Political campaigning on ‘social networking sites’:
enhancing political participation?
The influence of social media use for interactive political campaigning on
online and offline political participation of the political sophisticated and
political unsophisticated
Course: Graduation project political communication Final version
Student: Vivièn Laros, 10741666 Tutor: Dhr. Jasper van de Pol
Date: June 12, 2017
Abstract
Recent studies generally show that interactive use of ‘social networking sites’ (SNSs) for political campaigns has a positive influence on political participation. Interactivity is one of the main features of SNSs that distinguish them from almost all other types of media. This research expands the knowledge about interactive campaigning on SNSs by examining its effects on both online and offline political participation separately, while determining if these effects differ among the politically sophisticated and the unsophisticated. Based on an online experiment, using a convenience sample (N = 109), this study demonstrates that no evidence could be found for the hypothesis that interactive political campaigning leads to more political participation. In addition, the moderating role of political sophistication appeared to be non-existent in this study: the effects of interactive political campaigning on political participation do not differ significantly between the politically unsophisticated and the politically sophisticated.
Introduction
Political parties increasingly use social media for their political campaigns, as the interactive character of these ‘social networking sites’ (SNSs) provide all kinds of opportunities for the direct contact with citizens and the relatively easy and unfiltered dissemination of information without having to pass the mainstream press ‘gatekeepers’ (e.g. Ekman & Widholm, 2015). The Dutch political party D66, for example, even used the gay dating app ‘Grindr’ to connect with the gay community (Van Dun, 2014). In the Netherlands, especially ‘Facebook’ is mostly used as a campaign tool, in comparison to for example ‘Twitter', as it has the biggest possible reach in terms of users (Van der Veer, Boekee, & Peters, 2017). Research shows that in general, SNSs use in politics has a positive influence on political participation (Bouilianne, 2015b; Gil de Zúñiga, Jung & Valenzuela, 2012; Gil de Zúñiga, Molyneux & Zheng, 2014; Kim & Khang, 2014; Kruikemeier, van Noort, Vliegenthart & de Vreese, 2016; Lin, 2016; Park, 2015; Skoric & Zhu, 2016; Valenzuela, 2013; Towner, 2013). Participation of citizens in politics is considered crucial for a healthy, representative democracy (Guidetti, Cavazza & Graziani, 2016; Kruikemeier et al., 2016; McAllister, 2016; McNair, 2003), especially because each individual should be represented evenly in the decision-making process in order to enhance social equality (McNair, 2003; Holt, Shehata & Strömbäck, 2013).
There are crucial differences between different forms of SNSs that could be used in elections in terms of their format and content characteristics, which need to be taken into account when researching the effects of political campaigns on SNSs on political participation (Kruikemeier, van Noort, Vliegenthart & de Vreese, 2014; Kruikemeier et al., 2016; Towner, 2013). Especially SNSs that facilitate the interaction between the politicians and citizens through the campaign are more likely to be associated with changes in political participation as citizens feel more ‘connected’ with politics (Kruikemeier et al., 2016; Towner, 2013). For this reason, this study will focus on interactive political campaigning as an explanatory variable for political participation.
However, not all forms of political participation are significant in a well-functioning democracy. Especially the online forms of political participation, such as following a candidate on Facebook, are considered less important as they require fewer resources and do not necessarily generate an actual change. Some even claim that there is a chance that citizens become ‘slacktivists’, because they only engage in such ‘feel-good types’ of political
participation, without the actual political outcomes (Vitak et al., 2011; Valenzuela, 2013). Political activities that require more energy and resources, such as volunteering or joining a political-related group, are observed less frequent, especially as SNSs encourage the less ‘relevant’ types of participation (Ibid.). It is therefore also important to distinguish between different forms of political participation. In this study, there will be a focus on both online and offline political participation, varying from following a politician on Facebook to actually attending a political meeting.
As previous research mostly relied on survey data (Bouilianne, 2015a), and is thus unable to test the causal relationship between SNSs use for political purposes and political participation, more experimental evidence is needed. Furthermore, Kruikemeier et al. (2014) argue that the role of political sophistication in explaining the effects of SNSs use for political purposes on political participation is relatively unexplored and requires more attention. Political sophistication applies to the level of interest in and knowledge of politics and the motivation to process politically relevant information (Milesi, 2016). The politically unsophisticated or the ‘resource-poor’ citizens are more likely to benefit from political campaigns on SNSs than the citizens with higher interest in and knowledge of politics. Especially in the case of younger citizens political campaigns on SNSs might be crucial in order to enhance their political participation, as these younger segments are considered to be resource-poor and politically less sophisticated, and thus cause great concerns for a healthy democracy (Baumgartner & Morris, 2009; Holt et al., 2013; Kim & Khang, 2014; Pennington, Winfrey, Warner & Kearney, 2015; Towner, 2013; Vitak et al., 2011). Subsequently, political sophistication is an important moderator to investigate. Therefore, the purpose of this experiment is to examine the causal relationship between interactive political campaigning on SNSs and online and offline political participation for both the political sophisticated and the political unsophisticated. The following question will be addressed: ‘To what extent does interactive political campaigning on SNSs contribute to online and offline political participation, and how is this effect moderated by political sophistication?’
Conceptual model
In this study, the effect of interactive SNSs use for political campaigning on both online and offline political participation will be researched. Furthermore, the influence of political sophistication on this relationship will be examined. This paragraph will further explain these
variables that are incorporated into a conceptual model (figure 1), as well as the hypotheses and their underlying theories.
Concepts
Political participation is defined by Verba, Schlozman & Brady (1995) as behaviour “that has
the intent or effect of influencing government action – either directly by affecting the making or implementation of public policy or indirectly by influencing the selection of people who make those policies” (as cited in Holt, 2013, p. 21). Political participation can be utilised in
both online and offline spheres (Baumgartner & Morris, 2009; Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2012; Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2014; Holt et al., 2013; Kim & Khang, 2014; Kruikemeier et al., 2014; Kruikemeier et al., 2016; Lin, 2016; Park, 2015; Skoric & Zhu, 2016; Towner, 2013; Vitak et al., 2011). Online political participation refers to activities such as signing a petition online, following a political party or candidate online, ‘liking’ a politically related message, posting or commenting on such messages. Offline political participation refers to activities such as writing or even calling politicians, signing a written petition, donating, talking to people about politics, or offline voting.
