Facebook and Political Participation 1 Running head ... · PDF fileFacebook and Political...

Facebook and Political Participation 1

Running head: FACEBOOK AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

“Poking” People to Participate: Facebook and Political Participation in the 2008 Election

Jessica Vitak, Paul Zube, Andrew Smock, Caleb Carr, Nicole Ellison, and Cliff Lampe

Michigan State University

To cite: Vitak, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., Carr, C., Ellison, N., & Lampe, C. (2009, May). “Poking” people to participate: Facebook and political participation in the 2008 election. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Chicago.


Abstract

In the 2008 presidential election, social network sites such as Facebook allowed users to share

their political beliefs, support specific candidates, and interact with others on political issues. But

do political activities on Facebook affect political participation among young voters, a group

traditionally perceived as apathetic in regard to civic engagement? Results from a survey of

undergraduate students (N=683) at a large public university in the Midwestern United States,

conducted in the month prior to the election, found that political activity on Facebook is a

significant predictor of political participation. Students’ perceptions regarding the

appropriateness of political activity on Facebook, as well as the specific kinds of political

activities they engaged in and witnessed within the site, were also explored.


“Poking” People to Participate: Facebook and Political Participation in the 2008 Election

On January 5, 2008, candidates for the U.S. presidency met in New Hampshire for one of

many debates during the primary season. However, this debate offered a new opportunity for

candidates to engage young people: it was sponsored by Facebook, a popular social network site

with 75% adoption by 18-24 year-olds (Lenhart, 2009). Facebook members watching the debates

could participate in online polls and post comments in real time. Immediately following both

debates, 81% of users participating in a Facebook poll said the debates helped inform their

voting decisions (Goldman, 2008).

The 2008 U.S. presidential election continued a trend in political campaigning as

candidates adapted their message to new communication tools. The popularity of social media

sites like YouTube, Facebook and MySpace—especially among younger voters—provided a

highly visible environment for candidates to promote themselves, articulate their platforms in

detail, and interact with voters in fundamentally different ways. Likewise, these sites allowed

users to interact with each other about political issues and to share and discuss their opinions.

Data from Pew Internet reveal that 65% of SNS users ages 18-29 engaged in at least one of five

political activities on a SNS during the 2008 campaign, including joining a political group on the

site and obtaining information about a candidate (Smith, 2009).

However, little is known about the impact that sites such as Facebook have on the

political behavior of young people. In particular, Facebook is an important social media site to

study because of its high rate of use by younger voters in the 18-24 demographic. During the

2008 election, both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates utilized the site,

maintaining pages that allowed users to post comments, share news and videos, and connect with

other users. Furthermore, Facebook members had access to various site features that allowed


them to share their political views. But did these efforts make a difference in the political

participation of Facebook users? If so, social network sites may be a way to engage more young

people in political processes. Therefore, this study seeks to elucidate the relationships between

political activity on Facebook and more traditional forms of political participation occurring on-

and offline.

Literature Review

Putnam’s (2000) argument that political participation is declining due to a reduction in

civic engagement (both political and non-political) implies negative consequences for the health

of a representative democracy. Recent research indicates that interaction through the Internet can

replace some of these lost forms of civic engagement (Krueger, 2002; Tolbert & McNeal, 2003),

although there has been a debate about the nature of that effect (see Han, 2008; Scheufele &

Nisbet, 2002). However, the evidence indicates that Internet use has provided an additional

channel for citizens to engage politically with each other and their government.

Using the Internet to engage young voters is of special interest, as this group of

Americans is statistically the least-represented subsection of the population in many political

activities, including voting, working on a campaign, and general interest in politics (Delli

Carpini, 2000). As measured by voter turnout, young voters have long been perceived as

apathetic toward politics. With the exception of 1992, young-adult voting rates in presidential

elections declined steadily between 1972 and 2000 (Nickerson, 2006). Since 2000, however,

there have been significant increases in this measure: voter turnout among 18-24 year-olds

increased 11% between the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections (Lopez, Kirby, Sagoff, &

Herbst, 2005). Furthermore, the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and

Engagement (CIRCLE) estimates that 23 million people under 30 voted in the 2008 election, an


increase of 3.4 million over 2004, making the 2008 election the highest youth voter turnout since

1972 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008; “Youth Turnout Rate,” 2008).

One way of reaching young adults is through social network sites (SNSs). Sites such as

Facebook and MySpace offer a venue for young people to express themselves politically, locate

political information, and interact with their peers about politics. Rheingold (1993) speculated

that “virtual communities could help citizens revitalize democracy, or they could be luring us

into an attractively packaged substitute for democratic discourse” (p. 295). The question then

arises, which of Rheingold’s predictions is now being realized? Is the Internet encouraging and

increasing political discourse—specifically among young voters—or has it replaced more

traditional forms of political and civic engagement with low-commitment activities, like

forwarding bogus petitions? To answer this question, we will first review literature addressing

political participation and the impact of the Internet interaction on political engagement.

Political participation on- and offline

Political participation can take many forms, including such activities as campaign

donations, attempting to persuade others, and taking part in activities related to politics (Kenski

& Stroud, 2006). Conway (2000) conceptualized political participation as the set of activities that

citizens perform in order to influence different levels of the government, such as its structure,

policies, or officials. Taken together, political participation may be considered as one’s intent to

influence government actions through different activities, either directly, by affecting the

creation or implementation of public policy, or indirectly, by influencing the people that make

those choices (Burns & Schlozman, 2001). It is through political participation that individuals

can control and take part in the policy decisions that might directly affect them (Best & Krueger,

2005).


Jackman (1987) has noted that political participation in the United States is one of the

lowest among the industrialized democracies in measures of political engagement, and Putnam

(2000) points to two longitudinal surveys that show significant decreases in the public’s interest

in current events, politics, and membership in civic organizations during the last 25 years of the

20th century. Voting, a key measure of political activity, has consistently declined since the late

1960s (Conway, 2000), with young adults showing greater rates of disengagement than any other

age group (Delli Carpini, 2000). Voting in presidential elections by 18-29 year-olds declined

from approximately half of the population in the early 1970s to less than one-third of that age

group by the 1996 election (Galston, 2004).

