The World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations define adolescents as individuals between 10 and 19 years of age [1], while Ethiopia’s National Youth Policy defines those aged 15-29 as youth [2-5]. In Ethiopia, the proportion of those aged 15 to 29 years accounts for about a quarter of the total population of the country [2, 3] and the number of people in this age group is projected to rise significantly in the near future. The 2018 population projection as of July 2017 estimated that adolescents within the age group of 15-19 accounted for 11% of the total population [4].

Recognizing the country’s potential resting on this greater population of young people, the Ethiopian government issued the first national youth policy nearly a couple of decades ago [5] and also charted out a governance structure at the ministerial level, which, in fact, was reshuffled four times since then. The policy was crafted with the goal of ensuring the active participation of youth in political, governance, economic, social, and cultural activities and enabling in due course the youth to benefit from the results. The policy had four overarching principles (youth empowerment, participation and benefits thereof, realizing unity through diversity, young people organizing themselves freely and capacity building of the youth) that are to be translated into action through seven strategies in ten sector areas and by four actors. About 3000 youth personality development centers were established in different regions of the country to expedite positive youth development [6] that made different contributions to the development of young people [7]. Further, young people were mobilized for voluntary services to promote civic responsibility skills. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, over 10 million youths were engaged in self-initiated voluntary services in a period of 3 months alone [8]. These and related stories would count positively on young people to the extent that the youth policy initiatives and plans are effectively implemented. However, a national assessment of the implementation of the youth policy has suggested that the implementation was not to the expected level [9]. This would then cast shadows on young people’s engagements in various realms of functioning that promote their development in Ethiopia and needs to be thoroughly investigated.

Civic engagement, as a substantive subfield within developmental science [10-12], needs to be examined in the Ethiopian context not only in lieu of the absence of data in the field but also because available literature takes a more deficit approach of examining adolescent disengagements and destructive engagements alone. Taking a more enabling and positive approach to understanding adolescence then requires examining critical developmental milestone in adolescent transitions to adulthood that include young people’s civic engagements. Adolescence is considered a critical period for civic development and when civic values, skills and commitments take shape [13-15] and yet this has not been adequately explored to understand the extent to which young people navigate in the construction of civic identity, particularly in the contexts of low-income countries where youth obligations seem to be accentuated and rights seem less emphasized. The contextual factors that shape adolescent civic development need to be thoroughly examined to chart out interventions to appropriate their engagements.

In fact, adolescents and youth explore socio-political ideas, are exposed to social networks, and transition into roles providing societal continuity such as voting [16]. Civic engagement during adolescence is associated with civic participation in the future [17, 18] and contributes to better social and emotional adjustment [19-21].

Although civic engagement is not well investigated in Ethiopia, experiences seem to suggest that adolescents and youth are involved in different civic activities, including volunteering in coordinating activities during religious festivals or worship, community outreach services, monitoring traffic jams to smoothen movements of vehicles, and school gardening. They also seem to participate in adolescent-led district and city parliaments, informal help groups like tutorial support to lower grade students, mobilizing resources and supporting orphaned children, and doing chores in their neighborhoods and community [22]. Further, adolescents organized in adolescent/youth-led parliaments promote awareness of their rights, identify adolescents who experience violence, are deprived of access to social services and report to local government offices to take appropriate actions [23]. Moreover, youths are organized under national, regional, and city level youth associations with over 8.3 million youth members all over the country. Members of the youth-led clubs and associations participate in social and political issues such as community based discussions on local security issues, budget approval and review, and monitoring delivery of social services. Adolescents and youth, as members of the school or district/city parliaments, mobilize resources from their school and families and provide support to orphans and vulnerable children, and making them feel important and develop a sense that others are concerned about them [24].

A relational developmental system theory asserts that optimal development unfolds due to the reciprocal and mutually reinforcing interactions between individuals and contexts [25]. Everyday interactions with individuals can serve as assets to foster adolescents’ civic values and behaviors [26, 27]. In this regard, the fundamental role of family on adolescents’ civic engagement is recognized in literature [28-30]. It was found that closeness between parents and adolescents is related to greater adolescents’ civic responsibility [31]. Adolescents’ discussions on social and political issues with parents are positively associated with a range of civic values and behaviors [32, 33]. Parent-adolescent civic discussion is a stronger predictor of political behaviors [27]. Having parents engaged in civic activities and with whom adolescents can speak about civic issues promotes both civic action and the development of civic attitudes [29]. Growing up in a family that participates in civic activities was positively related to civic responsibility [29]. Individuals displaying higher involvement in community-oriented activities during late adolescence have been encouraged by their family to engage in such activities [34, 35]. Parental civic modeling is a strong predictor of adolescents’ civic engagement [28].