Social networking sites (SNSs) are web-based services that allow its users to construct a profile (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2012; Utz, 2009), create or consume content such as news (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2012; Kim & Khang, 2014; Park, 2015; Skoric & Zhu, 2016), create or maintain relationships with others by social interaction within their networks of social connections (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2012; Kim & Khang, 2014; Park, 2015; Utz, 2009). Political campaigning on SNSs facilitates interaction with voters and direct, two-way communication. Interactivity is a process of reciprocal communication between two (or more) people (Kruikemeier et al., 2016). This way of communicating can be horizontal, referring to citizen-to-citizen communication, or between citizens and political parties or other political institutions, referred to as vertical communication (Kruikemeier et al., 2016; Semetko & Scammell, 2012). In addition, interactivity is one of the main features of SNSs that distinguish them from almost all other types of media that facilitate political communication (e.g. Kruikemeier et al., 2016). This study specifically investigates interactive political campaigning on ‘Facebook’, as this SNS has the biggest possible reach in the Netherlands and is therefore more used as a campaign tool in comparison to, for example, Twitter (Van der Veer, Boekee, & Peters, 2017). Furthermore, Facebook offers its users the opportunity to interact directly with each other, thus, facilitating interactivity (Vitak et al., 2011).
Political participation can be explained by numerous factors, including individual opportunities such as sufficient time, money, civic skills and other resources such as interest (Guidetti et al., 2016; Kruikemeier et al., 2014). The moderating role of political sophistication, which is defined by Milesi (2016) as the “individual differences in the level of
interest in politics, the amount and organisation of political information and the use thereof when making political judgements” (p. 253), is therefore considered important and included in
this study.
Theoretical rationale
Active SNSs use involves two-way communication that allows users to create content, express their opinions, and also the exchange of opinions and ideas between users (Skoric & Zhu, 2016). Current literature shows that active SNSs use is positively related to both online (Gil de Zúñiga, Molyneux & Zheng, 2014; Kruikemeier et al., 2016; Park, 2015), and offline political participation (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2014; Kruikemeier et al., 2016; Lin, 2016; Park, 2015; Skoric & Zhu, 2016; Valenzuela, 2013). Active use of SNSs facilitates interactive political campaigning by incorporating functions that allow two-way communication between politicians and citizens (Kruikemeier et al., 2014; Towner, 2013). In addition, while active forms stimulate interactivity, for example allowing its users to actively participate in online political discussions, passive forms of SNSs use do not as they only include one-way communication such as the consumption of information (Ibid.). Even though this basic distribution in SNSs use is often used, most studies ignore the specific characteristics of SNSs such as interactivity (Kruikemeier et al., 2014; Kruikemeier et al., 2016; Towner, 2013). As argued by Kruikemeier et al. (2014), these content characteristics are crucial in explaining the effects on political participation, perhaps even more than whether the use of social media is active of passive in nature.
Interactive political campaigning via SNSs appears to be successful in enhancing the participation of citizens in politics (Kruikemeier et al., 2014; Kruikemeier et al., 2016). Interactive communication ensures that citizens feel closer to politics and that the political party or politicians become more real and accessible, referred to the aroused feeling of ‘social presence’. Consequently, this establishes more positive evaluations of the political party or candidate, thus causing individuals to be more inclined to vote for that candidate or to participate in discussions with others to defend their, or the candidate’s, position (Lee & Shin, 2012; Thorson & Rodgers, 2006). In addition, the interactive feature of SNSs increases the
cognitive involvement of citizens by displaying their civic role: they have a higher sense of perceived closeness and connectedness to politics, feel like politics is omnipresent, more accessible and easier to participate in (Kruikemeier et al., 2014).
Furthermore, as argued by the ‘uses and gratification theory’ individual motives for media usage differ (Katz, Blumler & Gurevitch, 1974). Whilst there are many different motives, most use social media for social interaction and entertainment (Baumgartner & Morris, 2009; Park, 2015). Nonetheless, political involvement is considered to be a positive ‘side-effect’ of SNSs use as the politically-uninterested are often unintentionally exposed to politically relevant information, referred to as ‘incidental learning’ (Baumgarter & Morris, 2009; Bouilianne, 2015; Lin, 2016). In comparison with most non-interactive (traditional) media that are associated with high opportunity costs, SNSs offer a substantial amount of soft news that is informing yet entertainment-based, and hence providing political news to those who initially might not be inclined to use traditional media for such purposes (Baumgarter & Morris, 2009; Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2012; Valenzuela, 2013). Applying the uses and gratification theory, most users of SNSs seek entertainment, thus finding gratification in the soft news that such media offer as they contain relatively more entertainment and therefore providing more benefits for their users.
In addition, the interactive aspects of political campaigns or communication in general can increase feelings of information efficacy, which is the degree to which citizens feel like they have enough knowledge about politics to participate (Pennington et al., 2015; Utz, 2009). Insufficient levels of (perceived) information efficacy can prevent citizens from participating in politics such as voting, as they are less confident about their levels of political knowledge. Expected is that, in line with previous research, online and offline political participation can be both enhanced by interactive political campaigning on SNSs, addressing the following hypotheses (see also Figure 1):
H1. Interactive use of SNSs for political campaigns leads to more online political participation than the non-interactive use of SNSs for such campaigns.
H2. Interactive use of SNSs for political campaigns has a positive influence on offline political participation.
