Journal of Human Rights and Social Work

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-020-00128-y

Human Rights Attitude and Civic Engagement Behavior

Among University Students
Ilan Kwon 1 & Jaewon Lee 2 & Cristy E. Cummings 3 & Daria P. Shamrova 4 & Catherine A. Macomber 5 & Edita Milanović 6 &
Amanda T. Woodward 1,7 & Anne K. Hughes 1,7

# Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Abstract
Although civic engagement and human rights are critical values in social work education, few empirical studies have explored the
association between civic engagement and human rights exposure and attitudes. This study aims to examine the relationship
between the exposure to human rights information, human rights attitudes, normative beliefs, and civic engagement behaviors
among university students. A total of 214 students at a public university in the Midwest of the United States responded to the
study survey. Findings indicate that students with more exposure to human rights issues showed more civic engagement. This
relationship between human rights exposure and civic engagement was mediated by students’ attitudes toward human rights, but
not moderated by normative beliefs. In addition, students majoring in social work revealed higher civic engagement and more
positive attitudes toward human rights issues than those in other disciplines.

Keywords Human rights education . Civic engagement . Social work education . Attitudes and behaviors

Introduction 2002; Jacoby 2009). Similarly, one of the objectives of social

work education is to enhance students’ commitment to social
Civic engagement, defined as a level of willingness to partic- justice. Civic participation encourages individuals to address
ipate in community activities, is one of the primary goals of community needs, take part in political action aimed at the
higher education in general, and especially of social work public good, and promote a better quality of life for individ-
education in the USA (Doolittle and Faul 2013; Einfeld and uals, groups, and communities (Rome and Hoechstetter
Collins 2008). Higher education aims to heighten college stu- 2010).
dents’ sense of responsibility to their communities (Egerton Civic engagement develops with age and through differ-
ent experiences (Bobek et al. 2009), making it a natural
focus in higher educational settings. Flanagan and Levine
* Ilan Kwon
kwonilan@msu.edu
(2010) argue that the diverse and rich resources at a college
or university provide students with more opportunities to
1
participate in university-community collaborative activi-
Park University, 8700 NW River Park Dr., Parkville, MO 64152,
ties such as joining community groups, volunteering for
USA
2
community development, or engaging in efforts to gain
Inha University, 100 Inha-ro, Michuhol-gu, Incheon 22212, South
civil rights. Through these experiences in a college or uni-
Korea
3
versity setting, students can learn about social issues and
University of North Florida, Skinner-Jones Hall, 1 UNF Dr.,
advocate for social change (Jacoby 2009). Mezirow (1997)
Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
4
accounts for transformative learning among college stu-
Wichita State University, 1845 Fairmount St, Wichita, KS 67260,
dents. When students encounter dilemmas regarding a spe-
USA
5
cific social issue, they are encouraged to use critical think-
Saginaw Valley State University, 7400 Bay Rd., University
ing and questioning to consider whether their underlying
Center, MI 48710, USA
6
belief is accurate. If they determine their original belief
Wayne State University, 5447 Woodward Ave, Detroit, MI 48202,
related to the social issue is unfair, they will change their
USA
7
beliefs and engage in civic behavior to improve the social
Michigan State University, 655 Auditorium Rd., East
problem. The development of civic engagement among
Lansing, MI 48824, USA

