Political potential : why the internet might improve young people’s political efficacy

Political Potential: Why the Internet Might Improve Young People’s

Political Efficacy

By Ocky Wiemeijer 10018344

Supervisor: Fadi Hirzalla January 31st, 2014 Amsterdam

Universiteit van Amsterdam

Faculteit der Maatschappij- en Gedragswetenschappen

Bachelorproject: De rol van het internet in het politieke leven van jongeren Word count: 9002

Abstract

Considering the supposed political apathy of young people, and the importance of political efficacy as a driver of political participation, this thesis poses the research question: What is the potential of the Internet as a driver of political efficacy among young people? A distinction is made into internal and external political efficacy. By conducting a literature study, several important predictors of both internal and external political efficacy are identified and categorized into four categories: social forces, which refers to forces that are a result of social contact with other people; information, which refers to knowledge about political subjects; skills, and discourse, which refers to certain types of (deliberative) contact with other people. Taking a cultural deterministic and pluralist approach, the potential of the Internet to harness these different factors is assessed, by applying these offline predictors to an online context, in order to answer the central research question. The conclusion is that the Internet has a lot of potential when it comes to social forces, information and discourse, to increase young people’s internal political efficacy, because the factors in these categories can thrive in an online context.

Introduction

In general – both in scientific literature and in the media – young people (aged 15 to 30 years old) are considered to be politically apathetic, which means that they are increasingly less interested in conventional or electoral activities such as voting, membership or campaigning for political parties. There can be several reasons for this. Some say young people have different interests, which means that politics is not (yet) important enough for them to become more engaged in (national) politics. Others say that young people focus their political attention on less traditional activities. The arrival of the internet has presented a new means for political activity. The previously ‘new media’ – such as television and radio – have had a tremendous impact on the role that politics plays in society and the media (Gurevitch, Coleman & Blumler, 2009). In this thesis I will address the question of to what extent the internet has potential to increase young people’s political efficacy, which is considered to be an important predictor of political participation among young people. The central problem in this thesis is a lack of traditional political participation among young people. Unconventional political activities are beyond the scope of this thesis. These activities entail different dynamics and factors, and are not part of the identified problem of political apathy among young people.

The internet plays a very important role in our everyday lives. A lot of our everyday activities are in some way related to the use of the internet. Internet use among young people is very high. For the ages 18-29, internet adoption is 98% (Pew Research Center, 2013). This number decreases as age increases (ibidem). This means that almost every adolescent uses the internet. Less recent data also shows that young people are traditionally more active on the internet. Genarro and Dutton (2006, p. 302) point out that over 90 percent of the 14- to 17-year olds and 78% of 18- to 24-17-year olds use the internet. In other age groups this number does not surpass the 70% mark. These numbers show that the internet can be a powerful tool to engage young people in a variety of subjects, because for most people the internet has become an integral part of their everyday lives. It can therefore not be denied that it has a political impact as well, particularly for young people, because the internet has become for them the way to communicate, express themselves, and engage in different types of activities, some of which are political.

At the same time, scholars worry about the political apathy that younger generations display. The current generation of young people is much less politically active than current older generations, or older generations in their younger years (Blais et al., 2004; Calenda &

Meijer, 2009). Data from the European Social Survey in 2010 show that young people vote less than older generations; 61% of respondents aged 22-29, compared to 78.1% of respondents older than 30 years (Horvath & Paolini, 2012, p. 6). One could argue that this leads to political inequality, because, apparently, there is a whole group of citizens that is underrepresented in participating in national politics. Adolescents that are older than 18 years old are allowed to vote and should participate in politics, at least by voting, to influence politics in such a way that their interests are looked after (Hirzalla, 2012, p. 2). However, many scholars argue that political participation is not limited to just casting a vote in national elections. It covers a variety of activities that are geared towards influencing politics. The political apathy that young people display refers to traditional political activities such as voting. In the European Union, data from the European Social Survey show that young people participate less than the overall population in five different traditional political activities (Sloam, 2013). Some scholars have argued that young people do in fact participate politically, albeit in non-traditional ways (Fisher, 2012). Young people “feel that traditional forms of participation are inadequate to influence policy-making in areas important to them” (Horvath & Paolini, 2012, p. 5). Indeed, research by Gallego (2007, p. 21) shows that young people are more active in alternative political activities such as protesting, whereas middle-aged people are more active in traditional electoral politics.

The high level of internet use and low level of political participation among young people has led to a debate about the role of the internet in the political life of young people. Some argue that the internet has made the younger generation more distracted and shallow, because the internet is used mainly for entertainment purposes, although others argue that even non-political online activities have a positive impact on political activity and efficacy, which refers to someone’s feelings about their own capabilities to be politically active and the responsiveness of the political system to their needs (Graham, 2009). Some pessimists say that there is a ‘digital divide’, arguing that social inequalities are reproduced and increased through the internet (di Gennaro, 2006, p. 300; Mertens & Haenens, 2010). They argue that differences in political offline activity as a result of predetermined factors such as Social Economic Status manifest themselves online as well. Others argue otherwise, and say that the internet enriches the political activity of young people and other minorities, stimulating them to participate. The internet reduces the cost of involvement, provides new mechanisms for organizing groups, and opens up new channels of information (di Gennaro, 2006, p. 299).