The contexts in developing nations like Ethiopia may seem to take a different overtone; a sort of oxymoron orientation that needs to be figured out in research like this one. On the one hand, close, collegial and dialogic parent-child relationships seem less manifest. On the other hand, socio-cultural dynamics seem to instill a sense of social and community responsibility and industriousness from the early years. Parents expect family members, including adolescents, to participate in different civic activities that benefit both individual and society. Parents serve as role models for adolescents to participate in community-based voluntary services, support needy people, volunteer during religious festivals and in times of crisis, and participate in community based social support groups. For example, several traditional associations exist in urban and rural parts of Ethiopia to give socio-economic support to their members and relations with their members in times of crisis. Community members are motivated to join community-based groups such as iddirs, as they are called in Amharic in Ethiopia, to support one another and other people outside their members [36, 37]. Adolescents and youth participate in voluntary service in their neighborhoods during burial ceremonies and this is a commonly practiced civic participation, an indicator of respecting social and religious values, cultivates their relationship with society and a means for adolescent and youth empowerment. Further, parents and adolescents participate in community-based care and support structures aimed at helping vulnerable members of the community [24].

Previous studies highlighted significant gender differences in civic engagement during adolescence [15, 34, 38]. Girls were generally more civically informed and engaged than boys [39, 40]. Findings of a cross-cultural examination of civic engagement [38] showed that boys had higher intentions of future political involvement. And yet, results pertaining to gender differences in civic engagement are mixed. For example, some authors [41] found the components of civic engagement differed by gender (in favor of females) and that females were more likely to be engaged in volunteerism during adolescence. However, both males and females participated in political forms of civic life [34, 41]. Previous research [34] and [38] found out higher intentions for future political involvement in boys; girls were more sympathetic to social justice than boys [42].

In Ethiopia, boys and girls are socialized differently which impacts their civic participation. A study [43] indicated that children, especially girls, were socialized to obey parental orders, to be passively punished, and not to demand their rights from parents. Girls were socialized to be submissive, while boys were socialized to be messy and loud, be strong, outgoing, assertive, and group leaders. Further, another study [44] found out that since their early age, males and females were socialized according to gender stereotypes through the traditional verbal arts, which associate certain activities with a certain gender. Males were found to be assigned to do tasks which are highly valued and demand strength and courage, whereas women’s tasks were less valued because they are considered to be ‘harmless’ and to demand ‘less energy and strength’. Males were socialized to be brave, courageous, dominant, and superior, while females were socialized to be shy, passive, and submissive. Moreover, a study [45] investigated the psycho-social factors that affect assertive behavior of female students and females reported having lack of social skills influenced by parenting styles, cultural orientation, lack of teachers’ gender sensitiveness and access to training opportunities.

Studying adolescent civic engagement is a contemporary imperative and yet not well explored in Ethiopia. In recent years in Ethiopia, adolescents have tended to engage in socially destructive behaviors, indicative of the negative side of adolescents’ engagement. During her short address to adolescents and youth on the occasion of the International Youth Day 2020, Her Excellency Sahelework Zewudie, President of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, emphasized, in tune with current research in the field [46] that many adolescents and youth were engaged in unhelpful destructive behavior and action that at times amounts to crime against one another and called everyone to promote positive youth civic engagement. She called on families, schools, communities, civil society and government to play a greater role in executing their responsibilities to help adolescents to develop socially responsible behaviors and engage in civic activities that would facilitate their positive development. Despite this, adolescents in Addis Ababa participate in volunteering, informal helping, community-based campaigning, and civic activism. Further, in practice, owing to cultural and religious influences, many adolescents tend to follow their parents and family members to emulate and engage in various civic activities which they think are appropriate cultural and religious practices. The question is whether adolescents can simultaneously make proper engagements and mis-engagements or if these constructs are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, given the existing gender divide in Ethiopia, gender differences among adolescents and the levels of civic engagement are still not explored. The role of parents as agents of civic socialization and different levels of civic socialization and their contributions to adolescents’ civic engagement have not been well recognized by government and other stakeholders and not been investigated in the Ethiopian context.

