Essay week 15
Douglasj2016
OnlineParticipatoryCultures.WORKINGPAPERS.pdf
by
Joseph Kahne Mills College [email protected]
Nam-Jin Lee College of Charleston [email protected]
Jessica Timpany Feezell UC Santa Barbara [email protected]
exploring the possibilities of digital media and the networked world of the twenty-first century
presented by
DMLcentral Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
www.dmlcentral.net
The Civic and Political Significance of Online Participatory Cultures
among Youth Transitioning to Adulthood
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 1
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
The Civic and Political Significance of Online Participatory Cultures among Youth Transitioning to Adulthood
by Joseph Kahne Mills College [email protected] Nam-Jin Lee College of Charleston [email protected] Jessica Timpany Feezell University of California, Santa Barbara [email protected]
Paper under review
Acknowledgements: We are enormously grateful to many individuals and institutions for their support of this work. The MacArthur Foundation and the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Education (CIRCLE) provided funding that enabled this work. Chris Evans and Ellen Middaugh played significant roles related to the conceptualization and implementation of this study. Cathy Cohen and the Black Youth Project (with funding from the Ford Foundation) generously made available data from their survey and included a measure of interest-driven participation on their survey. Of course, despite all this help, we take full responsibility for our analysis and conclusions.
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 2
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
A B S T R A C T //
Most existing scholarship that measures the impact of the Internet on
civic or political engagement focuses on political uses of new media. Drawing
on two large panel studies, we find that youth engagement in nonpolitical
online participatory cultures may serve as a gateway to participation in
important aspects of civic and political life, including volunteering, community
problem-solving, protest activities, and political voice. These relationships
remain statistically significant for both datasets, even with controls for prior
levels of civic and political participation and a full range of demographic
variables. While politically driven online participation is clearly worthy of
attention, these findings indicate that it should not be seen as the only
relevant bridge from online activity to civic and political engagement.
Keywords: Participatory Culture, Youth Civic Engagement, New Media,
Digital Media, Political Engagement, Interest-driven Online Participation
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 2
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
The Civic and Political Significance of Online Participatory Cultures among Youth Transitioning to Adulthood
Is the Internet good for democracy? This has proven to be a
challenging question to answer, given that online engagement and
democratic practices take a wide variety of forms. Scholars have examined
the influence of Internet access, as well as more explicitly political uses such
as accessing political information online (Shah, Kwak, & Holbert, 2001; Tolbert
& McNeal, 2003; Xenos & Moy, 2007). Much of this research also examines
how civic and political online engagement can influence offline behaviors such
as voting or engagement with community issues (Bimber, 2003; Jennings &
Zeitner, 2003; Mossberger, Tolbert, & McNeal, 2008; Shah, Cho, Eveland, &
Kwak, 2005).
Much less is known about the influence of nonpolitical online
engagement on democratic practices. Several qualitative studies indicate
that the online participatory cultures that form around shared interests in
hobbies, games, and varied aspects of popular culture may develop an
individual’s civic skills, sense of agency, social networks, and appreciation of
desirable norms for social interaction (Ito et al., 2009; Jenkins, Clinton,
Purushotma, Robinson, & Weigel, 2007). Furthermore, the online discussion
that takes place in relation to these activities may also provide unintended
exposure to political discussions (Wojcieszak & Mutz, 2009).
Our study is the first broad-based quantitative panel study of the
influence of nonpolitical online participatory cultures on youth civic and
political participation. To measure this relationship, we use two data sets: a
two-wave, purposive panel study of youth transitioning from high school to
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 3
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
early adulthood and a nationally representative panel study of 18–35-year-
olds. We focus on whether interest-driven and friendship-driven nonpolitical
online participation, as well as politically driven activity, foster online and
offline civic and political engagement.
Three Forms of Online Participatory Culture
In online participatory cultures, participants create and share with
others; experienced participants help less experienced ones acquire
knowledge and solve problems; participants may also develop a sense of
connection with one another and come to understand functional community
norms (Jenkins et al., 2007). Individuals blog, start or join groups, participate
in networks, share links, and interact regularly through new media.
We examine three domains of online participatory culture: interest-
driven, friendship-driven, and politically driven. Our interest in this topic
stems from qualitative studies that highlight ways membership in
participatory cultures can promote civic and political engagement. These
cultures have been found to provide young people with opportunities to
discuss political topics, to learn about different societal issues, values, and life
experiences, and to develop relevant skills and appreciation of norms for
group interaction that may facilitate participation in civic and political life (Ito
et al., 2009; Jenkins et al., 2007). Indeed, some forms of online participatory
culture may function as extracurricular activities do (McFarland & Thomas,
2006; Smith, 1999) and enhance social capital and democratic engagement.
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 4
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
Politically driven online participation. Online civic and political
participation (hereafter, politically driven participation) occupies a complex
position within our conceptual framework. On one hand, politically driven
participation (discussing civic or political issues, identifying and producing
information about issues, and communicating with others online about issues)
is a prominent form of political engagement. For this reason, we view
politically driven participation as an outcome or dependent variable. At the
same time, one may view politically driven participation as an independent
variable that may influence offline civic and political behavior. Evidence
suggests that seeking political information through online media outlets is
related to increased political activism (Mossberger et al., 2008; Shah et al.,
2005; Shah, McLeod, & Lee, 2009). Additionally, new digital media—
especially networked digital media, such as instant messaging, blogs, and
social networking websites—have emerged as tools for political discussion
and expression (Lenhart, Madden, Macgill, & Smith, 2007).