The supposed political apathy of young people in the scientific literature could logically be related to the way young people experience politics in general, and to their

political efficacy in particular. Scholars have argued that political efficacy is an important driver for political participation (Anderson, 2010; Beaumont, 2011). If one is more confident of ones own capabilities to influence politics, and has more trust in the responsiveness of the representatives that one has elected, one is more likely to participate. This is a result of the feeling that participating can really have an impact on politics. Perhaps the lack of political participation among young people is the result of a low degree of political efficacy. Indeed, scholars argue that the root of young people’s lack of political activity must be sought in their lack of political efficacy (Anderson, 2010; Beaumont, 2011). Young people “neither see that their interests are well represented by elected politicians, nor do they feel that their voice is heard effectively” (Horvath & Paolini, 2012, p. 5). Some scholars argue that the notion of political participation has become “more efficacy-driven, than based on emotional and normative considerations” for young people (ibidem). Because young people are particularly fast in adopting new technologies in daily life, and because internet use among young people is very high, a solution for the lack of political efficacy among young people might be the internet.

Considering the observations about the political participation of young people and the importance of the internet in the (political) life of these young people, the following research question has been formulated: “What is the potential of the internet as a driver of political efficacy among young people?” In this question, ‘driver’ refers to something that is a stimulant of a certain factor. Answering this question will provide more insight in the political implications of the internet. Most scientific research on the implications of the internet on the political life of citizens focuses on the use of the internet, rather than the potential of it. That will be the focus of this thesis. With this goal in mind, potential uses of the internet that can help engage young people to participate will be discussed and analyzed. Existing literature about the internet focuses too much on traditional distinctions in ways of using the internet. This study focuses on a variety of factors that influence political efficacy among young people, and the way these factors might take shape on the internet. This way, novel ways of using the internet, that might prove to be important in the political development of young people, might be identified. Hence, two subjects are central in this thesis: internet and political efficacy.

The internet is constantly developing. Many papers about the political implications of the internet that were published several years ago are now obsolete. These articles often discuss an outdated version of the internet. It is this continual and swift development of the possibilities of the internet that renders the potential of the internet as a political tool or

medium a worthy and relevant subject of investigation. This is why I will discuss papers on the indicators of political efficacy in general, and not only the effect of the internet on political efficacy in particular. If I know which factors are important predictors of political efficacy in an offline context, I can assess their potential manifestations on the internet. By focusing on potential, this thesis does not limit its focus on the activities that take place on the internet today, but also on activities that might prove to be important in the future. In addition, this thesis aims to look beyond specific relationships between different types of internet use and political efficacy. These specific relationships have been investigated and empirically tested in a variety of research papers, by looking at places where these relationships already exist online. This thesis looks at the bigger picture, by assessing to what extent offline relationships between certain factors and political efficacy can thrive in an online context, thereby not limiting itself to specific, sometimes small in presence, relationships. In other words, this thesis addresses what might be going on behind different types of internet use in relation to positively influencing political efficacy among young people.

I will first provide a theoretical framework discussing existing literature on the different relevant concepts. After that I will discuss the method by which I will attempt to answer the central research question. Then, based on existing empirical research, I will identify and discuss several important and relevant factors that influence political efficacy among young people, after which I will apply these factors to the internet by assessing whether these factors thrive in an online context. I will end by concluding that the internet holds a lot of potential when it comes to harnessing social forces, communicative possibilities, political skills, and information and knowledge as predictors of political efficacy among young people.

Theoretical Framework

Political participation

Political participation can be defined in different ways. The narrowest definition of political participation pertains solely to traditional, electoral politics. The instrumental perspective on political participation stresses its importance by arguing that each person should control the collective decisions that affect their own lives, their own interests (Best & Krueger, 2005, pp. 184-185). These interests are best communicated by political participation in the form of explicit messages, such as voting. Other traditional political activities include attending public meetings, writing political representatives, and working for political parties (Fisher, 2012, p.

121). The lack of this traditional type of political participation among young people is the central problem on which this thesis is based.

Political participation can be defined broader, however. Some political activity does not manifest itself explicitly. Some political scientists regard reading about politics as a form of political participation. Writing about political subjects might also be considered political participation. Anduiza et al. (2009) identify three different types of political activities, when it comes to the political potential of the internet: “those which are only possible online, those which could be carried out equally in the real world and via the internet, and those which can only be carried out offline” (Anduiza, Cantijoch, & Gallego, 2009, p. 862). They also argue that the arrival of new technologies offers new ways of political participation that previously did not exist (ibidem). Calenda and Meijer (2009) identify two different types of political participation, accompanied with four different types of political participants. They state that there are two different types of politics: ‘traditional’ and ‘new.’ This results in four different types of political participants: people who are mostly engaged in traditional politics, those that are mostly engaged with new politics, those who are highly engaged with both, and those who show low engagement on both types (Calenda & Meijer, 2009, p. 884). Based on the findings presented in the introduction, young people can be considered to be people who are mostly engaged with new politics, or people who show low engagement on both types.

Political Efficacy

Political efficacy is a concept that is usually divided into two different types: internal political efficacy and external political efficacy. Different studies have empirically confirmed the need for such a distinction, showing that the two types are two different concepts that should be measured accordingly. For example, Craig (1980, p. 198) argues that a low level of external political efficacy, combined with a high level of internal political efficacy might result in certain types of political behavior. Combining both types into one measurable variable leads to validity and reliability issues (Lee, 2006, p. 416). This means that each type of political efficacy has its own collection of predictors, with a varying amount of explanatory power. Both types of political efficacy will be analyzed for this thesis.

Internal political efficacy is the extent to which one has the feeling that they can effectively participate in politics. It is an assessment of ones own ‘political effectiveness’ (Lee, 2006, p. 416). The concept relates to ones perceived competence to participate politically (Morrell, 2005, p. 50). It is therefore a measure of a personal aspect of political efficacy. External political efficacy is a measure of the public aspect of political efficacy. It

refers to the feeling one has about the responsiveness of the government to citizens’ needs and demands (Lee, 2006, p. 416). It is, in other words, a measure of to what extent one feels that the government correctly, fairly, and effectively addresses the interests of regular citizens (ibidem). Where internal political efficacy is a feeling about the effectiveness of ones own political actions, external political efficacy is a feeling about the responsiveness of the political system to those actions (Gerodimos, 2008, p. 966).