More recent research points to increases in participation among young voters (e.g.,

Baumgartner & Morris, 2008), with the media—and especially the Internet—often cited as a key

factor in effecting change and increasing knowledge. Media use has been associated with greater

levels of involvement in civic activities, as well as higher levels of political awareness amongst

American adolescents (Pasek, Kenski, Romer, & Jamieson, 2006). Young adults ages 18-29

extensively used the Internet for obtaining election information in 2008: 58% went online for

political news, 48% watched a political video online, and 65% of those with SNS profiles

performed at least one of five political activities on the site (Smith, 2009). While Internet access

is often thought of as primarily access to information resources (Tolbert & McNeal, 2003),

Internet use is also associated with small but significant increases in political participation

(Kenski & Stroud, 2006; Tolbert & McNeal, 2003). Some of the increase in participation

amongst young voters may be linked to increasing access to and use of the Internet for political

research and engagement.

The Internet both supplements traditional offline methods of participation (e.g., posting


videos from campaign rallies online) and provides new outlets for participation (e.g., personal

blogs tackling political issues). Elin (2003) argues that the Internet provides a virtual space that

allows individuals to immerse themselves in political information, which in turn can lead to

offline political activities. The website Meetup.com, for example, enables people with similar

interests to find each other online and then “meet up” offline. In the six months leading up to the

2008 presidential election, 1,472 Meetup users utilized the site to organize offline gatherings and

groups in support of John McCain, and 13,702 did the same for Barack Obama (Havenstein,

2008). Weinberg and Williams (2006) found Meetup attendance related to the presidential

candidates was positively related to campaign donations, volunteering, candidate support, and

advocacy.

Internet access alone does not generally increase political participation. However, among

those with Internet access, exposure to political material does increase participation (Kenski &

Stroud, 2006). Wellman, Hasse, Witte, and Hampton (2001) found that the more politically

active people are offline, the more they participate in political discussions online. Hardy and

Scheufele (2005) further found that exposure to and discussion of political information online

had both a main and moderating effect on political engagement. The results of their national

survey (N = 787) indicated that individuals who discussed politics with others via computer-

mediated communication (e.g., e-mail, synchronous chat, discussion forums) also reported

significantly higher levels of political participation (e.g., working for a political campaign,

circulating a petition). These studies provide strong support for the Internet as a new repository

for political information and a new outlet to engage in political discussions, both of which may

be associated with greater political participation.

Social network sites and political activity


While hundreds of SNSs exist, the most popular sites exhibit a number of similar

characteristics. These include the creation of a user profile, a list of users with whom one is

connected, and the ability to view a list of one’s connections and the connections of others within

one’s network (boyd & Ellison, 2007). These sites are especially popular among young adults,

and several studies have found usage rates of 90% or higher amongst college students (e.g.,

Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Golder, Wilkinson, & Huberman, 2007). Research shows

that connections among users on these sites typically represent preexisting or offline

relationships (boyd & Ellison, 2007; Ellison et al., 2007).

The affordances of SNSs suggest they might be well suited to increasing general political

knowledge and, subsequently, political participation. Users can become a “fan” of a candidate

and download candidate applications to their profile pages. They can share their political

opinions through the many communication methods on the site, from status messages and wall

postings to joining various politically based groups. Friends can view all of this information as it

comes through aggregators such as Facebook’s News Feed, which collect the actions of each

member’s friends and present it in a list. Friends can also comment on News Feed postings, thus

engaging others in active conversation about political issues.

Thus far, little research has examined the political uses of SNSs during a campaign cycle.

Gulati and Williams (2007) examined candidates’ use of Facebook’s “Election Pulse” feature,

which provided generic profiles to all candidates running for a congressional or gubernatorial

seat in the 2006 mid-term election. They found that 40% of Senate candidates and 15% of House

candidates updated their profile beyond basic information provided by Facebook, with major

party candidates being significantly more likely to expand their profiles than minor party

candidates. These data suggest that early on, politicians recognized the value young people place


on SNSs and were interested in accessing this population.

Studies specifically looking at the 2008 presidential primaries found that while

candidates were willing to engage young voters, young voters were not necessarily comfortable

with candidate use of SNSs. Hayes (2008) found that young people reacted negatively toward the

presence of politicians on SNSs. Hayes, Zube, and Isaacson (2008) found that young voters were

dissatisfied with the amount of political information candidates had on their profiles, suggesting

that although SNS profiles were accepted as legitimate sources of political information,

candidates did not provide sufficiently detailed information on their profiles. These studies

reveal a conflict of interests whereby political candidates are willing to reach out to young

voters, but their target audience generally perceives messages negatively. However, these studies

examine political use of SNSs between young voters and official campaigns. Considering

candidates’ ultimate unwillingness to concede message control during a campaign (Stromer-

Galley, 2000), it should not be surprising that campaigns struggle to connect with young voters

in more interactive environments. What may be more empowering for young voters is the peer-

to-peer—rather than candidate-to-citizen—interaction that is central to how young people use

SNSs.

MySpace and Facebook have been shown to promote some types of online to offline

political activity. Partnering with Declare Yourself, a nonpartisan political group, MySpace

facilitated an online voter registration drive that produced a printout for potential voters to send

to their state election officials. Campaigns used MySpace and Facebook not only to promote

candidates, but also to recruit volunteers. For example, Peter Franchot, a candidate for Maryland

state comptroller in 2006, recruited 80% of his campaign volunteers online through MySpace

and Facebook (Gueorguieva, 2008).


Valenzuela, Park, and Kee (2008) addressed political participation on Facebook as part of

a larger study of SNS effects on social capital. The authors used Verba, Schlozman, and Brady’s

(1995) definition of political participation, which encompasses activities having the goal or result

of impacting government action through the shaping of public policy, either directly or through

the election of those who create policy (as cited in Valenzuela et al., 2008). The activities of

voting, working for political campaigns, donating money to candidates, and displaying political

bumper stickers were used as examples of political participation. A regression analysis found

that using Facebook Groups was the only variable to have a statistically significant positive

impact. Further analysis showed a strong relationship between being a member of a Facebook

political group and political participation. A positive, significant interaction between intensity of

Facebook use and social trust led the researchers to suggest the effects of Facebook on political

engagement were very strong for trusting people.