Interest-driven online participation. While much scholarship has
examined politically driven participation, little has focused on the civic and
political significance of nonpolitical, interest-driven online participation
(hereafter, interest-driven participation). These online activities enable youth
to pursue interests in hobbies, popular culture, new technology, games, and
sports (Ito et al., 2009). Rather than passively consuming content,
participants produce online materials, generate ideas, provide feedback, and
participate in online communities. Because such online activities are driven
by specialized interests, participants tend to interact with a network of
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 5
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
geographically dispersed people that goes beyond the immediate circle of
their local communities (Ito et al., 2009).
In framing the value of such opportunities, it is worth considering
research on youth extracurricular activities. Scholars find that these offline
interest-driven activities provide opportunities to develop civic skills and
productive norms of behavior within organizations, agency, and social
networks. Panel studies indicate that extracurricular activities foster social
capital and later civic and political engagement (McFarland & Thomas, 2006;
Smith, 1999).
Interest-driven participation may well develop civically relevant skills,
norms, and networks in a similar way. Young people are journaling about
topics of local concern, organizing gaming clans, and remixing and sharing
music online. Free software makes it easier than ever for youth to practice
video production, share their creations with others, and receive feedback
from other community members; this interaction helps to improve their
technical skills as well as their communication skills. It is also argued that
these participatory cultures aid in developing youth understandings of norms
of community membership and an appreciation of the possibilities and
rewards of collective undertakings (Jenkins et al., 2007). Moreover,
Wojcieszak and Mutz (2009) found that 53% of adults encounter political
topics when engaged in online chat rooms and message boards related to
nonpolitical leisure activities that include hobbies and fan sites. If interest-
driven participation among youth also leads to unintended exposure to
political topics, it may well activate youth involvement. In summary, such
activities may function like Robert Putnam's (2000) voluntary associations.
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 6
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
Though not focused on politics, these activities can result in bonding and
bridging relationships, skills, agency, and valuable norms for group action
which in turn can facilitate other kinds of public participation.
Although we hypothesize that interest-driven participation promotes
civic and political engagement, a counterhypothesis also exists. Several
studies show that the more one uses the Internet, the less connected one will
be in face-to-face communities (Kraut et al., 1998; Nie, 2001). Most of this
work examines time spent online as the independent variable, and suggests
that time spent online displaces time spent in face-to-face interaction.
Friendship-driven online participation. Friendship-driven online
participation (hereafter, friendship-driven participation) is the most common
form of online participation among youth (Ito et al., 2009). It centers on day-
to-day interactions with peers who youth see at school, in their neighborhood,
or through participation in various clubs, groups, and organizations. Such
online activity often takes place through social media such as MySpace and
Facebook. It is unclear whether friendship-driven participation will promote
civic or political engagement. Wyatt, Katz, and Kim (2000), for example,
found that personal conversations in public and private spaces often contain
civic and political content. Likewise, Wojcieszak and Mutz (2009) found that
online socializing and flirting in chat rooms and message boards do as well.
Such exposure could activate civic and political engagement. On the other
hand, since civic and political topics are not the focus of most socializing
among youth, it may be that this friendship-driven participation is a
distraction or becomes an alternative to civic and political engagement.
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 7
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
Why Focus on Youth?
We focus on youth and young adults (ages 18–35) for several reasons.
First, youth and young adults are heavy users and early adopters of new
media (Krueger, 2002; Mossberger et al., 2008). They also frequently
embrace the kind of participatory culture that can be facilitated by new
media. For example, a survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project
found that 64% of teenage Internet users engage in online content creation
and that 28% have created an online journal or blog (Lenhart et al., 2007).
Moreover, when it comes to Internet use, there is a generational divide in
many respects. While 37% of those aged 18–24 obtained campaign
information from social networking sites in 2008 (more than did so from
newspapers), only 4% aged 30–39 did so. For older citizens, these numbers
drop further (Kohut, 2008). Thus, studying youth and young adult practices
is a logical starting-point from which to assess the civic and political
significance of new media and the nature of future engagement in this fast-
changing domain. This focus also makes sense because adolescence and
early adulthood are times of significant civic and political identity
development, and this development has been shown to have lasting effects
(Erikson, 1968; Smith, 1999; Jennings & Niemi, 1981).
R E S E A R C H Q U E S T IO N S //
As a first step, we examine whether politically driven, interest-driven,
and friendship-driven online participation are distinct dimensions of online
activity. We then examine whether these three forms of online participation
promote varied forms of civic and political participation. We are especially
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 8
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
interested in how interest-driven and friendship-driven online participation
compare with more commonly studied, politically driven online participation.
M E T H O D //
Data. To answer our research questions, we draw on two sets of panel
data collected around the 2008 presidential election.
Panel Survey 1: California Civic Survey (CCS). In the springs of 2005,
2006, and 2007, we surveyed 5,505 junior- and senior-level high school
students. This was a cross-sectional survey and was not initially designed as a
panel study. Students in this sample came from 21 high schools, each from a
different school district in California. The schools were purposively selected
to ensure a diverse range of demographic and academic characteristics. The
sample includes schools that enroll mostly white students (19.0%), mostly
students of color (42.9%), and schools that are racially mixed (38.1%). The
percentages of students receiving a free or reduced-price lunch ranged from
0% to 92%. To minimize selection bias, we surveyed entire classes of juniors
and seniors.
To hold open the possibility of a follow-up survey, in our initial survey
we asked about students’ willingness to be contacted in the future, to which
23.8% consented (n = 1,305). Our follow-up survey was conducted after the
2008 election (December 2008–March 2009) and was administered to a total
of 435 respondents. This represents a panel retention rate of 33.3% against
the baseline sample, and 7.9% against the initial pool of survey respondents.