It is hypothesized and empirically tested in the existing literature that each type of political efficacy has a different effect on political participation. In addition, a certain predictor can have positive effect on internal efficacy, while having a negative effect on external efficacy, or vice versa (Lee, 2006). It is, therefore, necessary to take into account this distinction in this thesis. The factors that are identified later in this thesis will therefore be explicitly related to a specific type of political efficacy.

Internet use

Using the internet can be done in a variety of different ways. The interactive, dynamic nature of the internet makes it a medium that can be used for different purposes. Some use it to consume information, others to share and create, for example. Lee (2006) has identified three different types of internet use. First, one can use the internet to acquire political information. Second, the internet can be used to have interactive contact with agencies and organizations from the public sector. Finally, one can use the internet purely for entertainment. Each of these types has different effects on political activity, and the potential for the enhancement of political efficacy is different for each type. Logically, the second type of internet use is very related to external political efficacy, since interactive contact with the public sector can mean a lot for the (perceived) responsiveness of said sector (i.e. the government). Responsiveness is a central concept for external political efficacy. In addition to the three types of internet use that Lee (2006) describes, a fourth type can be added. Interactive social internet use is very important. Many people interact with each other online through Facebook, Twitter, and other communicating applications and services.

Calenda and Meijer (2009, p. 885) conceptualize ‘internet use’ by identifying different groups of internet users, based on the findings by Howard et al. (2001), in their study on internet use among American citizens. These groups are based on the way people have integrated the internet in their daily lives (Calenda & Meijer, 2009, p. 885). The central factor in this distinction is the amount of experience people have with the internet. People that have a lot of experience and use the internet on a daily basis, giving it a central role in their daily

lives are considered ‘netizens.’ The concept of internet experience is somewhat outdated, since young people (who are the focus of this thesis) can be considered to be very experienced and active on the internet. Howard et al. (2001) have found, in 2001, that young people are most active on the internet, which is an observation that still holds today. Young people can therefore be classified as ‘netizens.’ In this thesis it will therefore be assumed that internet access will not be an issue when assessing the impact of the internet on young people’s political efficacy.

The fact that most young people have incorporated the internet in their day-to-day lives, does not mean that they use the internet for political purposes on a daily basis. As was noted before, the internet is used for many activities that are not (directly) political. But when is an online activity political? When does it hold the potential to influence political efficacy? Some scholars argue that the only political activities that can be engaged in online are the ones that are equivalents of offline traditional political activities. In this view, an individual’s political internet use is rooted in their offline political participation. Others say that even non-political activities online, such as writing and reading tabloid-esque news on entertainment weblogs, have an impact on political efficacy and activity (Östman, 2012). The argument for this is that, when a person generates content online, it is developing ‘democratic’ skills. The internet is a major platform for ‘user generated content.’ Engaging in this type of activity provides the internet user with certain skills that are helpful for their political participation. More interestingly, it is argued that having a certain set of skills can increase ones political efficacy (Beaumont, 2011), which is the central concept in this thesis.

Combining the distinctions by Calenda and Meijer (2009), Lee (2006), and Östman (2012), we can list several different types of internet use that are, combined with findings on political efficacy, relevant for this thesis. Acquiring political information is a one-way type of internet use that might have an effect on internal political efficacy. Having interactive contact is a two-way type of internet use that might have an effect on external political efficacy. Using the internet for entertainment does not seem to have a direct impact on either type of political efficacy. Interactive social internet use, as I will argue later in this thesis, has a positive impact on young people’s political efficacy. Using the internet for daily activities means one has a lot of experience on the internet, which might prove to be beneficial for their political efficacy. Using and creating user generated content is an online activity that might hold potential for internal political efficacy.

Kensky and Strout (2010) have done research on the effects of internet use on political efficacy, political knowledge and political activity. They have pointed out the two schools of

thought on this subject. The pessimistic view argues that the internet has no or a negative impact on these three factors. When attempting to interact with politicians or public sector organizations, for example, citizens might be disappointed by the lack of response, which has a direct effect on their external political efficacy (Kensky and Stroud, 2010, p. 176). In addition, the large volume of political information available on the internet, might render citizens powerless, because they have difficulties with extracting the information they need (ibidem). Part of the pessimistic school of thought is the notion of ‘digital divide.’ According to this theory, existing differences in political participation, efficacy and other factors are reinforced on the internet (Mertens & Haenens, 2010). People who are already politically active for whatever reason (but probably because of their Social Economic Status) will also be more active on the internet. This way, a lack of internal political efficacy as a result of having a lower social economic status, will only be reinforced through the internet. The digital divide thesis addresses issues of inequality related to internet access and internet use. As was shown, almost every young person has access to the internet, so the access divide is not an issue among young people. The divide related to internet use, however, might be a problem. Young people might use the internet for different purposes, creating a gap in the extent to which young people are politically active online. This is the so called ‘second-level’ digital divide, which is by some scholars referred to as the democratic divide (Min, 2010).

On the other hand, the possibility of interacting with politicians and public sector organizations might have a positive impact on the external political efficacy of citizens. This optimistic view also argues that the availability of political information on the internet has a positive impact on the internal political efficacy of citizens. In addition, the anonymity of the internet allows citizens to disconnect their political (in)competence from their (online) identity, making them feel less embarrassed about their political knowledge and skills (Kensky and Strout, 2010, p. 175), which might be beneficial for their internal political efficacy. Finally, as will be shown in the analysis section of this thesis, there are several predictors of political efficacy among young people that can be harnessed on the internet to improve political efficacy.