SNSs enable citizens to obtain politically relevant information at lower costs (Valenzuela, 2013; Kruikemeier et al., 2014), which encourages citizens to inform themselves about, and to participate in politics. Especially the ‘passive members’ of society or the politically unsophisticated, who are less interested in politics and do not intent to use traditional (non-interactive) media to inform themselves about politics, are more prevalent to profit from SNSs than the more ‘active’ members of society who are more interested and have more resources (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2012; Kruikemeier et al., 2014). The unsophisticated are less inclined to raise ‘barriers’ as the political information on social media is mixed with soft news (Baumgarter & Morris, 2009; Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2012; Valenzuela, 2013). These citizens thus experience the effects of ‘passive learning’ (Bode, 2016). Consequently, social media increase learning among the unsophisticated and therefore partially ‘bridge’ the knowledge gap – in which the most interested consume more information and are therefore more likely to gain knowledge (Ibid.). The less sophisticated are more likely to be influenced by SNSs, because they are not (yet) mobilised (Kruikemeier et al., 2014). The sophisticated, however, encounter a ‘ceiling effect’ as they are already interested in and knowledgeable about politics. As a result, they are not likely to gain much from, or be influenced by using social media. Even though the role of political sophistication as a moderator is relatively unexplored, based on the described information the following is hypothesised:
H3. The effects of interactive SNSs use for political campaigning on (a) online and (b) offline political participation are stronger for people who are less politically
sophisticated.
Method- and analysis plan
Using an experimental design, the causal relation between interactive political campaigning and political participation can be determined instead of just the correlation between the two variables (van Peet, Namesnik & Hox, 2012). In this experimental study convenience sampling was used, which is a form of select sampling that is unguided, but not generalizable and used due to limited time and resources (Ibid). In order to recruit as many Facebook users as possible, the link to the online experiment was shared via this medium. Data was collected from the 19th of April till the first of May 2017. The total sample of 109 participants who
completed the survey (65.1 percent female) consists of people that are 18 years or older as younger segments were excluded from the experiment. Additionally, some participants were not included in the total sample size as they did not complete the whole experiment or did not want their data to be used. The age of the participants ranges from 18 to 75, with a mean age of 27,50 (SD = 12,84). Table 1 in appendix A (see page 24) shows how the level of education among the participants is divided.
Research design
In this experiment, one independent variable and two dependent variables, respectively interactive political campaigning and online and offline political participation, were used. This study consists of one online experiment with two conditions: a low and a high interactive political campaign, only using a post-test procedure. In order to achieve randomisation, ‘Qualtrics’ assigned the respondents randomly to either the experimental condition (N = 56) or the control condition (N = 53).
Stimulus material
The stimulus material consisted of an existing, but modified Facebook account in order to provide a more realistic setting (see the appendix B on page 25). In the experiment, participants were exposed to the Facebook account of the Dutch Christian-democratic party CDA (‘Christian Democratic Appeal’), considering this is one of the most active parties on Facebook (Kist & Kas, 2017). In order to take into account potential interaction effects of political preference of the participants on the relation between interactive political campaigning and political participation, the political interest of the participants for the CDA
was tested for by a control variable, which measures the likelihood that participants will vote for this party (M = 1.77, SD = 1.09).
In the experimental condition, participants were exposed to the modified high-interactive version of a screenshot of the CDA page, shown in appendix B. The political party CDA answers directly to citizens in this condition, enhancing the perceived two-way communication and interactivity. In the control condition, participants were exposed to the modified low-interactive version of a screenshot of the CDA page, shown in appendix C on page 26. The independent variable ‘interactive political campaigning’ was recoded into a dummy variable (0 = control condition, 1 = experimental condition). In this condition, no dialogues are displayed as the CDA only posts messages without answering to citizens, which lowers perceived interactivity by presenting a form of one-way communication. The amount of information and the content was kept comparable between the two conditions. To test the effectiveness of the stimulus, participants were asked to evaluate the following statement: ‘I have the impression that you can really have a conversation with politicians on Facebook’, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The manipulation was examined using an independent-samples t-test, which showed that there is not a significant difference in the scores for the control (M= 1.86, SD= .80) and the experimental (M= 1.96, SD= .92) conditions; t (107)= -.64, p = .52, 95% CI = [-.43, .22]. In other words, the manipulation was not successful, which might indicate that the stimulus was not appropriate to test the effects of interactive political campaigning on political participation. This might have consequences for the internal validity of the experiment.
Measures
Online political participation
The dependent variable online political participation has been measured by means of characterizing items using a five-point Likert scale. Participants had to rate their agreement with the items from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The five items that measure online political participation are modified items that are adopted from previous studies (Baumgartner & Morris, 2009; Holt et al., 2013; Kim & Khang, 2014; Park, 2015; Towner, 2013). Participants were asked if they had the intention to (1) follow a politician or party on Facebook; (2) share a politically related message on Facebook; (3) sign a petition on the Internet; (4) read others’ political opinions on Facebook; (5) participate in an online political discussion on Facebook.
Offline political participation
Offline political participation was also measured using a five-point Likert scale. Participants had to rate their agreement with the items from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The five items that measure offline political participation have been adopted and modified from previous studies (Baumgartner & Morris, 2009; Lin, 2016; Park, 2015; Towner, 2013). Participants were asked if they had the intention to (1) talk about the election with family, friends or other people who are close to them; (2) attend political meetings; (3) sign a written petition; (4) watch or attend a political debate (offline); (5) vote in the next elections.