university students follows from this mechanism of a trans-
formative education (Adler and Goggin 2005).
Another core concept in social work and higher education
is human rights. Human rights are at the forefront of social
work’s commitment to social justice. Both the NASW Code
of Ethics (National Association of Social Workers 1996;
revised in 2008) and the Educational Policy and
Accreditation Standards (CSWE 2008; revised in 2015) ac-
knowledge that human rights are of fundamental importance
to social work education. However, empirical studies on hu-
man rights are rare in social work education and in higher
education overall in the USA (Barton 2015; McPherson and
Abell 2012; Stellmacher and Sommer 2008; Stellmacher et al.
2005). A large body of previous studies about human rights
awareness, education, and training come from Europe,
Canada, and Australia (Cohrs et al. 2007; Redman et al.
2012; Stellmacher and Sommer 2008; Stellmacher et al.
2005). In the USA, human rights and social justice have oc-
cupied largely distinct normative domains: The theory of hu-
man rights underlines equal public protection against discrim-
ination while the theory of social justice highlights a distribu-
tive equality across political and socioeconomic statuses
(Hibbert 2017). Although US research in recent decades em-
phasizes the importance of the protection of human rights to
promote social justice, many arguments are restrained in po-
litical issues such as the social injustices of racial and sexual
discrimination (Krings et al. 2015; Leong et al. 2017).
This study tries to address this gap and add to our under-
standing of how the concepts of human rights and social civic
engagement are implemented among university students in the
USA. Exposing students to universal human rights issues may
open a window for thinking about the way we teach social
issues in a university setting and increasing university students’
social civic engagement. To the best of our knowledge, this will
be the first empirical study to examine the relationship between
exposure to human rights topics (related to social justice and
social development) and its relationship to improvements in
civic engagement among university students in the USA.
Theoretical Framework
This study uses the theory of planned behavior (TPB) model
(Ajzen 1991) to account for university students’ civic engage-
ment behavior. According to TPB, behaviors are strongly pre-
dicted by behavioral intentions that are determined by three
factors: (1) an individual’s attitude toward a behavior, (2) sub-
jective norms, and (3) perceived behavioral control. Attitude
includes both the individual’s beliefs about the consequences
of the specific behavior and his or her evaluation of positive or
negative outcomes. Subjective norms are assessed by both per-
ceived subjective norms (i.e., an individual’s perception about
the specific behavior) and normative beliefs (i.e., social pres-
sures from significant others to perform or not to perform the
J. Hum. Rights Soc. Work
behavior). Perceived behavioral control indicates the degree to
which the individual perceives that he or she can perform the
behavior. When persons perceive they have control over a par-
ticular behavior, they are more likely to carry out that behavior.
Many empirical studies have supported the TPB as a pow-
erful tool for explaining people’s behavioral change (Ajzen
et al. 2011; Armitage and Conner 2001; Cohrs et al. 2007;
Godin and Kok 1996; Rimal and Real 2005). For example,
female college students who became aware of rape myth or
misinformation on sexual behaviors changed their attitudes
toward rape and expressed their intention to engage in by-
stander intervention when encountering risky and predatory
sexual behaviors in a campus party atmosphere with drinking
(Aronowitz et al. 2012). Among college students, normative
belief such as close friends’ approval of getting drunk or cel-
ebrating binge drinking was one of the influential factors as-
sociated with their binge drinking behaviors (French and
Cooke 2012). With regard to civic engagement, university
students who were aware of the seriousness of community
needs and had a pro-community attitude were more likely to
engage in community service (Hellman et al. 2006).
Based on the TPB framework and previous literature, this
study applies the TPB framework to examine civic engage-
ment among university students. Based on the TPB, we hy-
pothesize that university students who have greater exposure
to human rights knowledge or issues demonstrate a more pos-
itive attitude toward human rights, ultimately increasing their
likelihood to be more civically engaged. In addition, we ex-
pect the relationship between human rights exposure and civic
engagement depends on students’ normative beliefs related to
civic engagement behaviors (Fig. 1).
Literature Review
Civic Engagement
The definition of civic engagement varies among scholars
(Alcantar 2014; Diller 2001; Putnam 2000; Ronan 2004;
Van Benshoten 2001); however, the literature consistently
refers to two manifest aspects of civic engagement: political
participation and social involvement (Ekman and Amnå 2012;
Metzger and Ferris 2013). Political civic engagement is de-
fined as participation in political actions such as voting,
protesting, going to demonstrations, signing petitions, or
working with political organizations while social civic en-
gagement refers to a general tendency to behave responsibly
or participate in social activities to benefit the well-being of
individuals and their communities, such as neighborhood im-
provement, enhancing health services, or religious or spiritual
works (Sherrod et al. 2010).
Literature indicates the low levels of political participation
among college students (Glynn et al. 2009; Niemi and
J. Hum. Rights Soc. Work
Fig. 1 Study variables in the
theory of planned behavior
framework
Hanmer 2010). Although college students generally exhibit
low voter turnout, their voting behavior increases over time
as they form their identities and encounter more social and
political environments (Kiesa et al. 2007; Niemi and
Hanmer 2010; Zukin et al. 2006). Research has found that
when students understand the importance and frequency of
voting among their close friends and family, their intention
to vote also increases (Glynn et al. 2009). Furthermore,
Beaumont et al. (2006) argued a need to examine multiple
dimensions of responsible political engagement among col-
lege students, rather than simply focusing on voting activity.
Their study results revealed that, when given an educational
intervention program that included understanding, skills, and
motivations that support and enhance many forms of active
democratic citizenship, students showed increased political
knowledge and skills. In particular, students with lower levels
of political interest before entering the intervention program
significantly increased their sense of identity as well as their
expectation to participate in political activities. Some recent
studies have indicated that college students’ voter turnout and
political participation have improved due to social networking
and social media use (Baumgartner and Morris 2010; Dalton
2015; Teresi and Michelson 2015; Yang and DeHart 2016).
The literature on social engagement has mainly focused on
the development of civic engagement during young adult-
hood, the period in which individuals develop their sense of
identity and expectations for civic engagement (Amnå 2012;
Bobek et al. 2009; Ojala 2012). Many US universities provide
service-learning programs, including in undergraduate social
work education, to foster students’ abilities to identify com-
munity needs, recognize a wide type of human rights viola-
tions, promote inclusive environments, and engage in respon-
sible activities to meet their community’s needs (Kezar 2002;
Petracchi et al. 2016; Prentice 2007). Literature indicates that
students who participate in service-learning programs show
more personal and social development (Simons and Cleary
2006), more commitment to personal growth and increased
civic responsibility (Einfeld and Collins 2008), and improved
self-efficacy as well as intentions to take part in future civic
engagement (Knapp et al. 2010). Among minority university
students, diverse campus experiences that include freedom of
expression, academic engagement, or cultural identity devel-
opment were associated with their civic engagement develop-
ment (Wray-Lake et al. 2017).
Human Rights
Although the NASW Code of Ethics (NASW 1996; revised in
2008) specifies human rights as a core value of professional
social work practice, it does not provide an explicit definition
of human rights. Instead, it implies the importance of human
rights as the means to promote social justice. Similar to civic
engagement, the concept of human rights can be defined in
several ways. According to the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), human rights
refers to the protection of an equal chance or the prevention
of discrimination, regardless of nationality, place of residence,
sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any
other status (OHCHR 2015). Arvan (2012) considered the
concept of human rights to be a matter of justice and insisted
on differentiating domestic human rights from international
ones. Meanwhile, George (1999) suggested that human rights
are intrinsically linked with concepts such as moral rights as
equal to human worth or respect. Common across definitions
is the notion that human rights are the ultimate means of
preventing the oppression and abuse of privilege, providing
respect for cultural diversity, and pursuing social justice (Chen
et al. 2013).
The literature suggests that higher levels of education are
associated with more positive attitudes toward both human
rights (Barrows 1981) and civic engagement (Putnam 2000),
particularly when an aspect of that education includes formal