Method

To provide an answer to the central research question, existing empirical research will be used. Many articles have been written on the subject of political efficacy in general, and about the factors that might influence it in particular. Building on the theoretical framework, I will

identify different factors that influence each type of political efficacy. After this inventarisation of important factors, I will discuss to what extent the internet can harness these factors in an effective way. That way, I can lay bare the relationships between internet and political efficacy.

Identifying the important factors that relate to political efficacy will be done by conducting a literature study. I will explore the available academic literature on political efficacy and identify the relevant studies that can be used for this thesis. I will look for articles from leading journals that discuss the explanatory power of certain factors regarding political efficacy. Identifying relevant literature was based on several criteria. First, especially because we are dealing with a very changeful and dynamic subject, the internet, the publication date is important. When doing research on the internet, it is very important to rely on recent publications, or recognize the possible outdated elements in older publications. The internet is very different from what it was ten to fifteen years ago. A second criterion is the title of the article. The decision to dive deeper in to an article is based on the title and its relevance for my thesis. Titles are found by using certain keywords in online search engines such as Jstor, Google Scholar and the university library. Scrolling through the search results, I will identify potentially relevant titles and select them to scan or read them more carefully. Additionally, I will look at the bibliography of relevant articles, to see if I can find other useful articles. In this process, I relied on reciprocal citations to discover patterns. In other words, different articles citing the same particular article, or different articles citing each other was an indicator of their relevance and usefulness. Third, the reputation of the journal that the article is published in is an important criterion for its usefulness for this thesis. Part of this criterion is the number of times the article or book has been cited by other scholars. Often, the search engines will present the articles in a convenient order of relevance based on number of citations.

From the selected literature, I draw relevant and important predictors of political efficacy among young people. To do this, I have looked at the empirical evidence that is presented in the literature. If there is strong empirical proof that a certain predictor has a positive effect on either internal, external or both types of political efficacy, I include it in my analysis. Based on the selection of important and relevant predictors of political efficacy, I will categorize them to make the analysis more clear and easier to understand.

Once these factors have been identified and discussed, I will investigate to what extent these factors can effectively ‘take shape’ through the internet. In other words, whether the internet forms a medium or tool that can enhance the effect these factors have on political

efficacy among young people. This will be done through logical reasoning, and by reviewing existing scientific literature on the different possibilities that the internet presents. In this analysis, I will fall back on the different types of internet use discussed earlier. In other words, I will look whether the predictors of political efficacy among young people in an offline context are able to thrive in an online context, in order to assess what the potential of the internet as a driver of political efficacy among young people is.

Origins of political efficacy

The abundance of scientific literature on political efficacy shows that there are many factors that influence it. The identification can be empirically tested, but they are often also based on theoretical considerations. Lee (2006) identifies three perspectives on the origin of political efficacy: cultural determinism, structural determinism, and pluralism. Cultural determinism states that your political efficacy is influenced by the cultural context you surround yourself with. According to this perspective, political efficacy is the result of a “process of socialization into a particular social group” (Lee, 2006, p. 416). According to the structural deterministic perspective, your Social Economic Status is the most important determinant of your political efficacy. Supporters of the digital divide thesis can be classified as having this perspective. The pluralist perspective assumes the relationship to be reverse. It states that one’s political efficacy is a product of their political participation. In this sense, the more someone participates, or has the opportunity to participate, the higher their political efficacy will be. Cultural determinism and pluralism are most relevant for this thesis, because in these perspectives it is assumed that the internet might have an effect on political efficacy, which is a view that the structural determinist perspective does not allow. Taking the cultural determinist perspective one can argue that the internet is a medium in which cultural dynamics manifest themselves as well. This means that your socialization in certain social groups through the internet has an effect on your political efficacy. The pluralist perspective provides an optimistic argument for the potential of the internet to increase young people’s political efficacy. If the internet can enable young people to participate in politics more easily, it has the potential to enhance their political efficacy as well.

In addition to these broad theoretical perspectives, I have identified different concrete factors that influence the political efficacy of young people by conducting an extensive literature study. Based on this inventarisation of relevant factors, I have developed four categories according to which these factors can be classified. Using these categories helps to

understand the different relationships between a variety of factors and political efficacy, because some factors may overlap to a certain extent. The four categories I have formulated are: (1) social forces, (2) information, (3) skills, and (4) discourse. These will be discussed below.

Social Forces

Scholars have argued that there are certain social forces that have an effect on young people’s political efficacy. While the concept of social forces can be defined very broadly or very narrowly, I will provide a list of specific social forces that are relevant for this thesis, being (1) community, (2) social networks, and (3) collaboration. The impact of the first factor, sense of community, on (both internal and external) political efficacy was researched by Anderson (2010). His argument is based on the perspective of ‘collective efficacy theory’ (ibidem: 59). According to this theory, “the prevalence and density of kinship, friendship, and acquaintanceship networks and the level of participation in community-based organizations fosters the emergence of collective efficacy, or solidarity and mutual trust among community residents” (Browning, Dietz, & Feinberg, 2004, p. 506). Although this theory is borrowed from urban policy studies, Anderson (2010, p. 60) argues that it can also be applied to studies of political behavior. Anderson describes social forces as “where and with whom we work, live, socialize and worship” (ibidem). Sense of community is an important part of this. Anderson has hypothesized and empirically tested (and confirmed) its positive effect on both internal and external political efficacy, breaking it down into four different elements: (1) membership, (2) influence, (3) integration and fulfillment of needs, and (4) shared emotional connection. These four elements help assess the potential of the internet to harness a sense of community among it’s young users.

