online civic participation among youth: an extension of traditional participation, or a new quality?...
TRANSCRIPT
Online civic participationamong youth:An extension of traditional participation, or a new quality?
Paper presented at the Surrey PIDOP Conference on “Political and Civic Participation”, April 16 th-17th, 2012, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
Jan Šerek, Zuzana Petrovičová,Hana Macháčková & Petr Macek
Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
Strengths of the PIDOP WP6 survey•cross-country comparison
•ethnic minorities
• items on different types of participation, including nonconventional online activities
Online participation• internet is an important source of social capital
(Ellison et al., 2009)• debates about its potential for political and civic
engagement (Gurak, 2005)▫efficient place for discussion, information sharing,
planning, or even quick mobilization▫spreading of inaccurate information, no effective
control over aggressive comments• no conclusive evidence on the differences
between online and offline participation (Couldry et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2010; Byrne, 2007)
Online participation• internet is an important source of social capital
(Ellison et al., 2009)• debates about its potential for political and civic
engagement (Gurak, 2005)▫efficient place for discussion, information sharing,
planning, or even quick mobilization▫spreading of inaccurate information, no effective
control over aggressive comments• no conclusive evidence on the differences
between online and offline participation (Couldry et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2010; Byrne, 2007)
Online participation• internet is an important source of social capital
(Ellison et al., 2009)• debates about its potential for political and civic
engagement (Gurak, 2005)▫efficient place for discussion, information sharing,
planning, or even quick mobilization▫spreading of inaccurate information, no effective
control over aggressive comments• no conclusive evidence on the differences
between online and offline participation (Couldry et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2010; Byrne, 2007)
Online participation• internet is an important source of social capital
(Ellison et al., 2009)• debates about its potential for political and civic
engagement (Gurak, 2005)▫efficient place for discussion, information sharing,
planning, or even quick mobilization▫spreading of inaccurate information, no effective
control over aggressive comments• no conclusive evidence on the differences
between online and offline engagement (Couldry et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2010; Byrne, 2007)
Can we identify a pattern of participation that is characterized by a strong emphasis on online participation?
Forms of participation
online – linking social or political content, discussing, visiting a political website, Facebook, online protest/boycott
direct – demonstration, political graffiti, illegal action, boycott/buying
civic – volunteering, donating money, fundraising events, wearing a symbol
Online Direct Civic N
Type 1 2.87 1.13 1.98 204
Type 2 3.07 1.53 3.29 83
Type 3 1.65 1.03 1.54 368
Type 4 1.68 1.17 2.72 80
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 1
2
3
4
Online Direct Civic
Online Direct Civic N
Type 1 2.87 1.13 1.98 204
Type 2 3.07 1.53 3.29 83
Type 3 1.65 1.03 1.54 368
Type 4 1.68 1.17 2.72 80
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 1
2
3
4
Online Direct Civic
Activists
Online Direct Civic N
Type 1 2.87 1.13 1.98 204
Type 2 3.07 1.53 3.29 83
Type 3 1.65 1.03 1.54 368
Type 4 1.68 1.17 2.72 80
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 1
2
3
4
Online Direct Civic Disengag
ed
Online Direct Civic N
Type 1 2.87 1.13 1.98 204
Type 2 3.07 1.53 3.29 83
Type 3 1.65 1.03 1.54 368
Type 4 1.68 1.17 2.72 80
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 1
2
3
4
Online Direct Civic
Only civic
Online Direct Civic N
Type 1 2.87 1.13 1.98 204
Type 2 3.07 1.53 3.29 83
Type 3 1.65 1.03 1.54 368
Type 4 1.68 1.17 2.72 80
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 1
2
3
4
Online Direct Civic
Only online
Online Activists Disengaged Civic Total
males 87 30 142 27 286
females 117 53 224 52 446
Gender
79.7
124.3
expected frequencies
Online Activists Disengaged Civic Total
males 87 30 142 27 286
females 117 53 224 52 446
Gender
79.7
124.3
χ2 (1) = 1.10, p = .29
males and females represented
equally
Online Activists Disengaged Civic Total
15 – 19 49 27 105 37 218
20 – 28 152 55 256 41 504
Age
60.7
140.3
expected frequencies
Online Activists Disengaged Civic Total
15 – 19 49 27 105 37 218
20 – 28 152 55 256 41 504
Age
60.7
140.3
χ2 (1) = 3.23, p = .07
younger and older represented
equally
What is the difference between activists and people who participate only online?