Facebook’s impact on political participation

Originally launched in 2004 as a website for college students, Facebook has been adopted

by many young adults in the United States as the SNS platform of choice. According to

Facebook (2009), more than 200 million people have active accounts with the site. Facebook

offers a number of methods for users to interact with each other directly (e.g., wall postings,

instant messaging, messages) and indirectly (e.g., posting notes, status updates). College students

use the site heavily, and have been reported to spend more than 63 minutes on average per day

on the site (Steinfield, Ellison, & Lampe, 2008).

Of particular interest to this study is Facebook’s News Feed. Each time users log onto the

site, the News Feed displays a continually updating list of friends’ activities, including status

messages, recently uploaded photographs, new notes, and recently joined groups. While the


previous section has identified studies exploring how direct dyadic or group communication may

influence political activities, research has not yet explored the potential ramifications of

information from a friend that simply appears online and without the influence of direct

interaction on political participation. Examining how users react to friends’ political information

as displayed on the News Feed allows us to determine the effects of this indirect interaction on

political participation.

This study examines trends in Facebook use by college students in the weeks leading up

to the 2008 presidential election, both to quantify their political use of Facebook and to

determine what relationships exist between students’ political activities on the website and their

political participation in general, as measured by participation in activities such as writing to

one’s representative or running for political office. In addition, this research contributes to the

growing body of literature dealing with impacts of new media on political participation,

specifically how exposure to peers’ attitudes and interests may affect an individual’s political

activity. Although some work frames these activities as “offline” political participation, our use

of the term “political participation” acknowledges that some of these activities can be

accomplished via the Internet or other channels, as well as through traditional media. For

instance, donating money to a campaign or political organization can be accomplished by

mailing in a check or completing an online form. In either case, the end result is the same. We

are therefore concerned with political participation regardless of medium.

One way in which Facebook might increase political participation is through lowering the

barriers to communication about political events and ideas. The site’s News Feed simplifies the

process of sharing information quickly with other members of one’s network;1 as soon as one

person updates his or her status, posts a note or link, or creates an event, that information


immediately populates into the News Feed, where friends can read and respond to the shared

information. Users can easily share political information and, depending on the number and

orientation of their Facebook “friends,” may be exposed to political content that is filtered

through their peer network, potentially rendering it more powerful than traditional media

channels.

Thus, this paper focuses on the following research questions:

RQ1a: What kinds of political activities do college students engage in?

RQ1b: What kinds of political activity on Facebook do college students engage in?

RQ2: Do college students perceive Facebook as an appropriate venue for political

activity?

RQ3: Does political activity on Facebook predict political participation?

RQ4: Does political interest predict political activity on Facebook?

Method

Participants

A random sample of 4,000 students was obtained from the registrar’s office of a large,

Midwestern university. Students were then invited via their university email address to

participate in an online survey hosted on Zoomerang. Three reminders were sent after the initial

invitation to participate. The survey period lasted for two weeks in October 2008. We received

683 usable responses, yielding a response rate of 17% (see Table 1 for sample demographics).

Survey respondents were entered into a raffle for one of a number of prizes as an incentive to

participate.

Table 1


Demographics of Survey Respondents (N = 683)

Demographic Mean Percentage

Gender

Male 32%

Female 68%

Age 20

Year in School

Freshman 23%

Sophomore 21%

Junior 24%

Senior 33%

GPA 3.29

Residence

On Campus 45%

Off Campus 55%

Ethnicity

White 86%

Non-White 14%

Are you a member of a fraternity or sorority?

Yes 7%

No 93%

Are you eligible to vote in the upcoming US election?


Yes 98%

No 2%

Are you registered to vote?

Yes 96%

No 4%

Are you a member of Facebook?

Yes 96%

No 4%

Note: Numbers may not equal 100 due to rounding decisions.

Materials

Several measures were used to test the research questions of this study. The Facebook

Intensity (FBI) scale developed by Ellison et al. (2007) was used to measure Facebook usage.

Table 2 displays the FBI scale, along with the individual measures that comprise the scale.

Number of friends and minutes spent on Facebook were open-ended variables, while the

measures of attitudes toward Facebook were Likert-type scale items.

Table 2

Summary statistics for Facebook Intensity

Individual Items and Scale Mean S.D.

Facebook Intensitya,b (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83) 0.00 5.47

Approximately how many TOTAL Facebook 418 320


“friends” do you have?

Facebook Minutes 92 120

Facebook is part of my everyday activity. 3.90 1.12

I am proud to tell people I'm on Facebook. 3.42 0.98

Facebook has become part of my daily routine. 3.86 1.13

I feel out of touch when I haven't logged onto

Facebook for a while. 3.15 1.33

I feel I am part of the Facebook community. 3.35 1.08

I would be sorry if Facebook shut down. 3.67 1.19

aIndividual items were first standardized by converting open-ended variables using

the log10 function before taking an average to create the scale due to differing item

scale ranges. bUnless provided, response categories ranged from 1=strongly disagree

to 5=strongly agree.

Additional items were developed to determine what role Facebook plays in allowing

users to express their political views as well as the extent to which they are exposed to the views

of others on the site. The Political Activity on Facebook scale, shown in Table 3, includes

responses to the question, “In the past week, which of the following have you done in Facebook?

(Click all that apply).” Questions were asked in a binary fashion; consequently, for individual

items, we show the percentage of the sample that responded “Yes” to this question. The mean

reported for the scale represents the average number of items checked by an individual user. For

this, and following measures adapted from nominal response categories, the scale was developed

using the set of responses by individuals to indicate level of participation. For example, a person


who indicated more of the behaviors shown in the series was considered to have been more

politically active on Facebook.

