A Communication-Based Framework for Civic Engagement at the Higher Education Institutions

Abstract

The decline in civic engagement among college students poses a significant threat to democratic society, with youth electoral participation dropping from 50% in 2020 to 42% in 2024. This study presents a comprehensive communication-based framework designed to increase student voting participation at Illinois State University through theoretically grounded persuasive strategies. Drawing from established persuasion theories including Cialdini’s Principles of Persuasion, the Theory of Planned Behavior, the Elaboration Likelihood Model, and repetitive frequency effects, this research addresses structural, informational, and motivational barriers that prevent student electoral participation. The proposed strategic framework encompasses three interconnected approaches: (1) behavioral positioning and target segmentation based on students’ voting history and intentions; (2) comprehensive media saturation and amplification using campus newspapers, social media platforms, e-commerce partnerships, and audio campaigns; and (3) leveraging institutional authority within educational spaces. These strategies specifically target students during optimal reception periods at locations such as gyms, student centers, and campus quads, while employing repetitive messaging across multiple communicative channels to reduce cognitive resistance and facilitate peripheral processing of persuasive content. The multi-platform approach recognizes that modern students engage with information through diverse media ecosystems requiring equally diverse persuasive techniques. Post-election survey methodology will evaluate strategy effectiveness by measuring actual voting participation among the target demographic. This comprehensive framework offers significant implications for higher education institutions seeking to enhance democratic participation, while contributing to the broader understanding of effective civic engagement strategies in contemporary society.

---

The proper functioning of a democracy requires well-informed and politically efficacious citizens. As such, one of the most frequently stated goals of higher education has been to politically engage young people (Hoffman, 2015). Political and civic engagement aims to expand the knowledge base of political information available to students. An increased knowledge and understanding in politics are vital if students and future leaders intend to follow public discussion on issues (Popkin & Dimock, 1999; Hoffman, 2015), as well as discern their political interests and connect those interests to effective political participation (Delli-Karpini & Keeter, 1996). Galston (2004) states that civic engagement encourages the practice of democratic values and enhances political participation. Galston’s perspective suggests that students who are involved in their community through civic engagement and service-learning tend to establish strong political identities and maintain long-lasting habits of political participation (Youniss & Yates, 1997).

Despite these recognized benefits, promoting civic activities among students in higher education institutions has become increasingly challenging in contemporary times due to the low involvement of students in civic activities and the weak structures in Higher Education Institutions to serve as venues for developing students’ interest in on-campus civic activities (Owusu-Agyeman & Fourie-Malherbe, 2019). However, digital platforms have emerged as alternative spaces for civic engagement. A 2022 study found that nearly 71% of US college students engaged in civic actions during COVID-19, especially sharing information online, suggesting the prevalence of pandemic-related civic engagement and sociopolitical perspectives among college students (Yazdani et al., 2022). While the internet and social media do not appear to be directly associated with traditional forms of student civic participation, they serve as mediation tools for gathering information, maintaining students’ digital media presence, and facilitating civic engagement (Stout et al., 2014). Beyond digital engagement, research indicates that structured campus activities also play a crucial role in fostering civic participation. Lundberg and Abdelzadeh (2025) argue that participation in extracurricular activities and the formulation of future political intentions influence various dimensions of political participation and civic engagement.

The importance of civic education becomes evident when examining its outcomes. According to Siegel-Stechler et al. (2025), when students acquire the knowledge and skills required for civic participation, develop democratic attitudes and dispositions, and learn to use their voice to impact their communities, they vote and participate in other forms of civic engagement. This connection between civic education and political participation highlights the critical role that higher education institutions play in democratic society.

However, despite the knowledge and skills required for students’ civic engagement, young people’s electoral participation drops notably in 2024, with only 42% of youth between 18-29 years participating in the general elections compared to 50% youth voter turnout in 2020 (Medina et al., 2025). This decline in youth participation in the electoral process is mostly attributed to structural, informational, and motivational barriers, which includes not knowing the processes involved in becoming a registered voter, busy schedules, missing voter registration deadlines, and dissatisfaction with political candidates (Medina et al., 2025). This trend reflects a broader pattern of declining civic engagement among U.S. citizens during recent decades, which has become a concern (Nishishiba et al., 2005). The academic and popular press warns that this decline in civic engagement, if left unattended, can pose a major threat to democratic society (Barber, 1999; Skocpol & Fiorina, 1999; New York Times, 2000; Putnam, 2000; Skocpol, 2003; Nishishiba et al., 2005).

One factor that particularly affects college students’ civic participation is residential mobility. Strama (1998) indicates that as youth change residences often, the local issues and elections in the new environment may not be relevant to the student, leading to low turnout in elections. Consequently, college students face the prospect of registering in their hometowns or in the new community where they reside to pursue their education (Strama, 1998). This geographic displacement tends to deprive students of meaningful participation in democratic processes, making them less capable of civic contribution.

The implications of reduced civic engagement, especially among Illinois State University students, extend beyond individual consequences to affect societal well-being. While a lack of civic engagement can diminish both individual and societal well-being, students’ participation in the electoral process strengthens the democratic tenets of a well-functioning society. Therefore, to enhance students’ civic engagement, a theoretically oriented approach is required to understand and devise persuasive techniques that shape students’ behavioral tendencies in the political landscape.

Literature Review

College students’ civic responsibility is critical in every democratic society. Democratic citizenship requires the active participation of all members regardless of their status. Citizens’ ability to exercise their democratic franchise by participating in political activities such as deliberating national issues, voting political candidates into power, and challenging the status quo through debates is highly relevant in any political landscape. Given the importance of student civic participation in strengthening democratic processes, it is essential to examine existing research on this topic. Therefore, this literature review explores scholarship on students’ civic engagement, challenges affecting students’ participation levels in political activities, and strategies to enhance students’ political civic activities.