We compared the initial survey responses of those who took the follow-
up survey (n = 435) with those who did not (n = 5,070). Those who took the
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 9
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
follow-up survey were more likely to be female (61% vs. 50%), have higher
GPAs (M = 3.35 vs. M = 3.15), and to be more politically interested (M = 3.8 vs.
M = 3.4) than those who did not. Significantly, those who took the follow-up
survey were not different in terms of their new media practices compared to
those who did not. While, with the proper controls, we see no reason to
believe that the differences between our Wave 1 and Wave 2 samples would
bias the observed relationships between online participation and political
engagement, as a safeguard, we are fortunate to be able to conduct similar
analysis on a nationally representative data set, described below.
Panel Survey 2: Mobilization, Change, and Political and Civic
Engagement Project. The second data set was collected as part of the
Mobilization, Change, and Political and Civic Engagement (MCPCE) Project at
the University of Chicago. This nationally representative sample was collected
in three waves by Knowledge Networks using an online computer
methodology. We analyzed the first wave (n = 3,181), which was collected just
prior to the 2008 election, and the third wave (n = 1,938), which was collected
one year later. Because we are primarily interested in new media
participation among young adults, we limited our analysis to the panel
respondents ages 18–35 (n = 586).
That the MCPCE Project is a nationally representative survey—including
an oversampling of people between the ages of 18 and 35 and an oversample
of African American, Latino, and Asian respondents—makes it a particularly
valuable compliment to the CCS.1 This sample provides a valuable means of
1 Because of this oversampling, we weighted the sample in the subsequent analysis on the basis of the sample weights adjusting gender, race, education, and family income.
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 10
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
assessing the generalizability and consistency of our findings from the
California sample. We constructed our measures from these two sets of panel
data.
M E A S U R E M E N T //
Three groups of variables were created from the two sets of panel
data: (a) measures of new media participation; (b) indicators of civic and
political engagement (outcome variables); and (c) control variables (see
Table 1). Due to space constraints, we provide only the descriptive statistics
of variables from the CCS. Interested readers can contact the authors for
similar information on the MCPCE Project.
New Media Participation. Indicators from the CCS of politically driven,
interest-driven, and friendship-driven online participation are listed in Table 2.
The MCPCE was different in two respects. First, due to space constraints, we
were not able to assess friendship-driven participation on the MCPCE.
Second, politically driven participation was assessed by three yes/no items
asking whether the respondents had: (a) written or forwarded an e-mail,
signed an e-mail petition, or posted a comment to a blog about a political
issue, candidate, elected official, or political party; (b) written a blog about a
political issue, candidate, elected official, or political party; and (c) e-mailed
the editor of a newspaper, a television station, magazine, or website manager
about a political issue, candidate, political party, or elected official. We
counted the number of “yes” responses to these three questions to construct
a summary measure of politically driven participation (Kuder-Richardson
formula 20 [KR-20] = .51).
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 11
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
Since interest-driven, politically driven, and friendship-driven
participation had not been measured simultaneously in any prior surveys, we
used factor analytic techniques to test whether these three forms of online
participation represent distinct factors. Following conventional Eigen value-
based criteria in exploratory factor analysis, we extracted factors whose Eigen
values are greater than one. Using principle component factor estimation, we
found that three factors had Eigen values greater than one and that the fourth
and all subsequent factors accounted for a relatively small amount of
variance. Thus, we extracted three factors using a principal axis factoring
estimation and rotated this solution using a Promax (oblique) rotation
procedure for clearer interpretation. Table 2 shows the factor pattern matrix
from this rotated solution. Factor loadings were sorted by their size to
facilitate differentiation between variables. The factor loadings indicate the
presence of three distinct factors. These three factors together explained
64.4% of the item variance. Similarly, factor analysis of the items in online
participation on the MCPCE Project formed two distinct factors that, together,
explained 54.1% of the variance.
Outcome Variables. We examined civic, political, and expressive forms
of participation to capture the multiple and overlapping ways youth engage
with public issues. Attending to a broad range of outcomes is especially
important in light of evidence that young people—and perhaps young people
of color in particular—are drawn to community-based and -engaged forms of
participation more than to participation in traditional civic and political life
(Bennett, 2008; Dalton, 2008; Sanchez-Jankowski, 2002). Our indicators
were slightly modified versions of those used in prior research (e.g., Zukin,
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 12
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
Keeter, Andolina, Jenkins, & Delli Carpini, 2006). Specifically, we included a
measure of civic participation and two measures of electoral engagement (i.e.,
campaign participation and voting). In addition, we used one measure of
action and expression that is political, but not part of the electoral process.
Civic participation was measured on the CCS by asking how often
respondents had: (a) volunteered in their community; (b) raised money for a
charitable cause; and (c) worked together informally with someone or some
group to solve a problem in the community in which they live. All the three
items were administered at T2 (! = .73). We administered the first two items
at T1 (inter-item r = .47). The MCPCE Project asked whether respondents had
volunteered and if they had worked with community members on a
community issue or problem (inter-item r = .44).
Political action and expression assessed how often respondents
participated in: (a) activities aimed at changing a policy or law at a local or
national level; (b) a peaceful protest, march, or demonstration; and (c) a
poetry slam, youth forum, musical performance, or other event where young
people express their political views (! = .66 for T1; ! = .69 for T2). This
outcome was not assessed on the MCPCE Project.
