Social media and political participation: the role of social psychological and social media variables
Published:
Dec 15, 2018
Keywords:
social media use political participation presumed social media influence social media political use political identification political self-efficacy
Abstract
Is social media use related to political participation? Andhow does social media use interact with social psychological variables in predicting political participation?Asurvey study (N= 238) examined the relationships among social psychological variables (political identification, political self-efficacy), social media variables (social media use, presumed social media influence) and political participation. Results showed that presumed social media influence and social media political use predicted political participation, while general social media use motives (e.g.,fun-social, escapism, utilitarian) did not.Political identification and political self-efficacy had both direct and indirect (through social media variables) effects on political participation. A structural equation model provided corroborating evidence to these relationships, suggesting a complementary and mediational function of social media in predicting political participation.
Article Details
- How to Cite
-
Gardikiotis, A., Navrozidou, E., & Euaggelou-Navarro, O. (2018). Social media and political participation: the role of social psychological and social media variables. Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 23(2), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.12681/psy_hps.22601
- Issue
- Vol. 23 No. 2 (2018)
- Section
- SPECIAL SECTION
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The journal PSYCHOLOGY adopts a Platinum open-access policy. Submission, processing or publication costs are waived by the Hellenic Psychological Society. Papers published in the journal PSYCHOLOGY are licensed under a 'Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International' licence. The authors reserve the copyright of their work and grant the journal the right of its first publication. Third-party licensees are allowed to use the published paper immediately after publication as they wish, provided they retain the defined by the license copyright formalities, regarding the reference to its author(s) and its initial publication in the journal PSYCHOLOGY. Moreover, any adjusted work should be shared under the same reuse rights, so with the same CC license.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude–behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.
Bandura, A.(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 52, 1–26.
Bekkers, V., Beunders, H., Edwards, A., & Moody, R. (2011). New media, micromobilization, and political agenda setting: Crossover effects in political mobilization and media usage. Information Society, 27, 209-219.
Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2011). Digital media and the personalization of collective action: Social technology and the organization of protests against the global economic crisis. Information, Communication & Society, 14, 770-799.
Buettner, R., &Buettner, K. (2016). A systematic literature review of Twitter research from a socio-political revolution perspective. In HICSS-49 Proceedings: 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2206-2215. Kauai, Hawaii
Bumgarner, B. A. (2007). You have been poked: Exploring the uses and gratifications of Facebook among emerging adults. First Monday, 12 (11). Retrieved from <http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2026/1897>.
Burns, N., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (2001). The private roots of public action: Gender, equality, and political participation. London: Harvard University Press.
Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., Capanna, C., & Mebane, M. (2009). Perceived political self-efficacy: Theory, assessment, and applications. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1002-1020.
Chadwick, A., & Howard, P. N. (Eds.) (2008). Routledge handbook of Internet politics. London: Routledge.
Cohen, J., Tsfati, Y., & Sheafer, T. (2008). The influence of presumed influence in politics: Do politicians’ perceptions of media power matter? Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 331-344.
Cohen, A., Vigoda, E., & Samorly, A. (2001). Analysis of the mediating effect of personal-psychological variables on the relationship between socio-economic status and political participation: A structural equations framework. Political Psychology, 22, 727–757.
De Weerd, M., &Klandermans, B. (1999). Group identification and political protest: Farmers’ protest in the Netherlands. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 1073-1095.
Dickinson, T. (2008, March 20). The machinery of hope. Rolling Stone, 1048, 36–42.
Drury, J., & Reicher, S. D. (2005). Explaining enduring empowerment: A comparative study of collective action and psychological outcomes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 35–38.
Duck, J. M., Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (1995). Me, us and them: Political identification and the third-person effect in the 1993 Australian federal election. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 195-215.
Duck, J. M., Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A. (1998). Perceptions of a media campaign: The role of social identity and the changing intergroup context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 3-16.
Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally enabled social change: Activism in the Internet age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook ‘‘friends:’’ Social capital and college students use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168.
Enns, S., Malinick, T., & Mathews, R. (2008). It’s not only who you know, its also where they are: Using the position generator to investigate the structure of access to socially embedded resources. In N. Lin and B. H. Erickson (Eds.),Social capital: Advances in research(pp. 255-281). New York: Oxford University Press.
Farrell, H. (2012). The consequences of the internet for politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 35-52.
Fernandez-Ballesteros, R., Diez-Nicolas, J., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., &Bandura, A. (2002). Determinants and structural relation of personal efficacy to collective efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 107–125.
Foregger, S. K. (2008). Uses and gratifications of Facebook.Com. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT).
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Jung, N., & Valenzuela, S. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 319-336.
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Moleyneux, L, &Zheng, P. (2014). Social media,political expression, and political participation: Panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of Communication, 64, 612-634.