content related to civic engagement skills (Torney-Purta
2002) and social justice (Mayhew and Fernández 2007).
Students who learned this type of content paid more attention
to political issues and participated more in community activ-
ities (Torney-Purta 2002); they were better able to compre-
hend and analyze issues of social justice within their society
(Mayhew and Fernández 2007). Increased awareness of hu-
man rights violations and social injustice can accelerate col-
lege students’ attitudinal and behavioral changes toward civic
engagement. Literature has revealed the positive associations
between a greater awareness of inequality issues or commu-
nity needs and more frequent community engagement
(Hellman et al. 2006); between consciousness of inequality
toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) indi-
viduals and more participation in collective action on behalf of
the LGBT movement (Swank et al. 2012); and between
awareness of socially marginalized groups and advocating
for their human rights (Crowson et al. 2013).
Normative Beliefs
Normative beliefs play an important role when people assess
individuals’ behaviors and attitudes against nonstandard or
undesirable actions, or in shaping social norms (Sanyal
2009). Literature demonstrates the influence of normative be-
liefs among university students in relation to drinking behav-
iors (Mollen et al. 2013), seeking help from professional men-
tal health care services (Barksdale and Molock 2009), and
participation in diverse experiences (Bowman 2011).
Regarding civic engagement, normative beliefs are also
influential on college students in that the perception of civic
engagement can develop and change through their relation-
ships with parents, peers, and significant others (Fletcher et al.
2000; Pancer et al. 2007). For example, students who fre-
quently shared activities with their parents and had strong
connections to school or other community contexts were more
likely to be involved in voting, community volunteer services,
and social groups and were more likely to show endorsement
of civic trust in young adulthood than those with weak family
or social connections (Duke et al. 2009). Some college stu-
dents reported that they decided to volunteer because their
friends or family members asked them to do volunteering
for community services (Hyde and Knowles 2013). Students
with significant others who approved of pro-environmental
behaviors were more involved in conservation efforts
(Göckeritz et al. 2010). These studies support the important
influence of normative beliefs on university students’ civic
engagement behaviors.
Study Purpose
Figure 2 depicts the study model. This study hypothesizes that
(i) exposure to human rights is associated with civic
J. Hum. Rights Soc. Work
engagement; (ii) the relationship between human rights expo-
sure and civic engagement is mediated by attitudes toward
human rights; and (iii) the impact of human rights exposure
on civic engagement is moderated by normative beliefs. The
specific research questions are as follows: (1) What is the
relationship between exposure to human rights and civic en-
gagement? (2) Is there a mechanism that accounts for the
pathway from human rights exposure to civic engagement?
What is the role of attitudes toward human rights in the rela-
tionship between human rights exposure and civic engage-
ment among university students? and (3) How do normative
beliefs affect the association between exposure to human
rights and civic engagement among university students?
Methods
Participants
Participants in this study are junior and senior undergraduate
and graduate students randomly selected from the college of
social science at a public university in the Midwest. A power
analysis was used to determine an appropriate sample size
(Custom Insight 2015). To achieve an expected sample size
of 363 students with a response rate of 25% (Aday and
Cornelius 2006), 1452 social science students were randomly
selected through the University Registrar’s office and sent an
online survey via the Registrar’s mailing list. A total of 214
responses were collected (15% response rate).
The age of the respondents ranged from 18 to 59 years old,
with an average age of 25.5 years. The majority of the survey
respondents were women (66.2%), Whites (70.5%), and un-
dergraduates (63.1%): Compared with the university popula-
tion that were comprised of 50.6% of women, 75.8% of
Whites, and 78.6% of undergraduates, more female and grad-
uate students were at the college of social sciences. Among
214 social science majors, social work comprised the largest
group of students in this sample (21.5%). Students were asked
to report income adequacy during their childhood years: 10%
reported surplus, 62% had adequate income, and 28% report-
ed economic challenges or income insufficiency.
Research Design
This study utilized a cross-sectional research design with a
convenience non-random sample of university students
majoring in social sciences (Dillman et al. 2014). After com-
pleting the survey revision and receiving IRB approval, the
survey data was collected for one month at the beginning of
the 2015 Fall semester using an online survey tool, Survey
Monkey. The study sample was randomly selected via the
registrar’s office, and then sent two emails: an invitation email
to participate in the online survey and a reminder email two
J. Hum. Rights Soc. Work
(2)
Human Rights Attitude
(1)
Human Rights Exposure
Normative Belief
Fig. 2 The study model
weeks later. The email contained a brief introduction to the
study, the consent form, the web link to the online survey, and
information about an opportunity to be entered into a drawing
for a $50 Amazon gift card upon completion of the survey.
Participants who provided contact information were entered
into a drawing for one of ten gift cards.
Measures
Civic Engagement The 14-item Civic Engagement Survey
(CES) (Doolittle and Faul 2013) consists of two factor-
derived subscales that measure civic engagement attitudes (8
items) and civic engagement behaviors (6 items). The attitude
subscale contains items such as “I feel responsible for my
community” and “I believe that it is important to volunteer”;
the behavior subscale includes statements like “I help mem-
bers of my community” and “When working with others, I
make positive changes in the community.” Each item was
rated on a 7-point Likert scale (i.e., 1 = strongly disagree
and 7 = strongly agree for attitude, 1 = never and 7 = always
for behavior). The mean score of the full scale was used, with
a higher score indicating greater civic engagement attitudes
and behaviors. Cronbach’s alpha in the original study tested
with 354 undergraduate students in the USA was between .85
and .91 (Doolittle and Faul 2013). In this study sample,
Cronbach’s alpha was .93 for the whole scale.
Human Rights Exposure and Attitudes This study adapted
McPherson and Abell’s measure of human rights
(McPherson and Abell 2012) based on a definition of human
rights exposure as the “reported experience and education
Civic Engagement
(3)
related to human rights principles” (McPherson and Abell
2012, p. 705).The original scale, Human Rights Exposure
and Engagement in Social Work (HRXESW), consists of
two subscales of human rights: Human Rights Exposure in
Social Work (HRXSW) with 11 items and Human Rights
Engagement in Social Work (HRESW) with 25 items.
The Human Rights Exposure in Social Work (HRXESW)
subscale was used to assess the degree to which students are
exposed to human rights issues. Some modifications were
made to the original survey instrument, with the authors’ per-
mission, to make it suitable for university students majoring in
social sciences rather than only social work students. In par-
ticular, some of the wording was changed and one item only
relevant to social work students was dropped. The revised
scale includes items such as “My program curriculum covered
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” “Social science
has been a good way for me to learn about human rights,” and
“I have heard or read about social and cultural rights.” Each
item was rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). The mean score was used for analysis with a higher
score indicating more exposure to human rights issues.
Cronbach’s alpha of this revised measure was .79.
The Human Rights Engagement in Social Work (HRESW)
subscale was used to measure human rights attitudes.
Although titled human rights engagement, the content of this
subscale aligns well with the elements of human rights atti-
tudes discussed in the literature (Diaz-Veizades et al. 1995).
The original scale includes 25 items, such as “I approve of
social change, particularly on behalf of victims of discrimina-
tion and oppression,” “It is unethical for violations of an indi-
vidual’s human rights to be ignored,” and “I believe anyone

