. A focus on issues that are familiar to adolescents is important for two
reasons. First, research shows that adolescents can learn about democratic processes at school,
with friends, and via leisure activities. In these situations adolescents can experience discussions
8
and collective decision-making (Geijsel et al. 2012; Miklikowska and Hurme 2011; Sapiro 2004;
Authors et al. in press). It has also been found that when young people are asked to make
judgments about political democracy, they indeed draw upon their knowledge of aspects of
democracy, such as decision-making, in day-to-day activities and their experiences with the
outcomes of these (Flanagan 2013; Greenstein 1965; Hess and Torney 1967; Helwig and Turiel
2002; Gimpel, Lay and Schuknecht 2003). Adolescents compare between what they experience
and judge as fair in their direct environment to situations, institutions, and actors within political
democracy, which we call the “analogy claim.”
A second reason for studying issues of daily significance comes from the finding that
although people may refine their democratic views during their lives, the attitudes of adolescents
towards salient features of their lives tend to have a lasting impact on these views and political
behavior (Sears and Levy 2003; Jennings 2007; Jennings, Stoker, & Bower 2009). Recent studies
have shown that adolescents’ attitudes with regard to democracy remain relatively stable between
the age of fourteen and early adulthood. A strong correlation has been shown to exist between
adolescents’ attitudes toward political engagement and political trust (Hooghe and Wilkenfeld
2008; Prior 2010). For this reason, it can be assumed that just how young people perceive daily
power-related issues and processes as fair or unfair will influence their attitudes and views on
political democracy later in life, which we call the “permanence claim.”
On the basis of both the analogy claim and the permanence claim it can be argued that
insight into democratic processes in everyday life can deepen our understanding of what
democracy means for adolescents and shed more light on the democratic experiences during
adolescence as constitutive elements for democratic attitudes in adulthood.
In the present study, we build upon the general picture that emerges from prior research
showing that young people have a preference for democratic decision-making in different social
contexts. However, it remains unclear what specific views adolescents have regarding issues
9
where collective decision-making is at stake, including the tensions between the various
democratic principles involved. Studying adolescents’ views in a qualitative way, we aim to gain
a situated understanding of adolescents’ democratic views by focusing on the different meanings
of democratic decision-making in both everyday situations and in the context of political
democracy. In sum, we sought to answer the following research question:
Which types of decision-making do adolescents from different educational tracks prefer
in everyday situations in comparison with their views on decision-making in political
democracy and their interpretation of the concept of democracy?
METHODOLOGY
Participants
Adolescents in their second year of secondary education in the Netherlands, aged 13 to 15,
participated in our study (N =40). With the selection of the participants a well-balanced
dispersion was strived for with regard to gender, socio-economic milieu, ethnic background, and
religious orientation. The 20 boys and 20 girls were also equally distributed between pre-
vocational (PV) and pre-academic (PA) education tracks with 13 adolescents from an ethnic
minority. The students attended one of the four following schools in the Netherlands: an orthodox
Protestant school that provides both pre-vocational and pre-academic education for a
homogenous population of non-minority students in the northeast of the Netherlands; a public
school that provides only pre-vocational education for a mixed urban/rural population of both
migrant and non-migrant students in the middle of the country; a public school that provides only
pre-academic education for a mixed population of students in Amsterdam; and a Catholic school
that provides both pre-vocational and pre-academic education for a predominantly non-migrant
population in the northwest of the country.i The adolescents’ teacher asked them whether they
wanted to participate on a voluntary basis. Their parents were informed about the interview and
were told that they could object to their child’s participation (no parents objected).
10
Interview and Procedure
We developed a framework of themes and topics from our theoretical perspective to guide the
semi-structured interviews (see Cresswell and Plano Clark, 2007). The interviews were
conducted by the first author in the spring of 2011. They lasted approximately 90 minutes and
involved the answering of a few introductory questions followed by the presentation of two cases
about issues of democratic decision-making. In the first case dealt with a hypothetical, but
familiar, situation in the classroom (Authors et al., in press) about which the interviewees were
asked how they would deal with disagreement among students on the rescheduling of a class.
