INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 2795
Political Awareness and Engagement in Relation to Voting Behavior
among College Students
John Francis B. Vedra., Eldie J. Bulajao, JD., Catalino L. Emperio lll, MPA
Misamis University, Ozamiz City, Philippines, 7200
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.120800246
Received: 02 Sep 2025; Accepted: 08 Sep 2025; Published: 02 October 2025
ABSTRACT
Understanding how political awareness and engagement shape the voting behavior of young citizens is
essential for a thriving democracy. This study explored how political awareness and engagement influence the
voting behavior of young citizens, focusing on 110 purposively selected NSTP 2 college students aged 18 to
25 from a private, non-sectarian institution in Ozamiz City, Philippines, all with prior voting experience. Using
a researcher-made questionnaire covering Political Awareness, Political Engagement, and Voting Behavior on
a 5-point Likert Scale, data were analyzed through descriptive statistics, Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient, and
multiple regression. Results showed high to very high political awareness, moderate engagement, and high
positive voting behavior, with significant positive correlations between both awareness and engagement with
voting behavior, and both variables together significantly predicting voting behavior. The study concludes that
strengthening political awareness and providing genuine engagement opportunities are essential for fostering
informed, responsible voting, recommending that educational institutions sustain civic education and platforms
for balanced political discourse to enhance democratic participation.
Keywords: citizen participation, political literacy, youth development, electoral behavior, university students
INTRODUCTION
Democratic countries rely on the active participation of citizens, with voting serving as a cornerstone of
representative governance (Héroux-Legault, 2023; James & Garnett, 2023). Through voting, citizens select
leaders expected to uphold democratic values and prioritize the greater good (Sterling, 2021; Wallace, 2024).
The success of a nation depends on the informed and engaged decision-making of its people (Rojas, 2020;
Wallace, 2024). Low political participation among the youth poses risks to democracy, potentially resulting in
underrepresentation and inadequate policies addressing education, employment, and social justice (Medina et
al., 2025; Zhang, 2022).
Political consciousness, engagement, and voting form the foundation of democracy, linking citizens with
government decision-making (Wallace, 2024). The youth, as future voters, play a key role in shaping social
progress (Rojas, 2020). Politically aware and participative youth are better positioned to influence policies
aligned with their aspirations, making their voting behavior an important subject for analysis.
In the Philippines, despite rising political awareness among youth, actual participation and voter turnout
remain lower than that of older populations, even with their heavy social media presence (Cohan & Chaaraoui,
2024; Medina et al., 2025; Zhang, 2022). Social media promotes widespread discussion but often fosters
surface-level engagement and exposes youth to misinformation (Alodat et al., 2023; Cohan & Chaaraoui, 2024;
Muringa & Adjin-Tettey, 2024). The 2022 elections saw high youth turnout, yet much of it was driven by viral
online content rather than sustained political engagement (Ladia & Panao, 2023). This highlights the need to
study factors affecting youth political awareness, engagement, and voting behavior.
Inadequate political education remains a significant challenge to fostering active and informed voters (Héroux-
Legault, 2023). Many schools and universities lack comprehensive civic education, leaving students with
limited understanding of political processes and responsibilities (Jensen & McGinnis, 2023; Ward, 2023).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 2796
Youth with little political education are less likely to vote or participate in debates (Al-Ansari, Al-Fahim, &
Zang, 2025; Lee & Tan, 2021; Younas & Imran, 2025). In the Philippines, insufficient civic instruction
contributes to disengagement and ignorance of voting procedures (Dela Cruz, 2022).
Digital media offers both opportunities and risks for political participation. While social media facilitates
large-scale discussion, it also spreads disinformation and sensationalized messages (Cohan & Chaaraoui, 2024;
Muringa & Adjin-Tettey, 2024). Limited civic education compounds this issue (Ward, 2023). Engagement
through youth organizations and community groups can foster participation, yet not all young people have
access to such channels, weakening their voter behavior (Lundberg & Abdelzadeh, 2025; Zainurin et al., 2024).