Table 3

Scale for Political Activity on Facebook

Percent of sample

Political Activity on Facebook scale (Cronbach’s Alpha =

0.75, mean = 1.33, SD = 1.97)

Posted a wall comment about politics 20.4%

Posted a status update that mentions politics 18.4%

Joined or left a group about politics 13.8%

RSVPed for a political event 13.8%

Posted a photo that has something to do with politics 10.0%

Posted a photo of myself or others at a political event 9.6%

Discussed political information in a Facebook message 8.9%

Become a “fan” of a political candidate or group 8.8%

Discussed political information using Facebook’s instant

messaging system 6.9%

Posted a link about politics 6.1%

Added or deleted political information from my profile 5.8%

Added or deleted an application that deals with politics 3.8%

Posted a Facebook Note that has something to do with politics 3.6%


Took a quiz that is about politics 2.7%

We are also interested in what kinds of political information respondents receive from

their peers within Facebook. Table 4 shows the Exposure to Network’s Political Activity on

Facebook scale, which comprises responses to the question, “In the last week, which of the

following have you seen on your News Feed? (Check all that apply).” As with above, responses

were entered in a binary fashion, and consequently, percentages of the respondents affirming the

statement are shown.

Table 4

Scale of awareness of political messages being shown on Facebook’s News Feed

Percent of sample

Exposure to Network’s Political Activity on Facebook Scale

(Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.84, mean = 4.91, SD = 3.42)

A status update that mentions politics 70.0%

Others joining or leaving a group about politics 51.2%

Someone becoming a “fan” of a political candidate or group 51.0%

Someone posting a photo that has something to do with politics 49.3%

A photo of someone at a political event 48.4%

A wall comment about politics 43.2%

Someone is planning to attend a political event 42.5%

A link about politics 41.9%


A Facebook Note that has something to do with politics 35.5%

Political information added or deleted from someone’s profile 26.8%

Someone adding or deleting an application that deals with politics 19.8%

A quiz that is about politics 11.1%

To control for previous political knowledge on the part of the respondents, items were

drawn from Delli Carpini and Keeter (1996) to gauge political knowledge. The Cronbach’s alpha

for this validated scale is lower than reported in other research. In addition, the number of correct

responses in general was higher than is usually reported for this scale. There are several possible

explanations. First, since the survey was conducted online, it is possible participants researched

answers online before responding. Second, because our sample was comprised of students

currently enrolled in a university, they may have a higher level of political knowledge than the

general population. Third, conducting the survey at a charged moment in the U.S. presidential

campaign could have skewed responses.

Table 5

Percentages of correct responses to questions of political knowledge

Percent of sample

answering correctly

Political Knowledge Scale (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.57, mean =

3.94, SD = 1.20)

What job or political office is now held by Richard Cheney? 91.6%


Whose responsibility is it to determine if a law is constitutional or

not ... is it the president, the Congress, or the Supreme Court? 81.9%

How much of a majority is required for the U.S. Senate and

House to override a presidential veto? 69.8%

Which party has the most members in the House of

Representatives in Washington before the election? 62.8%

Which political party, if either, would you say is more

conservative at the national level? 87.5%

Another control scale was created to account for potential effects caused by a

respondent’s sense of personal ability to affect government. The Individual Personal Efficacy

scale is based on work by Verba et al. (1995). Table 6 shows the scale and individual responses

comprising it. The questions we used are verbatim from the established scale.

Table 6

Individual Personal Efficacy scale

Mean Standard

Deviation

Individual Personal Efficacy Scale (Cronbach’s Alpha =

0.75) 2.20 0.55

If you had some complaint about a local government activity

and took that complaint to a member of the local government

council, do you think that he or she would pay:

2.47 0.68


If you had some complaint about a national government

activity and took that complaint to a member of the national

government, do you think that he or she would pay:

1.84 0.76

How much influence do you think someone like you can have

over local government decisions? 2.56 0.74

How much influence do you think someone like you can have

over national government decisions? 1.94 0.74

Note. Respondents answering this series of questions selected from the following responses:

(1) none at all; (2) very little; (3) some; and (4) a lot.

To determine whether the level of interest participants had in politics affected how

Facebook was used for political participation, a Political Interest scale created by Verba et al.

(1995) was employed. This 5-item scale asks participants to rate their political interest from 1

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The individual items are displayed in Table 7.

Table 7

Political Interest Scale

Political Interest Scale (Cronbach’s Alpha = .806)

Scale Items-Yes/No

Mean Standard

Deviation

Everyone should be involved in working with community

organizations and the local government on issues that affect the

community.

3.62 0.91

I think it is important to get involved in improving my community. 4.04 0.75


Being actively involved in national, state and local issues is my

responsibility.

3.65 0.89

I am interested in political issues. 3.71 1.1

I can learn a lot from people with backgrounds and experiences

that are different from mine.

4.23 0.78

Note. Respondents were asked to rate each statement along a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging

from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”).

Finally, the central dependent variable of this research—political participation—was

measured using a 12-item scale adapted from Rosentstone and Hansen’s (1993) measures of

offline political activity to determine respondents’ political participation, both in offline and

online contexts. Participants indicated their experiences with a variety of political interactions in

response to the question, “We are also interested if you have done any of the following. This is a

list of some things people do regarding government and politics. Have you done any of these

things in the past year? (Check all that apply).”

Table 8

Political Participation Scale

Percent of sample

Political Participation Scale (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.63, mean = 2.68,

SD = 1.86)

Watched a 2008 election debate on television 84.6%


Watched a 2008 election debate (clips or in its entirety) on the Internet 66.6%

Signed a paper petition 31.0%

Attended a public meeting on town or school affairs 24.2%

Signed an online petition 20.7%

Served as an officer of some club or organization 18.2%

Volunteered or worked for a political organization 13.1%

Wrote my national representative or senator 9.8%

Belonged to a nonprofit group that is interested in better government 8.4%

Held or ran for political office (including student government) 7.9%

Wrote a letter to the paper regarding a political issue 2.6%

Wrote an article for a magazine or newspaper regarding political issues 1.7%

Findings

Our first research question asked what kinds of political activities college students engage

in, both in general and on Facebook. To answer the question of general participation (RQ1a), we

took the sum of affirmative responses, as shown in Table 8, and created a measure with a

possible range of 0-12 (reflecting the number of questions). Responses ranged from 0-10 (i.e., no

one responded “yes” to every statement), with a mean of 2.68 and a standard deviation of 1.86.