During the case discussion that followed the interviewees were asked to explain their views in
more detail and whether they would change their preferences whenever the situation in the case
would be different (e.g. ‘Does it matter how many students object to rescheduling the class?’,
‘Does it matter what kind of argument is being used?’) Near the end of the case discussion, the
interviewees were asked to sum up their views and whether there were aspects of decision-
making that they found most important. We chose to present a classroom-based situation that
adolescents often encounter in daily school life in order to make comparisons between the
respondents’ views. This case builds upon the research of Helwig and colleagues showing that
substantial groups of respondents follow significantly different decision-making strategies within
a classroom context (e.g., Helwig and Kim 1999). The case discussion was intended to provide
an understanding of how interviewees deal with decision-making and investigate whether
changing circumstances have impact on their preferences. Before and during this case discussion
the interviewer deliberately did not refer to concepts such as “politics” or “democracy,” so not
to influence the interviewees.
In the second case, the students were asked to select a group they objected to from a list
including ‘atheists’, ‘religious fundamentalists’, ‘nationalists’, and animal rights activists and
then give their views on whether or not that group should — if it were to constitute a majority
11
group — be allowed to abolish the freedom rights of other groups. This case draws upon research
showing that people make different judgments when it comes to abstract versus concrete
situations (Finkel, Sigelman, and Humphries 1999; Helwig and Turiel 2002). This case
discussion was meant to provide insight in the adolescents’ views with regard to the boundaries
of collective decision-making.
The interviewer next asked the adolescents explicitly about the meaning of “democracy”
and their evaluation of it. The concept was purposefully not mentioned by the interviewer earlier
in the interview in order to allow the students to give their own interpretation of democracy and
decision-making.
Finally, the interviewees were asked to respond to fourteen statements. Two statements
gave them an opportunity to sum up their views with regard to decision-making and explicitly
formulate these (“When taking a decision it is important to find agreement even though it takes
more time,” “When taking a decision it is important that the majority decides”). With other
statements we tried to gain insight into the adolescents’ perspectives with regard to political
democracy (e.g., “Politicians do not care about my opinion or that of my relatives,” “Politicians
are mostly concerned with their own interests”). This enabled us to compare their views on
everyday situations to their perspective on political democracy, which has not been done before.
Together, the four phases of the interview shed light on how adolescents’ views differ between
everyday situations and political democracy.
Before the interviews took place, a pilot study was conducted with 6 adolescents from
four schools. After 3 pilot interviews, the interview questions and responses were discussed in
the research group and a number of adjustments were made to the set of questions. The adjusted
interview questions were then used in the other 3 pilot interviews.
Coding and Analysis of the Data
12
All of the interviews were recorded and transcribed. With the help of ATLAS.ti, the interviews
were coded and analyzed on the basis of the concepts that were derived from the theoretical
framework and research question (cf. Miles and Huberman 1994). The transcribed interviews
were coded using the following categories and subcategories:
- decision-making: majoritarian decision-making, consensual decision-making, deliberative
decision-making, changing viewpoint according to size of minority, changing viewpoint
because of minority’s argument;
- meaning of democracy: decision-making procedure, liberty, equality, and other subcategories;
- evaluation of democracy: positive towards democracy, neutral towards democracy, negative
towards democracy, no opinion
- situation: everyday situations, political democracy.
To determine the reliability of the coding, an independent judge coded the fragments of
the transcribed interviews for comparison with the original coding. Cohen’s kappa reliability
coefficient was then calculated. For the category “decision-making,” resulted in a Kappa of 0.92,
for “meaning of democracy” in a Kappa of 0.85, and for “evaluation of democracy” in a Kappa
of 0.83. These reliability values fall into the category “almost perfect” (0.8-1.0) (Landis and Koch
1977).
The individual respondents were the units of analysis. Many interviewees emphasized
several principles when arguing about decision-making. As described above, this is in line with
theoretical conceptualizations of decision-making because the models take into account several
competing principles, such as majority rule, minority interests, and finding consensus. We
categorized the views of the individual respondents by looking at the principles on which they
primarily focused. They were classified as referring to “majoritarian decision-making” when the
interviewee argued that it was most important that the majority decides; as referring to
“consensual decision-making” when negotiations to find an agreement was argued by the
13
interviewee to be most important; and as referring to “deliberative decision-making” whenever
the dominant preference of the interviewee was that a rational dialogue between all participants
should lead to an agreement about what is publicly seen as the most preferable outcome. Some
interviewees mentioned several methods for coming to a decision. Their views were categorized
by one preferential model based on their explicit choice between the different ways of coming to
a decision near the end of the first case discussion and in the final part of the interview (see
above).