The potential presence of the first element on the internet is obvious. There are thousands of online communities that people can become a member of. Many websites offer the ability to become a member of their community. There are many Facebook groups that function as a community for people interested in a variety of subjects. Membership is based on the notion that some people do have access to the community, while others do not (Anderson, 2010, p. 62). This is something that is easily achieved on the internet. Influence is based on a reciprocal relationship in which a member has the feeling that they can make a difference in the community. There are undoubtedly people who feel they have influence in an online community, but do not have that feeling offline. This is because membership and influence in an online community are not restricted by geographical boundaries or existing

reputations offline. The fulfillment of needs element dictates that members must feel that their needs are met by their membership. Because of the vast size of the internet, the abundance of different communities, and the ease at which one can create their own community, this element is definitely something that is potentially present on the internet. Finally, a community inherently entails a shared emotional connection for its members, for otherwise it cannot be considered a community. One can argue that this is no different for online communities. Although probably not all online communities entail a shared emotional connection, because becoming a member of an online community is much easier, one cannot deny that some online communities do have the potential to create a shared emotional connection.

For young people specifically the internet holds a lot of potential to create a sense of community. It seems logical – although empirical testing is needed here – that the older you get, the more communities you become part of. The older you are, the more time you have had to discover and become a member of new communities. This age gap can be overcome on the internet, because of the ease at which one can become a member of a community. It must be noted, however, that an offline community might feel more engaging and ‘real.’ An online community is a virtual community, after all, although some virtual communities are rooted in offline communities. This is a question, however, that is beyond the scope of this thesis. In summary, the internet’s potential in enabling a sense of community for citizens is undeniable.

The second social force is (social) networks. While sense of community relates to a personal assessment of one’s social environment (hence the word ‘sense’), social networks is an ‘objective’ factor; one’s network has a certain identifiable size. It is believed that social networks have an impact on the political participation of citizens, particularly when the ties between the people within the network are strong (Lim, 2008). A reason for this might be that it improves ones internal political efficacy, especially when the people within the network share the same political ideas. Cross-cutting networks – networks in which there is a lot of political disagreement – are believed to have a negative impact on political attitudes and behavior, because of the controversy surrounding political issues as a result of this political disagreement (Mutz, 2002). Networks are also part of the collective efficacy theory discussed before, in which the prevalence of different types of networks is believed to foster collective efficacy, which in turn might improve individual political efficacy. When assessing the potential of the internet, the existence of cross-cutting networks must be recognized, asking whether online cross-cutting networks also have a negative impact on political attitudes and behavior.

When it comes to (social) networks, the potential of the internet is obvious. Services such as Facebook and Twitter have made ‘the social network’ a central dynamic on which online activity is based. People are able to come in to contact with more people than they do offline, simply because it is very easy to ‘virtually’ meet people they would never meet in an offline context (Bargh & McKenna, 2004, p. 582). The positive effect of having a broad network of people on political efficacy is something that definitely has an online reality. It is, however, relatively easy to come into contact with different opinions than your own, which, as was noted before with the so-called cross-cutting networks, might have a negative impact on your internal political efficacy. The sheer amount of different opinions one often deals with online might be troublesome, although the anonymity of your online existence might mitigate this problem, because it allows you to provide counter-arguments without the judgment of the people in your network.

A third social force is collaboration. Beaumont (2011) has argued that inclusion in collaborative pluralist context has a positive effect on political efficacy. By pluralist is meant that the context must inhabit social differences, such as race or social economic status. This might, as was noted earlier, lead to cross-sectional networks that have a negative impact on political attitudes and behavior. However, it is argued that when a context is both collaborative as well as pluralist, it has the potential to “foster political efficacy by disrupting stubbornness of early political dispositions (Beaumont, 2011, p. 219). Cooperation is also at the core of the earlier described sense of community (Anderson, 2010, p. 61). In addition, Östman (2012: 1008) argues that engaging in collaboration might raise ethical, political and legal issues, which has a positive impact on young people’s political activities. Collaboration is listed separately from the first two factors, while it might be considered to be part of them. This is because collaboration can also take place outside of communities or social networks as a social force.

Collaboration is more problematic on the internet than the other two factors. Anonymity means that there is no social control on the way you interact with people, and the opinions you display online. As Gurevitch et al. (2009, p. 178) put it, “the notion of a singular public sphere, dominated by codified standards of civility, is less realizable than a space of pluralistic interaction within and between diverse social networks.” When you engage with people anonymously, the ‘codified standards of civility’ are less easy to uphold, which means that there might be less of an incentive to collaborate. Of course, not every online activity is anonymous, and there have been many instances in which complete strangers collaborate

online to achieve a certain goal. In other words, collaboration through the internet is possible, but it might be hard to find.

The concept of social forces as a driver of political efficacy is grounded on the cultural determinist perspective on the origins of political efficacy. Beaumont (2011) refers to this mechanism as ‘sociopolitical learning’ and believes that this learning can influence political efficacy, rendering the effect of pre-existing conditions such as social economic status less important. He therefore rejects the structural determinist perspective, which is in accordance with my own view on the potential of the internet as a driver of political efficacy.

Information

The gathering of (political) information and knowledge is considered to be an important driver of political efficacy (Kenski & Stroud, 2006). If one believes that they have the knowledge to become a meaningful addition to the political system, it will have a positive effect on ones internal political efficacy. Internal political efficacy is about being able to make well-informed decisions when engaging in political activity, which is something that is promoted by the acquisition of proper (political) information. Most political information and knowledge is acquired via the media. News broadcasts on television, political articles in newspapers, talk shows on the radio are important suppliers of this information. Empirical research has shown that media use is a good predictor of political efficacy (Newhagen, 1994). The internet has made the gathering of political information much cheaper and easier, and therefore holds a lot of potential as a medium that can have a positive effect on internal political efficacy among young people.