University environments provide valuable contexts for shaping political awareness and behavior. Exposure to
diverse perspectives through coursework, participation in student organizations, and institutional support for
information access can strengthen engagement and informed voting (Muringa & Adjin-Tettey, 2024; Lundberg
& Abdelzadeh, 2025). Voting behavior is also influenced by perceptions of costs and benefits, peer influence,
and media consumption (Budiman & Irwandi, 2020; Hill, 2020). Examining these factors within academic
institutions offers insights into the drivers of active citizenship.
Beyond awareness and discussion, active participation such as volunteering or joining civic groups builds
political efficacy and networks that mobilize engagement (Boulianne, 2022; Zainurin et al., 2024). These
practices help college students move from passive information consumption to active political contribution,
fostering a generation of engaged citizens (Al-Khaza'leh & Lahiani, 2021). Educated, habitual voting
legitimizes government and ensures representation of youth concerns (James & Garnett, 2023; Wallace, 2024).
Low turnout risks exclusion, while informed voting strengthens democracy (Héroux-Legault, 2023; Sumatra,
2025; Ladia & Panao, 2023).
This study examines the factors influencing youth voting behavior in a university context, focusing on students
who have participated in elections. It addresses gaps in existing research by analyzing how political education,
social media influence, and other factors interact to shape voting decisions, particularly in provincial settings.
The findings aim to inform initiatives that promote political understanding, voter participation, and civic
responsibility among the youth at both local and national levels.
Objectives of the Study
This research examined the different factors influencing the youth’s voting behavior, political awareness, and
engagement. Specifically, the study sought to answer the following objectives:
1. Determine the respondents’ level of political awareness in terms of knowledge of political issues,
understanding of governance, and awareness of social media trends.
2. Determine the respondents’ level of political engagement in terms of participation in political
discussions, social media engagement, and active membership in organizations.
3. Determine the respondents’ level of voting behavior in terms of voting frequency, informed voting
decisions, and vote influence factors.
4. Explore the significant relationship between the levels of the respondents’ political awareness and
voting behavior.
5. Explore the significant relationship between the extent of the respondent’s political engagement and
voting behavior.
6. Identify the predictors among voting behavior in college students.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 2797
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This study used a descriptive-correlational research design, a quantitative method that systematically describes
variables and examines their relationships (Johnson & Christenen, 2024). Data were collected to measure
participants’ behaviors and attitudes, followed by statistical analysis. This approach was ideal for identifying
patterns and connections between political awareness, engagement, and voting behavior among the youth.
Locale of the Study
The research was conducted at a private, non-sectarian educational institution in Ozamiz City, Philippines,
known for promoting progressive education and strong community linkages. The school offers programs like
the NSTP, which fosters civic consciousness, leadership, and service. Its diverse student population,
representing various socio-economic backgrounds and political exposures, made it an ideal setting for the
study.
Respondents of the Study
The unit of analysis was individual college students aged 18–25 who had voted in national or local elections. A
total of 110 second-semester NSTP 2 students were selected through purposive sampling. This group was ideal
due to NSTP’s emphasis on civic consciousness and leadership, ensuring participants had relevant experience
with political awareness, engagement, and voting behavior.
Data Gathering Instruments
A researcher-made survey questionnaire was used, validated by experts in political science, education, and
research methodology for clarity, relevance, and alignment with study objectives. Pilot testing yielded a
Cronbach alpha of .898. The questionnaire had three sections, each using a 5-point Likert Scale to measure
political awareness, political engagement, and voting behavior.
Data Gathering Procedure
The researcher secured permission from the university administration, the Dean of the College of Arts and
Sciences, and the NSTP Director to conduct the study. After approval, validated questionnaires were
distributed to selected respondents. Participants were informed of the study’s purpose, and ethical standards
were observed, including informed consent, confidentiality, and voluntary participation.