RESULTS
In general, the 40 adolescents preferred decision-making procedures where the interests of the
whole group were the starting point. Most of the time, they explained what would for the whole
group be a fair mechanism to come to a decision. Nevertheless, some of the interviewees (5) had
trouble going beyond their own personal interests.ii When asked about their preferred decision-
making strategy, for example, one girl (PV) responded as follows: “It depends [on what I
want]…I am more focused on my own best interests.” When it proved not possible to have things
as she wanted them, she then argued that a majority decision was most preferable. When probed
for further information, the interviewees formulated views that were all in line with a democratic
manner of decision-making and none of them thus argued for deciding based on expertise, or
strong leadership. We therefore consider the views of the interviewees regarding decision-
making in everyday situations to all be democratic. In Table I, an overview can be found of the
classification of the adolescents’ decision-making views, in the setting of everyday life, with
respect to specific models of democracy.
14
Majoritarian Decision-Making
Those adolescents whose decision-making views matched the majoritarian model of democracy
(26) considered the voicing of all perspectives during the decision-making process important.
That was the case among adolescents in both pre-academic and pre-vocational education. As one
girl explained (PV): “I would want to know whether they have good arguments, and I would give
my point of view…. After that, the majority decides. Tough luck for those who don’t get what
they want.” This interviewee thus considered it important that everyone be permitted to voice
their opinion before the casting of votes.
Table 1
Classification of adolescents’ views on decision making and core arguments provided by
them
Majoritarian:
little or no room
for minority
viewpoints
Majoritarian:
room for
minority
viewpoints
Consensual
Deliberative
Number of
respondents
(N=40)
13
13
9
5
Role of majority
Majority is
always right.
That is
democratic.
First discuss to
see what all
viewpoints are.
Then vote.
Voting is unfair
because then we
have to compete
with each other.
Everybody
should be able
to take part.
We should be
able to find the
best solution
together. We
have to look at
all the
arguments. It is
not about
majorities.
Role of minority
Majority
decides; tough
luck for the
others.
If they are fair-
sized, you
should listen to
them to a greater
extent.
If it is very
important for
them, they
should be able
to have it their
way.
It is about the
persuasiveness
of arguments.
Minority or
majority status
does not matter.
15
Among those adolescents whose decision-making views were compatible with a
majoritarian model of democracy (26), two types of arguing could be distinguished: one (13)
where regarding decision-making in the classroom emphasis was solely on majority interest ; the
other (13) took in such situations also minority interests into account.
The adolescents in whose views there was a strict focus on majority rule argued that
majority deciding is not only fairer but argued that the majority is always right. As one boy (PA)
stated: “You have to see it this way: If the majority votes for something, it must be right because
that is what most people want.” Some of these adolescents further claimed that this principle
should apply to all situations. When confronted with the second case involving religious
fundamentalists or atheists wanting to abolish rights of minorities 3 out of the 40 interviewees
stated that a majority has the right to do this. As one girl (PA) said: “It is very unjust…but, yes,
they can. It is a majority….You can’t say that in this instance democracy doesn’t hold.
Democracy always comes first.” This girl further claimed that for decision-making and
democracy — a connection that she made herself, it is always best that the majority decide, even
when it is a bare majority. For her and some of the other adolescents, minority rights are
secondary to majority decision-making.
In contrast, the other adolescents with views that are related to majoritarian model stated
that minority viewpoints should also be taken into consideration within the classroom context,
especially when it was a substantial group or when they had important objections. In these cases,
these adolescents thought that the majority cannot make a decision without considering the
consequences for others. As stated by one girl (PV): “Then they would probably listen to them
to a larger extent….There would be more discussion. Perhaps someone switches sides.” After
such discussion, the vote decides how things will go.