who lacks access to food, clothing, housing, or medical care,
should be helped as a matter of basic human rights.” With the
authors’ permission, two items specific to social work stu-
dents were deleted and the term “social work” was modified
to either “social science” or “your program” where appropri-
ate. Each item was scored from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 =
strongly agree. Three items (i.e., “Sometimes torture is nec-
essary to protect national security,” “Poverty is not a human
rights issue,” and “Health care is not a basic human right”)
were reversed coded before calculating the mean score. A
higher score indicates a more positive attitude toward human
rights. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for these revised 23 items
was .95.
Normative Beliefs Normative beliefs in this study refer to the
influence of individuals significant to the students on their
attitudes toward and participation in civic engagement. The
authors created a measure of normative beliefs, based on the
constructs and principles of the theory of planned behavior
model (Ajzen 1991, 2002; Fishbein and Ajzen 2010) and six
civic engagement behaviors identified in the CES. There are
two questions for each behavior. The first question asks what
others would like the respondent to do (i.e., “People who are
important to me want me to be involved in structured volun-
teer positions in the community”), and the second examines
what others do (i.e., “Most people who are important to me are
involved in structured volunteer positions in the community”).
Each item was rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The mean score was used in
data analysis with a higher score indicating a more positive
normative beliefs toward civic engagement. Although the va-
lidity of this new measure was not high (χ2 = 2743.027,
CFI = 0.723, TLI = 0.656, SRMR = 0.076), the reliability of
the measure with 12 items was pretty high (α = .93).
Demographics Age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, edu-
cation level, and social science major were included as control
variables. Age was included as a continuous variable.
Socioeconomic status was a three-category variable based
on the following question: “While you were growing up, did
you feel a) your family was economically challenged, b) your
family had adequate income, or c) your family had surplus
income?”. Gender, race, and education level were dichoto-
mous variables (i.e., woman = 1 versus man = 0; White = 1
versus non-White = 0; and undergraduate student = 1 versus
graduate student = 0). Social science major was dichotomized
to compare students in social work versus other majors.
Analysis
The statistical program SPSS 22 was used for data analyses.
Missing data was examined using the missing values analysis
procedures. Ten cases in which all data was missing were
J. Hum. Rights Soc. Work
dropped from the analyses. Individual variables had from 5
to 20% of data missing. Little’s MCAR chi-square was sig-
nificant (χ2 = 163.160, df = 36, p = 0.00), indicating that data
was not missing completely at random, and imputation was
justified. Missing data items were imputed using the fully
conditional specification in which missing values are sequen-
tially imputed from the first value with missing values. Five
imputed datasets were created, and the pooled data was used
for subsequent analyses.
Descriptive data analyses were conducted for all demo-
graphic characteristics and study variables. Multivariate linear
regression was conducted to examine the relationship between
human rights exposure and civic engagement controlling for
all other variables. The mediation effect of human rights atti-
tude on the relationship between human rights exposure and
civic engagement was tested using the Sobel-Goodman test of
significance (Baron and Kenny 1986; Sobel Test Calculator
for the Significance of Mediation n.d.). Finally, the interaction
of human rights exposure and normative beliefs was included
to examine the moderating effects of normative beliefs. To
minimize the potential of multicollinearity, the centered score
of these two predictors was used to generate the interaction
term.
Results
Table 1 displays the characteristics of this study sample and
the bivariate relationships across study variables. Female stu-
dents showed higher scores than men on civic engagement,
human rights attitude, and normative beliefs. Graduate stu-
dents tended to have more positive attitudes toward human
rights issues than undergraduate students. In addition, students
majoring in social work reported higher civic engagement and
more positive attitudes toward human rights issues than stu-
dents in other social science majors.
In multivariate analyses, more human rights exposure is
associated with higher levels of civic engagement (β = .259,
t = 3.557, p = .000). Gender is the only other variable associ-
ated with civic engagement with women reporting more civic
engagement than men (β = .397, t = 2.811, p = .005) (Table 2).
In addition, the relationship between human rights expo-
sure and civic engagement was fully mediated by human
rights attitudes (Fig. 3). When human rights attitude was in-
cluded in the model, the direct effect of human rights exposure
on civic engagement became non-significant (β = .103,
p = .178) whereas the effect of human rights attitude on civic
engagement was still significant (β = .398, p = .000). This in-
dicates that the positive relationship between human rights
exposure and civic engagement is attributed to changes in
attitudes that occur with more exposure. The Sobel test result
confirmed the mediating role of human rights attitude in the
relationship (Z = 4.371, p = .000) with the mediating effect
J. Hum. Rights Soc. Work