Students Civic Engagement

Civic engagement is the action of civil participation that cultivates growth and development within a community to benefit its members, improve present conditions, and shape prosocial innovation (Mesa Community College, 2024). Building upon this foundation, Valentino et al. (2009) assert that building students’ confidence to believe they can navigate the political system in a variety of situations can lead to continued political and civic engagement, as they tend to develop the habits of political participation. Similarly, Hoffman (2015) argues that an individual’s competence and capability to participate in democracy requires detailed and nuanced measures to help one understand whether institutionalized-based civic engagement programs succeeded in increasing the internal efficacy of young people.

However, the effectiveness of civic engagement programs remains contested in the literature. According to Kahne and Westheimer (2006), service-learning programs may lead to frustration and decreased confidence to actively participate in the political system. Building on Hoffman’s (2015) argument about measuring civic competence, Bennion and Nickerson (2013) contend that teaching civic and political engagement hinges on what is accomplished in the classroom. They note that when it comes to assessing the impact of courses on students’ political skills, knowledge, interest, and political efficacy, the results are often mixed. Nevertheless, there is some evidence showing that coursework involving civic engagement leads to improved civic engagement skills of students (Bennion & Nickerson, 2013). In support of this perspective, Nishishiba et al. (2005) states that new content and learning methods are intended to stimulate civic engagement among young people.

Despite these potential benefits, critics argue that the relationship between civic knowledge and engagement is not straightforward. Contrary to the optimistic view of civic education, there is little evidence suggesting that developing civic and political knowledge leads to an increased level of civic engagement (Altand & Medrich, 1994; Hamilton & Zeldin, 1987). Furthermore, Rothstein (2001) claims that there is no research providing evidence that students who know more about civics and history are more prone to vote during elections.

The service-learning approach, which immerses students directly into community engagement activities, has also not escaped criticism. Research shows that single events, even active, participatory ones such as deliberative democracy forums, fail to increase levels of internal political efficacy, which is a concept referring to an individual’s confidence in their abilities to understand and effectively participate in political activities (Morrell, 2005; Niemi et al., 1991). As cited by Hoffman (2015), scholars indicate the importance of including a student-centered approach to civic engagement (Longo et al., 2006). This emphasis on student agency aligns with a growing body of literature that highlights the agency of young people in shaping their political behavior and recognizes institutional volunteering opportunities as agents of socialization (McDevitt & Chaffee, 2002; Pickard, 2022; Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2020; Stattin et al., 2023; Stattin & Russo 2022; Stattin, 2024).

Despite these challenges and mixed findings, enlightening students on their civic responsibility remains important in every society, as it not only teaches them the power of their participation in democratic governance but also their potential for bringing change to the communities in which they reside. Through effective institutional pedagogy, students can realize the essence of their civic duty as a catalyst of change, especially in the lives of vulnerable groups.

Challenges Affecting Students Political Participation

Students usually face multiple levels of transitions in their education and career. According to Strama (1998), students move away to college and change residences multiple times as they begin their careers. Strama (1998) highlights that as youth change residences often, the local issues and elections pertaining to the community in which they reside may not be significant to them. As a result, college students face the decision of whether to stay registered in their hometowns or to register in the community in which they live (Strama, 1998). To address this mobility challenge, Jemna and Curelaru (2010) suggests that the best solution to enhance students’ voting is to organize elections during a period with minimal mobility, such as holidays.

Beyond the challenges posed by residential mobility, gender disparities present another significant barrier to student civic participation. Alelaimat (2019) argues that the gender gap between male and female students in national and local elections poses a challenge to political participation, noting that the voting ratio of female students is lower compared to their male counterparts. This finding supports the assertions of Atiyat (2017), Fitzgerald (2013), and Roth and Saunders (2019) that elections usually witness low female participation. According to Alelaimat (2019), the drop in female students’ voting is attributed to ineffective council members who are elected.

In addition to concerns about ineffective elected officials, structural inequalities further compound barriers to female student participation. Tribal and socioeconomic constraints make female students feel unequal to male students in education and employment opportunities (Alelaimat, 2019). These factors cause political alienation, which makes them reluctant to vote during elections (Alelaimat, 2019). However, the issues leading to political alienation are not limited to variables such as unequal education and employment opportunities. According to Jemna and Curelaru (2010), factors contributing to students’ poor participation in the voting process include lack of interest in politics, diminished confidence in institutions such as the government, parliament, and presidency, lack of enrollment in political organizations due to corrupt activities, as well as conflicting values and political participation.

Despite these identified barriers, some scholars question the fundamental relationship between education and political participation. Contrary to the assumption that education naturally leads to greater civic engagement, Willeck and Mendelberg (2022) indicate that there are no unobserved or uncontrolled factors that influence education and political participation. This perspective builds on Kam and Palmer’s (2011) argument that there is insufficient evidence to prove that education causes political participation or student voter turnout.

Strategies to Enhance Students Political Civic Activities

There is considerable debate regarding the state of youth civic participation. Some scholars argue that young people no longer participate in voluntary associations or in various forms of civic life (Delli Carpini & Keeter 1996; Kimberlee, 2002; Gauthier, 2003; O’Toole et al., 2003). Contrary to this perspective, Eden and Roker (2002) contend that while political participation levels are declining, the levels of other forms of participation, such as community involvement and civic participation among young people, are rising.