In their research on the effect of internet use on three different political variables (efficacy, knowledge, and participation), Kenski and Strout (2006) have found that exposure to information about the presidential campaign of the 2000 United States presidential elections had a positive impact on those variables. They have shown that exposure to explicit political information is beneficial to internal political efficacy, because it allows people to have the feeling they can make well-informed political decisions, although the explanatory power of the independent variable was very small. They did not find a significant relationship for external political efficacy. Since many young people gather (political) information online, the internet can prove to be an important source of this explicit political information.

The internet has become a major medium for the gathering of political information. The information people can acquire from television, radio and newspapers, is also readily available online. Media production has expanded because of the internet (Gurevitch et al.,

2009). Because media use is a good predictor of internal political efficacy, and because the internet can be seen as part of the media, providing a vast amount of political information, the potential of the internet in this regard is undeniable, although the way in which this information is effectively presented, is a problem that remains to be solved. This is especially the case for young people, who, to a large extent, consume information via the internet, rather than television, radio, or newspapers (Gurevitch et al., 2009), which provides them with a large amount of information to deal with and process. The internet has become a central element of their day-to-day lives, which means that the political information that is needed to increase their political efficacy can best be presented to them through the internet. In addition, one must take into account a potential knowledge gap between people who are interested in political information, and people who use the internet mainly for entertainment purposes (Prior, 2005), provided that they are not distracted by other possibilities on the internet.

Skills

Certain skills are argued to be important predictors of one’s political efficacy. Beaumont (2011) regards acquiring skills for political action as part of ‘sociopolitical learning mechanisms.’ This regards specifically skills that can be learned and applied in real life situations. This means that having political experience – having engaged in activities such as organizing political rallies, writing letters to politicians, etc. – have a positive impact on one’s internal political efficacy. He tested this relationship specifically for young people, assessing whether students participating in programs that placed an emphasis on learning political action skills had higher levels of political efficacy than students that participated in programs that did not. It is argued that this indicator also helps to overcome the predetermined effects of socio-economic factors, therefore holding a lot of potential to overcome political inequality.

The potential of the internet when it comes to political skills is not very obvious. The political skills as discussed by Beaumont (2011), refer to skills gained by engaging in political

action activities that do not necessarily have an online equivalent. And if they do, they do not

seem to be more effective online, because political action implies that there must be actual physical activity, rather than just virtual online activity. The internet might be a tool to make the political action easier, but it does not hold political action in itself. In other words, the internet is not the central element on which the action is based.

While Beaumont’s research was specifically about explicit political action skills, Östman (2012) has argued that engaging in less-obviously political actions can help people acquire relevant skills that might be beneficial for their political attitudes and activity. By

generating content online people acquire skills that might be useful in a political context. These skills include “critical reading, ‘collective intelligence’ and novel modes of cultural production (Östman, 2012, p. 1008). His research was done on 13 to 17 year olds, so this relationship pertains specifically to young people. Although Östman’s study was related to political activity specifically, it is reasonable to assume that these skills are also positively related to political efficacy. Therefore, acquiring skills by generating content is an important factor that can take place online.

The internet does provide people the opportunity to generate content. As Östman (2012) has argued, generating content online can have a positive impact on internal political efficacy. This is because it helps people acquire skills that are useful in a political context. Care is needed when making conclusions about the potential of the internet based on these findings, however. Östman has also found that high involvement in User Generated Content (UGC) has a negative impact on political knowledge. As was discussed before, political knowledge is positively related to political efficacy. An explanation for this is that the skills acquired through involvement in UGC pertain to the use of internet. By generating content online, young people learn more about using the internet, and therefore have more skills to politically participate online. Their political knowledge suffers from it, however.

Political skill is a factor that is related to internal political efficacy specifically. The conceptualization of internal political efficacy contains a notion of skills. It is about the extent to which someone feels that they have the ability or competence to effectively participate in national politics. It is reasonable to believe that if one actually has a relevant skill set, he or she will also believe that they have the skills to effectively participate in national politics, and therefore have a higher degree of internal political efficacy.

Discourse

This fourth category relates to communicative factors. Beaumont (2011) has shown that, as part of the sociopolitical learning mechanisms, political discourse is very important. As people discuss politics with each other, they become better informed about politics itself, and also about the different opinions and standpoints about important political issues. In addition, “talking about politics regularly with the same group creates a politically engaged community [emphasis added] in which such discussions – both the political tentativeness and conflicts they entail – come to be seen as normal and valuable” (Beaumont, 2011, p. 219). This relates to the ‘sense of community’ factor discussed earlier in the social forces category. The argument is that when people see that different political standpoints are normal, they will be

more confident about their own political views, which will lead to a higher internal political efficacy.

Morrell (2005) has done research on the effect of deliberation on internal political efficacy. Political deliberation refers to a system in which citizens exchange and discuss information and opinions about political matters and public affairs (Min, 2007). Morrell has specified three types of deliberation: civic dialogue, deliberative discussion, and deliberative decision making. His research was done specifically on deliberative decision making, and the results indicate that there is no relationship between that variable and internal political efficacy. Although he does not empirically test the effect of the other two forms of deliberation, he does provide arguments for it, borrowed from other scholars. Civic dialogue and deliberative discussion are both communicative concepts, in the sense that they involve communication between two or more people, and can therefore be classified under the fourth category. The difference between the two variables is that civic dialogue is aimed at bringing different people together to improve civic engagement, while deliberative discussion aimed at having a discussion with different people about current political subjects (Morrell, 2005, p. 55).