Social development model (SDM)) as a theoretical framework explains adolescent development within multiple social contexts and can thus help identify which factors might promote civic development [47]. The SDM emphasizes how adolescents learn patterns of behavior through their interactions with multiple socializing units, such as family, school, peer groups, and community. However, despite many studies identifying the influences of social contexts on adolescents’ civic development, studies analyzing the role of family contexts in influencing the civic development of adolescents are rare. For this reason, this study examined the influence of parental civic socialization on the civic engagements of adolescents. According to the SDM, different components are involved during the socialization process, helping to understand the development of civic behaviours in developmental contexts and describe how the theory supports the current research: (a) opportunities for involvement in activities and interactions with the family; (b) the degree of involvement and interaction of adolescents in civic engagement opportunities; (c) the individuals’ behaviors acquired to participate in these interactions-considered as civic engagement (individual level).

The main purpose of this study is to examine the civic engagements of adolescents (male and female) and their relationship with parental civic socialization by raising the following research questions:

• What are the level and types of civic engagement of adolescents?
• Is there a significant sex difference in the civic engagement of adolescents?
• Is there a significant relationship between parental civic socialization and adolescents’ civic engagement?
• Is there a significant difference in the civic engagement of male and female adolescents across different levels of parental civic socialization?

The research employed a quantitative research design to examine the level of and relationship between adolescents’ civic engagement and parental civic socialization. A qualitative method was also used to explain how parental socialization contributed to enhanced civic engagement and low civic engagement or disengagement of adolescents.

Participants were 960 urban school adolescents (53.5% female and 46.5% male, Mean age=17.7, ages 15-19 years) from three secondary schools in Gulele Sub-City in Addis Ababa. Of the 10 districts, five districts (1, 5, 7, 9 &10) were purposely targeted in the study where the six public secondary schools are located. Of the six secondary schools with a total student population of 11, 300 (5,198 female), three secondary schools (Entoto Amba, Medihanealem and Dilber) were selected using simple random sampling. Then, using convenient sampling, 18 sections from grade 9-12, each section having 50-60 students, a total of 960 students filled the questionnaire correctly.

Eligibility criteria were adolescents (males and females) aged 15-19 years,studying from grades 9-12, living with one or both parents, no severe disability, ability to read and write in Amharic (the national working language of Ethiopia), and willing to spend at least one hour to participate in the research.

For in-depth interview, 12 adolescents were randomly selected from among those with civic engagement scores falling in the upper and bottom quartiles (extreme scores); 6 with high and another 6 with low civic engagement scores. These adolescents were contacted and participated in an in-depth interview to get additional information on their family civic experiences that may have contributed to enhanced civic engagement or low civic engagement at large.

Prior to initiating the study, the research project was approved and ethical clearance was secured from the Research Ethics Committee of the School of Psychology, College of Education and Behavioral Studies, Addis Ababa University. The research project was approved on 11 August, 2022, with Reference Number: Ref: SoP-Eth Co/004/2022. The researchers also secured permission from the respective school principals to administer the questionnaire during class time. As guardians of students, the school directors were provided with written information about the research and were asked for their consent for students to participate. Students were informed about the study and asked whether they wished to participate. Data were collected from adolescents in a school setting from July to August 2022. The response rate for the questionnaire was 99%.

Firstly, descriptive statistics were used to examine sample distribution according to the studied variables–including the mean and standard deviation. The levels of civic engagement were identified by computing the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th quartiles. Bivariate correlation was computed to examine the relationship between parental civic socialization and adolescents’ civic engagements. Independent samples t-test was used to test mean differences in civic engagements of males and females, and a 2x3 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) examined the mean differences in civic engagements across levels of parental civic socialization and gender. In-depth interviews with adolescents were narrated to supplement some of the quantitative results. The textual data for each adolescent was coded independently. The data were analyzed using case analysis and then proceeded to cross-case analysis. The case analysis began with a case description of each adolescent’s civic experience before description, categorization and analysis of variations and commonalities in the answers to common questions about the experience of adolescents. Thematic analysis was used to develop the essence of civic experiences of adolescents with high and low civic engagement in the family.