•psychological empowerment•trust•social views•politicized social environment
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Internal political efficacy
3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95
Youth collective efficacy
Community change
Community opportunities
Psychological empowerment
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,636) = 22.71, p < .01
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Internal political efficacy
3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95
Youth collective efficacy
Community change
Community opportunities
Psychological empowerment
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,636) = 22.71, p < .01
t(636) = 0.11, p = .91
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Internal political efficacy
3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95
Youth collective efficacy
Community change
Community opportunities
Psychological empowerment
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Internal political efficacy
3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95
Youth collective efficacy
3.50 3.65 3.03 3.34 3.26
Community change
Community opportunities
Psychological empowerment
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,633) = 12.34, p < .01
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Internal political efficacy
3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95
Youth collective efficacy
3.50 3.65 3.03 3.34 3.26
Community change
Community opportunities
Psychological empowerment
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,633) = 12.34, p < .01
t(633) = 1.04, p = .30
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Internal political efficacy
3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95
Youth collective efficacy
3.50 3.65 3.03 3.34 3.26
Community change
Community opportunities
Psychological empowerment
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Internal political efficacy
3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95
Youth collective efficacy
3.50 3.65 3.03 3.34 3.26
Community change 3.35 3.55 3.07 3.31 3.23
Community opportunities
Psychological empowerment
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,609) = 9.96, p < .01
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Internal political efficacy
3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95
Youth collective efficacy
3.50 3.65 3.03 3.34 3.26
Community change 3.35 3.55 3.07 3.31 3.23
Community opportunities
Psychological empowerment
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,609) = 9.96, p < .01
t(609) = 1.84, p = .07
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Internal political efficacy
3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95
Youth collective efficacy
3.50 3.65 3.03 3.34 3.26
Community change 3.35 3.55 3.07 3.31 3.23
Community opportunities
Psychological empowerment
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Internal political efficacy
3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95
Youth collective efficacy
3.50 3.65 3.03 3.34 3.26
Community change 3.35 3.55 3.07 3.31 3.23
Community opportunities 3.49 3.52 3.38 3.39 3.42
Psychological empowerment
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,609) = 0.66, p = .58
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Internal political efficacy
3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95
Youth collective efficacy
3.50 3.65 3.03 3.34 3.26
Community change 3.35 3.55 3.07 3.31 3.23
Community opportunities 3.49 3.52 3.38 3.39 3.42
Psychological empowerment
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,609) = 0.66, p = .58
t(609) = 0.22, p = .83
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Internal political efficacy
3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95
Youth collective efficacy
3.50 3.65 3.03 3.34 3.26
Community change 3.35 3.55 3.07 3.31 3.23
Community opportunities 3.49 3.52 3.38 3.39 3.42
Psychological empowerment
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Trust in political
institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84
Trust in politicians
Trust in media
Interpersonal trust
Trust
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,618) = 2.97, p = .03
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Trust in political
institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84
Trust in politicians
Trust in media
Interpersonal trust
Trust
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,618) = 2.97, p = .03
t(618) = 1.13, p = .26
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Trust in political
institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84
Trust in politicians
Trust in media
Interpersonal trust
Trust
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Trust in political
institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84
Trust in politicians 1.81 1.86 1.70 1.71 1.75
Trust in media
Interpersonal trust
Trust
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,615) = 1.91, p = .13
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Trust in political
institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84
Trust in politicians 1.81 1.86 1.70 1.71 1.75
Trust in media
Interpersonal trust
Trust