In order to test if the latent variable ‘political participation’ can be really separated into the two dependent variables – online and offline political participation – a principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted for all ten items. The initial ‘Eigen’ values and the scree plot showed three factors. However, none of these factors specifically measured online or offline participation and as a result the items measuring online political participation were separately examined from the items measuring offline political participation due to theoretical reasons. Subsequently, the five items measuring online political participation were examined. Both the initial ‘Eigen’ values and the scree plot showed that there was only one factor with an Eigen value over 1.00 (i.e. 2.20), which explains 44% of the total variance. All items met the minimum criteria of having a factor loading of 0.45 or higher (see table 1), and accordingly no were eliminated. The conducted reliability analysis shows that the five items make a questionable scale for the latent variable ‘online political participation’ ( = .67). The reliability of the scale cannot be improved by removing one of the items. Therefore, the five items will be combined to one scale ‘online political participation’ (M = 2.23, SD = .67). Additionally, a PCA was used in order to identify the underlying components of the five items measuring offline political participation. The initial Eigen values and the scree plot show yet again that there is only one factor with an Eigen value over 1.00 (i.e. 2.35). This factor ‘offline political participation’ explains 47% of the total variance. Table 1 shows the factor-loading matrix for the five items measuring offline political participation and the five items measuring online political participation. The reliability analysis, which was conducted, shows
that the five items make an acceptable scale for the latent variable ‘offline political participation’ ( = .71). The reliability of the scale cannot be improved by removing one of the items, and thus, all five items will be combined into one scale labelled ‘offline political participation’ (M = 3.30, SD = .72). Accordingly, the division of political participation in both its online and offline forms was, in correspondence with literature, valid and reliable.
Table 1.
Factor loadings based on a principle analysis for 10 items measuring online and offline political participation (N = 109).
Online political participation
Intention to … Follow a Politian or party on Facebook. .74 Share a politically related message on
Facebook.
.74
Sign a petition on the Internet. .54
Read others’ political opinions on Facebook. .69 Participate in an online political discussion
on Facebook.
.58 Offline political participation
Intention to … Talk about the election with family, friends, or other people who are close to them.
.79
Attend political meetings. .72
Sign a written petition. .55
Watch or attend a political debate (offline). .79
Vote in the next elections. .52
Political sophistication
Political sophistication can be measured by both political knowledge and interest (Milesi, 2016). Participants were asked to indicate their interest in politics according to a five-level scale ranging from 1 (totally uninterested) to 5 (very interested) (M = 3.34, SD = .99). Political knowledge has been assessed using five closed questions that are adapted from previous research (Hansen, 2009; Milesi, 2016; van Snippenburg, Hagemann & Vettehen, 2002) and modified to match with this specific study. The questions used are respectively: ‘how many members are there in the Dutch parliament (consisting of the first and the second chamber)?’; ‘who is currently the speaker of House of Representatives?’; ‘how many countries are members of the EU (including England)?’; ‘who is currently the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Netherlands?’; ‘which three parties have experienced the largest
increase in the number of seats in the elections of this year (2017) in comparison to the elections in 2012?’. Political knowledge is operationalized as the amount of correct answers, constructing a scale by summing the correct responses to the five questions (M = 1.93, SD = 1.14). Before the construction of the scale, the answers were first recoded as either true or false. In order to prevent participants from looking up the answers, a time slot was used that allowed participants to have between seven and fifteen seconds to answer each question, depending on the size and difficulty of the question. If participants did not answer the question in time, this response was coded as ‘false’ assuming that they did not have sufficient knowledge in order to respond that rapidly. In order to construct the scale for political sophistication, the scores on political interest and knowledge were first standardised and then summated.
Randomisation check
Before testing the hypotheses, a randomisation check was conducted in order to check whether the variables are evenly distributed between the two conditions. A chi-square test was used to compare the mean age in the control and the experimental conditions. There is a non-significant difference in gender between the two conditions (X2 = .35, df = 1, p = .553). In other words, gender is divided equally between the experimental (67.9 percent female) and the control condition (62.5 percent female).
Second, an independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare age in the control and the experimental conditions. There is not a significant difference in the distribution of the mean age between the control (M= 27.80, SD= 13.14) and the experimental (M= 27.19, SD= 12.64) conditions; t (107)= .25, p = .804, 95% CI = [-4.29, 5.52].
Third, the chi square test shows that there is a non-significant difference in level of education between the two conditions (X2 = 5.57, df = 5, p = .350). In other words, the variable ‘education’ is divided equally between the two conditions.
Results
Before the analysis, the data was scanned for potential univariate outliers and no outliers were identified. The unfinished surveys were filtered out and not used in the analysis. To check for potential interaction effects of political preference of the participants and interactive political
campaigning a multiple regression analysis was used. The multiple regression model with the amount of online political participation as a dependent variable, and interactive political campaigning, ‘likelihood voting for CDA’ and the interaction variable of those two as independent variables was non-significant, F (3, 105) = .71, p = .550. In addition, the multiple regression model with the amount of offline political participation as a dependent variable was also non-significant, F (3, 105) = .32, p = .812. Thus, there appeared to be no interaction effect between the likelihood that participants will vote for the CDA and interactive political campaigning. Thus, the effects of interactive political campaigning on political participation are not more prevalent for the people who have a political preference for the CDA then for the people who do not.
Hypothesis 1
The first hypothesis - interactive use of SNSs for political campaigns has a positive influence on online political participation - was tested using a t-test for the difference between two means. This is because the dependent variable in this study – online political participation – is measured on an interval level, and the independent variable – interactive political campaigning – is dichotomous. There is a non-significant difference in the scores for the control and the experimental conditions for the amount of online political participation (see table 2 for results; 95% CI = [-.33, .18]). Based on these results, there appears to be no (positive) effect of interactive use of SNSs for political campaigns on online political participation. Thus, hypothesis 1 was rejected.
Hypothesis 2
The second hypothesis - interactive use of SNSs for political campaigns has a positive influence on offline political participation - was also tested using a t-test for the difference between two means, as offline political participation is also measured on an interval level. As shown in table 2, there is a non-significant difference in the scores for the control and the experimental conditions for the level offline political participation (95% CI = [-.29, .26]). In other words, no effect of interactive SNSs use for political campaigning on offline political participation was found. Thus, hypothesis 2 was rejected.
Table 2.
Comparison of the control and the experimental conditions by online and offline political participation.