The most common individual behaviors reported were related to watching campaign debates,

either online or on traditional media. In general, the frequency of reported behavior shown in

Table 8 is ordered from least burdensome to most, indicating that participation is a function of

effort. Additionally, given the mean reported above and the frequency of individual responses, it

appears that for most of our respondents, political participation mainly involved passively


watching an election event, or perhaps signing a petition.

The other part of our first research question (RQ1b) asked about the types of political

activities college students reported doing specifically on Facebook. The Political Activity on

Facebook scale, as shown in Table 3, shows individual behaviors reported on 14 political

activities that can be performed within Facebook. Responses ranged from 0-12, with a mean of

1.33 and a standard deviation of 1.97. The most common activities respondents reported include

posting a politically oriented wall comment (20.4%), posting a status update referencing politics

(18.4%), joining or leaving a political Facebook group (13.8%), and RSVPing for a political

event (13.8%). These findings indicate that most students do not use Facebook extensively for

political purposes.

Our second research question (RQ2) related to whether our participants saw Facebook as

an appropriate venue for political activity. We looked at a number of items related to students’

perceptions of Facebook as an appropriate forum for political discussion and display, as shown

in Table 9. Respondents show slight agreement with questions regarding Facebook’s

appropriateness as a platform for sharing political beliefs (M = 3.32, SD = 1.05). However,

respondents objected to using Facebook as a means of persuading others. Motivating others to

vote, both in general (M = 2.01, SD = 1.15) and for a particular candidate (M = 1.88, SD = 1.13),

were met with relatively strong disagreement. Finally, respondents showed some positivity

regarding candidates’ presence on Facebook (M = 3.33, SD = 1.09). The data show that students

are somewhat accepting of Facebook being used as a venue for political activity when it comes

to self-expression, but they view the site as an inappropriate medium for attempting to change

others’ political beliefs or activities.


Table 9

Perceptions of Facebook as a Forum for Political Discussion

Question Mean Standard

Deviation

Facebook is an appropriate place for people to express their

politics.

3.32 1.05

I use Facebook to express my political views. 2.46 1.23

It's good that presidential candidates have pages on Facebook. 3.33 1.09

I use Facebook to convince my friends to vote. 2.01 1.15

I use Facebook to convince my friends to vote for my candidate. 1.88 1.13

Note. Respondents were asked to rate each statement along a 5-point Likert-type scale

ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”).

Respondents who felt most strongly that Facebook was an appropriate medium for

political expression also showed a tendency to use the site to that end. A Spearman’s correlation

coefficient was calculated for the relationship between subjects’ perceptions of appropriate

Facebook use and political activity on Facebook. A strong, positive correlation was found (r =

0.256, p < .001), indicating a significant linear relationship between perceptions of Facebook as

an appropriate medium for political communication and the amount of political activity one

engages in on Facebook.

The third research question (RQ3) sought to understand whether political activity on

Facebook predicts levels of other forms of political participation as measured by activities like


signing petitions (online or paper), attending community meetings, and volunteering for political

organizations. A model to predict political participation was constructed by combining variables

into an OLS regression model to detect whether variables remained significant predictors of the

reported behavior when in the presence of other possible influencers. Table 10 shows the results

of this regression predicting political participation (as measured by the scale in Table 8).

Independent variables included several controls for possible alternative explanations. These

include demographic variables (Table 1), scales for political knowledge (Table 5), and scales for

Individual Personal Efficacy (Table 6). Three measures of Facebook participation were

included: Facebook Intensity (Table 2), Political Activity on Facebook (Table 3), and Exposure

to Network’s Political Activity on Facebook (Table 4). We tested for multicollinearity between

these terms using a Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and did not find significant collinearity

between terms. We report standardized coefficients to account for different types of data

included in this model. The N reported for this model is lower than reported above as the

regression analysis excludes cases with missing data. Gender and Age were treated as a dummy

variable, with “Female” and “Democrat” being the included variables.

Table 10

OLS regression predicting political activity.

Adjusted R2

Std. Error of

the Estimate N ANOVA

0.318 1.513 463 F = 20.205, p < .001


Independent Variables Standardized

Coefficient

t-score Significance

(Constant) -0.080 0.936

Gender -.0.055 -1.315 0.189

Age -0.026 -0.498 0.618

Year in School -0.019 -0.371 0.711

GPA -0.077 -1.836 0.067

Political Party -0.068 -1.643 0.101

Political Knowledge 0.172 3.899 0.001

Individual Political Efficacy 0.070 1.712 0.088

Political Interest 0.299 6.847 .001

Facebook Intensity -0.134 -3.101 0.002

Political Activity on Facebook 0.239 5.300 0.001

Exposure to Network’s Political

Activity on Facebook

0.141 3.377 0.001

The analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that the overall model was significant (F (2,

458) = 20.205, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .318). The standardized beta weights of this model are

reported in Table 10. Political activity on Facebook is the most significant predictor of political

participation in the model (β = .239, p < .001); exposure to political activity on Facebook is also

a significant predictor of political participation (β = .141, p < .001).


In this model, we find that most demographic information is not associated with political

participation. The exception is political party affiliation, with the respondents who identified

themselves as “Democrat” having an increased chance of listing more political participation

behaviors. Political Knowledge and Individual Political Efficacy were both strong predictors of

political participation, which is consistent with previous literature (Galston, 2004; Verba et al.,

1995).

Facebook Intensity is significantly related to political participation, but the coefficient

indicates a negative trend, that is to say that more intense Facebook use is actually associated

with a decrease in political participation. The other measures of Facebook use are strongly

positively associated with political participation, with Political Activity on Facebook in

particular showing the strongest positive correlation of the included variables. It may be that

politically active people are more likely to express those politics on Facebook, or that the people

who use Facebook for communication, as opposed to games, are more likely to express their

political beliefs.