Campaign participation was measured at T2 on the CCS by asking how
frequently respondents: (a) tried to persuade anybody to vote for or against
one of the parties or candidates; (b) wore buttons, used bumper stickers, or
placed signs in front of their house during the campaign; and (c) contributed
money to a candidate, political party, or organization that supported a
candidate (! = .61). Campaign participation was measured by three items on
the MCPCE Project, including: (a) contributing money for a candidate, political
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 13
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
party, or cause; (b) volunteering for a party, cause, or elected official; and (c)
going to political meetings, rallies, speeches, or dinners in support of a
particular candidate, political party, or elected official (KR-20 = .78).
Voting was assessed by asking if respondents voted in the 2008
presidential election. At T1, when most of our respondents were not eligible
to vote, we used intention to vote as a surrogate measure. In a separate
study (self-identification, 2010), we found that an individual’s intention to
vote, as expressed when a high school junior or senior, is a strong predictor of
voting once that individual turns 18. Since the third wave of the MCPCE
survey was given about a year after the election, we could not assess the
impact of online participation on voting.
Control Variables. We employed extensive controls to isolate the
effects stemming from factors that have previously been found to relate to
our outcome variables. These included sex, ethnic identity, and race (see
Burns, Schlozman, & Verba, 2001; Marcelo, Lopez, & Kirby, 2007), as well as
parental political activity and political discussion with youth (see Jennings &
Stoker, 2009; Niemi & Sobieszek, 1977; Andolina, Jenkins, Zukin, & Keeter,
2003). The parental involvement measure reflected the level of civic and
political talk occurring at home and the level of parents’ involvement in the
community (inter-item r = .45).
In the CCS, we also controlled for respondents’ GPAs in high school and
for whether they were attending four-year colleges, since educational
attainment is strongly related to voting, group membership, and civic and
political involvement. The MCPCE Project asked about the highest degree
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 14
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
received. Finally, in both surveys we assessed political ideology ranging from
“very liberal” (1) to “very conservative” (5). In the CCS, we also created a
measure indicating the strength of political ideology—we folded over the
political ideology measure and took the absolute value so our measure ranged
from “middle of the road” (0) to “very liberal or very conservative” (2)—and
political interest. Similarly, on the MCPCE Project there were measures of the
strength of party identification and news attention (for related research, see
Mutz & Martin, 2001; Verba & Nie, 1972; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993).
Finally, on the CCS we included a measure of video-game play since
other studies have found that video-game play may be related to civic
outcomes and is correlated with other forms of new media participation
(Kahne, Middaugh, & Evans, 2008; Williams, 2006).
Analytic Strategy. To take a full advantage of our panel data, we used
lagged-dependent variable regression analysis that included prior values of
the outcome variable as an independent control. The lagged-dependent
variable model predicts the level of a given outcome at T2 while controlling
for its value at T1. It provides unbiased estimates of the effects of digital
media participation on civic and political engagement by adjusting any initial
differences in the outcome variables that might exist between those who
were already active in high school and those who were not (Finkel, 1995;
Halaby, 2004). On the CCS, we did not have a T1 value for campaign
participation, so could not perform a lagged-dependent variable regression
for this outcome.
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 15
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
// R E S U L T S //
Our analysis focuses on the relationships of three different types of new
media participation (friendship-driven, interest-driven, and politically driven)
with varied civic and political outcomes. Each outcome variable—either
friendship-driven participation, interest-driven participation, and politically
driven participation—was entered together in the regression equations to
estimate unique contributions of each type of online participatory culture to
civic/political engagement (see Table 3 for the CCS panel results and Table 4
for the MCPCE panel results). The lagged values of each outcome variable
were entered as an additional control.
Influences of three types of new media participation. The
analysis indicates that politically driven participation was a strong and
statistically significant predictor of two political outcomes: campaign
participation and political action/expression. As shown in Table 3, politically
driven participation was significantly associated with increased levels of
political action and expression (B = .18, p < .001), and with increased
campaign participation (B = .21, p < .001). Similarly, the models from the
MCPCE data (see Table 4) indicate that politically driven participation is a
robust predictor of increased campaign participation (B = 1.97, p < .001).
Interestingly, however, we did not find statistically significant relationships
between politically driven online participation and our two other outcome
variables. Politically driven participation was not related to increased civic
participation. Additionally, in the CCS, politically driven participation was not
associated with higher voting rates once one controls for other factors such
as college attendance and political interest.
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 16
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
Interest-driven participation was related to increased levels of civic
participation in both the CCS (B = .12, p < .01), and MCPCE samples (B = .58, p
< .01). This contrasts sharply with politically driven participation, which was
unrelated to civic participation in both data sets. In the CCS, we also found a
statistically significant relationship between interest-driven participation and
our measure of political action and expression (B = .07, p < .05).
The relationship between interest-driven participation and campaign
participation is not entirely clear. The relationship is statistically significant (B
= .07, p < .05) in the CCS, but we were not able to control for prior levels of
campaign participation in the CCS. In the MCPCE Project, the relationship is
not statistically significant. Given our lack of a lagged value for campaign
participation in the CCS, we give more credence to the finding from the
MCPCE Project when it comes to this outcome. Interest-driven participation
does not predict voting.
Finally, our two measures of friendship-driven participation appear to
be less consequential than interest-driven participation and politically driven
participation when it comes to civic and political behaviors (see Table 3). The
use of blogs and social media to communicate with family and friends, for
example, was unrelated to all civic and political outcomes when controls were
included in the models. Friendship-driven use of e-mail and messaging was
also unrelated to our measures of civic participation, political action and
expression, and campaign participation. Interestingly, however, friendship-
driven use of e-mail and messaging was the only online practice that was
related, if modestly, to voting (B = .35, p < .05).