As depicted in Table 1, participants were 960 adolescents (53.5% female) whose age ranged from 15-19 years. About 40.73% were 18 years, 22.81% were aged 19, 21.04% were 17 years, and 14.58% participants were 16 years old. Only .83% of the adolescent respondents were aged 15 years old. As regards their grade level, 42.1% were in grade 12, 27.4% in grade 11, 19.5% in grade 9 and 11% in grade 10.

As shown in Table 2, the mean civic engagement score was 41, a standard deviation of 7.4 The levels of civic engagement of adolescents were shown in the mean and quartile scores of participants. Accordingly, half of the adolescents (50.3%) had civic engagement scores below the mean, while 45.5% obtained scores above the mean civic engagement score. Quite a few (4.2%) of the participants had civic engagement score that is equal to the mean value. Males seemed to obtain higher mean civic engagement scores than females.

Attempts were also made to examine the categories of civic engagement (high, moderate and low), which participants were likely to fall based on their civic engagement scores. This was done using quartile classification. Accordingly, 25.3% had civic engagement scores ranging from 19-35, considered a low level of civic engagement; and 26.9% had civic engagement scores ranging from 47-60 considered as high level of civic engagement. A significant proportion (47.8%) had civic engagement scores that fall in 2^nd and 3^rd quartiles (with scores ranging from 36-46) considered a moderate level of civic engagement.

Theoretically, the Social Development Model emphasizes that adolescents learn patterns of civic behavior through their interactions with multiple socializing units, such as family, school, peer groups, and community. Conceptually and empirically, previous scholars [12, 14, 29] define this civic engagement as individual and collective activities intended to identify and address issues of public concern or social issues and enhance the well-being of one’s community and society. It was regarded to be expressed behaviorally mainly in interactions and involvement in the social world, through engagement in individual volunteering, informal helping, community-based activities, and civic activism. Accordingly, attempts were made to check out the extent to which empirical data in this study would generate themes having allegiance to conceptual thematizing of previous research and theorizing.

Thematic analysis of the interview data has in fact, suggested emergence of themes paralleling these theoretical and conceptual themes in literature. It was noted that participants tended to commonly participate in the following major themes of civic engagement activities. Each theme is substantiated with detailed first person accounts.

Group comparisons on civic engagements of male and female adolescents is presented in Table 3. The results of an independent sample t-test revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in the mean civic engagement scores of male and female adolescents, t (958) = 5.33, p <.01. This result suggested that male adolescents had significantly higher civic engagement scores (Mean = 42, SD = 7.7) than females (M = 39.4, SD = 6.9).

Given the existing gender divide in Ethiopia, gender differences among adolescents and the levels of civic engagements are still not explored. The role of parents as agents of civic socialization and different levels of civic socialization and their contributions to adolescents’ civic engagement have not been well recognized by the government and other stakeholders and not been investigated in the Ethiopian context.

The result of a bivariate correlation between parental civic socialization and civic engagements of adolescents is found to be high and statistically significant r (960 = .78), p<0.01). It appears that an increase or decrease in the value (level) of parental civic socialization is associated with a likely increase or decrease in adolescents' civic engagement scores respectively.

The differences in civic engagement of school adolescents as a function of parental civic socialization and support to adolescents across gender are presented in Table 4. A two-way ANOVA was used to check whether there is a statistically significant difference in the mean civic engagement scores of male and female adolescents across the three levels of civic socialization-low, moderate and high. The result showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the mean civic engagement scores of the three groups (low, moderate, and high) for parental civic socialization (main effect) determined by ANOVA [F (2, 958) = 820, p < .05]. The result was also significant for the second main effect (sex factor) [F (1, 959) = 15.50, p<.05] and the interaction effect (Sex*Parental Civic Socialization) [F (1, 958) = 15.14, p<..05]. The result showed that high parental civic socialization had a higher effect on male adolescents than female adolescents. The mean civic engagement score for male adolescents was 50 and 48 for females. For a moderate level of parental civic socialization, the mean civic engagement scores for male adolescents were 41 and 39 for females. Low parental civic socialization did not have differential effect on the civic engagement of male and female adolescents (both groups had average scores of 33).