Table 1 Descriptive and bivariate results of each study variable by the sample characteristics (N = 214)

na % Civic engagement Human rights exposure Human rights attitude Normative belief

M SD F M SD F M SD F M SD F

Gender
Woman 141 66.2 5.55 0.852 10.00** 4.64 0.863 0.054 6.07 0.753 18.11*** 5.06 0.996 5.56*
Man 72 32.8 5.10 0.986 4.61 1.036 5.51 0.974 4.69 1.089
Race
White 158 70.5 5.37 0.883 0.584 4.62 0.900 0.016 5.89 0.883 .041 4.94 0.971 0.000
Non-White 66 29.5 5.50 1.053 4.64 0.991 5.86 0.838 4.94 1.242
SES
Challenged 60 28.0 5.41 0.817 0.011 4.63 0.980 0.019 5.96 0.821 .904 4.95 1.071 0.021
Adequate 133 62.1 5.39 0.976 4.63 0.931 5.89 0.900 4.93 1.018
Surplus 21 9.8 5.37 0.880 4.59 0.698 5.65 0.819 4.97 1.119
Education level
Undergraduate 135 63.1 5.29 0.901 3.596 4.58 0.941 0.785 5.78 0.902 4.091* 4.93 1.071 0.008
Graduate 79 36.9 5.55 0.935 4.70 0.887 6.04 0.803 4.95 0.991
Major
Social work 46 21.5 5.74 0.697 7.694** 4.86 0.720 3.692 6.25 0.505 9.831** 4.97 1.010 0.044
Others 168 78.5 5.29 0.958 4.56 0.963 5.77 0.926 4.93 1.023
M SD r
Age 25.49 7.35 .117 .136 .146 − .015
a
The imputed sample sizes varied in variables due to missing data
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 2 Linear regression results between human rights exposure and

civic engagement explaining approximately 70% of the relationship (Baron and
Unstandardized β t p Kenny 1986).
Finally, while the main effect of normative beliefs on civic
Age − .001 − .069 engagement was significant (β = .622, t = 10.813, p = .000)
.-
(Table 3), normative beliefs do not significantly moderate
945
the effect of human rights exposure on civic engagement
Woman .397 2.811
.- (β = .068, t = 1.367, p = .172).
005
White − .196 − 1.222
.-
222 Discussion
SES
Adequate income − .033 − .218 The first hypothesis of this study—that US university students
.- who are more exposed to human rights knowledge and infor-
827 mation will be more involved in civic engagement—was sup-
Surplus income − .009 − .037 ported. This is consistent with literature indicating the mech-
.-
970
anism of information-motivation-behavioral change
Undergraduate − .101 − .577
(Aronowitz et al. 2012; Cohrs et al. 2007; Fisher et al. 2003)
.- and with research suggesting that social work students ex-
564 posed to human rights issues (e.g., genocide or mass violence)
Major in social work .252 1.334 increased their knowledge about human rights and participat-
.- ed more in community engagement (McPherson and
182
Cheatham 2015). This finding reinforces the pedagogical val-
Human rights exposure (HRX) .259 3.557
ue of educating students about good citizenship and commu-
.-
000 nity development in higher education (Jacoby 2009) and the
call for human rights to be spotlighted more in social work
 J. Hum. Rights Soc. Work