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 17
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
Interest-driven participation’s relationship with politically
driven participation. Since politically driven online activities can also be
viewed as an indicator of political participation, we examined whether
interest-driven activities, along with friendship-driven activities, predict this
kind of online political activity. As shown in Table 5, Model 1 included only our
control variables. Model 2 (second column) included interest-driven online
participation as an additional predictor. Finally, Model 3 (third column) added
the lagged value of politically driven participation as an additional control.
Among all the predictors included, parental involvement, strength of ideology,
college student status, and political interest were found to be strong and
consistent predictors of increased politically driven online participation.
Particularly strong, however, was interest-driven participation (B = .59, p <
.001). The entry of interest-based participation in Model 2 accounted for an
additional 19.1% (= 48.2%–29.1%) of explained variance in politically driven
participation. The strength of this relationship was only modestly reduced (B
= .47, p < .001) after the entry of politically driven participation measured at
T1.
D IS C U S S IO N //
Some pundits still make broad claims about the impact of the Internet
on society. Most scholars who study the relationship between the Internet
and democracy, however, focus on identifying consequential distinctions
between varied forms of online activity. This study contributes to this dialog.
First, it identifies survey measures that distinguish between three forms of
online participatory culture: friendship-driven, interest-driven, and politically
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 18
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
driven. It then considers how these forms of participation relate to varied
forms of civic and political activity. Overall, our results strongly suggest that
the nature of online participation matters.
The importance of politically driven participation. Politically
driven online participation appears to be an important bridge to broader civic
and political participation and is also an important form of participation in its
own right (see also Shah et al., 2009; Smith, Schlozman, Verba, & Brady,
2009). At the same time, these findings signal a need for caution. Politically
driven participation may help promote increased campaign participation and
varied forms of political action and expression, but politically driven
participation is not associated with all civic or political outcomes. Once other
forms of online activity and lagged values of outcome variables are included,
politically driven participation does not appear to influence either civic
engagement or voting. In addition, it seems quite plausible that politically
driven online participation is a product of campaign work—to at least as great
a degree as that it activates engagement with civic and political life. Thus,
while politically driven online participation is clearly worthy of attention, these
findings indicate that it should not be seen as the only relevant bridge from
online activity to civic and political engagement.
When it comes to findings regarding friendship-driven participation, it is
the lack of relationships that seems most intriguing. In particular, due to the
newness and prevalence of social networking among youth and young adults,
and due to the importance of social networks in civic and political life, some
have posited that friendship-driven social networking might support civic and
political engagement. Putting forward a less optimistic perspective, some
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 19
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
have raised concerns that engagement with new media will distract
individuals from civic and political life (Nie, 2001). We found no support for
either perspective. Indeed, no relationships (positive or negative) were found
between friendship-driven use of blogs or social networking sites and any
online or offline civic or political practice.
The importance of friendship-driven participation. Friendship-
driven use of e-mail and messaging was modestly and positively related to
voting. However, it was not related to civic activity, political action or
expression, campaign activity, or politically driven online activity. Given that
friendship-driven e-mail and messaging were only modestly related to one
outcome and that friendship-driven use of blogs and social networking was
not related to any outcomes, we do not see evidence that friendship-driven
activity holds much promise as a support for civic and political life.
A difficulty associated with assessing such relationships should also be
noted, however. Participation in online social networks and e-mail is now
ubiquitous. Thus, our inability to find relationships may have resulted from a
lack of variation. Creating measures that better tap variations in youth
friendship-driven practices would likely aid examination of this issue.
The importance of interest-driven participation. We believe
that the most significant findings from this study surround the relationships
between nonpolitical interest-driven online participation and varied forms of
civic and political life. In particular, our analysis suggests that online,
nonpolitical, interest-driven activities serve as a gateway to participation in
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 20
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
important aspects of civic and, at times, political life, including volunteering,
engagement in community problem-solving, protest activities, and political
voice. These relationships are robust. Statistically significant findings remain
for both data sets, even with controls for prior levels of civic and political
participation and a full range of demographic variables. In addition, given the
significance of politically driven online participation for varied forms of
activity, we place particular importance on strong connection between
interest-driven participation and growth in politically driven online activity.
In short, the significance of nonpolitical, interest-driven online activity in
relation to a range of civic and political behavior leads us to argue that those
studying new media’s influence on civic and political participation among
youth and young adults need to broaden their focus, and also attend to
nonpolitical, interest-driven online participation and distinguish between this
and friendship-driven participation. Studies of the Internet and political
participation that focus solely on politically driven forms of online
participation may miss much that matters.
While these findings highlight some intriguing relationships, we wish to
underscore that we view them as an important first step—but only a first
step—in analyzing the civic and political significance of youth online
participatory cultures. One limitation of our work is its reliance on self-
reports; it would be ideal to collect and code data on actual online activity. In
addition, while controls for prior levels of civic and political activity are
helpful, being able to better control for prior levels of online activity would
further strengthen our ability to make causal claims. In addition, experimental
studies would strengthen our ability to test for causal relationships.
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 21
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
Despite these limitations, that our analysis yielded consistent results
across both panel data sets—even with a wide range of relevant controls—
gives us greater confidence in the strength of the relationships between three
forms of online participation and offline youth activism, as does the fact that
the MCPCE Project is both nationally representative and contains a sizable
oversample of African American, Latino, and Asian youth.