Our final research question (RQ4) addressed the role of political interest on the likelihood

of political participation on Facebook. An OLS regression was run using the same demographic

and control variables utilized in the regression addressing our third research question. As shown

in Table 11, a strong relationship between political interest and political participation on

Facebook exists (β = .157, p < .001). However, political interest alone is not the most significant

relationship. As might be expected, those who are heavier Facebook users are more likely to

participate politically on Facebook (β = .241, p < .001). This finding, in addition to the findings

reported from the prior OLS regression, suggests that while FBI appears to have a negative

relationship with offline political participation, it is strongly and positively related to Facebook


political participation.

Table 11 OLS regression predicting political activity on Facebook.

Adjusted R2

Std. Error of the

Estimate N ANOVA

0.285 1.586 463 F = 17.454, p < .001

Independent Variables

Standardized

Coefficient

t-score

Significance

(Constant) -3.367 0.001

Gender 0.075 1.749 0.081

Age 0.050 0.941 0.347

Year in School -0.089 -1.699 0.090

GPA -0.029 -0.684 0.494

Political Party -0.172 -4.117 0.001

Political Knowledge 0.111 2.428 0.016

Individual Political

Efficacy

0.035 0.838 0.402

Political Interest 0.157 3.382 .001


Facebook Intensity 0.241 5.546 0.001

Political Participation 0.250 5.300 0.001

Exposure to Network’s

Political Activity on

Facebook

0.106 2.459 0.014

In addition to FBI, political participation is also strongly related to Facebook political

participation (β = .250, p < .001), suggesting that those who are politically engaged seek multiple

outlets for their political behaviors. This may also suggest that Facebook has some legitimacy as

a political tool, as those that are engaged in historically valued forms of offline participation such

as volunteering and petitioning are also using Facebook to achieve their political goals. While

this research did not cover the full range of political activities one can perform on Facebook or

the frequency with which users engaged in such activities, we believe there must be some

perceived utility in Facebook as a political tool if those who are more actively participating

offline are also actively participating on Facebook.

Discussion

Our first research question asked about the extent to which participants were active

politically in the past year and the ways in which they used Facebook for political purposes. The

two most frequent forms of political participation indicated by our respondents were acts of

media consumption: watching a debate on television and watching a debate on the Internet.

While these two types of participation are relatively passive when compared to more active tasks

such as writing a letter to a newspaper regarding a political issue, they do reflect information-


seeking behavior and a desire to be informed. Out of the twelve activities included in the

instrument, the average respondent reported less than three. However, our sample

overwhelmingly reported being likely to vote—92% said they were “likely” or “very likely” to

vote in the election. This could mean that the group anticipates participating in an episodic

fashion, i.e., during a national election, but does not participate in other situations, or it could be

a result of the increased effort to “get out the vote” among younger voters during the campaign

season. It should also be noted that self-reports of voting suffer from issues of social desirability

(Holtgraves, 2004; Silver, Anderson, & Abramson, 1986).

We also asked respondents about the political activities on Facebook they had engaged in

during the previous week. We found that at least some Facebook users utilize the site for

purposes of political self-expression, with 48% of respondents reporting they have used

Facebook for at least one of the 14 political activities we asked about. The most common activity

was posting a wall comment on a political topic, with 20.4% reporting they have done this in the

previous week. At first glance, this seems like a small percentage of users engaged in this type of

activity. However, when one considers recent research finding that, among first-year college

students, only 33.8% reported discussing politics sometime during the previous year (Pryor et al.,

2006), this level of activity seems fairly consistent with general political interest among this

population. Most likely, reported rates would have been higher had we asked about behavior

over a six-month or one-year timeframe, rather than only asking about a one-week time period.

Respondents slightly agreed with the statement that “Facebook is an appropriate place to

express your politics” (M = 3.32, SD = 1.05), suggesting that in general, this behavior was

condoned, perhaps because political expression was viewed as a component of self-presentation.

Given that in some circles in the U.S., it is considered inappropriate to discuss politics or


religion, we are hopeful that Facebook might provide a low-risk way for students to engage with

one another about politics. Additionally, in that this constitutes the first presidential election of

the Facebook era, it may be that political behavior on the site has yet to become a norm and that

we will see more political expression and discussion within SNSs in the future. Participant

responses to an open-ended question asking for additional comments reflect this ambivalence

about political uses of the site, suggesting that norms around these activities are still nascent:

I don't really use Facebook to answer my political questions at all. I do, however, believe its okay to express your views and opinions in a rational matter. I believe that Facebook may be useful for disseminating information about political rallies, and so on, but not really useful for propaganda, or swaying votes, except insofar as it facilitates communication between friends, and provides ad-space on a popular social networking site. I personally don't like Facebook for the purpose of expressing political issues because that was not the intended purpose of Facebook. However, I can definitely understand why it has become a vehicle for political ideas.

Conceptions of appropriate behavior will no doubt be contested as the Facebook userbase

becomes more heterogeneous (e.g., one person’s “rational” expression of views may be another

person’s “propaganda”).

Our third research question asked whether political activity in Facebook was related to

political participation. Our model explained approximately 29% of the variance in political

participation using demographic variables and three Facebook-related measures: Facebook

Intensity, Political Activity on Facebook, and Exposure to Network’s Political Activity on

Facebook. In other words, general intensity of Facebook use is only mildly associated with

political participation, but propensity to use Facebook for political expression and to receive

political messages is highly associated with that outcome. One possible explanation for our

findings is that those who are politically active in other settings are also politically active on


Facebook, or are more attuned to political messages. Conversely, Facebook may provide an

environment for unengaged users to explore political activity, which then translates into “real

world” political participation. Similarly, seeing one’s friends engage in political activity may

help make these activities more normative, also encouraging previously unengaged users to take

action. Our results suggest that Facebook users are likely to see political activity in the News

Feed items of their network, especially during political campaign seasons or during politically

charged moments. For example, 70% of our participants reported seeing status updates that

mentioned politics, 51.2% reported seeing someone join or leave a political group, and 51%

reported seeing someone become a “fan” of a political candidate or group. Further work needs to

be done to address the directionality of this relationship, perhaps with longitudinal data.