Validity and Reliability of the Instruments
Experts reviewed the survey for content validity. A pilot test with 25 respondents produced a Cronbach’s alpha
of .898, indicating high reliability of the instrument.
Data Analysis
The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, specifically the mean and standard deviation, to summarize
and present voting behavior patterns. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was applied to examine the relationships
between political awareness, political engagement, and voting behavior. Additionally, multiple regression
analysis was conducted to identify the most significant predictors of voting behavior.
Ethical Considerations
Approval was obtained from the university’s Research Ethics Board. Informed consent detailed the study’s
purpose, scope, and methodology. Participants could withdraw at any time without consequences. Data were
anonymized, used only for educational purposes, and secured in compliance with Republic Act No. 10173, the
Data Privacy Act of 2012
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 2798
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Level of Respondents' Political Awareness
Table 1 reveal that the surveyed college students (n=110) demonstrated a high overall level of political
awareness, with an overall mean of 4.0903 and a standard deviation of 0.61676. Across the three measured
dimensions, Understanding of Governance ranked highest (M=4.1927, SD=0.65801), followed by Knowledge
of Political Issues (M=4.0964, SD=0.62705), and Awareness of Social Media Trends (M=3.9818,
SD=0.74811). All scores fell within the 3.41–4.20 range for “High” on the 5-point Likert scale, indicating that
students generally felt well-informed about political matters and governmental structures, with particularly
strong comprehension of how their political system operates.
The findings suggest that both formal education and contemporary information sources contribute to building
students’ political knowledge. The high score in Understanding of Governance points to the role of academic
instruction and civic learning experiences in shaping this knowledge (Al-Ansari, Al-Fahim, & Zang, 2025;
Younas & Imran, 2025). The strong Awareness of Social Media Trends underscores the influence of digital
platforms as major sources of political information for youth (Alodat et al., 2023; Cohan & Chaaraoui, 2024;
Muringa & Adjin-Tettey, 2024). While Knowledge of Political Issues is also high, the slightly higher
Governance Understanding score suggests a robust grounding in civics, complemented by the rapid
information flow from social media. These findings are consistent with research highlighting the role of
educational institutions and digital media as agents of political socialization (Khan, 2021).
The high political awareness among these students has important implications for their democratic
participation. A solid foundation in political knowledge and governance understanding equips young citizens
to engage more meaningfully with political issues and candidates, fostering informed decision-making during
elections (Héroux-Legault, 2023; James & Garnett, 2023). This awareness is not only an asset for individual
civic engagement but also a resource that strengthens democratic processes overall, as further sections on
political engagement and voting behavior will demonstrate (Sumatra, 2025).
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics on the level of Political Awareness (n=110)
Constructs
Mean
SD
Interpretation
Knowledge of Political Issues
4.0964
0.62705
High
Understanding of Governance
4.1927
0.65801
Very High
Awareness of Social Media Trends
3.9818
0.74811
High
Overall Political Awareness
4.0903
0.61676
High
Note: Perceived level on Scale: 4.21 – 5.00 (Very High); 3.41 – 4.20 (High); 2.61 – 3.40 (Moderate); 1.81 –
2.60 (Low); 1.00 – 1.80 (Very Low).
Level of Respondents' Political Engagement
Table 2 shows that the surveyed college students demonstrated a moderate overall level of political
engagement, with an overall mean of 3.26607 and a standard deviation of 0.77048. Participation in Political
Discussions was high (M=3.5309, SD=0.74609), while Social Media Engagement (M=3.2164, SD=0.89119)
and Active Membership in Organizations (M=3.0509, SD=1.07633) were at a moderate level. This pattern
suggests that while students are willing to discuss political topics, they are less likely to engage in political
activities on social media or participate actively in organizations (Medina et al., 2025; Zhang, 2022). From the
perspective of Political Socialization Theory, peer interactions may foster verbal engagement (Zainurin et al.,
2024), whereas online platforms and organizational opportunities influence other forms of participation (Khan,
2021; Boulianne, 2022). The Civic Voluntarism Model (CVM) also applies, indicating that participation levels
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 2799
depend on resources, recruitment, and engagement opportunities (Lundberg & Abdelzadeh, 2025), which may
be limited for some students (Al-Khaza’leh & Lahiani, 2021; Ward, 2023).