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,615) = 1.91, p = .13
t(615) = 0.59, p = .56
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Trust in political
institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84
Trust in politicians 1.81 1.86 1.70 1.71 1.75
Trust in media
Interpersonal trust
Trust
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Trust in political
institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84
Trust in politicians 1.81 1.86 1.70 1.71 1.75
Trust in media 2.81 2.86 2.71 2.80 2.76
Interpersonal trust
Trust
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,618) = 1.97, p = .12
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Trust in political
institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84
Trust in politicians 1.81 1.86 1.70 1.71 1.75
Trust in media 2.81 2.86 2.71 2.80 2.76
Interpersonal trust
Trust
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,618) = 1.97, p = .12
t(618) = 0.57, p = .57
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Trust in political
institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84
Trust in politicians 1.81 1.86 1.70 1.71 1.75
Trust in media 2.81 2.86 2.71 2.80 2.76
Interpersonal trust
Trust
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Trust in political
institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84
Trust in politicians 1.81 1.86 1.70 1.71 1.75
Trust in media 2.81 2.86 2.71 2.80 2.76
Interpersonal trust 2.45 2.37 2.20 2.39 2.32
Trust
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,615) = 2.69, p = .05
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Trust in political
institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84
Trust in politicians 1.81 1.86 1.70 1.71 1.75
Trust in media 2.81 2.86 2.71 2.80 2.76
Interpersonal trust 2.45 2.37 2.20 2.39 2.32
Trust
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,615) = 2.69, p = .05
t(615) = 0.57, p = .57
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Trust in political
institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84
Trust in politicians 1.81 1.86 1.70 1.71 1.75
Trust in media 2.81 2.86 2.71 2.80 2.76
Interpersonal trust 2.45 2.37 2.20 2.39 2.32
Trust
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Social well-being 3.09 3.21 2.88 3.01 2.99
Support for equal rights
Support for cultural rights
Support for affirmative
action
Social views
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,604) = 2.91, p = .03
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Social well-being 3.09 3.21 2.88 3.01 2.99
Support for equal rights
Support for cultural rights
Support for affirmative
action
Social views
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,604) = 2.91, p = .03
t(604) = 0.87, p = .38
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Social well-being 3.09 3.21 2.88 3.01 2.99
Support for equal rights
Support for cultural rights
Support for affirmative
action
Social views
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Social well-being 3.09 3.21 2.88 3.01 2.99
Support for equal rights 4.33 4.38 4.10 4.08 4.19
Support for cultural rights
Support for affirmative
action
Social views
1
2
3
4
5
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,596) = 3.73, p = .01
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Social well-being 3.09 3.21 2.88 3.01 2.99
Support for equal rights 4.33 4.38 4.10 4.08 4.19
Support for cultural rights
Support for affirmative
action
Social views
1
2
3
4
5
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,596) = 3.73, p = .01
t(596) = 0.41, p = .68
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Social well-being 3.09 3.21 2.88 3.01 2.99
Support for equal rights 4.33 4.38 4.10 4.08 4.19
Support for cultural rights
Support for affirmative
action
Social views
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Social well-being 3.09 3.21 2.88 3.01 2.99
Support for equal rights 4.33 4.38 4.10 4.08 4.19
Support for cultural rights 3.04 3.33 2.99 3.05 3.05
Support for affirmative
action
Social views
1
2
3
4
5
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,595) = 1.89, p = .13
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Social well-being 3.09 3.21 2.88 3.01 2.99
Support for equal rights 4.33 4.38 4.10 4.08 4.19
Support for cultural rights 3.04 3.33 2.99 3.05 3.05
Support for affirmative
action
Social views
1
2
3
4
5
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,595) = 1.89, p = .13
t(595) = 1.91, p = .06
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Social well-being 3.09 3.21 2.88 3.01 2.99
Support for equal rights 4.33 4.38 4.10 4.08 4.19
Support for cultural rights 3.04 3.33 2.99 3.05 3.05
Support for affirmative
action
Social views
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Social well-being 3.09 3.21 2.88 3.01 2.99
Support for equal rights 4.33 4.38 4.10 4.08 4.19
Support for cultural rights 3.04 3.33 2.99 3.05 3.05
Support for affirmative
action1.72 2.31 1.88 2.13 1.91
Social views
1
2
3
4
5
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,598) = 10.76, p < .01
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Social well-being 3.09 3.21 2.88 3.01 2.99
Support for equal rights 4.33 4.38 4.10 4.08 4.19
Support for cultural rights 3.04 3.33 2.99 3.05 3.05
Support for affirmative
