Online civic participation among youth: An extension of traditional participation, or a new quality? Paper presented at the Surrey PIDOP Conference on

Online civic participationamong youth:An extension of traditional participation, or a new quality?

Paper presented at the Surrey PIDOP Conference on “Political and Civic Participation”, April 16 th-17th, 2012, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

Jan Šerek, Zuzana Petrovičová,Hana Macháčková & Petr Macek

Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

Strengths of the PIDOP WP6 survey•cross-country comparison

•ethnic minorities

Strengths of the PIDOP WP6 survey•cross-country comparison

•ethnic minorities

• items on different types of participation, including nonconventional online activities

Online participation• internet is an important source of social capital

(Ellison et al., 2009)• debates about its potential for political and civic

engagement (Gurak, 2005)▫efficient place for discussion, information sharing,

planning, or even quick mobilization▫spreading of inaccurate information, no effective

control over aggressive comments• no conclusive evidence on the differences

between online and offline participation (Couldry et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2010; Byrne, 2007)


















between online and offline engagement (Couldry et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2010; Byrne, 2007)

Can we identify a pattern of participation that is characterized by a strong emphasis on online participation?

Sample & procedure

N = 732

ethnic majority

61 % females

Age 15-28

questionnaire-based survey

Forms of participation

online – linking social or political content, discussing, visiting a political website, Facebook, online protest/boycott

direct – demonstration, political graffiti, illegal action, boycott/buying

civic – volunteering, donating money, fundraising events, wearing a symbol

hierarchical cluster analysis (Ward‘s method)

three types of political participation

four clusters

Online Direct Civic N

Type 1 2.87 1.13 1.98 204

Type 2 3.07 1.53 3.29 83

Type 3 1.65 1.03 1.54 368

Type 4 1.68 1.17 2.72 80

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 1

2

3

4

Online Direct Civic


Type 1 2.87 1.13 1.98 204

Type 2 3.07 1.53 3.29 83

Type 3 1.65 1.03 1.54 368

Type 4 1.68 1.17 2.72 80


2

3

4

Online Direct Civic

Activists


Type 1 2.87 1.13 1.98 204

Type 2 3.07 1.53 3.29 83

Type 3 1.65 1.03 1.54 368

Type 4 1.68 1.17 2.72 80


2

3

4

Online Direct Civic Disengag

ed


Type 1 2.87 1.13 1.98 204

Type 2 3.07 1.53 3.29 83

Type 3 1.65 1.03 1.54 368

Type 4 1.68 1.17 2.72 80


2

3

4

Online Direct Civic

Only civic


Type 1 2.87 1.13 1.98 204

Type 2 3.07 1.53 3.29 83

Type 3 1.65 1.03 1.54 368

Type 4 1.68 1.17 2.72 80


2

3

4

Online Direct Civic

Only online

Online Activists Disengaged Civic Total

males 87 30 142 27 286

females 117 53 224 52 446

Gender


males 87 30 142 27 286

females 117 53 224 52 446

Gender

79.7

124.3

expected frequencies


males 87 30 142 27 286

females 117 53 224 52 446

Gender

79.7

124.3

χ2 (1) = 1.10, p = .29

males and females represented

equally


15 – 19 49 27 105 37 218

20 – 28 152 55 256 41 504

Age


15 – 19 49 27 105 37 218

20 – 28 152 55 256 41 504

Age

60.7

140.3

expected frequencies


15 – 19 49 27 105 37 218

20 – 28 152 55 256 41 504

Age

60.7

140.3

χ2 (1) = 3.23, p = .07

younger and older represented

equally

What is the difference between activists and people who participate only online?

What is the difference between activists and people who participate only online?