The moderate levels in social media and organizational activity highlight possible constraints such as limited
time, online skills, recruitment channels, or psychological readiness for deeper political involvement. While
the high discussion level reflects a positive openness to exchanging political ideas, the moderate engagement
in structured or collective activities suggests that many students may not be fully utilizing available avenues
for participation. This gap points to the need for initiatives that provide clearer pathways, greater resources,
and more opportunities to channel political interest into active and impactful civic participation (Medina et al.,
2025; Zhang, 2022).
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics on the level of Political Engagement (n=110)
Constructs
SD
Interpretation
Participation in Political Discussions
0.74609
High
Social Media Engagement
0.89119
Moderate
Active Membership in Organizations
1.07633
Moderate
Overall Political Engagement
0.77048
Moderate
Note: Perceived level on Scale: 4.21 – 5.00 (Very High); 3.41 – 4.20 (High); 2.61 – 3.40 (Moderate); 1.81 –
2.60 (Low); 1.00 – 1.80 (Very Low).
Level of Respondents' Voting Behavior
Table 3 shows a high overall level of voting behavior among the surveyed college students (M = 3.80363, SD
= 0.58593), with high scores for Voting Frequency (M = 4.1309, SD = 0.72968) and Informed Voting
Decisions (M = 4.1927, SD = 0.73942), but only a moderate score for Vote Influence Factors (M = 3.0873, SD
= 0.94102). This indicates that students not only participate regularly in elections but also prioritize making
informed choices, often engaging in candidate research, issue evaluation, and platform analysis before voting
(Héroux-Legault, 2023; Sumatra, 2025). Such behavior reflects Rational Choice Theory, where voters aim to
maximize perceived benefits through informed decision-making (Brennan, 2024; Budiman & Irwandi, 2020).
Meanwhile, the moderate rating for external influence factors—such as social media, peer opinions, and
political advertising—suggests that while these are present, students rely more heavily on personal research
and values (Hill, 2020; Zainurin et al., 2024).
The high voting frequency and strong commitment to informed decision-making underscore the significant
role college students play in strengthening democratic processes. Their active and deliberate participation
suggests that civic education and access to reliable political information are effectively fostering thoughtful
and responsible voters (James & Garnett, 2023; Wallace, 2024). The limited impact of external influences
further points to a degree of critical thinking and independent judgment in their voting process. Maintaining
and expanding initiatives that provide credible information and encourage analytical evaluation of influence
factors will be crucial for sustaining and enhancing this positive voting behavior (Ladia & Panao, 2023;
Medina et al., 2025; Zhang, 2022).
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics on the level of Voting Behavior (n=110)
Constructs
Mean
SD
Interpretation
Voting Frequency
4.1309
0.72968
High
Informed Voting Decisions
4.1927
0.73942
Very High
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 2800
Vote Influence Factors
3.0873
0.94102
Moderate
Overall Voting Behavior
3.80363
0.58593
High
Note: Perceived level on Scale: 4.21 – 5.00 (Very High); 3.41 – 4.20 (High); 2.61 – 3.40 (Moderate); 1.81 –
2.60 (Low); 1.00 – 1.80 (Very Low).
Significant Relationship Between Political Awareness and Voting Behavior
Table 4 shows a statistically significant positive correlation between political awareness and voting behavior (r
= 0.629, p = 0.000), indicating that higher political awareness is associated with higher voting behavior scores.