Supporting this more optimistic view, Schwarz (2018) highlights that there are several organizations working to encourage young people to vote during elections. For example, in 2018, Rock the Vote—a non-profit organization in the United States that uses its platform for grassroots campaigns (Walker, 2006; Strama, 1998; Schwarz, 2018)—registered over 7 million votes and gained over 350 partners directing people to its online registration (Rock the Vote, n.d.). Given this mixed evidence, Quintelier (2008) emphasizes that the political participation of young people remains an important topic and an issue for social concern. Because young people’s political participation is of high concern, new insights into the mechanisms, such as school activities and characteristics that explain and encourage young people’s participation in political activities, must be developed (Quintelier, 2008).

Research suggests that educational interventions can play a crucial role in enhancing civic engagement. Beaumont et al. (2006) argue that well-designed courses and programs can increase key elements of political engagement (voting, working with a political group, or giving money to a candidate) in students, so these efforts should be encouraged. In support of this argument, Pritzker et al. (2022) stated that educationally-based civic influences that specifically address political content are associated with students’ political behavior.

However, educational efforts face institutional challenges. Despite these educational interventions to promote students’ political civic activities, Strachan (2008) believes that these efforts are inadequate to enhance students’ political involvement because of higher education’s inattention to civic education—attributed to long-term neglect. Additionally, Jarrar (2019) suggests that political factors tend to affect students’ political participation, noting that students’ involvement in a political framework requires some degree of freedom practiced within parties, organizations, and elected parliamentary councils.

Beyond formal political structures, experiential learning approaches show promise in fostering civic engagement. Torney-Purta (2002) believes that active learning strategies, such as organizing group projects, visiting government buildings, inviting government officials to schools, and creating opportunities for young people to articulate their concerns through student councils, encourage them to participate in politics by creating a participative school culture where students experience real-life activities and reflect on their actions (Gibson & Levine, 2003; Galston, 2004). Kahne et al. (2006) adds that such experience-based strategies tend to “orient students towards norms of civic commitment” (p. 402). Therefore, these experience-based techniques can be considered an essential part in the development of young people’s sociological citizenship (Mezenes, 2003).

Nevertheless, the quality and depth of civic engagement activities matter significantly. Rubaii (2006) notes that donating money or other items without sharing one’s skills or ideas—or failing to make connections with the individuals engaged in civic life—will not translate into sustained civic engagement (Kirlin & Kirlin, 2002; Skocpol, 2002). Furthermore, Schizzerotto and Gasperoni (2001) caution against extracurricular overload, suggesting that activities and programs that do not relate to the acquisition of knowledge and skills may not have the expected effect on maximizing students’ political civic engagement (Quintelier, 2008).

Review of Theoretical Framework

This section outlines the persuasive communication theories and models that inform the proposed strategies for increasing student voter turnout. These include the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen,1991), Cialdini’s Principles of Persuasion (2009), the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion (Petty et al., 1986), and the Repetition and Mere Exposure Effect (Koch, 2017).

Theory of Planned Behavior

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is an extension of the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and provides a foundational model for predicting intentional behavior, such as voting. According to Ajzen (1991), intentional behaviors are assumed to capture the motivational factors that influence a behavior; they are indications of how hard people are willing to try, or the amount of effort individuals plan to exert to perform the behavior.

Building on this theoretical framework, Bali et al. (2020) identify three key motivational factors that prompt people to perform a behavior. First, personal duty involves internal validation that motivates us to act in harmony with our ideals and makes us seek our own approval when adopting behavior consistent with our core values and principles. In the realm of voting, an individual may vote because of their belief that it is their duty and the “right thing to do” (Bali et al., 2020, p. 3) as democratic citizens.

Second, belonging encompasses feeling connected to other people, causes, and organizations to achieve a sense of belonging. Voting can be a behavior that connects people to relevant social groups, such as family, neighbors, and local organizations, as well as causes, such as those of candidates, parties, and even nations (Bali et al., 2020).

Third, social approval involves seeking external validation when individuals act in ways to earn the “goodwill” and approval of significant others. This means that people can experience rewards from the social validation extended to them by others. In the context of voter turnout, an individual may vote to gain the approval of those socially close, such as family, friends, and colleagues (Bali et al., 2020).

These motivational factors have practical applications for civic engagement strategies. By segmenting students based on their prior voting experience (voters, undecided, and non-voters), the strategies (i.e., motivational factors) can be tailored to reinforce, shift, or challenge existing intentions.

Principles of Persuasion

Cialdini’s (2009) model of persuasion relies on the assumption that persuasive targets (or humans) engage in several “fixed-action patterns” (Campisi et al., 2018, p. 380), which can be induced using influence techniques. Cialdini’s (2009) framework consists of six principles of persuasion: authority, commitment and consistency, reciprocity, liking, scarcity, and social proof.

The rule of authority posits that humans have a deep-seated sense of duty to authority, and people tend to go to any length on the command of authority. Persuaders exploit this rule when they drape themselves with the titles, clothes, and trappings of authority (Campisi et al., 2018). Similarly, commitment and consistency explain that people have an obsessive desire to appear consistent with what we have already done. Once a stand is chosen, we will encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with that commitment (Campisi et al., 2018). As a result, those pressures will cause us to respond in ways that justify our earlier decision; therefore, persuaders exploit this rule by making the initial commitment easy and attractive (Campisi et al., 2018).

The principle of reciprocity imposes uninvited debts by telling us that individuals should try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided us—making people feel obliged to participate in a “web of indebtedness” or “network of obligation” (Campisi et al., 2018, p. 371). Persuaders tend to exploit this principle by initiating favors or giving gifts. In contrast, liking is about “uncover[ing] real similarities and offer genuine praise” (Cialdini, 2001, p. 74). Cialdini (1993) highlights that there are several factors that cause liking, including physical attractiveness, similarity, compliments, contact and cooperation, and conditioning and association. According to Tölken (2017), the liking principle is applicable in situations that involve friends or is used to build friendship.