The result also showed the Partial Eta Squared (η 2) measuring the effect size of different variables in the ANOVA model. Partial Eta Squared (η 2) for parental civic socialization was found to be =.632, which was considered to be high. For the second main effect, although the result shows a statistically significant gender difference between males and females, the effect size was very small, only 1.6% of the variance in adolescents’ civic engagement scores was accounted for parental civic socialization, leaving remaining after accounting for variance explained by other variables in the model.

Pairwise comparisons of mean civic engagement scores of adolescents across levels of parental civic socialization are presented in Table 5. The result showed that there was a statistically significant difference in mean civic engagements of the three groups: high and medium, high and low, medium and low, both at .05 and .01 levels of significance (P<0.05, P<0.01).

Excerpts from interviewed adolescents with high civic engagement scores confirmed how parental socialization contributed to enhanced civic engagement. “We discuss about family, social, economic and political matters. Even if we have different ideas, we manage the differences through peaceful dialogue. Growing up in an open family environment helped me develop skills to participate in civic activities and communicate civic messages” (16 years old male adolescent). “My parents are educated. They believe in having open family discourse. We discuss about increasing insecurity, inflation, and protection concerns for girls. Participating in family discussion helped me develop civic skills and able to participate in civic platforms” (17 years old male adolescent). “My parents help the poor in my neighborhood and community. If they see people being mistreated, they are at the forefront to stand by with them. They are my role models who influenced me to do the same for the needy” (15 years old school adolescent girl) “My parents participate in community discussions on development and security issues, community based organizations, and environmental protection. These are civic activities that myself and my brothers and sisters are favorable to emulate as citizens” (A 17 years old male adolescent)

Openness of parents/open family environment, an opportunity for discussion on social, political and current issues, and parental modeling of civic behaviors are the themes emerged from the analysis. Adolescents’ participation in the family discussion helped them develop civic skills and this has positively influenced them to participate in civic engagement activities. Further, their parents’ engagement in community based development activities such as helping the poor, and standing up for those people who are treated unfairly are civic behaviors adolescents often imitate or would like to emulate.

On the contrary, adolescents with low civic engagement scores stated how the lack of open family environment and lack of opportunity in the family to emulate civic behaviors contributed to their disengagement. “My parents are non-democratic, who do not believe in discussing on social and political matters. I think their way of socialization has influenced my behavior: lack interest and motivation to engage in civic activities” (A 16 years old female adolescent). “My parents believe that children should be submissive and not participate in discussing social and political matters with adults. Such family norm and practice have influenced me not to engage in civic matters” (A 16 years old adolescent girl). “My father is an authoritarian who believes in shaping children to be docile. He believes submissive adolescents are well-behaved and respecting social norms. This has dictated me to be nonassertive and do not participate in child or youth-led clubs” (A 16 years old male adolescent).“My parents do not know their responsibilities to be role models for their children. They are busy in accomplishing daily activities with less interest to engage in community-based civic activities. There is less opportunity for me to emulate civic behavior” (A 15 years old female adolescent).

There are culturally constructed sayings that dictate how parents and other adults should socialize children and adolescents. These sayings could discourage positive adult-child interaction that should have enhanced social skills of adolescents relevant for their civic engagement. One participant (16 years old male adolescent) said “Playing with a child is the same as exposing one’s wound to fly”. “What you discuss with a child is the same as hiding yourself with dogs”. “Children should be seen not to be heard”. Some parents or adults do not believe in the idea of their children and adolescents sitting and having a discussion with them. Whenever they children and adolescents ask questions, they are told to shut up because parents think that they are not grown up to discuss social issues. Parents and adults consider a good child to be silent in the presence of adults and being passive is appreciated by parents and the community.

The case analyses resulted in major themes as explanatory factors for low level of civic engagement. These include: no open family discussion, never sit with children and adolescents to discuss issues, being disciplined to be submissive, and limited opportunity to emulate civic behaviors. Reflective of cultural and social values, parents who do not believe in having an open discussion with adolescents, disciplining children to be submissive with the view of making them well-behaved and respecting social norms, and lack of opportunity to emulate appropriate civic behavior in the family seemed to have contributed to adolescents’ low level of civic engagement or disengagement, or low level of skills to participate in civic engagement activities.