Fig. 3 The mediating effect of

human rights attitude

education (CSWE 2008; Hertel et al. 2009; McPherson and was not significant, but that subjective norms indirectly influ-
Abell 2012; McPherson and Mazza 2014; McPherson and enced intention through attitudes. This implies a different pro-
Cheatham 2015). cess than that proposed by the TPB where attitudes and sub-
The second hypothesis was also supported—human rights jective norms each influences intentions directly and separate-
attitudes mediated the relationship between human rights ex- ly. Our results indicate that normative beliefs directly influ-
posure and civic engagement. Within the TPB framework, the ence civic engagement. In addition, students majoring in so-
results support a transformative learning process in which a cial work participated more in civic engagement activities and
behavioral change follows knowledge acquisition and a reported more positive human rights attitudes, although they
change in attitude. Specifically, it is necessary to be exposed did not report significantly more normative beliefs compared
to human rights knowledge to affect an attitude change and with other majors. It is possible that the nature of social work
participation in civic engagement. This finding further empha- education, including the course work and field experiences,
sizes the important role of universities in providing curricula does more to shape human rights attitudes than that of other
or classes addressing human rights and suggests there is value majors. It is also possible that students enter social work be-
in a variety of programs and curricula that increase exposure, cause they already have positive human rights attitudes and
not just service-learning opportunities. are involved in more civic engagement.
The third hypothesis was not supported. University stu- Of additional interest is that female students were more
dents’ civic engagement was predicted by their levels of hu- associated with civic engagement than male students.
man rights exposure and normative beliefs separately, but Some studies indicate that young men are more engaged
normative beliefs did not moderate the effect of exposure. It in political civic engagement such as voting, while young
is possible that normative beliefs act as a mediator rather than women tend to participate more in social engagement
a moderator. For example, Chang (1998) found that the direct such as volunteering (Marcelo et al. 2007; Rozario
effect of a subjective norm on the intention to copy software 2006). In this study, the effects of gender and human
rights exposure were no longer significant when norma-
tive belief was added to the model. This suggests that the
Table 3 Regression results of the moderating effect of normative belief effect of gender on civic engagement might be driven by
in the relationship between human rights exposure and civic engagement gender differences in human rights exposure and norma-
tive beliefs. Women generally reported more positive hu-
Unstandardized β t p
man rights attitudes and more normative beliefs than men.
Age .007 .844 .399 In addition, social work students are predominantly wom-
Woman .176 1.586 .113 an. According to Weerts, Cabrera, and Mejias’s study
White − .171 − 1.378 .168 (Weerts et al. 2014), college students who were on the
SES forefront of leadership, policymaking, and service on
Adequate income .003 .023 .982 and off campus were more likely to engage in multiple
Surplus income .009 .051 .959 civic and pro-social behaviors and have the social change
Undergraduate − .060 − .445 .656 paradigm that would seek to change social systems to
Major in social work .296 2.036 .042 address long-term problems. These characteristics are
Human rights exposure (HRX) − .012 − .188 .851 consistent with goals of social work education, which
Normative belief (NB) .622 10.813 .000 might be the reason why social work students showed
HRX × NB .068 1.367 .172 more civically engaged than those in other majors.
Understanding the relationships between attitudes, civic
J. Hum. Rights Soc. Work
engagement, normative beliefs and gender differences in
choice of major is beyond the scope of this study, but it is
worth further consideration.
Findings of this study need to be interpreted in several
limitations. First, the study used a convenience sample of so-
cial science students at a Midwest university in the USA.
Since the majority of the study sample was White and female,
further research should have a nationwide sample that takes
race/ethnicity into consideration. In addition, this model was
tested at one university. Students on other campuses may en-
counter very different opportunities to develop civic skills,
interests, and confidence (Kiesa et al. 2007), so it is question-
able whether these results would be the same at universities
offering either fewer or more opportunities for civic engage-
ment. Next, individual variation could exist since when and
how students were exposed to human rights knowledge were
not considered. Finally, the measures used in this study were
newly developed or modified to answer the research ques-
tions. In particular, a lack of psychometric testing of the mea-
sures normative beliefs could be the result of limited findings.
More studies will require to support the validity and reliability
of the measures.
Conclusion
This study is worthwhile as one of a small body of empirical
research examining the relationship between human rights and
civic engagement, both of which are substantially important in
social work education. The study results imply the importance of
environmental contexts in higher education and social work ed-
ucation at a university setting. The primary tasks will be the
curriculum development of human rights and the growth of so-
cial activities that university students can be aware of human
rights issues. Increased awareness and knowledge of social prob-
lems against human rights can change students’ attitude toward
human rights and make them pay more attention to the commu-
nity engagement to make a better society. Especially in the social
work program, systematic advocation such as the inclusion of
human rights as a CSWE mandate curriculum or as a part of
NASW Code of Ethics is encouraging.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no competing
interests.
References
Aday, L., & Cornelius, L. J. (2006). Designing and conducting health
surveys: a comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Adler, R. P., & Goggin, J. (2005). What do we mean by “civic engage-
ment”? Journal of Transformative Education, 3(3), 236–253.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: conceptual and
methodological considerations [PDF document]. Retrieved from
http://chuang.epage.au.edu.tw/ezfiles/168/1168/attach
Ajzen, I., Joyce, N., Shelkh, S., & Cote, N. G. (2011). Knowledge and the
prediction of behavior: the role of information accuracy and the
theory of planned behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
33(2), 101–117.
Alcantar, C. M. (2014). Civic engagement measures for Latina/o univer-
sity students. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2013(158),
23–35.
Amnå, E. (2012). How is civic engagement developed over time?
Emerging answers from a multidisciplinary field. Journal of
Adolescence, 35(3), 611–627.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned
behavior: a meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 40(4), 471–499.
Aronowitz, T., Lambert, C. A., & Davidoff, S. (2012). The role of rape
myth acceptance in the social norms regarding sexual behavior
among college students. Journal of Community Health Nursing,
29(3), 173–182.
Arvan, M. (2012). Reconceptualizing human rights. Journal of Global
Ethics, 8(1), 91–105.
Barksdale, C. L., & Molock, S. D. (2009). Perceived norms and mental
health help seeking among African American college students. The
Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 36(3), 285–299.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator variable distinction
in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51(6), 1173–1182.
Barrows, T. S. (1981). College students’ knowledge and beliefs: a survey
of global understanding. New Rochelle: Change Magazine Press.
Barton, K. C. (2015). Young adolescents’ positioning of human rights:
findings from Columbia, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland and
the United States. Research in Comparative and International
Education, 10(1), 48–70.
Baumgartner, J. C., & Morris, J. S. (2010). MyFaceTube politics: social
networking web sites and political engagement of young adults.
Social Science Computer Review, 28(1), 24–44.
Beaumont, E., Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., & Torney-Purta, J. (2006).
Promoting political competence and engagement in college stu-
dents: an empirical study. Journal of Political Science Education,
2(3), 249–270.
Bobek, D., Zaff, J., Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). Cognitive, emotional,
and behavioral components of civic action: towards an integrated
measure of civic engagement. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 30(5), 615–627.
Bowman, N. A. (2011). Promoting participation in a diverse democracy a
meta-analysis of university diversity experiences and civic engage-
ment. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 29–68.
Chang, M. K. (1998). Predicting unethical behavior: a comparison of the
theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior.
Journal of Business Ethics, 17(16), 1825–1834.
Chen, H., Thag, I., & Liu, P. (2013). Framing human rights and cultural
diversity training in social work classrooms-the case of female mar-
riage immigrants in Taiwan. Journal of Women and Social Work,
28(4), 429–439.
Cohrs, J. C., Maes, J., Moschner, B., & Kielmann, S. (2007).
Determinants of human rights attitudes and behavior: a comparison
and integration of psychological perspectives. Political Psychology,
28(4), 441–470.