The principle of scarcity highlights that people want and value things more when they are scarce; hence, this rule is concerned with the scarcity of offers to increase people’s desire for them (Tölken, 2017). Persuaders exploit this rule by conveying some kind of limited availability, for example, using the “deadline” tactic—some official time limit placed on the opportunity to get the product (Campisi et al., 2018). Finally, social proof occurs when people turn to others and observe their behavior to guide or validate their own (Tölken, 2017). The social proof principle applies especially to the way we decide what constitutes correct behavior (Cialdini, 1993). Persuaders exploit this rule by using indicators of wider social approbation to trigger our belief that the substance must be good or acceptable (Campisi et al., 2018).

Although Cialdini’s various levels of persuasion offer a robust framework for crafting compelling messages aimed at eliciting certain responses and behaviors from the persuasive target. Campisi et al. (2018) argue that Cialdini’s various levels of tactics can cause compliant behavior among the persuasive targets. In the context of this study, the principle of authority is used in discussing the strategic approaches educators can use to induce students voting behavior.

Elaboration Likelihood Model

The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) is part of the dual process model of persuasion. This duality involves Elaboration Likelihood (Petty et al., 1986) and the Heuristic Systematic Model (HSM) of information processing (Chaiken, 1980; 1987), and it explains how individuals interpret and process the persuasive messages they have been exposed to. However, Glöckner and Witteman (2010) contend that dual process models make clear delineations between deliberative and intuitive information processing, judgment, and decision making, but fail to further differentiate within those categories. Despite this limitation, Chaiken and Maheswaran (1994) state that each model proposes similar routes for two types of cognitive processors: central route or systematic processing and peripheral route or heuristic processing.

According to Robert and Dennis (2005), the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) changes an individual’s attitude and understanding and requires the receiver to be motivated to exert cognitive effort to think about and process the message. The ELM posits that there are two routes to changing persuasive targets’ attitudes: the central and peripheral routes. Petty et al. (1983) explains that the central route to attitude change stems from careful examination of the information and weighing of the advantages and disadvantages pertaining to the message itself. In contrast, the peripheral route holds that attitude change results from simple inferences made about positive and negative cues attendant to the message (Petty et al., 1983). As Petty et al. (1983) notes, “the basic tenet of ELM is that different methods of inducing persuasion may work best depending on whether the elaboration likelihood of the communication situation (i.e., the probability of message-or issue-relevant thought occurring) is high or low” (p. 137).

The level of elaboration likelihood determines which processing route individuals will take. High elaboration likelihood leads to the central route, while low elaboration likelihood leads to the peripheral route. Petty et al. (1980) states that individuals using central processing exert a great deal of cognitive effort evaluating information. Furthermore, Petty et al. (1993) highlights that attitude change driven by thoughtful consideration and processing of information tends to be more enduring over time and predictive of future behavior. Conversely, peripheral processors adhere to simple acceptance or rejection cues and are not affected by argument quality (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984). Robert and Dennis (2005) states that “arguments that pass through the central route will result in enduring, resistant, and predictable behavior changes, while arguments that pass through the peripheral route will only result in temporary, susceptible, and unpredictable behavior changes” (p. 12).

These theoretical insights have practical applications for civic engagement strategies. Given that college students may not initially be highly involved in political discourse, strategies such as message repetition, use of visuals, and credible spokespersons aim to engage the peripheral route to trigger behavioral compliance, while more in-depth materials such as opinion pieces in student newspapers will target central processing.

Repetition and Mere Exposure Effect

Koch (2017) states that to capture the repeated exposure effects of persuasive communication, the starting point of this model is the repetition frequency of a persuasive stimulus—the number of times the stimulus in question is presented within a certain time interval. Although scholarship on persuasive communication often focuses on the attitudinal dimension of the persuasive target because it tends to provide reliable insight into the explanation and prediction of behavior (Stiff & Mongeau, 2003), Koch (2017) is of the view that repeated exposure to persuasive communication affects not only attitudes of the persuasive target, but also their credibility (Dechêne et al., 2010; Hasher et al., 1977), behavior (Miller, 1976), perceived fame (Jacoby et al., 1989), and ethical questions (Weeks et al., 2005).

Building on this foundation, cultivation theory provides another lens for understanding how repeated exposure influences perception. According to Koch and Arendt (2017), cultivation theory explains the effects of exposure to media content on perceptions of reality (Gerbner & Gross, 1976). The theory posits that individuals’ perceptions of reality are influenced or “cultivated” by media content. Gerbner and Gross’s (1976) perspective on cultivation theory presumes that consistent exposure to media or specific media contents cultivates certain perceptions of reality. Therefore, consumers of media products (or content) believe that the real world is like the media’s representations of the world (Gerbner & Gross, 1976; Gerbner et al., 2002).

Importantly, the reality created by media organizations can be distorted and can differ from objective reality in various respects. However, if recipients fail to consciously perceive a stimulus despite repeated exposure, it does not mean that the stimulus will not evoke any effects (Koch & Arendt, 2017). This explains why mere-exposure effects can occur unconsciously and attitudes towards a persuasive stimulus can also improve unconsciously (Russell, 2002).

These theoretical insights inform practical strategies. Within the proposed strategy, repetitive messaging is applied across media formats (posters, jingles, social media) and time slots (late afternoon and evening) to maximize exposure and reduce cognitive resistance to persuasive messages. According to the principle of frequency, repeated messaging not only enhances recall but also facilitates attitudinal alignment over time.