Min (2007, p. 1371) has argued that deliberation makes citizens feel more confident about their own views and more willing to express those views, which increases their internal political efficacy. Min has shown empirically that both face-to-face as well as online deliberation is positively associated with political efficacy, not distinguishing between internal and external political efficacy. His claims are backed up by several other studies on the effect of offline deliberation on political efficacy. The internet can be seen as a pre-eminent tool for deliberation. The amount of discussions and their length online are endless. Most posts on prestigious news sites allow comments, which often result in a heated discussion about the subject.

When it comes to the discourse category, the internet has a lot of potential. In most studies on the effect of the internet on political efficacy, scholars have identified several types of internet use and researched the effect of each type on political efficacy. The types of internet use they present are mostly limited to some sort of distinction between informational internet use and internet use for entertainment. Some include the possibility of interacting with public officials. They seem to neglect the possibility of deliberation and political discourse that can take place on the internet, and if they do address it, they do not relate it to political efficacy. This is striking, because many scholars have shown that deliberation and political discourse in an offline context are important indicators of political efficacy. Who is

to say that these activities cannot take place online? Forums on which people discuss a variety of subjects have existed for many years. Min (2007) has shown that online deliberation might have a positive effect on political efficacy. Considering his paper was published over six years ago – Facebook had just opened its doors for everyone – one can imagine the possibilities in this regard today. The interactive nature of the internet, and the fact that the internet is a central facet of young people’s lives, shows that it has the potential to engage young people by increasing their political efficacy through (political) discourse.

Below is a table summarizing each factor and the effect it has on internal and/or external political efficacy among young people.

Social Forces Information Skills Discourse

Sense of Community

Internal + external

Political Information

through Media Use

Internal Political Skills Internal Political Discourse Internal (Social) Networks Internal Explicit Political Information Internal User Generated Content Internal Deliberation Internal Collaboration Internal Education Internal

Figure 1: summarizing table

Conclusion

The central role that the internet plays in our daily lives cannot be denied anymore, especially for young people. As it turns out, most factors that have a positive effect on young people’s political efficacy can manifest themselves online just as well, or even better. To arrive at this conclusion I have taken the cultural determinist perspective, assuming that young people’s socialization into social groups can largely take place online nowadays. The internet has made it possible to disconnect your social economic status from your identity. This alone allows young people to overcome socio-economic limitations.

When it comes to the social forces category, the internet has a lot of potential. Communities and social networks are abundant online. Collaboration is a little more problematic, because of anonymity and accountability issues. When it comes to information and knowledge, the internet is a major supplier of political information for young people. Young people consume most of the political news via the internet. Skills are more

problematic. Explicit political skills are best acquired in an offline context. Skills associated with User Generated Content involvement hold potential for the level of political participation, but might have a negative effect on young people’s political knowledge. When it comes to discourse, the internet’s potential is undeniable. Discussing politics online might even be easier than discussing politics offline. People can hide behind their anonymity, and therefore don’t have to be embarrassed about their own lack of knowledge. This takes away the negative effect on internal political efficacy of having to compare your own political competence with your peers. Although this thesis has painted a positive picture, one must not neglect the part of the internet that is distracting and less political.

In addition, the internet provides us with a variety of possibilities to actually participate. Signing petitions can be done with the click of mouse, or the tap of a finger. One can join political parties via the internet. One can find out which party to vote on via the internet. One can demonstrate discontent with certain political issues on the internet. Taking the pluralist perspective that I discussed earlier, one can argue that the fact that the internet provides people with the opportunity to participate effectively, might improve people’s political efficacy.

The factors that I have identified and which are summarized in Table 1 mostly have an effect on internal political efficacy among young people. Only one factor – sense of community – can also have an effect on external political efficacy. This means that the internet is mainly a potential driver of internal political efficacy. This can be explained logically as well, because external political efficacy is about the responsiveness of the public sector, which is hard to express in an online context. The internet might even have a negative impact on external political efficacy, because the abundance of reports, articles and other content about corruption, dysfunctional political systems and failing politicians. I cannot, however, back up this claim with empirical data.

Though I have painted a rather rosy picture about the potential of the internet as a driver of political efficacy among young people, some side notes are in place. The internet is enormous. The activities related to the different factors I have identified are just a tiny part of all the possibilities and activities on the internet. Young people become easily distracted. They use the internet for gaming, watching TV, watching movies, talk to friends about benign subjects, watch porn, etcetera. So, while the internet can harness almost all of the factors I have identified in this paper, young people still have to be stimulated to make use of these possibilities. Concerns about a second-level digital divide might be appropriate in this sense. The paradox is that this stimulation probably must also be done through the internet. The very

fact that the internet is a central aspect of young people’s lives means that the best way to engage them is to reach out to them on the internet.

Note that in this thesis the central question was about the potential of the internet as a driver of political efficacy. This question was answered by assessing whether the important drivers of political efficacy could exist online. For most factors this question has been answered affirmatively. However, this does not mean that they are harnessed in the right way yet, or that they even exist at all. Yet. This thesis only argues that the conditions to effectively harness most of these factors online exist. The ‘how-question’ is beyond the scope of this thesis.

There are several limitations to this thesis. While I relied on existing empirical research on the effect of certain factors on political efficacy, the effect of these factors in an online context was not empirically tested. I have applied the relationships between these factors and political efficacy among young people in an offline context to an online context, relying on assumptions about the nature of the internet. While these assumptions were based on scientific literature and sound logical reasoning, no empirical evidence was presented. Further research might be able to test the empirical soundness of my arguments.