In many ways, Facebook supports political activity through its technical and social

affordances. The site enables individuals to find others with shared political beliefs through

features such as political Groups and Pages. It includes political affiliation as one of its profile

fields, suggesting that this ranks as an important identity marker for the site designers. Through a

broad range of public and private communication features, it enables user communication with a

large network of “friends,” giving those with a political message an effective platform for

evangelizing. However, our participants seemed less enthusiastic about the possibility of

Facebook being used as a persuasion tool. This may be a residual effect of the highly social

environment Facebook is associated with—our respondents may conceive of Facebook as a

purely social space and may resent the intrusion of political pressure, even though messages that

mention politics are accepted. Blatant attempts to persuade one’s friends to vote for a particular

candidate, however, are likely to be met with resistance, as suggested by the fact that the mean

score for agreement with the statement, “I use Facebook to convince my friends to vote for my


candidate” was only 1.88 (SD = 1.13).

Limitations

This study is limited in its generalizability due to the fact that we only examined

members of the Facebook community, and those users were all students at one institution.

Additionally, the cross-sectional design prevents us from establishing causality. Another

limitation may have been the visit by presidential candidate Barack Obama to the university’s

campus two weeks before the launch of the survey. This visit may have increased levels of

political activity on campus, which then spilled over onto Facebook.

To address these concerns, future research should analyze the impact of other SNSs on

political participation. A random sample of all users of an SNS would also benefit this area of

research. Also, conducting surveys at universities that received visits by presidential candidates,

as well as those that did not, would allow researchers to determine if these live appearances by

the candidates impacts Facebook political activity.

While the timing of this research to coincide with the presidential election is not a

limitation, it would be prudent to do research during a time period outside of an election season.

Presidential elections are typically times of high political engagement due to their level of

importance. Consequently, the levels of political activity reported by our sample are likely to be

greater than those in periods between election cycles. Research conducted during non-election

periods would add a different dimension to research on SNSs and political participation,

complementing the results presented in this paper. Beyond survey research, experimental

interventions would also prove useful in moving this area of research forward by providing

means to establish causal claims.

Conclusion


Our results paint a clear picture of college students’ political activities, both on Facebook

and through more traditional measures of political participation. Political engagement is indeed

occurring within the Facebook environment, suggesting that the popular SNS is an avenue for

young people to express and share their political views. Most importantly, this study has

revealed that political activity on Facebook is significantly related to more general political

participation. The implications of these findings have the potential to change the way candidates

and political organizations use social network sites. Although we were primarily interested in

more tangible expressions of political participation in activities such as volunteering for a

political organization or serving as an officer in an organization, we should also note that the

affordances of the site may encourage discussions about political information. For this

population, discourse about politics may prove to be a crucial component in setting the stage for

later political activity. Other research suggests that individuals use the identity information in

Facebook to broker face-to-face interactions (Steinfield et al., 2008), and this may be the case for

political information as well.

While these results are interesting in their own right, they are also similar to other

findings on the interplay between Internet applications and politics. Just as with our participants,

prior research has found that those already engaged and interested in politics are also likely to

participate through online outlets (e.g., Wellman et al., 2001). In this regard, our findings are not

that surprising. On the other hand, SNSs are relatively new to the political arena and are more

likely to support preexisting social relationships (see boyd & Ellison, 2007), whereas the focus of

many online/politics studies have been websites that are more likely to be explicitly political in

nature and bring together strangers (e.g., campaign websites, political blogs). Additionally, our

sample, as well as the larger SNS population, is relatively young, a sub-population that has


historically been apathetic toward political engagement and political discourse. The fact that

political content is contributed and consumed by this population is relatively good news. An

individual’s interest in politics does not just happen; it takes practice and exposure to cultivate

political engagement. Facebook and other SNSs may offer young citizens an opportunity to

experiment with their political opinions and beliefs while also being exposed to those of their

peers. Likewise, the highly interactive nature of Facebook’s News Feed may encourage users to

become more active political participants, both in online and offline environments. Additional

research is warranted to further investigate this claim, examining in greater depth how young

people use SNSs in developing their political identities, including the origins of their exposure to

political information. It is also worth noting that our findings were generated through a survey

asking predominantly about exposure via the Facebook News Feed, essentially the bare

minimum degree of exposure. If significant findings emerge from this rather limited feature of

Facebook, the next question to ask is, to what extent is political discourse taking place on

Facebook that our method did not capture? We believe the findings of this research merely

scratch the surface of the actual phenomenon of political participation on SNSs and that there

may be much more occurring than one might expect from a “social” medium.


Notes

1 Rather than receiving every update from every friend on Facebook, the items that are included

within an individual’s News Feed are determined by an algorithm created by Facebook. Users

can further restrict information that posts to their friends’ News Feeds through customization of

the privacy settings.


References

Baumgartner, J. C., & Morris, J. S. (2008). One “Nation,” under Stephen? The effects of The

Colbert Report on American youth. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52,

622-643.

Bennett, W. L., Breunig, C., & Givens, T. (2008). Communication and political mobilization:

Digital media and the organization of anti-Iraq War demonstrations in the U.S. Political

Communication, 25, 269-289.

Best, S., & Krueger, B. (2005). Analyzing the representativeness of Internet political

participation. Political Behavior, 27(2), 183-216.

boyd, d. (2006). Friends, Friendsters, and MySpace top 8: Writing community into being

on social network sites. First Monday 11. Retrieved November 1, 2008, from

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_12/boyd/index.html.

boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and

scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1).

Burns, N., & Schlozman , K. L. (2001). The private roots of public action: Gender, equality,

and political participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Conway, M. M. (2000). Political participation in the United States. Washington DC: CQ

Press.

Delli Carpini, M. X. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new

information environment. Political Communication, 17, 341-349.

Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it

matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Donath, J. (2007). Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated



Donath, J., & boyd, d. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71-

82.

Elin, L. (2003). The radicalization of Zeke Spier: How the Internet contributes to civic

engagement and new forms of social capital. In M. McCarthy & M. D. Ayers

(Eds.), Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and practice (pp. 97-114). New

York: Routledge.