Council on Social Work Education (2008, revised in 2015). Education
policy and accreditation standards. Retrieved from http://www.
cswe.org/File.aspx?id=13780
Crowson, H. M., Brandes, J. A., & Hurst, R. J. (2013). Who opposes
rights for persons with physical and intellectual disabilities? Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 43(S2), E307–E318.
Custom Insight (2015). Survey random sample calculator [Software].
Available from http://www.custominsight.com/articles/random-
sample-calculator.asp
Dalton, R. J. (2015). The good citizen: how a younger generation is
reshaping American politics. Thousand Oaks: CQ press.
Diaz-Veizades, J., Widaman, K. F., Little, T. D., & Gibbs, K. W. (1995).
The measurement and structure of human rights attitudes. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 135(3), 313–328.
Diller, E. C. (2001). Citizens in service: the challenge of delivering civic
engagement training to national service programs. Washington,
DC: Corporation for National and Community Service.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone,
mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method (4th ed.).
Hoboken: Wiley.
Doolittle, A., & Faul, A. C. (2013). Civic engagement scale: a validation
study. SAGE Open, 3(3), 1–7.
Duke, N. N., Skay, C. L., Pettingell, S. L., & Borowsky, I. W. (2009).
From adolescent connections to social capital: predictors of civic
engagement in young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health,
44(2), 161–168.
Egerton, M. (2002). Higher education and civic engagement. The British
Journal of Sociology, 53(4), 603–620.
Einfeld, A., & Collins, D. (2008). The relationships between service-
learning, social justice, multicultural competence, and civic engage-
ment. Journal of University Student Development, 49(2), 95–109.
Ekman, J., & Amnå, E. (2012). Political participation and civic engage-
ment: towards a new typology. Human Affairs, 22(3), 283–300.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: the
reasoned action approach. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Fisher, W. A., Fisher, J. D., & Harman, J. (2003). The information-
motivation-behavioral skills model: a general social psychological
approach to understanding and promoting health behavior. Social
Psychological Foundations of Health and Illness, 22, 82–106.
Flanagan, C., & Levine, P. (2010). Civic engagement and the transition to
adulthood. The Future of Children, 20(1), 159–179.
Fletcher, A. C., Elder, G. H. J., & Mekos, D. (2000). Parental influences
on adolescent involvement in community activities. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 10(1), 29–48.
French, D. P., & Cooke, R. (2012). Using the theory of planned behaviour
to understand binge drinking: the importance of beliefs for develop-
ing interventions. British Journal of Health Psychology, 17(1), 1–
17.
George, J. (1999). Conceptual muddle, practical dilemma human rights,
social development and social work education. International Social
Work, 42(1), 15–26.
Glynn, C. J., Huge, M. E., & Lunney, C. A. (2009). The influence of
perceived social norms on college students’ intention to vote.
Political Communication, 26(1), 48–64.
Göckeritz, S., Schultz, P. W., Rendón, T., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N.
J., & Griskevicius, V. (2010). Descriptive normative beliefs and
conservation behavior: the moderating roles of personal involve-
ment and injunctive normative beliefs. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 40(3), 514–523.
Godin, G., & Kok, G. (1996). The theory of planned behavior: a review of
its applications to health-related behaviors. American Journal of
Health Promotion, 11(2), 87–98.
Hellman, C. M., Hoppes, S., & Ellison, G. C. (2006). Factors associated
with college student intent to engage in community service. The
Journal of Psychology, 140(1), 29–39.
J. Hum. Rights Soc. Work
Hertel, S., Scruggs, L., & Heidkamp, C. P. (2009). Human rights and
public opinion: from attitudes to action. Political Science Quarterly,
124(3), 443–459.
Hibbert, N. (2017). Human rights and social justice. Law, MDPI, Open
Access Journal, 6(2), 1–16.
Hyde, M. K., & Knowles, S. R. (2013). What predicts Australian univer-
sity students’ intentions to volunteer their time for community ser-
vice? Australian Journal of Psychology, 65(3), 135–145.
Jacoby, B. (2009). Civic engagement in today’s higher education: an
overview. Civic Engagement in Higher Education: Concepts and
Practices (pp. 5–30).
Kezar, A. (2002). Assessing community service learning: are we identi-
fying the right outcomes? About Campus, 7(2), 14–20.
Kiesa, A., Orlowski, A. P., Levine, P., Both, D., Kirby, E. H., Lopez, M.
H., & Marcelo, K. B. (2007). Millennials talk politics: a study of
university student political engagement. Center for Information and
Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE). Retrieved
from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED498899.pdf.
Knapp, T., Fisher, B., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2010). Service-learning’s
impact on university students’ commitment to future civic engage-
ment, self-efficacy, and social empowerment. Journal of
Community Practice, 18(2–3), 233–251.
Krings, A., Austic, E. A., Gutiérrez, L. M., & Dirksen, K. E. (2015). The
comparative impacts of social justice educational methods on polit-
ical participation, civic engagement, and multicultural activism.
Equity & Excellence in Education, 48(3), 403–417.
Leong, F. T., Pickren, W. E., & Vasquez, M. J. (2017). APA efforts in
promoting human rights and social justice. American Psychologist,
72(8), 778–790.
Marcelo, K. B., Lopez, M. H., & Kirby, E. H. (2007). Civic engagement
among young men and women. In Center for Information and
Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE).