Conceptualizing connections between online participatory
culture with civic and political life. These findings highlight the need
for a deeper understanding of the relationships between online activity and
the civic and political sphere. There are many ways politically driven online
participation, and political information more generally, can activate civic and
political interest and engagement (e.g., Mossberger et al., 2008). In addition,
drawing on theory and qualitative work by Jenkins et al. (2007) and Ito et al.
(2009), we propose that online nonpolitical participatory activities can
promote civic outcomes—just as offline extracurricular activities have been
found to foster social capital by teaching skills, by developing a sense of
agency and productive group norms, and by fostering an appreciation of the
potential of collective action. Studies that further conceptualize and test
these propositions are needed.
In undertaking this work, it is important to consider changes that may
be occurring in youth and young-adult conceptions of civic and political life.
Youth and young adults appear to grant significance to political expression
and to enact it in ways that differ from earlier generations—placing less
emphasis, for example, on influencing actions of elected officials and the
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 22
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
state, and more emphasis on lifestyle politics, on influencing business
practices through boycotts and “buycotts,” and on expressive acts tied to
popular culture (Bennett, 2008; Dalton, 2008; Zukin et al., 2006). Many
scholars have found that youth often doubt the efficacy and attractiveness of
formal political life and often are oriented toward nongovernmental, informal,
and small-scale responses to societal issues (Ginwright, 2009; Delgado &
Staples, 2007).
This shift in politics does not require new media. However, the
affordances of new media seem likely to make such changes easier to enact
and may also orient youth toward valuing this form and focus of civic and
political life. Indeed, while the content is generally different, many
nonpolitical interest-driven practices—such as organizing online groups,
providing leadership for group efforts, and participating in group discussions
tied to particular interests—parallel practices employed in these new forms of
civic and political activity.
In addition, part of what makes understanding the developmental and
educative potential of interest-driven and politically driven online activities so
important is that such studies may help us to understand the contexts in
which the development of democratic habits, commitments, and skills
currently occurs. There is a long tradition in the United States of viewing
democratic development as largely a product of life within geographically
proximate local communities. As Tocqueville observed in Democracy in
America:
The strength of free peoples resides in the local community. Local
institutions are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they put
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 23
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
it within the people's reach; they teach people to appreciate its peaceful
enjoyment and accustom them to make use of it. Without local
institutions a nation may give itself a free government, but it has not got
the spirit of liberty. (Tocqueville, 2000, p. 49)
The notion that geographic proximity and face-to-face interactions are
vital for motivating participation and for developing democratic habits and
skills has been a mainstay of theoretical and empirical work on democracy.
New media, however, may be modifying the significance of geography in this
regard. For example, Schrager (2002) suggested that high levels of mobility,
shifting geographic boundaries, and competing factions within communities
require new criteria for defining local communities, with an emphasis on
defining community by shared interests rather than geographic proximity.
Similarly, Delli Carpini (2000) concluded that the Internet is creating
communities that are more interest-based than geographically based (see
Middaugh & Kahne, 2009 for a review discussing the significance of online
localism for youth). Findings from this study appear consistent with that
logic.
Participation in interest-driven and politically driven online activities
appears to provide generative contexts for civic and political development—
roles traditionally played by geographically proximate communities. While
those interacting in interest-driven and politically driven spaces may also see
each other offline, it is notable that online activities appear to prompt both
on- and offline civic and political engagement. Fine-grained studies are
needed to teach us about the relationship of online participatory communities
to geographically proximate offline communities. Moreover, such studies are
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 24
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
needed to deepen our understanding of the ways these participatory
communities may be creating locations and mechanisms that shape youth’s
and young adults’ developing civic and political behaviors.
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 25
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
R E F E R E N C E S // Andolina, M. W., Jenkins, K., Zukin, C., & Keeter, S. (2003). Habits from home,
lessons from school: Influences on youth civic development. PS: Political Science and Politics, 36(2), 275–80.
Bennett, W. L. (2008). Changing citizenship in the digital age. In W. L. Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth (1–24). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bimber, B. (2003). Information and American democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burns, N., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (2001). The private roots of public action: Gender, equality, and political participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dalton, R. (2008). The good citizen: How a younger generation is reshaping American politics. Washington, D.C: CQ Press.
Delgado, M., & Staples, L. (2007). Youth-led community organizing: Theory and action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Delli Carpini, M. X. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement and the new information environment. Political Communication, 17, 341–49.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Finkel, S. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ginwright, S. (2009). Black youth rising: Activism and radical healing in urban America. New York: Teacher's College Press.
Halaby, C. N. (2004). Panel models in sociological research: Theory into practice. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 507–44.
Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B, Horst, H., Lange, P. … Tripp, L. (2009). Hanging out, messing around and geeking out: Living and learning with new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2007). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. In www.mit.edu. Retrieved from http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/Confronting_the_Challenges.p df
Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. (1981). Generations and politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jennings, M. K., & Stoker, L. (2009). Continuities in political participation across multiple generations. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Convention, Chicago, IL, April 2009.
Jennings, M. K., & Zeitner, V. (2003). Internet use and civic engagement: A longitudinal analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 311–34.
Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., & Evans, C. (2008). The civic potential of video games. Occasional paper of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Learning Program. In
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 26
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
www.civicsurvey.org. Retrieved from http://www.civicsurvey.org/White_paper_link_text.pdf
Kohut, A. (2008). Social networking and online videos take off: Internet’s broader role in campaign, 2008. In www.pewinternet.org. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2008/Pew_Media Sources_jan08.pdf
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53,1017–31.
Krueger, B. (2002). Assessing the potential of Internet political participation in the United States: A resource approach. American Political Research, 30(5), 476–98.