Strategic Proposal to Increase Students Civic Engagement

This section outlines the comprehensive strategic framework designed to enhance students’ civic engagement within the democratic process. The strategic proposal encompasses three interconnected approaches aimed at persuading and maximizing student participation in political and broader civic activities: behavioral positioning and target segmentation, media saturation and amplification through multiple channels including newspapers, posters, jingles, and social media platforms, and leveraging established authority within educational environments. Each of these proposed strategic components is analyzed in relation to the theoretical foundations previously discussed, ensuring that the practical implementation commensurate with established persuasion and communication theories. This theoretical grounding provides the necessary academic framework to understand the rationale behind each strategic decision and its anticipated effectiveness in achieving increased civic engagement among the target student population.

Behavioral Positioning and Target Segmentation

The primary approach in behavioral positioning and target segmentation strategy requires conducting comprehensive research to understand the ‘persuasion targets’ (Cialdini, 2009) behavioral positioning toward upcoming national elections. While Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) identify that behaviors consist of four critical components, this strategic analysis employs three essential elements in developing an effective persuasion framework.

Action Component Analysis

The first component examines the specific action being performed, requiring direct engagement with the persuasion target through conversational inquiry to determine their electoral participation history and future voting intentions. When targets demonstrate previous voting experience, the strategic decision involves reinforcing their established position by emphasizing continued participation for the change they deserve. Conversely, when encountering neutral targets, the approach shifts toward behavioral change by highlighting how their voting participation will positively impact other people’s lives. For students who definitively decide against voting, the strategy focuses on changing their position by demonstrating the benefits and opportunities they are withholding from others through their non-participation.

Contextual Considerations

The second component addresses the contextual environment where persuasion will occur. According to Fischer et al. (2010), relational contextual factors including emotions, previous activities, and future plans significantly impact message receptivity. Consequently, the strategic approach involves targeting students at locations such as gyms, bowling centers, campus quads, and student centers. These venues are strategically selected because students frequenting these spaces are typically seeking to decompress from daily academic pressures, making them more receptive to engaging with persuasive messages.

Temporal Strategy Implementation

The final component considers timing as a crucial factor in message reception effectiveness. Since the time of day influences audience receptivity, persuasive efforts will be concentrated during late afternoon and evening hours daily. This timing strategy is supported by research suggesting that increased exposure to persuasive messages normalizes the proposed action for targets (Koch, 2017). This approach aligns with the repetitive frequency model, which demonstrates that repeated exposure to persuasive messages cultivates positive attitudes toward the desired behavior. Furthermore, the repetitive nature of these persuasive messages strategically decreases the likelihood that students will engage in extensive cognitive evaluation before making decisions. Instead, students become more inclined to rely on peripheral processing to respond to messages, thereby ensuring future compliance and increased voting participation in upcoming national elections.

Media Saturation and Amplification Strategy

The media saturation and amplification strategy employ a comprehensive multi-platform approach using newspapers, posters, jingles, and social media to maximize message reach and frequency. This integrated strategy ensures consistent exposure across diverse communication channels to reinforce voting participation among the target demographic.

Print and Visual Media Implementation

To initiate this comprehensive approach, politically charged messages emphasizing students’ voting rights will be strategically positioned in campus newspapers, ensuring direct access to the primary target audience through their preferred information sources. Complementing this campus-focused effort, posters highlighting the pivotal role students play in democratic society will be placed at high-traffic locations including bus shelters and retail establishments such as Walmart—extending message reach beyond the campus environment.

E-commerce Platform, Strategic Outdoor and Audio Messaging Integration

Recognizing that students frequently engage in online commerce businesses, the strategy includes collaboration with major e-commerce platforms including Amazon, Temu, and Shein to incorporate the tagline “Your vote makes a difference” on their websites and product packaging. This innovative approach leverages students’ routine online shopping behaviors to deliver persuasive messages during their regular digital interactions.

Furthermore, mini billboards emphasizing the importance of voting will be positioned at carefully selected intersections, particularly within campus boundaries, to capture students during their daily commutes and transitions between locations. Additionally, a comprehensive audio campaign will feature two-minute jingles about students’ voting rights in the upcoming election, broadcast at the beginning and conclusion of all programs on WZND radio and TV10 daily, ensuring consistent audio reinforcement of the central message.

Social Media Amplification

Finally, social media amplification techniques will be implemented through collaborative partnerships with administrators across all Illinois State University social media groups on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and WhatsApp. This digital strategy involves posting election-focused messages at least three times weekly, using the extensive reach and engagement potential of established university social media networks to maintain consistent message exposure across multiple digital media platforms.

Leveraging Authority in Educational Spaces

The final strategic approach involves leveraging oneself as an established authority as an instructor at Illinois State University to enhance student civic engagement. According to Cialdini’s (2009) model of persuasion, the principle of authority demonstrates that individuals naturally obey authoritative figures and defer to the recommendations of recognized experts within their respective fields.

This authority-based strategy will use one’s professional expertise and experience in educating students about how active citizenry can sustain a functioning democratic system through comprehensive civic education. Furthermore, a professional can draw upon their own knowledge regarding the importance of becoming engaged societal members through electoral participation. This approach emphasizing how voting serves as a mechanism to force positive change for the common good of all society constituents.

By positioning oneself, especially as an educational authority figure with specialized knowledge in civic engagement and democratic processes, this technique capitalizes on students’ natural tendency to respect and respond to expert guidance within the academic environment. Using institutional authority provides a credible foundation for persuading student voters to recognize their civic responsibilities and participate actively in the democratic process.