Control condition Experimental condition
M SD M SD t p
Online political participation 2.19 .68 2.27 .67 -.61 .544 Offline political
participation
3.29 .82 3.31 .60 -.09 .926
Hypothesis 3
The third hypothesis, expecting the effects of interactive SNSs use for political campaigning on (a) online and (b) offline political participation to be stronger for people who are less politically sophisticated, was tested using a multiple regression analysis. This statistical test was used, because the dependent variable is measured on an interval level, the independent variable interactive political campaigning is dichotomous, and the (independent) moderator political sophistication is measured on an interval level. The regression model with the amount of online political participation as a dependent variable, and interactive political campaigning and political sophistication as independent variables was significant, F (2, 106) = 8.86, p < .001. The analysis showed that the two predictors explained 14.3% of the variance. Political sophistication is a significant predictor (t = 4.16, p < .001, 95% CI [.080, . 23]). Interactive political campaigning was, however, not a significant predictor of the amount of online political participation (p = .539)(see table 3). The main effect of interactive political campaigning did not change when the main effect of political sophistication was included. Consequently, this confirms the rejection of hypothesis 1.
The regression model with the amount of offline political participation as a dependent variable, and interactive political campaigning and political sophistication as independent variables was significant, F (2, 106) = 25.39, p < .001. The two predictors explained 32.4% of the variance. The analysis showed that political sophistication was a significant predictor (t = 7.12, p < 0.001, 95% CI [.18, .32]). Nonetheless, interactive political campaigning was not a significant predictor of the amount of online political participation (p = .962)(see table 3), supporting the rejection of hypothesis 2.
In addition to the main effects, hypothesis 3 was tested using a multiple regression analysis. The regression model including an additional interaction variable of interactive political campaigning and political sophistication, was significant in predicting the amount of online (F (3, 105) = 6.03, p = .001, R2 = .15) and offline political participation (F (3, 105) = 17.67, p < .001, R2 = .34). However, there appeared to be no interaction effects between interactive political campaigning and political sophistication for online political participation (p = .497) or offline political participation (p = .178). As can be seen in figure 2 and 3, there is no interaction effect for both online and offline participation, since the lines of both conditions are parallel to each other. It should be noted that the standardisation of political sophistication caused the negative values in both figures. The effects of interactive political campaigning on political participation are not more prevalent for the people who are less sophisticated then for the people who are more politically sophisticated, as hypothesised. Consequently, hypothesis 3a and b were rejected. Table 3 provides an overview of the (un)standardised regression coefficients that predict online and offline political participation. Even though the effect of political sophistication was significant on both online and offline political participation, no conclusion can be made regarding the causality as this only provides evidence that both variables are correlated with each other.
Table 3.
Summary of multiple regression analysis for variables predicting online and offline political participation (N = 109).
Online political participation
Model 1 Model 2
B SE B SE
Constant 2.19 .08 2.19 .08
Interactive political campaigning .07 .12 .06 .07 .12 .06
Political sophistication .15*** .04 .37 .18*** .05 .43
Interactive campaigning x sophistication -.05 .08 -.08
R2 .14 .15
F 8.86 6.03
Offline political participation
Model 1 Model 2
B SE B SE
Constant 3.30 .08 3.30 .08
Interactive political campaigning .006 .12 .004 .006 .11 .004
Political sophistication .25*** .04 .57 .29*** .05 .66
Interactive campaigning x sophistication -.10 .07 -.14
R2 3.2 3.4
* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 -4.05 -1.28 -0.15 1.48 3.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Interactive Interactive Not interactive Not interactive O nl in e po lit ic al p ar ti ci pa ti on
Figure 2. Interaction effect of (standardised) political sophistication and interactive political
campaigning on online political participation.
-4.05 -1.28 -0.15 1.48 3.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Interactive Interactive Not interactive Not interactive O ff ili ne p ol ti ca l p ar ti ci pa ti on
Figure 3. Interaction effect of (standardised) political sophistication and interactive political
Discussion
The aim of this research was to examine the effects of interactive use of SNSs for political campaigning on both online and offline political participation, while taking into account the moderating role of political sophistication. Specifically, the following research question was addressed: “To what extent does interactive political campaigning on SNSs contribute to
online and offline political participation, and how is this effect moderated by political sophistication?” This research could not prove that interactive political campaigning leads to
more political participation. In addition, the moderating role of political sophistication appeared to be non-existent in this study.
These current findings are in contrast with the literature concerning the effects of interactive political campaigning on SNSs. First of all, the first two literature-based hypotheses – expecting a positive influence of interactive SNSs use for political campaigns on online and offline political participation – were rejected according to results of this study. However, other studies focussing on the effects of SNSs use on political participation generally show significant, positive effects of such interactive online communication (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2014; Kruikemeier et al., 2016; Lin, 2016; Park, 2015; Skoric & Zhu, 2016; Valenzuela, 2013). These contradicting results might be explained by the fact that most of these studies do not focus on the specific content characteristics of SNSs, while this research does. However, one paper by Kruikemeier et al. (2016), which also found positive effects of interactive political campaigning, did focus on specific attributes of SNSs. Thus, the conflicting results cannot be solely addressed to the aspects of SNSs that are studied. Nonetheless, the study by Kruikemeier et al. (2016) focussed on the mediating role of social presence and source expertise, which might explain their significant (positive) effects of interactive campaigning. Even though this study did not find evidence for the direct effect of interactive campaigning on political participation, the inclusion of a mediator might have led to significant results. In addition, Kruikemeier et al. (2016) focussed on the SNS Twitter, while this research focussed on Facebook. As argued by Towner (2013): “… scholars should be careful when combining
online media into one single variable. …’Facebooking’ is fundamentally different from ‘Tweeting’” (p. 538). SNSs differ from each other due to the dissimilarities in the amount of
space that they offer for interactivity and communication among citizens and politicians. Therefore, the type of SNS studied could also explain the contradicting results.