Another limitation is that I might not have identified all the relevant factors that influence political efficacy. I have rejected the structural deterministic perspective for the sake of this thesis. I have therefore neglected several socio-economic factors that might in fact be important predictors of political efficacy. The central premise of this thesis, however, dictated the use of a cultural deterministic and pluralist approach, because a purely structural deterministic perspective does not allow the internet to potentially have an independent effect on political efficacy among young people, which would make this thesis an superfluous inquiry into a question that can only be answered through a very narrow and specific lens.

This thesis has not addressed the ‘how-question’ of the potential of the internet as a driver of political efficacy. I have stated the potential, but I have not explained how this potential can and should be realized. Of course, this is a gap that leaves room for further research. Future research can focus on the way these factors can exist online. Another important direction of research is looking at proper ways to measure the online manifestations of the offline predictors that are identified in this thesis. This will help to empirically test the potential that I have laid bare in this thesis

An important takeaway from this thesis is that the internet proves to be a medium through which young people can potentially be engaged more in traditional forms of political participation. This thesis shows that this can be done by focusing on factors that have an

effect on political efficacy in an offline context, rather than simply looking at certain types of internet use. The answer to the lack of political participation among young people might be sought in the offline context about which we already know a lot, and might, therefore, be more straightforward than you think.

References

Anderson, M. R. (2010). Community Psychology, Political Efficacy, and Trust. Political

Psychology, 31(1), 59–84.

Anduiza, E., Cantijoch, M., & Gallego, A. (2009). Political Participation and the Internet.

Information, Communication & Society, 12(6), 860–878.

Bargh, J. a, & McKenna, K. Y. a. (2004). The internet and social life. Annual review of

psychology, 55, 573–90.

Beaumont, E. (2011). Promoting Political Agency, Addressing Political Inequality: A Multilevel Model of Internal Political Efficacy. The Journal of Politics, 73(01), 216– 231.

Best, S. J., & Krueger, B. S. (2005). Analyzing the Representativeness of Internet Political Participation, 27(2), 183–216.

Blais, A., Gidengil, E., Nevitte, N., & Nadeau, R. (2004). Where does turnout decline come from ? European Journal of Political Research, 43, 221–236.

Browning, C. R., Dietz, R. D., & Feinberg, S. L. (2004). The Paradox of Social Organization: Networks, Collective Efficacy, and Violent Crime in Urban Neighborhoods. Social

Forces, 83(2), 503–534.

Calenda, D., & Meijer, A. (2009). Young People, the Internet and Political Participation.

Information, Communication & Society, 12(6), 879–898.

Craig, S. C. (1980). The Mobilization of Political Discontent. Political Behavior, 2(2), 189– 209.

Di Gennaro, C., & Dutton, W. (2006). The Internet and the Public: Online and Offline Political Participation in the United Kingdom. Parliamentary Affairs, 59(2), 299–313. Fisher, D. R. (2012). Youth Political Participation: Bridging Activism and Electoral Politics.

Annual Review of Sociology, 38(1), 119–137.

Gallego, A. (2007). Unequal Political Participation in Europe. International Journal of

Sociology, 37(4), 10–25.

Gerodimos, R. (2008). Mobilising young citizens in the UK: A content analysis of youth and issue websites. Information, Communication & Society, 11(7), 964–988.

Graham, T. S. (2009). What’s Wife Swap got to do with it? Talking politics in the net-based

public sphere. University of Amsterdam.

Gurevitch, M., Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. G. (2009). Political Communication --Old and New Media Relationships. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and

Hirzalla, F. (2012). Young people’s online civic participation. Universiteit van Amsterdam Horvath, A., & Paolini, G. (2012). Political Participation and EU Citizenship : Perceptions

and Behaviours of Young People (pp. 1–21).

Howard, P. E. N., Rainie, L., & Jones, S. (2001). Days and Nights on the Internet: The Impact of a Diffusing Technology. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 383–404.

Kenski, K., & Stroud, N. J. (2006). Journal of Broadcasting & Connections Between Internet Use and Political Efficacy , Knowledge , and Participation. Journal of Broadcasting &

Electronic Media, 50(2), 173–192.

Lee, K. M. (2006). Effects of Internet use on college students’ political efficacy.

Cyberpsychology & behavior : the impact of the Internet, multimedia and virtual reality on behavior and society, 9(4), 415–22.

Lim, C. (2008). Social Networks and Political Participation: How Do Networks Matter?

Social Forces, 87(2), 961–982.

Mertens, S., & Haenens, L. (2010). The digital divide among young people in Brussels: Social and cultural influences on ownership and use of digital technologies. Communications,

35, 187–207.

Min, S.-J. (2007). Online vs. Face-to-Face Deliberation: Effects on Civic Engagement.

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1369–1387.

Min, S.-J. (2010). From the Digital Divide to the Democratic Divide: Internet Skills, Political Interest, and the Second-Level Digital Divide in Political Internet Use. Journal of

Information Technology & Politics, 7(1), 22–35.

Morrell, M. E. (2005). Deliberation, Democratic Decision-Making and Internal Political Efficacy. Political Behavior, 27(1), 49–69.

Mutz, D. C. (2002). The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation.

American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838–855.

Newhagen, J. E. (1994). Media use and political efficacy: The suburbanization of race and class. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6), 386–394. Ostman, J. (2012). Information, expression, participation: How involvement in user-

generated content relates to democratic engagement among young people. New Media &

Society, 14(6), 1004–1021.

Prior, M. (2005). News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 577– 592.

Sloam, J. (2013). Young people are less likely to vote than older citizens, but they are also more diverse in how they choose to participate in politics. London School of Economics

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/07/19/young-people-are-less-likely-to-vote-than- older-citizens-but-they-are-also-more-diverse-in-how-they-choose-to-participate-in-politics/