Some of the adolescents who also focused on minorities further observed that the
arguments people put forward should have implications for the decision-making process. When
16
a minority puts forth weighty arguments, these need to be taken seriously. As one of them (PA)
pointed out, the majority may then concur with the minority at times: “If their reasons are good,
then it is fair not to do it…[and] I think the majority will go along with them.” A vote is then not
necessary, because — in the opinion of this student — the majority would not object to the clearly
legitimate arguments of the minority.
Consensual Decision-Making
For other interviewees (9) trying to finda compromise should be the dominant guiding principle
to reach a decision. Somewhat more boys and adolescents in the pre-vocational track had views
related to this model. They argued that all participants must to be allowed to present their
viewpoints before trying to reach agreement. In the subsequent decision-making process, the
interests of all participants must then be taken into account to the greatest extent possible. As one
girl (PA) expressed it: “Everyone gives his opinion and then they have to agree with one another.
It cannot be the case that, after the discussion, a decision is suddenly made by one group.” For
these adolescents, a majority decision is not necessarily a fair decision.
The students whose views matched the consensual model indicated that although it can
be time-consuming and hard to find agreement, it is necessary to do so when important arguments
are at stake. One girl (PV) goes a step further and claimed that voting in such a situation is not a
good method and may even be counterproductive: “Then they are going to start a dispute while
they should be consulting with one another so that they can come to an agreement.” According
to a boy (PV), if they cannot find agreement and the minority interests are seen as relevant, the
minority should have their way “because the viewpoint [of the majority] would be at the expense
of the others.” Under these conditions, thus, participants’ interests are more important than the
number of people agreeing or disagreeing. These adolescents nevertheless found it difficult to
indicate when interests of participants are of such importance that it should not be overlooked.
17
Deliberative Decision-Making
The interviewees (5) who had the strongest preference for deliberative decision-making, noted
that the process should focus solely on the arguments being made and not the number of people
favoring a particular option. This was the case among most adolescents in pre-academic track
and only among the girls. The participants in the discussion must first examine the options and
arguments put forward during a discussion and then decide on the best option collectively. As
one interviewee explained (PA): “If you are with more people, you are not necessarily right. It is
about the best arguments….You have to convince one another.” The participants in a decision-
making process must convince each other. “Someone may think that he is right. But I can think
that he is not right. I cannot decide what is good or bad…it is my opinion. [You reach a decision]
by convincing one another” (PA). Everyone has to be open to the ideas of others: “I think it is
important that you are willing to be convinced by others. You have to listen [and ask]: “Why do
you think that? Do I agree? Does this outweigh other arguments? Maybe it is much better, maybe
not.” You can change your own ideas” (PA). Via such discussions, these interviewees think that
it is possible to find the best decision.
For these interviewees, it was difficult to determine what should be done when agreement
cannot be found. Two of them thought that eventually a majority decision should be taken in
such a situation. If the minority has tried to convince the others of an option but failed to do so,
then “…tough luck. Then the majority decides” (PA). The other three interviewees with views
related to deliberation disagreed and thought it unfair to let the majority decide — particularly
when major interests were at stake. “Then you know at the start that the others will win, because
their group is bigger… If it is really important for the three students, it would really be shitty for
them” (PA). Even a small minority should be able to veto an option in the decision-making
process. These interviewees further argued that rational considerations must be pivotal in the
decision-making procedure. They mentioned two ways to come to a decision. One interviewee
18
(PV) stated that the arguments should be anonymized so that people do not know who came up
with them. “You can write down the arguments anonymously and then decide together.” Another
interviewee (PA) asserted that, when prior agreement has not been possible, a person who has
not been involved in the decision-making process should examine relevant arguments to reach a
decision. Everyone has to be open minded: “That will be tough… But they just have to be
objective. That is important.” The interviewees who emphasized deliberation clearly have high
hopes for the rational capabilities of people and think that people are capable of putting their own
interests and preferences aside.
Decision-Making in Classroom and Political Democracy
The views of the adolescents summarized above refer primarily to the classroom situation and
therefore do not automatically apply to the political democracy. Switching the focus to this
domain appeared to be difficult for many of the interviewees because they did not have much
knowledge of institutions of political democracy. A large subset of the 40 interviewees (18) was
unable to explain how they thought the decision-making in parliament should take place or
comment on the similarities or dissimilarities with decision-making processes in the classroom.