Second, the third hypothesis – expecting the effects of interactive political campaigning to be stronger for people who are less politically sophisticated – was also rejected. The effects appeared to be not more prevalent for those groups then for the politically sophisticated. Even though the moderating role of political sophistication is relatively understudied, these results were unexpected because the effects of interactive political campaigning largely relies on favourable circumstances such as sufficient interest of the public (Guidetti et al., 2016; Kruikemeier et al., 2014), and political interest partially explains political sophistication. Furthermore, one study by Kruikemeier et al. (2014) showed that the positive effects of SNSs use for political purposes are more prevalent for the ‘resource-poor’ groups with less interest that are not (yet) mobilised, so the results of this study are quite unusual.
Regarding the results, a few limitations should be discussed. First of all, a convenience sample was used in this study due to limited time and resources. The use of such a select sample might not be an adequate representation of the population, and thus provides some implications for the generalizability of this study (van Peet, Namesnik & Hox, 2012). The sample consisted of mostly female, younger and higher-educated people. Consequently, it cannot be estimated how these results are applicable to older and/or lower-educated segments in society with a higher proportion of males. It is therefore important that future research focuses on all segments equally. In addition, this research focussed on the SNS Facebook, causing the results to be less relevant for other SNSs as social media vary substantially (Towner, 2013).
Second, it is important to note that the manipulation check, which was conducted before the analysis, was non-significant. This indicates that the manipulation failed, most likely because the stimulus was inadequate to manipulate the amount of political participation. One possible explanation could be that the stimulus consisted of an edited Facebook page, which was realistic but might not be realistic enough. This is because it was not tailored to the participant itself: participants could not could not interact with the political candidates, or see their ‘real’ Facebook-friends communicating (in)directly with these candidates in the experiment. Therefore, the non-significant results might be explained by the ‘weak’ stimulus, which was rather a ‘simplistic’ version of reality, causing implications for the internal validity of this study.
Third, even though the five questions that assessed political knowledge were tested before the actual experiment in order to determine whether participants had sufficient time to read and answer the questions, a lot of participants commented after the experiment that they did not had enough time. Consequently, the questions with the time slot were perhaps not able to test the actual political knowledge of the participants as they did not had the chance to answer the questions in the first place. The effects of interactive political campaigning might have been lower for participants with a relatively high level of political knowledge. Consequently, as their level of knowledge appeared to be otherwise due to the shortage of time, the moderating role of political sophistication was less evident.
Fourth, the questionable scale for online political participation could have influenced the significance of the effects. For example, the online political participation of the participants could have been higher (or lower) than the scale in this experiment measured. A more reliable scale could have made the effects of interactive campaigning more (or less) evident.
These limitations notwithstanding, this study has provided some important insights into the effects of interactive political campaigning on SNSs regarding political participation. This study found that despite the enthusiasm surrounding interactive political campaigning, not all campaign settings might be adequate in enhancing participation of the public in politics, even if certain segments of the public are less sophisticated. Not all interactive campaigns on social media might be successful in enhancing the participation of the public and should therefore not be considered as the ‘holy grail’ in political campaigning. Future research needs to investigate what settings of political campaigning on SNSs, and what specific content characteristics might be crucial in order to enhance its success. As this study only focussed on the interactive feature of SNSs, no such conclusions can be made. Using a stimulus that imitates an online environment in order to research these effects in a ‘setting’ that is as realistic as possible, might offer some opportunities to include actual interaction with politicians in future research. It is especially important to examine the concrete actions that politicians need to take in order to engage more citizens in politics, above all for a healthy and a good-working democracy. To conclude, this study stresses the need for more research to assess the effects of SNSs use for political campaigns, the conditions for its success, and its underlying mechanisms.
Literature
Baumgartner, J. C., & Morris, J. S. (2009). MyFaceTube politics: Social networking web sites and political engagement of young adults. Social Science Computer Review, 28(1), pp. 24-44. doi: 10.1177/0894439309334325
Bode, L. (2016). Political news in the news feed: Learning politics from social media. Mass
Communication and Society, 19(1), pp. 24-48. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2015.1045149
Boulianne. S. (2015a) Social media use and participation: a meta- analysis of current research.
Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), pp. 524-538. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542
Boulianne, S. (2015b). Online news, civic awareness, and engagement in civic and political life. New media & society, 18(9), pp. 1840-1856. doi: 10.1177/1461444815616222 Van Dun, M. (2014, March 4). D66 voert champagne op Grindr. Het Parool. Retrieved on
March 13, 2017, from: http://www.parool.nl/amsterdam/d66-voert-campagne-op-grindr~a3607346/
Ekman, M. & Widholm, A. (2015). Politicans as media producers. Journalism practice, 9(1), pp. 78-91. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2014.928467
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Jung, N., & Valenzuela, S. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals' social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of
Computer‐Mediated Communication, 17(3), pp. 319-336. doi:
10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Molyneux, L., & Zheng, P. (2014). Social media, political expression, and political participation: Panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of
Communication, 64(4), pp. 612-634. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12103
Guidetti, M., Cavazza, N., & Graziani, A. R. (2016). Perceived disagreement and heterogeneity in social networks: distinct effects on political participation. The Journal
of social psychology, 156(2), pp. 222-242. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2015.1095707
Holt, K., Shehata, A., Strömbäck, J., & Ljungberg, E. (2013). Age and the effects of news media attention and social media use on political interest and participation: Do social media function as leveller?. European Journal of Communication, 28(1), pp. 19-34. doi: 10.1177/0267323112465369
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by the individual In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: current
Kim, Y., & Khang, H. (2014). Revisiting civic voluntarism predictors of college students’ political participation in the context of social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 114-121. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.044
Kist, R., & Kas, A. (2017, January 24). Zo proberen politieke partijen op jouw tijdlijn te komen. NRC.nl. Retrieved on April 8, 2017, from: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/01/24/zo-proberen-politieke-partijen-in-jouw-tijdlijn-te-komen-6281541-a1542657
Kruikemeier, S., van Noort, G., Vliegenthart, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2014). Unraveling the effects of active and passive forms of political Internet use: Does it affect citizens’ political involvement? New Media & Society, 16(6), pp. 903-920. doi:
10.1177/1461444813495163
Kruikemeier, S., van Noort, G., Vliegenthart, R., & H. de Vreese, C. H. (2016). The relationship between online campaigning and political involvement. Online Information
Review, 40(5), pp. 673-694. doi: 10.1108/OIR-11-2015-0346
Lee, E. J., & Shin, S. Y. (2012). Are they talking to me? Cognitive and affective effects of interactivity in politicians’ Twitter communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 15(10), pp. 515-535. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0228
Lin, J. H. (2016). Differential gains in SNSs: effects of active vs. passive Facebook political participation on offline political participation and voting behavior among first-time and experienced voters. Asian Journal of Communication, 26(3), pp. 278-297. doi: 10.1080/01292986.2016.1148184
McAllister, I. (2016). Internet use, political knowledge and youth electoral participation in Australia. Journal of Youth Studies, 19(9), pp. 1220-1236. doi: 10.1080/13676261.2016.1154936
McNair, B. (2003). Politics, Democracy and the Media. In An introduction to political
communication (pp. 16-28). New York, NY: Routledge.