Evaluation Plan

The effectiveness of these strategic approaches will be assessed through comprehensive survey methodology designed to collect post-election data following the 2024 electoral period. This evaluation process will focus on determining the actual number of students within the specified age demographic who participate in voting on election day, providing quantifiable metrics to measure the success of the implemented persuasion strategies.

The post-election survey data will serve as a critical assessment tool to identify which components of the multi-faceted strategy demonstrate the greatest impact on student voting behavior. This analytical approach will enable the identification of strategic elements that require further development and refinement in future persuasive communication initiatives. By systematically evaluating the outcomes of each strategic component, this assessment methodology will provide valuable insights for enhancing the effectiveness of subsequent civic engagement campaigns targeting student populations.

Discussion and Implications

The strategic framework presented in this study offers significant implications for enhancing civic engagement across diverse higher education institutions and broader democratic participation initiatives. The multi-layered approach combining behavioral positioning, media saturation, and authority-based persuasion provides a comprehensive model that other universities can adapt to their specific campus contexts and student demographics. The integration of theoretical foundations from Cialdini’s persuasion principles demonstrates how academic institutions can use their unique position as educational authorities to foster democratic participation among young voters.

Furthermore, the strategic usage of various communicative channels. Thus: from traditional media platforms to contemporary e-commerce partnerships illustrates the potential for innovative approaches to civic engagement that go beyond conventional campus-based initiatives. This comprehensive strategy suggests that effective democratic participation campaigns require coordinated efforts across multiple touchpoints, recognizing that modern students engage with information through diverse media ecosystems that demand equally diverse persuasive approaches.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Several important limitations must be acknowledged in evaluating the proposed strategic framework. The absence of empirical data using interview-based model represents a significant constraint, as the effectiveness of these strategies remains theoretical until post-election assessment can provide quantifiable outcomes regarding actual voting behavior changes among the target demographic. Additionally, the institutional specificity of this framework, developed specifically for Illinois State University’s context, may limit its direct transferability to institutions with different organizational cultures, student populations—or geographic locations. The reliance on collaborative partnerships with external parties such as e-commerce platforms and local media outlets introduces variables that may not be consistently available across different institutional contexts. Moreover, the assumption that students will respond uniformly to authority-based persuasion may not account for generational differences in attitudes toward institutional authority or varying levels of political engagement among diverse student populations.

However, future research opportunities emerge from these limitations and could advance understanding of effective civic engagement strategies in higher education environment. Longitudinal studies tracking student voting behavior over multiple election cycles would provide valuable insights into the sustained impact of comprehensive persuasion campaigns and identify which strategic framework/components maintain effectiveness over time. Controlled experimental designs comparing institutions implementing different combinations of the proposed strategies could isolate the individual and interactive effects of behavioral positioning, media saturation, and authority-based approaches.

Additionally, research examining the cultural and demographic factors that moderate the effectiveness of these strategies would enhance their applicability across diverse institutional contexts. Investigating the role of peer-to-peer influence mechanisms within the proposed framework could also reveal how social connections amplify or diminish the impact of formal persuasion efforts. Finally, studies exploring the ethical considerations and potential unintended consequences of intensive civic engagement campaigns would contribute to responsible implementation of such strategies, while maintaining the integrity of democratic processes and student autonomy in political decision-making.

Conclusion

Every democratic society deserves meaningful change, and societal transformation in terms of human development is most effectively achieved when all citizens collaborate toward common objectives. Motivating citizens to become active participants in a functioning democracy requires substantial investment of individual resources, including time, skills, and knowledge, to design comprehensive strategies that recognize all people, irrespective of their social status, as integral components in the electoral process necessary to generate the societal change that communities require.

This paper outlines strategic approaches designed to increase voting participation among Illinois State University students in the upcoming national election, encompassing behavioral positioning and target segmentation, media saturation and amplification, and the strategic application of authority principles. These strategies have been developed with careful consideration of established persuasive communication theories such as the repetitive frequency model and elaboration likelihood theory, providing a theoretically grounded framework for enhancing civic engagement among the target demographic.

The comprehensive nature of these proposed strategies reflects the complexity of fostering democratic participation in contemporary society, recognizing that effective civic engagement requires coordinated efforts across multiple communicative channels and theoretical approaches to address the diverse needs and motivations of student voters.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.

Alelaimat, M. S. (2019). Factors affecting political participation (Jordanian universities students’ voting: field study 2017-2018). Review of Economics and Political Science, 8(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/reps-05-2019-0072

Altand, N., & E. Medrich. (1994). Student evaluation in community services. Paper prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Research. MPR Associates.

Atiyat, F. (2017). Jordanian women participation in the parliamentary elections of 2016: Field study in Albalqa governorate. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 7(3), 109–122.

Bali, V. A., Robison, L. J., & Winder, R. (2020). What motivates people to vote? The role of selfishness, duty, and social motives when voting. SAGE Open, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020950376

Barber, B. (1999). A place for us: How to make society civil and democracy strong. Princeton University Press.

Beaumont, E., Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., & Torney-Purta, J. (2006). Promoting political competence and engagement in college students: An empirical study. Journal of Political Science Education, 2(3), 249–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512160600840467

Bennion, E.A., & Nickerson, D.W. (2013). Documenting the success of classroom-based voter registration efforts: Classroom presentations Trump technology. In Alison R. M. M, Bennion, E., & Simpson, D (Eds.), Teaching civic engagement: From student to active citizen. American Political Science Association (pp. 203–216).