This was predominantly the case among students in pre-vocational education, since 14 out of
these 18 interviewees are in this educational track.
Most of the interviewees who were able to discuss decision-making in political
democracy (18 out of the 22) asserted that the same considerations should hold for the classroom
and for parliament. One interviewee (PA), for example, explained: “Those three children should
not have it their way…. Yeah, because that is also what takes place in politics, right? Whenever
most people vote for one party, it gets more seats in parliament.” Only 4 of these 22 adolescents
argued that the decision-making processes might vary across the two situations although they did
not agree on the ways in which the decision-process might diverge. Three of these four students
thought that minority interests should to be taken more into account in the classroom situation
19
than in the political democracy. As one boy (PA) explained: “In the class, decisions aren’t that
important, so you can make a quick decision. But when it is really important, as with politics,
you have to take time to make the decision and find agreement.” One interviewee suggested just
the opposite when she (PA) explained: “[In the classroom] I would let those three students have
it their way… But, I want to put forward that if this would be the case within the government
with big issues, the minority would not have its way. I would definitely look at what the majority
wants.”
In sum, for some of the interviewees, their decision-making views in the context of
everyday situation and political democracy corresponded; for others, they did not. While all of
the interviewees’ views greatly resembled one or the other model of democracy, moreover, they
nevertheless differed for some of the interviewees depending on the context being considered.
Democrats with Limited Comprehension of Democracy
The aforementioned results show all of the adolescents in our study to be advocates of democratic
decision-making. But what about their views on the concept of democracy? What does
“democracy” mean to them? Of the 40 interviewees, 11 did not have a relevant image of
democracy. Some of them simply stated that they do not know what “democracy” means. Others
provided an incorrect description: “That not everyone is equal… I think it sounds angry,
somehow. Just like discrimination” (PV). For this aspect we did find differences among pre-
academic and pre-vocational students because 8 out of the 11 who could not formulate a relevant
description of democracy were from the pre-vocational educational track.
The interviewees who were able to state what democracy meant, most often did that by
referring to freedom of speech and/or the right to decide collectively on public policy. One boy
(PV) stated for example: “[Democracy] is about the fact that everyone can choose who is in
power and that you can decide together what is going to happen to the country.” Most of the
interviewees were not able to give a more comprehensive description of the meaning of
20
democracy. When talking about democracy they did not refer to such things as complex decision-
making procedures, a system of representation, or the role of minorities. There was also little
awareness of the inevitability of tensions democratic principles such as majority will versus
minority interest or the power of numbers versus the power of arguments.
From a theoretical perspective, decision-making preferences of the adolescents can be
expected to relate to their comprehension of democracy. Several interviewees spontaneously
commented on this relationship while it was possible to discern a relationship in the responses of
some of the other interviewees. The most straightforward relationship between the participants’
views on decision-making and definition of democracy was found for the adolescents with a
preference for majority decision-making. To them, democracy equaled majority decision-making.
As formulated by one boy (PA): “I think that the majority will have its way. That is the way a
democracy functions.” However, many of the adolescents with a preference for either consensual
or deliberative decision-making also defined democracy in terms of voting and majoritarian
decision-making — even those who strongly rejected to such a decision-making procedure in the
classroom.
As has been described above, research (Sigel and Hoskin 1981) showed that adolescents
with a more comprehensive understanding of democracy more often make choices that are
democratic as opposed to self-centered ones. One indication of such an understanding of
democracy in our own research was when the interviewees spontaneously referred to the concept
of democracy without being prompted. These adolescents clearly recognized that aspects of
democracy were being addressed upon in the current discussion. These same adolescents might
also therefore be expected to be more sensitive to the tensions between various democratic
principles. Sixteen interviewees referred to democracy before the concept was mentioned by the
interviewer. Of these sixteen interviewees, eight emphasized majority decision-making with little
or no attention to minority interests despite such adolescents constituting only a small part of the
21
group of interviewees (13 out of the 40, see Table I). This is an indication that having more
understanding of the abstract concept of democracy does not necessarily mean that someone is
more sensitive to tensions between democratic principles in a decision-making process.