action1.72 2.31 1.88 2.13 1.91
Social views
1
2
3
4
5
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,598) = 10.76, p < .01
t(598) = 5.10, p < .01
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Social well-being 3.09 3.21 2.88 3.01 2.99
Support for equal rights 4.33 4.38 4.10 4.08 4.19
Support for cultural rights 3.04 3.33 2.99 3.05 3.05
Support for affirmative
action1.72 2.31 1.88 2.13 1.91
Social views
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Friends participate 2.81 3.13 2.00 2.14 2.37
Parents participate
Not asked to participate
Not been persuaded
Politicized social environment
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,618) = 33.16, p < .01
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Friends participate 2.81 3.13 2.00 2.14 2.37
Parents participate
Not asked to participate
Not been persuaded
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,618) = 33.16, p < .01
t(618) = 2.06, p < .05
Politicized social environment
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Friends participate 2.81 3.13 2.00 2.14 2.37
Parents participate
Not asked to participate
Not been persuaded
Politicized social environment
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Friends participate 2.81 3.13 2.00 2.14 2.37
Parents participate 1.91 2.21 1.50 1.86 1.73
Not asked to participate
Not been persuaded
Social environment
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,612) = 12.61, p < .01
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Friends participate 2.81 3.13 2.00 2.14 2.37
Parents participate 1.91 2.21 1.50 1.86 1.73
Not asked to participate
Not been persuaded
Politicized social environment
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,612) = 12.61, p < .01
t(612) = 2.01, p < .05
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Friends participate 2.81 3.13 2.00 2.14 2.37
Parents participate 1.91 2.21 1.50 1.86 1.73
Not asked to participate
Not been persuaded
Politicized social environment
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Friends participate 2.81 3.13 2.00 2.14 2.37
Parents participate 1.91 2.21 1.50 1.86 1.73
Not asked to participate 3.65 3.29 3.93 3.65 3.75
Not been persuaded
Politicized social environment
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,648) = 3.96, p < .01
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Friends participate 2.81 3.13 2.00 2.14 2.37
Parents participate 1.91 2.21 1.50 1.86 1.73
Not asked to participate 3.65 3.29 3.93 3.65 3.75
Not been persuaded
Politicized social environment
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,648) = 3.96, p < .01
t(648) = 1.71, p = .09
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Friends participate 2.81 3.13 2.00 2.14 2.37
Parents participate 1.91 2.21 1.50 1.86 1.73
Not asked to participate 3.65 3.29 3.93 3.65 3.75
Not been persuaded
Politicized social environment
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Friends participate 2.81 3.13 2.00 2.14 2.37
Parents participate 1.91 2.21 1.50 1.86 1.73
Not asked to participate 3.65 3.29 3.93 3.65 3.75
Not been persuaded 2.65 2.16 3.10 3.12 2.87
Politicized social environment
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,650) = 21.77, p < .01
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Friends participate 2.81 3.13 2.00 2.14 2.37
Parents participate 1.91 2.21 1.50 1.86 1.73
Not asked to participate 3.65 3.29 3.93 3.65 3.75
Not been persuaded 2.65 2.16 3.10 3.12 2.87
Politicized social environment
1
2
3
4
Online Activists Disengaged Civic
F(3,650) = 21.77, p < .01
t(650) = 2.22, p < .05
Online Activists
Disengaged Civic Mean
Friends participate 2.81 3.13 2.00 2.14 2.37
Parents participate 1.91 2.21 1.50 1.86 1.73
Not asked to participate 3.65 3.29 3.93 3.65 3.75
Not been persuaded 2.65 2.16 3.10 3.12 2.87
Politicized social environment
Conclusions
•young people who are generally politically active and young people who are active only online do not differ in their psychological empowerment and trust
Conclusions
•young people who are generally politically active and young people who are active only online do not differ in their psychological empowerment and trust
• those who are generally active report a more politicized social environment
Conclusions
•young people who are generally politically active and young people who are active only online do not differ in their psychological empowerment and trust
• those who are generally active report a more politicized social environment
•we may speculate that the support for affirmative action is an expression of certain deeper value orientation
Conclusions
•online participation more impersonal?„low-cost fullfilment of civic duty“
•„activists“ and „online activists“ seem to be the same, except for social environment
•causality?
The PIDOP project is supported by a grant received from the European Commission 7th Framework Programme, FP7- SSH-2007-1, Grant Agreement no: 225282, Processes Influencing
Democratic Ownership and Participation (PIDOP) awarded to the University of Surrey (UK), University of Liege (Belgium), Masaryk University (Czech Republic), University of Jena
(Germany), University of Bologna (Italy), University of Porto (Portugal), Orebro University (Sweden), Ankara University
(Turkey) and Queen’s University Belfast (UK)