Gil de Zúñiga, H., & Valenzuela, S. (2011). The mediating path to a stronger citizenship: Online and offline networks, weak ties, and civic engagement. Communication Research, 38, 397- 421.
Gladwell, M. (2010, October 4). Small change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted. New Yorker, 42-49.
Gunther, A. C., Bolt, D., Borzekowski, D. G., Liebhart, J. L., & Dillard, J. P. (2006). Presumed influence on peer norms: How mass media indirectly affect adolescent smoking. Journal of Communication, 56, 52-68.
Gunther, A. C., & Storey, J. D. (2003). The influence of presumed influence.Journal of Communication,35, 199–215.
Hoffner, C., & Buchanan, M. (2002). Parents’ responses to television violence: The third-person perception, parental mediation, and support for censorship.Media Psychology, 4, 231–52.
Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2002). Structural equation modeling in the communication sciences, 1995-2000. Human Communication Research, 28, 531-551.
Howard, P. N., Duffy, A., Freelon, D., Hussain, M., Mari, W., & Mazaid, M. (2011). Opening closed regimes: What was the role of social media during the Arab Spring? Seattle: University of Washington.
Katz, E., Gurevitch, M., & Haas, H. (1973). On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38, 164–181.
Kenski, K. (2004). The reciprocal effects of external and internal political efficacy: Results from the 2000 U.S. presidential election. Paper presented at the World Association for Public Opinion Research conference in Phoenix, Arizona, May 11–13.
Kenski, K., & Stroud, N. J. (2006). Connections between Internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 173 – 192.
Klandermans, B. (1984). Mobilization and participation: Social-psychological expansions of resource mobilization theory. American Sociological Review 49(5): 583–600.
Klandermans, B. (1997). The social psychology of protest. Oxford: Blackwell.
Klandermans, B., & Roggeband, C. (2007). Handbook of social movements across disciplines. New York: Springer.
Kobayashi, T., Ikeda, K. I., & Miyata, K. (2006). Social capital online: Collective use of the Internet and reciprocity as lubricants of democracy. Information, Communication &Society, 9, 582–611.
Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 337-353.
Madsen, D. (1987). Political self-efficacy tested. American Political Science Review, 81, 571–582.
McQuail, D. (2010). Mass communication theory (6th ed.). London: Sage.
Morrell, M. E. (2003). Survey and experimental evidence for a reliable and valid measure of political efficacy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 589–602.
Muller, E. (1979). Aggressive political participation. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, A., & Mielke, R. (1999). Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2): 229–245.
Papacharissi, Z. (Ed.) (2010). A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites. New York: Routledge.
Papacharissi, Z., &Mendelson, A. (2011). Toward a new(er) sociability: Uses, gratifications and social capital on Facebook. In S. Papathanassopoulos (Ed.), Media perspectives for the 21st century (pp. 212–230). New York: Routledge.
Pearce, K. E., & Kendzior, S. (2012). Networked authoritarianism and social media in Azerbaijan. Journal of Communication, 62, 283-298.
Pinkleton, B. E., & Austin, E. W. (2001). Individual motivations, perceived media importance and political disaffection. PoliticalCommunication, 18, 321–334.
Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 169–174.
Simon, B., &Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social-psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56, 319-331.
Simon, B., Loewy, M., Sturmer, S., Weber, U., Freytag, P., Habig, C., et al. (1998). Collective identification and social movement participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(3), 646–658.
Smock, A., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C.,& Wohn, D. Y.(2011) Facebook as toolkit: A uses and gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2322-2329.
Stirland, S. L. (2007).“Open-source politics” taps Facebook for Myanmar protests. Wired. Retrieved fromhttp://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/10/myanmarfacebook.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. In W. G. Austin and S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of inter-group relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tal-Or, N., Tsfati, Y., & Gunther, A. C. (2009). The influence of presumed media influence. In R. L. Nabi and M. B. Oliver (Eds.), The Sage handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 99-112). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Tewksbury, D., Moy, P.,&Weis, D. S. (2004). Preparations for Y2K: Revisiting the behavioral component of the third-person effect.Journal of Communication 54, 138–55.
Valenzuela, S. (2013). Unpacking the use of social media for protest behavior: The roles of information, opinion expression, and activism. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 920-942.
Valenzuela, S., Arriagada, A., & Scherman, A. (2012). The social media basis of youth pro- test behavior: The case of Chile. Journal of Communication, 62, 299-314.
Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network site? Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 875-901.
Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504-535.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995).Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vitak, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., Carr, C., Ellison, N.,& Lampe, C.(2011). It’s complicated: Facebook users’ political participation in the 2008 election. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 107-114.
Yun, S., & Chang, W.-Y. (2011). Political participation of teenagers in the information era. Social Science Computer Review, 29, 242-249.
Wellman, B., Hasse, A.Q., Witte, J., &Hampton, K. (2001). Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? American Behavioral Scientist, 45,436–55.
Wright, S. C., Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1990). Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 994–1003.