This moderately strong relationship suggests that as students become more informed about political matters,
their likelihood of engaging in voting increases. These results align with prior studies showing that individuals
with greater political knowledge and understanding of governmental processes are more likely to participate in
civic activities, including voting (Héroux-Legault, 2023). The finding reinforces the idea that political
awareness is a key predictor of voting behavior.
This relationship is supported by Political Socialization Theory, which posits that political knowledge gained
from sources such as education and media equips individuals with the cognitive tools for meaningful
participation (Al-Ansari, Al-Fahim, & Zang, 2025; Khan, 2021). From a Rational Choice Theory perspective,
greater political awareness enables voters to better evaluate the benefits and outcomes of their choices,
lowering the perceived costs of uninformed decisions and making participation more appealing (Brennan, 2024;
Sumatra, 2025). The implication is clear: enhancing civic education, improving access to reliable political
information, and fostering critical thinking are practical strategies to strengthen youth voting participation.
Table 4. Correlation Between Political Awareness and Voting Behavior (n=110)
Variables Correlated
Pearson r
p-value
Interpretation
Political Awareness ↔ Voting Behavior
0.629
0.000
Moderately strong positive relationship
Note: Correlation is statistically significant at p < .001 (2-tailed).Note: Correlation is statistically significant
at p < .001 (2-tailed). Interpretation of Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r): ±0.00 – ±0.10 (Negligible); ±0.11
– ±0.30 (Weak); ±0.31 – ±0.50 (Moderate); ±0.51 – ±0.70 (Strong); ±0.71 – ±1.00 (Very Strong).
Significant Relationship Between Political Engagement and Voting Behavior
Table 5 shows a statistically significant positive correlation between political engagement and voting behavior
(r = 0.632, p = 0.000), indicating that higher levels of engagement are linked to more positive voting behaviors.
This moderately strong relationship suggests that students who are more involved in political activities tend to
participate in elections more actively. These results align with prior research showing that political discussions
(Zainurin et al., 2024), engagement with political content on social media (Khan, 2021), and participation in
youth or community organizations (Lundberg & Abdelzadeh, 2025) are associated with increased political
participation, including voting.
Theoretically, this relationship is supported by the Civic Voluntarism Model, which identifies engagement—
both psychological involvement and activity participation—as a key driver of political participation, and by
Political Socialization Theory, which posits that active involvement strengthens political norms and behaviors.
Engaged individuals often perceive greater stakes in political outcomes, influencing their rational decision to
vote. The implication is that universities and communities can boost youth voting participation by fostering
opportunities for active engagement in political discussions, civic-oriented social media use, and
organizational involvement, thereby cultivating a stronger culture of democratic participation among young
people.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 2801
Table 5. Correlation Between Political Engagement and Voting Behavior (n=110)
Variables Correlated
Pearson r
p-value
Interpretation
Political Engagement ↔ Voting Behavior
0.632
0.000
Moderately strong positive relationship
Note: Correlation is statistically significant at p < .001 (2-tailed). Interpretation of Pearson Correlation
Coefficient (r): ±0.00 – ±0.10 (Negligible); ±0.11 – ±0.30 (Weak); ±0.31 – ±0.50 (Moderate); ±0.51 – ±0.70
(Strong); ±0.71 – ±1.00 (Very Strong).
Predictors of Voting Behavior
Table 6 shows that political awareness and political engagement together significantly predict students’ voting
behavior (F(2,107) = 57.571, p < .001), explaining 51.8% of the variation (R² = .518). Both predictors were
individually significant (p < .001), with Political Engagement (β = .414) slightly stronger than Political
Awareness (β = .408). This supports research showing that political knowledge and participation are critical to
youth civic engagement (Medina et al., 2025; Zhang, 2022). Increases in either awareness or engagement were
linked to more positive voting behavior.