Milesi, P. (2016). Moral foundations and political attitudes: The moderating role of political sophistication. International Journal of Psychology, 51(4), pp. 252-260. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12158
Park, C. S. (2015). Pathways to Expressive and Collective Participation: Usage Patterns, Political Efficacy, and Political Participation in Social Networking Sites. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), pp. 698-716. doi: 10.1080/08838151.2015.1093480
Van Peet, A., Namesnik, K., & Hox, J. (2012). Toegepaste statistiek: inductieve technieken. Houten, Groningen: Noordhoff Uitgevers.
Pennington, N., Winfrey, K. L., Warner, B. R., & Kearney, M. W. (2015). Liking Obama and Romney (on Facebook): An experimental evaluation of political engagement and efficacy during the 2012 general election. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, pp. 279-283. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.032
Semetko, H. A., & Scammell, M. (2012). The Sage handbook of political communication. London: Sage Publications.
Skoric, M. M., & Zhu, Q. (2016). Social media and offline political participation: Uncovering the paths from digital to physical. International Journal of Public Opinion Research,
28(3), pp. 415-427. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edv027
Van Snippenburg, L. B., Hagemann, C. P. M., & Vettehen, P. G. J. (2002). Politieke kennis en mediagebruik in Nederland. Mens en maatschappij, 77(1), pp. 65-79.
Thorson, K. S., & Rodgers, S. (2006). Relationships between blogs as eWOM and interactivity, perceived interactivity, and parasocial interaction. Journal of Interactive
Advertising, 6(2), pp. 39-50. doi: 10.1080/15252019.2006.10722117
Towner, T. L. (2013). All political participation is socially networked? New media and the 2012 election. Social Science Computer Review, 31(5), pp. 527-541. doi: 10.1177/0894439313489656
Utz, S. (2009). The (potential) benefits of campaigning via social network sites. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), pp. 221-243. doi:
10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01438.x
Valenzuela, S. (2013). Unpacking the use of social media for protest behavior: The roles of information, opinion expression, and activism. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(7), pp. 920-942. doi: 10.1177/0002764213479375.
Van der Veer, N., Boekee, S., & Peters, O. (2017). Nationale social media onderzoek 2017:
het grootste trendonderzoek van Nederland naar het gebruik en verwachtingen van social media. Retrieved on March 27, 2017, from: http://www.newcom.nl/socialmedia2017
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in
American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vitak, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., Carr, C. T., Ellison, N., & Lampe, C. (2011). It's complicated: Facebook users' political participation in the 2008 election. CyberPsychology, behavior,
Appendix A: Tables
Table 1.
Level of education among the participants.
Level of education Number of participants
Lower vocational education (‘LBO’/’ VMBO’) 4 (3.7%) Lower general secondary education (‘MAVO’) 2 (1.8%) Higher general continued education (‘HAVO’)/ preparatory
scholarly education (‘VWO’)
17 (15.6%) Middle-level applied education (‘MBO’) 13 (11.9%) University of applied sciences (‘HBO’) 27 (24.8%) Research university/ scientific education (‘WO’) 46 (42.2%)
1. What is your age? 2. What is your gender?
o Male o Female
3. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? o Lower vocational education (‘LBO’/ ‘VMBO’)
o Lower general secondary education (‘MAVO’)
o Higher general continued education (‘HAVO’) / preparatory scholarly education (‘VWO’)
o Middle-level applied education (‘MBO’) o University of applied sciences (‘HBO’)
o Research university/ scientific education (‘WO’)
4. On a scale of 1 (totally uninterested) to 5 (very interested), rate your interest in politics.
5. Rate your agreement on a scale of (1) totally disagree to (5) totally agree. I am likely to vote for the CDA.
You will now see five open questions. Answer each question within the indicated time.
6. How many members are there in the Dutch parliament (consisting of the first and the second chamber)?
o 150 members o 225 members o 250 members o I do not know.
7. Who is currently the speaker of House of Representatives? o Gerard Schouw
o Ton Elias o Khadija Arib o I do not know.
8. How many countries are currently members of the European Union (including England)?
o 29 countries o 28 countries o 27 countries o I do not know.
9. Who is currently the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Netherlands? o Uri Rosenthal
o Frans Timmermans o Bert Koenders o I do not know.
10. Which three parties have experienced the largest increase in the number of seats in the elections of this year (2017) in comparison to the elections in 2012?
o PVV, CDA en D66 o Groenlinks, D66 en CDA o Groenlinks, D66 en PVV o I do not know.
You will now see ten statements. Rate your agreement with each statement on a scale of (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree.
1. I am inclined to follow a political party or politician on social media.
2. When I am using social media, I am inclined to share a politically related message with others.
3. I always sign an online petition with which I agree, when I come across one. 4. I have the intention to read others’ political opinions.