Campisi, D. J., Winet, E. D., & Calvert, J. (2018). Undue influence: The gap between current law and scientific approaches to decision-making and persuasion. ACTEC Law Journal, 43(3), 2.

Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.39.5.752

Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In Zanna, M.P, Olson, J.M., & Herman, C.P (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (pp. 3–39). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460–473. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.66.3.460

Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: The psychology of persuasion (Rev. ed.). Morrow.

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harvard Business Review, 79(9), 72–81.

Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Pearson.

Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2009). The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 238–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309352251

Delli Carpini, Michael X., & Scott Keeter. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press.

Eden, K., & D. Roker. (2002). Doing something: Young people as social actors. National Youth Agency.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.

Fitzgerald, J. (2013). What does “political” mean to you? Political Behavior, 35(3), 453–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-012-9212-2

Galston, W. A. (2004). Civic education and political participation. PS: Political Science & Politics, 37(2), 263–266. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096504004202

Gauthier, M. (2003). The inadequacy of concepts: The rise of youth interest in civic participation in Quebec [1]. Journal of Youth Studies, 6(3), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/1367626032000138255

Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 172–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 43–67). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gibson, C., & Levine, P. (2003). The civic mission of schools. Carnegie Corporation and the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning.

Glöckner, A., & Witteman, C. (2010). Beyond dual-process models: A categorisation of processes underlying intuitive judgement and decision making. Thinking and Reasoning, 16(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780903395748

Hamilton, S. F., & Zeldin, R. S. (1987). Learning civics in the community. Curriculum Inquiry, 17(4), 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1987.11075301

Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(1), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(77)80012-1

Hoffman, A. H. (2015). Institutionalizing political and civic engagement on campus. Journal of Political Science Education, 11(3), 264–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2015.1047101

Jacoby, L. L., Kelley, C., Brown, J., & Jasechko, J. (1989). Becoming famous overnight: Limits on the ability to avoid unconscious influences of the past. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.56.3.326

Jarrar, A. G. (2019). A proposed educational strategy for promoting political participation among Jordanian University Graduates. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(5), 200. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n5p200

Jemna, D. V., & Curelaru, M. (2010). Values and students? Political participation. Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 8(24), 168–188.

Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (2006). The limits of political efficacy: Educating citizens for a democratic society. PS: Political Science & Politics, 39(2), 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096506060471

Kahne, J., Chi, B., & Middaugh, E. (2006). Building social capital for civic and political engagement: The potential of high-school civics courses. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne de l’éducation, 29(2), 387. https://doi.org/10.2307/20054169

Kam, C. D., & Palmer, C. L. (2011). Rejoinder: Reinvestigating the causal relationship between higher education and political participation. The Journal of Politics, 73(3), 659–663. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381611000363

Kimberlee, R. H. (2002). Why don’t British young people vote at general elections? Journal of Youth Studies, 5(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676260120111788

Kirlin, J. J., & Kirlin, M. K. (2002). Strengthening effective government–citizen connections through greater civic engagement. Public Administration Review, 62(s1), 80–85. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.62.s1.14

Koch, T. (2017). Again and again (and again): A repetition-frequency-model of persuasive communication. Studies in Communication Media, 6(3), 218–239. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2017-3-218

Koch, T., & Arendt, F. (2017). Media effects: Cumulation and duration. The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects, 1–11. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0217

Longo, N. V., Drury, C., & Battistoni, R. M. (2006). Catalyzing political engagement: Lessons for civic educators from the voices of students. Journal of Political Science Education, 2(3), 313–329.

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(3), 662–674. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12443

McDevitt, M., & Chaffee, S. (2002). From top-down to trickle-up influence: Revisiting assumptions about the family in political socialization. Political Communication, 19(3), 281–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/01957470290055501

Medina, A., Siegel-Stechler, K., Suzuki, S., Booth, R.B., & Hilton, K. (2025, January 15). Young people and the 2024 election: Struggling, disconnected, and dissatisfied. Center For Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement. Retrieved from, https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/2024-poll-barriers-issues-economy

Menezes, I. (2003). Participation experiences and civic concepts, attitudes and engagement: Implications for citizenship education projects. European Educational Research Journal, 2(3), 430–445. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2003.2.3.8

Mesa Community College (2024, May). Community and civic engagement. Mesa Community College. Retrieved from, https://www.mesacc.edu/community-civic-engagement

Miller, R. L. (1976). Mere exposure, psychological reactance and attitude change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40(2), 229. https://doi.org/10.1086/268290

Morrell, M. E. (2005). Deliberation, democratic decision-making and internal political efficacy. Political Behavior, 27(1), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-005-3076-7

Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 national election study. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1407–1413. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963953

Nishishiba, M., Nelson, H. T., & Shinn, C. W. (2005). Explicating factors that foster civic engagement among students. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 11(4), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2005.12001402

O’Toole, T., Lister, M., Marsh, D., Jones, S., & McDonagh, A. (2003). Tuning out or left out? Participation and non-participation among young people. Contemporary Politics, 9(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356977032000072477

Owusu-Agyeman, Y., & Fourie-Malherbe, M. (2019). Students as partners in the promotion of civic engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 46(6), 1241–1255. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1666263

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.46.1.69

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135. https://doi.org/10.1086/208954

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion (pp. 1–24). Springer New York.

Petty, R. E., Harkins, S. G., & Williams, K. D. (1980). The effects of group diffusion of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information-processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(1), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.38.1.81

Petty, R. E., Schumann, D. W., Richman, S. A., & Strathman, A. J. (1993). Positive mood and persuasion: Different roles for affect under high- and low-elaboration conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.64.1.5

Pickard, S. (2022). Young environmental activists and do-it-ourselves (DIO) politics: collective engagement, generational agency, efficacy, belonging and hope. Journal of Youth Studies, 25(6), 730–750. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2022.2046258

Popkin, S.L., & Dimock, M. A. (1999). Political knowledge and citizen competence. In Stephen L. E., & Karol, S. (Eds.), Citizen competence and democratic institutions (pp. 117–146). University Park, PA: Penn State Press.