The findings align with Political Socialization Theory, which holds that knowledge and active participation
foster civic-minded citizens (Khan, 2021; Zainurin et al., 2024), and with Rational Choice Theory, which
suggests that informed and engaged individuals see voting as a rational, beneficial act (Brennan, 2024; Hall,
2024). Practically, these results highlight the need for strategies that combine civic education with real
opportunities for engagement, as focusing on one without the other may be less effective. Schools,
communities, and policymakers should develop programs that simultaneously enhance political awareness and
encourage active participation to build a more informed and engaged youth electorate.
Table 6. Regression Analysis Predicting Voting Behavior Based on Political Awareness and Political
Engagement (n=110)
Variables
Coef SE
Coef
T-Value
P-value
Constant
0.155
0.595
3.832
< .001
Political Awareness
0.075
0.388
5.145
< .001
Political Engagement
0.06
0.315
5.22
< .001
Note: R² = .518 (51.8%). Overall Model Significance: F(2, 107) = 57.571, p < .001. Regression Equation:
Voting Behavior = 0.595 + (0.388 × Political Awareness) + (0.315 × Political Engagement)
CONCLUSION
Study revealed that college students in the study possess a high level of political awareness, a moderate level
of political engagement, and a high level of voting behavior, characterized by frequent and informed voting.
Political awareness and engagement were both found to have strong, statistically significant positive
relationships with voting behavior, indicating that students who are more informed and more actively involved
in political activities tend to exhibit more favorable voting practices. Furthermore, both factors independently
and significantly predicted voting behavior, underscoring their unique contributions to fostering active civic
participation. These results highlight the importance of enhancing both political knowledge and opportunities
for meaningful engagement to cultivate an informed and participatory youth electorate.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 2802
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that educational institutions expand civic education to strengthen students’ political
awareness and critical thinking, while student organizations and schools provide diverse platforms for
meaningful participation. Students should seek credible information beyond social media to make informed
electoral choices. Institutions and civic organizations must enhance political literacy and ensure access to
unbiased information, while collaborative efforts with local government can create opportunities for consistent
youth political involvement. A coordinated approach among all stakeholders is vital, and future research
should explore non-voter engagement, social media’s influence, varied organizational involvement, and long-
term trends.
REFERENCES
1. Al-Ansari, R., Al-Fahim, O., & Zang, B. (2025). The relationship between civic education and active
political participation of students. International Journal of Educational Narratives, 3(2).
https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrse.2024.24105
2. Al-Khaza’leh, M. S., & Lahiani, H. (2021). University and political awareness among students: A
study in the role of university in promoting political awareness. Journal of Educational and Social
Research, 11(2), 204. https://doi.org/10.36941/jesr-2021-0041
3. Alodat, A. M., Al-Qora’n, L. F., & Hamoud, M. A. (2023). Social media platforms and political
participation: A study of Jordanian youth engagement. Social Sciences, 12(7), 402.
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12070402
4. Boulianne, S. (2022). Twenty years of research on online political participation: State of the field and
future directions. New Media & Society, 24(5), 1055–1079.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820984024
5. Brennan, J. (2024). The ethics of voting. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting-ethics/
6. Budiman, N., & Irwandi, I. (2020). Pemetaan preferensi perilaku pemilih milenial pada Pilkada
Kabupaten Tanah Datar 2020. Politea, 3(1), 85. https://doi.org/10.21043/politea.v3i1.7582
7. Cohan, A., & Chaaraoui, L. (2024, October 25). Peer pressure and social media are key factors in the
2024 youth vote. GBH. https://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2024-10-25/peer-pressure-and-social-
media-are-key-factors-in-the-2024-youth-vote
8. Dawson, R. E., & Prewitt, K. (1969). Political socialization.
9. Little, Brown. Dela Cruz, M. (2022). The role of political education in promoting civic engagement in
the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Social Sciences, 19(3), 114–128.
https://www.pids.gov.ph/publications/7518
10. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy.