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
In the present study, we aimed to offer a more situated insight into adolescents’ views on
democratic decision-making than emerges from prior research. We did so by looking at the ways
in which adolescents formulate their own preferences regarding decision-making in everyday life,
how these can be compared to their views on democracy and decision-making in parliament, and
whether or not these differences vary between students from different educational tracks. The
different meanings of decision-making in both everyday life situations and political democracy
were made visible by using different models of democracy (majoritarian, consensual, and
deliberative) and their encompassing potentially conflicting principles. The results showed that
adolescents’ views on democratic decision-making in everyday situations were often rich,
multidimensional, and extended throughout the various models. Most interviewees gave priority
to the majoritarian model, while a smaller number of interviewees had primary preferences for
consensual or deliberative democracy. Regarding everyday situations, some interviewees took
several democratic principles into account, while others focused strictly on one of these
principles. Regarding decision-making in parliament and the interpretation of the concept of
democracy, we found different results than those in everyday situations. A substantial group
appeared to be unable to articulate their perspective on either of these and therefore did not show
these rich and multi-dimensional results. Most of the adolescents who could do so stated that the
same considerations should hold for decision-making in everyday situations and parliament.
Some interviewees formulated a description of democracy that was more or less in line with their
views on decision-making in everyday situations, while others formulated a definition that was,
22
at least partly, in contrast to these views. With regards to educational track, only small differences
existed in adolescents’ views on decision-making in everyday situations; but pre-vocational
students had greater difficulty formulating their views regarding decision-making in parliament
and a description of democracy compared to students in the higher educational track.
Before discussing these results in the light of previous studies, we point to several
limitations of this study.The research was conducted among a small sample of adolescents in the
Netherlands. Our qualitative approach enabled us to explore adolescents’ views in-depth, but
required caution when drawing conclusions. Large scale research is needed to investigate
whether the results are present among other groups of youth as well. Furthermore, this study is
based on young adolescents being interviewed once, so remains unclear how they will develop
their views during the later years of their adolescence and early adulthood. Longitudinal studies
are needed to investigate individual trajectories regarding the development of democratic views.
A final aspect relates to the interview structure, which might have influenced the interviewees’
responses. The discussion of the cases may have been a consequence of how the respondents
described democracy. We tried to prevent this form of influence by not mentioning concepts like
“politics” and “democracy” during the first part of the interview. An indication that the interview
structure did not strongly influence the respondents’ views is that the perceptions of many
adolescents on decision-making in everyday life did not relate to either their views on decision-
making concerning freedom rights or their concept of democracy.
The present study showed largely democratic, yet different, views present in adolescence
regarding decision-making in everyday situations. This result is in line with previous studies (e.g.
Helwig and Kim 2001; Helwig et al. 2003) but also yields new insights into adolescents’
democratic views. To conclude this article, we would like to discuss five results that do not
correspond with earlier findings or instigate further research. First, in previous studies,
adolescents were asked to choose between several options (e.g. Helwig et al. 2003). Our study
23
showed that when young people were asked to formulate their own views on decision-making,
they did so in accordance with various models of democracy. This further strengthened the claim
that adolescents prefer democratic decision-making versus non-democratic.
Second, contrary to earlier presentations of general preferences for decision-making
(Moessinger 1981; Mann, Tan, MacLeod-Morgan, and Dixon 1984), the present research shows
that adolescents’ views differ between various situations and circumstances. Many adolescents
adapt their views when the circumstances in the situations discussed are changed. A substantial
group of interviewees at some point endorsed majority decisions in the classroom, but altered
their views when the number of people objecting to the majority increased or when the objections
became more compelling. This shows that many interviewees consider the circumstances when
thinking about an issue, as well as show sensitivity to tensions that arise in a particular situation,
due to differing democratic principles.
Third, other studies only showed that adolescents preferred democratic methods for
decision-making; we were able to explore adolescents’ views in greater detail. Not every
interviewee appeared to be sensitive to tensions that come with democratic decision-making,
such as majority will versus minority interest, or the power of numbers versus the power of
arguments. In the interviews with these adolescents, there was little discussion about the risks of
tyranny of the majority (cf. Maletz 2002), deadlocks due to of lack of consensus (cf. Andeweg
2000), or the dominance of the more articulated in a deliberative setting (cf. Sanders 1997).