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Macgill, A. R., & Smith, A. (2007). Teens and social media In www.pewinternet.org. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Social_Media_Final.pdf
Marcelo, K. B., Lopez, M. H., & Kirby, E. H. (2007). Civic engagement among young men and women. Washington D.C: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
McFarland, D. A., & Thomas, R. J. (2006). Bowling young: How youth voluntary associations influence adult political participation. American Sociological Review, 71, 401–25.
Middaugh, E., & Kahne, J. (2009). Online localities: Implications for democracy and education. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 108(1), 234–66.
Middaugh, E., Kahne, J., & Evans, C. (2008). Youth Internet use and recruitment into civic and political participation. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association Meeting, Boston, MA, August 2008.
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mutz, D., & Martin, P. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 97–114.
Nie, N. (2001). Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the Internet: Reconciling conflicting findings. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 420–35.
Niemi, R., & Sobieszek, B. (1977). Political socialization. Annual Review of Sociology, 3, 209–33.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: MacMillan.
Sanchez-Jankowski, M. (2002). Minority youth and civic engagement: The impact of group relations. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4), 237– 45.
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 27
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
Schrager, R. (2002). The limits of localism. Working paper No. 298003. Georgetown University Law Center Working Paper Series in Public Law and Legal Theory.
Shah, D., Cho, J., Eveland, W., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age. Communication Research, 32(5), 531–65.
Shah, D. V., Kwak, N., & Holbert, L. (2001). "Connecting" and "disconnecting" with civic life: Patterns of internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18, 141-162.
Shah, D. V., McLeod, J. M., & Lee, N. (2009). Communication competence as a foundation for civic competence: Processes of socialization into citizenship. Political Communication, 26, 102–17.
Smith, E. (1999). The effects of investments in the social capital of youth on political and civic behavior in young adulthood: A longitudinal analysis. Political Psychology, 20(3), 553–80.
Smith, A., Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. (2009). The Internet and civic engagement. In www.pewinternet.org. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/15--The-Internet-and-Civic- Engagement.aspx
Tolbert, C., & McNeal, R. (2003). Unraveling the effects of the internet on political participation. Political Research Quarterly, 56(2), 175-185.
Tocqueville, A. de. (2000). Democracy in America. S. Kessler (Ed.). S. D. Grant (Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co.
Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. New York: Harper & Row.
Williams, D. (2006). Groups and goblins: The social and civic impact of an online game. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(4), 651–70.
Wojcieszak, M. E., & Mutz, D. C. (2009). Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement? Journal of Communication, 59, 40–56.
Wyatt, R. O., Katz, E., & Kim, J. (2000). Bridging the spheres: Political and personal conversation in public and private spaces. The Journal of Communication, 50(1), 71-92.
Xenos, M., & Moy, P. (2007). Direct and differential effects of the internet on political and civic engagement. Journal of Communication, 57, 704-718.
Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2006). A new engagement? Political participation, civic life, and the changing American citizen. New York: Oxford University Press.
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 28
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics of key variables (California Civic Survey Panel)
Variable M SD Min Max N
Outcome variables
Civic participation, T2 Civic participation, T1 Political action and expression, T2 Political action and expression, T1 Campaign participation, T2 Voting in 2008, T2 Voting intention, T1
New media participation
Friendship-driven participation Use of e- mail/messenger/messaging Use of social media to socialize
Interest-driven online participation Politically driven online participation
Control variables Female sex GPA in high school Parental involvement Conservatism Strength of political ideology College student Ethnicity
African American Asian Hispanic
Political interest Frequency of video gaming
2.45 2.62
1.55 1.59
2.02
0.68 4.38
5.70 4.87 1.52
3.08
0.62 3.85 3.19 2.81
0.85 0.86
0.03 0.27 0.27 3.91 3.29
0.80 0.55
0.68 0.61
0.71
0.47 1.01
0.81 1.52 1.20 1.41
0.49 0.67
1.12 1.08
0.70 0.35
0.18
0.44 0.44 1.04 1.83
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
0.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
0.00 1.00
0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
4.00 3.00
4.00 3.00
4.00
1.00 5.00
6.00 6.00 5.00 6.00
1.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 6.00
435 326
434 326
435
430 428
435 435 435 436
435 428 434 422 422 435
435 435 435 435 435
Note. GPA, grade point average; T1, initial baseline survey; T2, follow-up survey.
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 29
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
Table 2.
Correlations between the digital media use items and the common factors (California
Civic Survey Panel)
Factors
Items
Interest- driven
participati on
Politically driven
participati on
Friendship- driven
participatio n
Interest-driven online activities
Used the Internet to organize an online group, discussion, or website
.83 .03 -.02
Used the Internet to organize social or recreational events (games, concerts, dances, competitions, etc.)
.70 -.12 .17
Given someone you don’t know feedback for something they wrote or put online
.69 .09 -.10
Gone online to participate in a special-interest community, such as a fan site or a site where you talk with others about a hobby, sport, or special interest
.58 .01 -.04
I have been a leader in an online community .51 .07 -.02
Politically driven online activities
Used blogs or social networking sites to share or discuss perspectives on social and political issues
-.02 .94 -.03
Used e-mail to communicate with others who are working on a political or social issue
.01 .80 -.01
Used the Internet to get information about political or social issues
.03 .54 .11
Relationship-driven online activities
Used e-mail, text messaging, or instant messenger to communicate with friends or family
-.04 -.09 .62
Used blogs, diary, or social networking sites (like MySpace) to socialize with people (friends, family, or people you’ve met online)
.06 .07 .55
Principal component Eigen value (before rotation) 4.18 1.22 1.05
Cronbach’s alpha .80 .81 .41
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 30
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
Table 3.