Pritzker, S., Springer, M., & McBride, A. (2022). Learning to vote: Informing political participation among college students. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.54656/vnhp5824

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster.

Quintelier, E. (2008). The effect of schools on political participation: A multilevel logistic analysis. Research Papers in Education, 25(2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520802524810

Robert, L., & Dennis, A. R. (2005). Paradox of richness: A cognitive model of media choice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpc.2004.843292

Rock the Vote. (n.d.). Tech for civic engagement. Rock the Vote. Retrieved from, https://www.rockthevote.org/programs-and-partner-resources/tech-for-civic-engagement/

Roth, S., & Saunders, C. (2019). Gender differences in political participation: Comparing street demonstrators in Sweden and the United Kingdom. Sociology, 53(3), 571–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038518803008

Rothstein, R. (2001). Lessons; what produces a voter? seemingly not civics class. New York Times. Retrieved from, https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/11/nyregion/lessons-what-produces-a-voter-seemingly-not-civics-class.html

Rubaii, N. (2006). Let students take the bait before you set the hook. In Perry J.L., & Jones, S.G (Eds.), Quick hits for educating citizens. Indiana University Press (pp. 3–4).

Russell, C. A. (2002). Investigating the effectiveness of product placements in television shows: The role of modality and plot connection congruence on brand memory and attitude. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 306–318. https://doi.org/10.1086/344432

Schizzerotto, A., & G. Gasperoni. (2001). Study on the state of young people and youth policy in Europe. Milan: Istituto di Ricera. Retrieved from, https://www.youthpolicy.org/uploads/documents/2001_Youth_Policy_Europe_Eng.pdf

Schwarz, H. (2018, September 25). There’s a big push in 2018 to get young people to register to vote. CNN Politics. Retrieved from, https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/25/politics/voter-registration-day-millennials-midterms/index.html

Siegel-Stechler, K., Noorya, H, Alberto M, Katie Hi., & Sara S. (2025, March 10). A sense of belonging and a positive school climate are key to building youth political efficacy. Center For Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement. Retrieved from, https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/sense-belonging-and-positive-school-climate-are-key-building-youth-political

Skocpol, T. (2002). Will 9/11 and the war on terror revitalize American civic democracy? PS: Political Science & Politics, 35(3), 537–540. https://doi.org/10.1017/s104909650200080x

Skocpol, T. (2003). Diminished democracy: From membership to management in American civic life. University of Oklahoma.

Skocpol, T., & M. Fiorina, (eds). (1999). Civic engagement in American democracy. Brookings Institution.

Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2020). Taking adolescents’ agency in socialization seriously: The role of appraisals and cognitive‐behavioral responses in autonomy‐relevant parenting. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2020 (173), 7–26. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20370

Stattin, H. (2024). Understanding adolescents’ political agency: Examining how political interest shapes political development. Taylor & Francis.

Stattin, H., & Russo, S. (2022). Youth’s own political interest can explain their political interactions with important others. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 46(4), 297–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254221095843

Stattin, H., Amnå, E., & Russo, S. (2023). Setting societal engagement goals during adolescence amplifies the impacts of political interest on political activities during young adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 47(2), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254221113465

Stiff, J. B., & Mongeau, P. A. (2003). Persuasive communication. 2nd. Guilford.

Stout, M., Fisher, B., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2014). Social media, social capital, and the civic participation of college students. eJournal of Public Affairs.

Strachan, J. C. (2008). Using the classroom to cultivate student support for participation in campus life: The call for civic education interventions. Journal of Political Science Education, 4(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512160701816010

Strama, M. (1998). Overcoming cynicism: Youth participation and electoral politics. National Civic Review, 87 (1), 71–77. doi:10.1002/ncr.87106

Tölken, L. (2017). Influence on Facebook-the effects of Cialdini’s principles of persuasion and persuasive sources on purchase intention and persuasiveness on Facebook [Master’s thesis, University of Twente].

Torney-Purta, J. (2002). The school’s role in developing civic engagement: A study of adolescents in twenty-eight countries. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0604_7

Valentino, N. A., Gregorowicz, K., & Groenendyk, E. W. (2009). Efficacy, emotions and the habit of participation. Political Behavior, 31(3), 307–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9076-7

Walker, T. (2006). Make them pay attention to us: Young voters and the 2004 election. National Civic Review, 95(1), 26–33. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.128

Weeks, W. A., Longenecker, J. G., McKinney, J. A., & Moore, C. W. (2005). The role of mere exposure effect on ethical tolerance: A two-study approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 58(4), 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-2167-4

Willeck, C., & Mendelberg, T. (2022). Education and political participation. Annual Review of Political Science, 25(1), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-014235

Yazdani, N., Hoyt, L. T., Maker Castro, E., & Cohen, A. K. (2022). Sociopolitical influences in early emerging adult college students’ pandemic-related civic engagement. Emerging Adulthood, 10(4), 1041–1047. https://doi.org/10.1177/21676968221098296

Youniss, J., & Yates, M. (1997). Community service and social responsibility in youth. University of Chicago Press.

Author

Daniel Sherrick Apambila is a current graduate student at Illinois State University. He serves as an instructor for the School of Communication. His research areas include workplace communication technology, persuasion, employee engagement, internal public relations, and crisis communication.