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED495763.pdf.
Mayhew, M. J., & Fernández, S. D. (2007). Pedagogical practices that
contribute to social justice outcomes. The Review of Higher
Education, 31(1), 55–80.
McPherson, J., & Abell, N. (2012). Human rights engagement and expo-
sure in social work: new scales to challenge social work education.
Research in Social Work Practice, 22(6), 704–713.
McPherson, J., & Cheatham, L. P. (2015). One Million Bones: measuring
the effect of human rights participation in the social work classroom.
Journal of Social Work Education, 51(1), 47–57.
McPherson, J., & Mazza, N. (2014). Using arts activism and poetry to
catalyze human rights engagement and reflection. Social Work
Education, 33(7), 944–958.
Metzger, A., & Ferris, K. (2013). Adolescents’ domain-specific judg-
ments about different forms of civic involvement: variations by
age and gender. Journal of Adolescence, 36(3), 529–538.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: theory to practice. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5–12.
Mollen, S., Rimal, R. N., Ruiter, R. A., Jang, S. A., & Kok, G. (2013).
Intervening or interfering? The influence of injunctive and descrip-
tive norms on intervention behaviors in alcohol consumption con-
texts. Psychology & Health, 28(5), 561–578.
National Association of Social Workers (1996; Revised in 2008). Code of
Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/
code.asp
Niemi, R. G., & Hanmer, M. J. (2010). Voter turnout among college
students: new data and a rethinking of traditional theories. Social
Science Quarterly, 91(2), 301–323.
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2015). Human
rights. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/
WhatareHumanRights.aspx.
Ojala, M. (2012). Hope and climate change: the importance of hope for
environmental engagement among young people. Environmental
Education Research, 18(5), 625–642.
J. Hum. Rights Soc. Work
Pancer, M. S., Pratt, M., Hunsberger, B., & Alisat, S. (2007). Community
and political involvement in adolescence: what distinguishes the
activists from the uninvolved? Journal of Community Psychology,
35(6), 741–759.
Petracchi, H. E., Weaver, A., Schelbe, L., & Song, H. A. (2016). Service
learning in baccalaureate social work education: results of a national
survey of accredited programs. Journal of Social Work Education,
52(3), 325–336.
Prentice, M. (2007). Service learning and civic engagement. Academic
Questions, 20(2), 135–145.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American
community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Redman, M., Taylor, E., Furlong, R., Carney, G., & Greenhill, B. (2012).
Human rights training: impact on attitudes and knowledge. Tizard
Learning Disability Review, 17(2), 80–87.
Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2005). How behaviors are influenced by per-
ceived norms a test of the theory of normative social behavior.
Communication Research, 32(3), 389–414.
Rome, S. H., & Hoechstetter, S. (2010). Social work and civic engage-
ment: the political participation of professional social workers.
Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 37(3), 107–129.
Ronan, B. (2004). Testimony at the White House conference on aging
public forum on civic engagement in an older America. 25 February
2004, Phoenix, Arizona.
Rozario, P. (2006). Volunteering among current cohorts of older adults
and baby boomers. Generations, 30(4), 31–36.
Sanyal, P. (2009). From credit to collective action: the role of
microfinance in promoting women’s social capital and normative
influence. American Sociological Review, 74(4), 529–550.
Sherrod, L. R., Torney-Purta, J., & Flanagan, C. A. (2010). Handbook of
research on civic engagement in youth. Hoboken: Wiley.
Simons, L., & Cleary, B. (2006). The influence of service learning on
students’ personal and social development. University Teaching,
54(4), 307–319.
Sobel Test Calculator for the Significance of Mediation. Retrieved from
http://danielsoper.com/statcalc3/calc.aspx?id=31
Stellmacher, J., & Sommer, G. (2008). Human rights education: an eval-
uation of university seminars. Social Psychology, 39(1), 70–80.
Stellmacher, J., Sommer, G., & Brahler, E. (2005). The cognitive repre-
sentation of human rights: knowledge, importance, and commit-
ment. Peace and Conflict, 11(3), 267–292.
Swank, E., Frost, D. M., & Fahs, B. (2012). Rural location and exposure
to minority stress among sexual minorities in the United States.
Psychology & Sexuality, 3(3), 226–243.
Teresi, H., & Michelson, M. R. (2015). Wired to mobilize: the effect of
social networking messages on voter turnout. The Social Science
Journal, 52(2), 195–204.
Torney-Purta, J. (2002). The school’s role in developing civic engage-
ment: a study of adolescents in twenty-eight countries. Applied
Developmental Science, 6(4), 203–212.
Van Benshoten, E. (2001). Civic engagement for people of all ages
through national service. Unpublished manuscript.
Weerts, D. J., Cabrera, A. F., & Mejías, P. P. (2014). Uncovering cate-
gories of civically engaged college students: a latent class analysis.
The Review of Higher Education, 37(2), 141–168.
Wray-Lake, L., Tang, J., & Victorino, C. (2017). Are they political?
Examining Asian American college students’ civic engagement.
Asian American Journal of Psychology, 8(1), 31–42.
Yang, H. C., & DeHart, J. L. (2016). Social media use and online political
participation among college students during the US election 2012.
Social Media+ Society, 2(1), 2056305115623802.
Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K., & Carpini, M. X. D.
(2006). A new engagement?: Political participation, civic life, and
the changing American citizen. New York: Oxford University Press.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.