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook ‘‘friends:’’ Social

capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-

Mediated Communication, 12, 1143-1168.

Facebook. (2009). Facebook | Statistics. Retrieved April 15, 2009 from

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1417049&ref=profile#/press/info.php?statistics

Farnsworth, S. J., & Owen, D. (2004). Internet use and the 2000 presidential election.

Electoral Studies, 23, 415-429.

Fernback, J. (2007). Beyond the diluted community concept: A symbolic interactionist perspective

on online social relations. New Media & Society, 9, 49-69.

Galston, W. A. (2004). Civic education and political participation. PS: Political Science &

Politics, 37, 253–266.

Golder, S., Wilkinson, D., & Huberman, B. (2007). Rhythms of social interaction:

messaging within a massive online network. In C. Steinfield, B. T. Pentland, M.

Ackerman, & N. Contractor (Eds.) Communities and Technologies 2007:

Proceedings of the third international conference on communities and

technologies (pp. 41-66). London: Springer.

Goldman, R. (2008, Jan. 5). Facebook gives snapshot of voter sentiment. ABC News.


Retrieved October 20, 2008, from

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=4091460&page=1.

Gueorguieva, V. (2008). Voters, MySpace, and YouTube: The impact of alternative

communication channels on the 2006 election cycle and beyond. Social Science

Computer Review, 26, 288-300.

Gulati, G. J., & Williams, C. B. (2007). Closing the gap, raising the bar. Social Science

Computer Review, 25(4), 443-465.

Han, G. (2008). New media use, sociodemographics, and voter turnout in the 2000 presidential

election. Mass Communication and Society, 11(1), 62-81.

Hardy, B. W., & Scheufele, D. A. (2005). Examining differential gains from internet use:

Comparing the moderating role of talk and online interactions. Journal of


Havenstein, H. (2008, October, 22). Obama still dominates web 2.0 world, Internet searches.

The New York Times. Retrieved October 25, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com.

Hayes, R. (2008, April). I want to feel included: Views of younger voters on traditional and new

media communication channels. Paper presented at Politics: Web 2.0: An International

Conference, London.

Hayes, R., Zube, P., & Isaacson, T. (2008, April). Reaching out on their own turf: Social

networking sites and campaigning 2008. Paper presented at Politics: Web 2.0: An

International Conference, London.

Holtgraves, T. (2004). Social desirability and self-reports: Testing models of social desirable

responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 161-172.

Jackman, R. W. (1987). Political institutions and voter turnout in the industrial democracies.


American Political Science Review, 81, 405-424.

Kenski, K., & Stroud, N. J. (2006). Connections between Internet use and political

efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50,

173-192.

Krueger, B. S. (2002). Assessing the potential of Internet political participation in the United

States: A resource approach. American Politics Research, 30, 476-498.

Lenhart, A. (2009). Adults and social network websites. Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://pewinternet.org/PPF/r/272/report_display.asp

Lopez, M. H., Kirby, E., Sagoff, J., & Herbst, C. (2005). The youth vote 2004 with a

historical look at youth voting patterns, 1972–2004. The Center for Information

and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from

http://www.civicyouth.org/research/products/working_papers.htm

Pasek, J., Kenski, K., Romer, D., & Jamieson, K. H. (2006). America’s youth and

community engagement: How use of mass media is related to civic activity

and political awareness in 14- to 22-year-olds. Communication Research, 33, 115-135

Pickard, V. W. (2008). Cooptation and cooperation: Institutional exemplars of democratic

Internet technology. New Media & Society, 10, 625-645.

Pryor, J. H., Hurtado, S., Saenz, V. B., Korn, J. S., Santos, J. L., & Korn, W. S. (2006). The

American freshman: National norms for Fall 2006. Higher Education Research Institute,

UCLA.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Quintelier, E. & Vissers, S. (2008). The effect of Internet use on political participation:

An analysis of survey results for 16-year-olds in Belgium. Social Science


Computer Review, 26, 411-427.

Record Youth Voter Turnout for ‘08 Presidential Primaries & Caucuses. (2008, June 13).

The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.

Retrieved October 28, 2008, from http://www.civicyouth.org/?p=302

Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier.

Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Rosentstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in

America. New York: Macmillian.

Scheufele, D. A., & Nisbet, M. C. (2002). Being a citizen online: New opportunities and dead

ends. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7, 55-75.

Silver, D. B., Anderson, B. A., & Abramson, P. R. (1986). Who overreports voting? American

Political Science Review, 80, 613-624.

Smith, A. (2009). The Internet’s role in campaign 2008. Pew Internet &

American Life Project. Retrieved April 25, 2009, from

http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/6--The-Internets-Role-in-Campaign-2008.aspx

Steinfield, C., Ellison, N., & Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online

social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental

Psychology 29(6), 434-445.

Stromer-Galley, J. (2000). Online interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of

Communication, 50(4), 111-132.

Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2003). Unraveling the effects of the Internet on political

participation? Political Research Quarterly, 56, 175-185.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). Participation in elections for President and U.S. Representatives:


1932 to 2006. Retrieved March 12, 2009 from

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0402.pdf

Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2008, April). Lessons from Facebook: The effect of

social network sites on college students’ social capital. Paper presented at the

International Symposium on Online Journalism, Austin, TX.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and Equality. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Youth Turnout Rate Rises to at Least 52%. (2008, November 7). The Center for Information &

Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from

http://www.civicyouth.org/?p=323

Weber, L. M., Loumakis, A., & Bergman, J. (2003). Who participates and why? An

analysis of citizens on the Internet and the mass public. Social Science Computer

Review, 21, 26-42.

Weinberg, B. & Williams, C. (2006). The 2004 US presidential campaign: Impact of hybrid

offline and online 'meetup' communities. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing

Practice, 8, 46-57.

Wellman, B., Hasse, A. Q., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the Internet increase,

decrease, or supplement social capital? American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3),

436-455.

Facebook and Political Participation 1 Running head ... · PDF fileFacebook and Political...

Documents

Transcript of Facebook and Political Participation 1 Running head ... · PDF fileFacebook and Political...