5. If I come across a discussion on social media, I always participate in one.
6. I am inclined to talk about the election with family, friends or other people who are close to me.
7. I have the intention to attend political meetings.
8. I always sign a written petition with which I agree, when I come across one. 9. Once I have the opportunity, I watch a televised debate or I attend one (offline). 10. I am going to vote in the next elections.
This is the last question. Rate your agreement on a scale of (1) totally disagree to (5) totally agree.
11. I have the impression that you can really have a conversation with politicians on Facebook.
12. If you have any comments on the questions in this survey, the course of the survey itself or other comments, you can write them down here. Thank you for your participation.
Appendix E: Questionnaire (Dutch)
Het onderzoek waarmee ik uw medewerking voor wil vragen is getiteld "interactieve
campagnevoering op social media". In dit online experiment zal een Facebook-pagina van een politieke partij te zien zijn, waarna een aantal vragen worden gesteld. Een aantal vragen worden gesteld over uw interesse in en kennis van politiek. Dit onderzoek is alleen bestemd voor deelnemers van 18 jaar of ouder. Het doel van het onderzoek is meer inzicht te krijgen in de invloed van interactieve campagnevoering op social media.
Ik verklaar hierbij op voor mij duidelijke wijze te zijn ingelicht over de aard en methode van het onderzoek, zoals uiteengezet in het bericht voor dit onderzoek. Ik stem geheel vrijwillig in met deelname aan dit onderzoek. Ik behoud daarbij het recht deze instemming weer in te trekken zonder dat ik daarvoor een reden hoef op te geven. Ik besef dat ik op elk moment weer mag stoppen met het onderzoek. Als mijn onderzoeksresultaten worden gebruikt in wetenschappelijk publicaties, of op een andere manier openbaar worden gemaakt, dan zal dit volledig geanomiseerd gebeuren. Mijn persoonsgegevens worden niet door derden ingezien zonder mijn uitdrukkelijke toestemming.
Als ik meer informatie wil, nu of in de toekomst, dan kan ik me wenden tot Vivièn Laros, per e-mail: vivien.laros@student.uva.nl. Voor eventuele klachten over dit onderzoek kan ik me wenden tot het lid van de Commisie Ethiek namens ASCoR, per adres: ASCoR secretariaat, Commissie Ethiek, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV Amsterdam, 020-525 5340; ascor-secrfmg@uva.nl.
Ik begrijp de bovenstaande tekst en door op de onderstaande knop te klikken ga ik akkoord met deelname aan het onderzoek.
1. Wat is uw leeftijd? 2. Wat is uw geslacht?
o Man o Vrouw
o Basisonderwijs
o Lager beroepsonderwijs (LBO, VMBO)
o Middelbaar algemeen voorbereidend onderwijs (MAVO)
o Hoger algemeen voorbereidend/ wetenschappelijk onderwijs (HAVO, VWO) o Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (MBO)
o Hoger beroepsonderwijs (HBO) o Wetenschappelijk onderwijs (WO)
4. Beoordeel uw interesse in politiek op een schaal van 1 (totaal ongeïnteresseerd) tot 5 (erg geïnteresseerd).
5. Geef bij deze stelling aan of het er mee eens bent of niet op een schaal van (1) volledig mee oneens tot (5) volledig mee eens. Ik ben geneigd om te stemmen op het CDA. Nu krijgt u vijf meerkeuzevragen te zien. Beantwoordt elke vraag binnen de gegeven tijd.
1. Hoeveel leden telt het parlement (bestaande uit de Eerste Kamer en de Tweede Kamer)?
o 150 leden o 225 leden o 250 leden o Weet ik niet.
2. Wie is momenteel de voorzitter van de Tweede Kamer? o Gerard Schouw
o Ton Elias o Khadija Arib o Weet ik niet.
3. Hoeveel landen zijn lid van de Europese Unie (inclusief Engeland)? o 29 lidstaten
o 28 lidstaten o 27 lidstaten o Weet ik niet.
4. Wie is momenteel de Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken? o Uri Rosenthal
o Bert Koenders o Weet ik niet.
5. Welke drie partijen hebben de grootste stijging in het aantal zetels ondervonden in de verkiezingen van dit jaar (2017) in vergelijking tot de verkiezingen in 2012?
o PVV, CDA en D66 o Groenlinks, D66 en CDA o Groenlinks, D66 en PVV o Weet ik niet.
U krijgt nu een screenshot van een Facebook pagina te zien. Bekijk deze aandachtig en beantwoord hierna de vragen.
Nu krijgt u tien stellingen te zien. Geef per stelling aan of u het er mee eens bent of niet op een schaal van (1) volledig mee oneens tot en met (2) volledig mee eens.
1. Ik ben snel geneigd om een politieke partij of politicus te volgen op social media. 2. Als ik op social media zit ben ik snel geneigd om een politiek gerelateerd bericht te
delen met anderen.
3. Als ik een online petitie tegenkom waar ik het mee eens ben, onderteken ik deze altijd. 4. Ik heb de intentie om de politieke mening van anderen te lezen op social media. 5. Als ik een discussie zie op social media, participeer ik hier altijd in.
6. Ik ben snel geneigd om te praten over de verkiezingen met vrienden, familie of met andere mensen die dicht bij me staan.
7. Ik heb de intentie om een politieke meeting bij te wonen.
8. Als ik de mogelijkheid heb om een geschreven petitie te ondertekenen waar ik het mee eens ben, doe ik dit altijd.
9. Zodra ik de mogelijkheid heb, kijk ik een debat op televisie of woon ik deze (offline) bij.
10. Ik ga stemmen in de volgende verkiezingen. Controle variabele:
11. Dit is de laatste vraag. Geef bij deze stelling aan of u het er mee eens bent of niet op een schaal van (1) volledig mee oneens tot (5) volledig mee eens. Ik heb de indruk dat je echt een gesprek aan kunt gaan met politici op Facebook.
12. Als u nog commentaar heeft op de vragen in deze survey, de loop van de survey zelf of andere opmerkingen, heeft u hier nu ruimte voor. Bedankt voor uw deelname.