11. Harper. Héroux-Legault, M. (2023). The impact of political knowledge on the voting decision.
Canadian Journal of Political Science, 56(3), 596–619. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423923000410
12. Hill, B. (2020). Young people face higher voting costs and are less informed about state voting laws.
Berkeley Institute for Young Americans. https://youngamericans.berkeley.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2020/08/Hill_BIFYA_Working_Paper_08_08_2020.pdf
13. James, T. S., & Garnett, H. A. (2023). The voter experience around the world: a human reflexivity
approach. Representation, 60(2), 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2023.2290714
14. Jensen, M. J., & McGinnis, E. J. (2023). Political alienation in the United States: Conceptualization,
causes, and consequences. Political Research Quarterly, 76(3), 1187–1202.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129221142181
15. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2024). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
approaches (8th ed.). SAGE Publications.
16. Khan, M. Z. (2021). Social media and political socialization of students in higher education institutions
in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Ilkogretim Online - Elementary Education Online, 20(5), 3662–
3672. https://ilkogretim-online.org/index.php/pub/article/download/5972/5779/11447
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 2803
17. Ladia, C. E. P., & Panao, R. A. L. (2023). Filipino youth in viral and virulent times: Unpacking the
predictors of youth political participation in the 2022 Philippine elections. Child & Youth Services,
45(4), 560–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/0145935x.2023.2261362
18. Lee, J., & Tan, S. (2021). The influence of civic education on political participation among young
adults in Singapore. Journal of Youth Studies, 24(5), 641-658. (Note: DOI not readily found for this
journal/article via standard search)
19. Lundberg, E., & Abdelzadeh, A. (2025). The role of youth extracurricular activities and political
intentions in later political participation and civic engagement. Journal of Adolescence, 97, 662–674.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12443
20. Medina, A., Siegel-Stechler, K., & Suzuki, S. (2025). Young people and the 2024 election: Struggling,
disconnected, and dissatisfied. CIRCLE, Tufts University. https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/2024-
poll-barriers-issues-economy
21. Muringa, T., & Adjin-Tettey, T. D. (2024). Media literacy’s role in democratic engagement and
societal transformation among university students. African Journalism Studies, 1(20).
https://doi.org/10.1080/23743670.2024.2424902
22. Neundorf, A., & Smets, K. (2017). Political socialization and the making of citizens. In Oxford
handbook of political socialization. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935307.013.98
23. Rojas, A. (2020). Who are the youth of today? Generation unlimited. UNICEF.
https://www.unicef.org/cuba/en/publications/who-are-the-youth-today-generation-unlimited
24. Sterling, B. (2021, May 7). “The Power of the Powerless” by Vaclav Havel - Bruce Sterling. Medium.
https://bruces.medium.com/the-power-of-the-powerless-by-vaclav-havel-84b2b8d3a84a
25. Sumatra, E. J. B. (2025). Examining how candidate attributes shape Gen Z perceptions for the 2025
Philippine Senate elections using conjoint analysis. Philippine EJournals.
https://ejournals.ph/article.php?id=25140
26. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in
American politics. Harvard University Press.
27. Wallace, J. (2024, December 18). The importance of democracy. Chatham House – International
Affairs Think Tank. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/04/importance-democracy
28. Ward, S. (2023, August 2). Lack of quality civic education in public schools in the United States -
Ballard brief. Ballard Brief. https://ballardbrief.byu.edu/issue-briefs/lack-of-quality-civic-education-in-
public-schools-in-the-united-states
29. Younas, M., & Imran, M. (2025). Multiple modalities of teaching civic education awareness among
students: A pragmatic approach-based case study. Cogent Education, 12(1), 2460967.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2460967
30. Zainurin, S. J., Husin, W. N. W., Zainol, N. M., & Ismail, A. (2024). Peers influence on youth political
behavior: A systematic review. International Journal of Social Science Research, 12(2), 182–195*.
https://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ijssr/article/download/21437/16908
31. Zhang, W. (2022). Political disengagement among youth: A comparison between 2011 and 2020.
Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 809432. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.809432