Fourth, we also investigated the relationship between adolescents’ views on decision-
making in everyday situations and in political democracy, which has not, to our knowledge, been
done previously. While many interviewees differentiated between arguments and interests in
everyday situations that they regarded as more or less important, most adolescents only stated
that a certain type of decision-making should be used in the political domain. Many adolescents,
especially those with consensual or deliberative views on decision-making, formulated a
24
description of democracy that did not correspond to or was even in conflict with their views on
decision-making in everyday life. This indicates that, in the perspective of many interviewees,
decision-making in the classroom and the concept of democracy are unrelated. These rather
limited and one-dimensional views can perhaps be explained by their limited knowledge of and
experiences with political democracy. It can be expected that adolescent views will become more
complex when they get more in contact with political democracy and develop a more
sophisticated understanding of democracy, as Sigel and Hoskin (1981) showed in their study.
However, contrary to this expectation, many adolescents in our study who showed more
understanding of politics and the concept of democracy, did not take more democratic principles
into account when arguing about decision-making in everyday situations. A substantial group of
those adolescents even formulated views associated with the tyranny of the majority. A better
understanding of political democracy thus did not automatically lead to views that took more
principles into account.
Finally, previous studies have shown that educational level is related to adolescents’
democratic views (Flanagan et al., 2005; Eckstein, Noack, and Gniewosz, 2012; Schulz et al.
2010). The findings of our study partly contradict this finding. While we have found differences
with regard to their ability to formulate views about decision-making in parliament and to give a
description of democracy, we have only found minor differences regarding their preferences for
democratic decision-making. That these young people in the pre-vocational tracks are less
exposed to information and discussions about political democracy does not seem to influence
their willingness to make decisions in a democratic manner. Future research should investigate
how students from different educational tracks develop their democratic views over time and
how differences in views on everyday situations and political democracy develop.
25
i In the Netherlands, both private (primarily denominational) and public schools are state funded.
ii For reasons of transparency, we will note the numbers of adolescents who formulated a certain perspective
between brackets in the presentation of our research results.
26
REFERENCES
Author et al. in press [details removed for peer review process].
Adelson, J. 1971. “The Political Imagination of the Young Adolescent.” Daedelus 100:1013-1050.
Andeweg, R. 2000. “Consociational Democracy.” Annual Review of Political Science 3:509-536.
Beck, P., and M.K. Jennings. 1982. “Pathways to participation.” American Political Science
Review 76: 94-108.
Creswell, J. and V. Plano Clark. 2008. Designing and conducting mixed method research. London:
Sage.
Dahl, R.A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
De Groot, I. 2013. Adolescents' Democratic Engagement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of Humanistic Studies, the Netherlands.
Eckstein, K., P. Noack, and B. Gniewosz. 2012. “Attitudes toward political engagement and
willingness to participate in politics. Trajectories throughout adolescence.” Journal of
Adolescence, 35:485-495.
Finkel, S.E., L. Sigelman, and S. Humphries. 1999. “Democratic Values and Political Tolerance.”
Pp. 203-296 in Measures of Political Attitudes, edited by J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, and L.S.
Wrightsman. San Diego: Academic Press.
Flanagan, C.A., L.S. Gallay, S. Gill, E. Gallay, and N. Nti. 2005. “What Does Democracy Mean?
Correlates of Adolescents’ Views.” Journal of Adolescent Research 20:193-218.
Flanagan, C.A. 2013. Teenage citizens: The political theory of the young. Harvard University Press:
Cambridge.
Galston, W.A. 2001. “Political Knowledge, Political Engagement, and Civic Education.” Annual
Review of Political Science 4:217-34.
27
Geijsel, F.P., G. Ledoux, R. Reumerman, and G. Ten Dam. 2012. “Citizenship in young people’s
daily lives.” Journal of Youth Studies 15:711-729.
Gimpel, J.S., J.C. Lay, and J.E. Schuknecht. 2003. Cultivating Democracy. Civic Environments
and Political Socialization in America. Washington D.C.: Brookings.
Goodin, R.E. 2008. Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory and Practice After the
Deliberative Turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Greenstein, F.I. 1965. Children and Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Held, D. 2006. Models of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Helwig, C.C. 1998. “Children's conceptions of fair government and freedom of speech.” Child
Development 69:518-531.