Results of regression models predicting civic and political outcomes with lagged
controls (California Civic Survey Panel)
Civic participation
a
Political action and
expression a
Campaign
participation a
Voting in 2008
b
Control variables B SE B
B SE B
B SE B
B SE B Female sex 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.55 0.29
GPA in high school 0.07 0.06 -
0.02 0.05 0.0
0 0.05
0.33 0.20 Parental involvement 0.09 * 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.16 0.13
Conservatism -0.01 0.03 -
0.02 0.03 -
0.03 0.03 -
0.16 0.12 Strength of political ideology -0.01 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.12 ** 0.04 0.11 0.18
College student 0.18 0.12
0.04 0.10 -
0.03 0.09
1.12 ** 0.35 Race African American -0.23 0.20
-0.13 0.17
- 0.47 ** 0.16
- 0.44 0.71
Hispanic -
0.09 0.10
0.07 0.09 -
0.04 0.07
0.30 0.35
Asian -0.14 0.09 0.07 0.08 -0.12 0.07 -
0.25 0.32
Political interest -
0.02 0.04
0.02 0.03
0.09 ** 0.03
0.52 *** 0.13
Frequency of video gaming -
0.04 0.02 -
0.04 * 0.02 -
0.03 * 0.02 0.0
0 0.08
Lagged values of outcomes
Civic participation, T1 0.39 *** 0.07 Political action and
expression, T1
0.25 *** 0.06
Voting intention, T1 0.62 *** 0.13
New media participation
Friendship-driven
participation:
Use of e-mail/messaging 0.08 0.05 0.0
0 0.04 0.0
0 0.04
0.35 * 0.17
Use of social media to socialize 0.04 0.03
- 0.0
0 0.02
0.01 0.02
-
0.09 0.10
Interest-driven participation 0.12 ** 0.04
0.07 * 0.03
0.07 * 0.03 -
0.03 0.14 Politically driven
participation 0.05 0.04
0.18 *** 0.03
0.21 *** 0.03
0.04 0.12 Total R
2 (%) 31.6 36.4 37.8 21.2
N of cases 321 321 423 417 Note. GPA, grade point average; T1, initial baseline survey. a OLS regression coefficients and standard errors
b Logistic regression estimates and standard errors
c McFadden’s pseudo R
2
*p ! .05, **p ! .01, ***p ! .001
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 31
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
Table 4.
Results of ordered logistic regression models predicting civic and campaign
participation (MCPCE Panel)
Civic participation
Campaign
participation
B SE B
B SE B
Control variables Age 0.02 0.03 -0.23 *** 0.05 Female sex 0.38 0.32 -1.89 * 0.82 Education 0.13 0.10 0.32 * 0.16 Household income 0.01 0.04 -0.10 0.05 Race: African American 0.68 0.41
2.84 *** 0.68
Hispanic 0.57 0.32 2.67 *** 0.65 Asian -0.01 0.66 -0.02 0.93 Conservatism 0.49 *** 0.10 -0.35 0.25 Strength of political ideology -0.10 0.17 -0.00 0.25 Internet access at home -0.59 0.46 -1.07 0.83 News attention -0.21 0.19 0.48 0.30 Political discussion 1.48 ** 0.47 0.70 0.55
Lagged values of outcomes
Civic participation, T1 1.67 *** 0.23 Campaign participation, T1 1.21 *** 0.33
New media participation
Interest-driven participation 0.58 ** 0.21 0.25 0.54 Politically driven participation -0.00 0.23 1.97 *** 0.53
McFadden’s pseudo R
2 (%) 28.3 54.4
N of cases 527 527
Note. OLS regression coefficients and standard errors; T1, initial baseline survey.
*p ! .05, **p ! .01, ***p ! .001
ONLINE PARTICIPATORY CULTURE // 32
DML Central Working Papers // Youth & Participatory Politics // February 5, 2011
Table 5.
Results of regression models predicting politically driven online participation
(California Civic Survey Panel)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
B SE B B SE B B SE B
Control variables
Female sex 0.16 0.14 0.37 ** 0.12 0.46 ** 0.15 GPA in high school 0.19 0.10 0.16 0.08 0.00 0.11 Parental involvement 0.22 *** 0.06 0.11 * 0.05 0.08 0.06 Conservatism -0.08 0.06 -0.09 0.05 -0.07 0.06 Strength of political ideology 0.23 ** 0.09 0.15 * 0.07 0.20 * 0.09 College student 0.49 ** 0.18 0.32 * 0.15 0.20 0.23 Race: African American 0.56 0.34
0.68 * 0.29
0.60 0.34
Hispanic 0.39 * 0.16 0.26 * 0.13 0.34 0.18 Asian 0.22 0.15 0.02 0.13 0.20 0.17 Political interest 0.42 *** 0.06 0.34 *** 0.05 0.24 *** 0.07
Frequency of video gaming 0.12 ** 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.04
New media participation
Friendship-driven participation:
Use of e-mail/messaging -0.07 0.08 - 0.04 0.07
-0.01 0.11
Use of social media to socialize 0.22 *** 0.04 0.10 ** 0.04 0.05 0.05
Interest-driven participation 0.59 *** 0.05
0.47 *** 0.06
Lagged values of the outcome
Politically driven participation, T1 0.25 *** 0.04
Total R 2 (%) 29.1
48.2
53.5
N of cases 423 423 237
Note. OLS regression coefficients and standard errors; GPA, grade point average; T1, initial baseline
survey.
*p ! .05, **p ! .01, ***p ! .001