Helwig, C.C., and S. Kim. 1999. “Children's evaluations of decision-making procedures in peer,
family, and school contexts.” Child Development 70:502- 512.
Helwig, C.C., and E. Turiel. 2002. “Rights, autonomy, and democracy: Children's perspectives.”
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 25:253-270.
Helwig, C. C., M.L. Arnold, D. Tan, and D. Boyd. 2003. “Chinese adolescents' reasoning about
democratic and authority-based decision making in peer, family, and school contexts.” Child
Development 74:783-800.
Hendriks, F. 2010. Vital democracy: A theory of democracy in action. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hess, R., and J. Torney. 1967. The development of political attitudes in children. Chicago: Aldine.
Hooghe, M., and B. Wilkenfeld. 2008. “The stability of political attitudes and behaviors across
adolescence and early adulthood.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 37:155–167.
Husfeldt, V., and R. Nikolova. 2003. “Students' Concepts of Democracy.” European Educational
Research Journal 2:396-409.
28
Ichilov, O. 2003. “Education and Democratic Citizenship in a Changing World.” Pp. 637-669 in
Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, edited by D.O. Sears, L. Huddy and R. Jervis.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jennings, M.K., L. Stoker, and J. Bowers. 2009. “Politics Across Generations: Family
Transmission Reexamined.” Journal of Politics 71: 782-799.
Keane, J. 2009. The Life and Death of Democracy. London: Pocket Books.
Jennings, M.K. 2007. “Political Socialization.” Pp. 29-45 in The Oxford Handbook of Political
Behavior, edited by In Dalton, R.J. and H. Klingemann. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kinoshita, Y. 1989. “Developmental changes in understanding the limitations of majority
decisions.” British Journal of Developmental Psychology 7:97–112.
Kinoshita, Y. 2006. “Children's judgment of the legitimacy of group decision-making about
individual concerns.” International Journal of Behavioral Development 30:117–126.
Landis, R.L, and Koch, G.G. 1977. “The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical
Data.” Biometrics 33:159-174.
Lijphart, A. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six
Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Maletz, D.J. 2002. “Tocqueville’s Tyranny of the Majority Reconsidered.” The Journal of Politics
64:741-763.
Mann, L., C. Tan, C. MacLeod-Morgan, and A. Dixon. 1984. “Developmental changes in
application of the majority rule in group decisions.” British Journal of Developmental
Psychology 2:275–281.
Miklikowska, M and H. Hurme. 2011. “Democracy begins at home: Democratic parenting and
adolescents' support for democratic values.” European Journal of Developmental Psychology
8:541-557.
29
Miles, M.B., and M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Moessinger, P. 1981. “The development of the concept of majority decision.” Canadian Journal
of Behavioral Science 13:359–362.
OECD. 2014. Education at a Glance 2014. OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Prior, M. 2010. “You've Either Got It or You Don’t? The Stability of Political Interest over the
Life Cycle.” Journal of Politics 72:747-766.
Ribeiro, N., C. Malafaia, T. Neves, P.D. Ferreira, and I. Menezes. (2015) “Constraints and
opportunities for civic and political participation.” Journal of Youth Studies, 18:6, 685-705.
Sanders, L.L. 1997. “Against deliberation.” Political Theory 25:347-376.
Sapiro, V. 2004. “Not Your Parents’ Political Socialization. Introduction for a New Generation.”
Annual Review of Political Science 7:1-23.
Sears, D.O., and Levy, S. 2003. “Childhood and Adult Political Development.” Pp. 60-109 in
Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, edited by D.O. Sears, L. Huddy and R. Jervis.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sigel, R.S. and M.B. Hoskins. 1981. The Political Involvement of Adolescents. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Schulz, W., J. Ainley, J. Fraillon, D. Kerr, and B. Losito. 2010. Initial findings from the IEA
international civic and citizenship education study. Amsterdam: International Association for
the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Thomassen, J. 2007. Democratic Values. Pp. 418-434 in The Oxford Handbook of Political
Behavior, edited by R.J. Dalton and H. Klingemann. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Torney-Purta, J. 2001. “Civic knowledge, beliefs about democratic institutions, and civic
engagement among 14-year-olds.” Prospects 31:281-292.