•psychological empowerment•trust•social views•politicized social environment

Online Activists

Disengaged Civic Mean

Internal political efficacy

3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95

Youth collective efficacy

Community change

Community opportunities

Psychological empowerment

1

2

3

4

Online Activists Disengaged Civic

F(3,636) = 22.71, p < .01

Online Activists



3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95


Community change



1

2

3

4


F(3,636) = 22.71, p < .01

t(636) = 0.11, p = .91

Online Activists



3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95


Community change



Online Activists



3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95


3.50 3.65 3.03 3.34 3.26

Community change



1

2

3

4


F(3,633) = 12.34, p < .01

Online Activists



3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95


3.50 3.65 3.03 3.34 3.26

Community change



1

2

3

4


F(3,633) = 12.34, p < .01

t(633) = 1.04, p = .30

Online Activists



3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95


3.50 3.65 3.03 3.34 3.26

Community change



Online Activists



3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95


3.50 3.65 3.03 3.34 3.26

Community change 3.35 3.55 3.07 3.31 3.23



1

2

3

4


F(3,609) = 9.96, p < .01

Online Activists



3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95


3.50 3.65 3.03 3.34 3.26




1

2

3

4


F(3,609) = 9.96, p < .01

t(609) = 1.84, p = .07

Online Activists



3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95


3.50 3.65 3.03 3.34 3.26




Online Activists



3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95


3.50 3.65 3.03 3.34 3.26


Community opportunities 3.49 3.52 3.38 3.39 3.42


1

2

3

4


F(3,609) = 0.66, p = .58

Online Activists



3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95


3.50 3.65 3.03 3.34 3.26




1

2

3

4


F(3,609) = 0.66, p = .58

t(609) = 0.22, p = .83

Online Activists



3.39 3.40 2.70 2.51 2.95


3.50 3.65 3.03 3.34 3.26




Online Activists


Trust in political

institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84

Trust in politicians

Trust in media

Interpersonal trust

Trust

1

2

3

4


F(3,618) = 2.97, p = .03

Online Activists


Trust in political

institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84


Trust in media

Interpersonal trust

Trust

1

2

3

4


F(3,618) = 2.97, p = .03

t(618) = 1.13, p = .26

Online Activists


Trust in political

institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84


Trust in media

Interpersonal trust

Trust

Online Activists


Trust in political

institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84

Trust in politicians 1.81 1.86 1.70 1.71 1.75

Trust in media

Interpersonal trust

Trust

1

2

3

4


F(3,615) = 1.91, p = .13

Online Activists


Trust in political

institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84


Trust in media

Interpersonal trust

Trust

1

2

3

4


F(3,615) = 1.91, p = .13

t(615) = 0.59, p = .56

Online Activists


Trust in political

institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84


Trust in media

Interpersonal trust

Trust

Online Activists


Trust in political

institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84


Trust in media 2.81 2.86 2.71 2.80 2.76

Interpersonal trust

Trust

1

2

3

4


F(3,618) = 1.97, p = .12

Online Activists


Trust in political

institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84


Trust in media 2.81 2.86 2.71 2.80 2.76

Interpersonal trust

Trust

1

2

3

4


F(3,618) = 1.97, p = .12

t(618) = 0.57, p = .57

Online Activists


Trust in political

institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84


Trust in media 2.81 2.86 2.71 2.80 2.76

Interpersonal trust

Trust

Online Activists


Trust in political

institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84


Trust in media 2.81 2.86 2.71 2.80 2.76

Interpersonal trust 2.45 2.37 2.20 2.39 2.32

Trust

1

2

3

4


F(3,615) = 2.69, p = .05

Online Activists


Trust in political

institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84


Trust in media 2.81 2.86 2.71 2.80 2.76


Trust

1

2

3

4


F(3,615) = 2.69, p = .05

t(615) = 0.57, p = .57

Online Activists


Trust in political

institutions2.88 2.97 2.81 2.71 2.84


Trust in media 2.81 2.86 2.71 2.80 2.76


Trust

Online Activists


Social well-being 3.09 3.21 2.88 3.01 2.99

Support for equal rights

Support for cultural rights

Support for affirmative

action

Social views

1

2

3

4


F(3,604) = 2.91, p = .03

Online Activists






action

Social views

1

2

3

4


F(3,604) = 2.91, p = .03

t(604) = 0.87, p = .38

Online Activists






action

Social views

Online Activists



Support for equal rights 4.33 4.38 4.10 4.08 4.19



action

Social views

1

2

3

4

5


F(3,596) = 3.73, p = .01

Online Activists






action

Social views

1

2

3

4

5


F(3,596) = 3.73, p = .01

t(596) = 0.41, p = .68

Online Activists






action

Social views

Online Activists




Support for cultural rights 3.04 3.33 2.99 3.05 3.05


action

Social views

1

2

3

4

5


F(3,595) = 1.89, p = .13

Online Activists






action

Social views

1

2

3

4

5


F(3,595) = 1.89, p = .13

t(595) = 1.91, p = .06

Online Activists






action

Social views

Online Activists






action1.72 2.31 1.88 2.13 1.91

Social views

1

2

3

4

5


F(3,598) = 10.76, p < .01

Online Activists






action1.72 2.31 1.88 2.13 1.91

Social views

1

2

3

4

5


F(3,598) = 10.76, p < .01

t(598) = 5.10, p < .01

Online Activists






action1.72 2.31 1.88 2.13 1.91

Social views

Online Activists


Friends participate 2.81 3.13 2.00 2.14 2.37

Parents participate

Not asked to participate

Not been persuaded

Politicized social environment

1

2

3

4


F(3,618) = 33.16, p < .01

Online Activists



Parents participate


Not been persuaded

1

2

3

4


F(3,618) = 33.16, p < .01

t(618) = 2.06, p < .05


Online Activists



Parents participate


Not been persuaded


Online Activists



Parents participate 1.91 2.21 1.50 1.86 1.73


Not been persuaded

Social environment

1

2

3

4


F(3,612) = 12.61, p < .01

Online Activists





Not been persuaded


1

2

3

4


F(3,612) = 12.61, p < .01

t(612) = 2.01, p < .05

Online Activists





Not been persuaded


Online Activists




Not asked to participate 3.65 3.29 3.93 3.65 3.75

Not been persuaded


1

2

3

4


F(3,648) = 3.96, p < .01

Online Activists





Not been persuaded


1

2

3

4


F(3,648) = 3.96, p < .01

t(648) = 1.71, p = .09

Online Activists





Not been persuaded


Online Activists





Not been persuaded 2.65 2.16 3.10 3.12 2.87


1

2

3

4


F(3,650) = 21.77, p < .01

Online Activists







1

2

3

4


F(3,650) = 21.77, p < .01

t(650) = 2.22, p < .05

Online Activists







Conclusions

•young people who are generally politically active and young people who are active only online do not differ in their psychological empowerment and trust

Conclusions


• those who are generally active report a more politicized social environment

Conclusions


• those who are generally active report a more politicized social environment

•we may speculate that the support for affirmative action is an expression of certain deeper value orientation

Conclusions

•online participation more impersonal?„low-cost fullfilment of civic duty“

•„activists“ and „online activists“ seem to be the same, except for social environment

•causality?

The PIDOP project is supported by a grant received from the European Commission 7th Framework Programme, FP7- SSH-2007-1, Grant Agreement no: 225282, Processes Influencing

Democratic Ownership and Participation (PIDOP) awarded to the University of Surrey (UK), University of Liege (Belgium), Masaryk University (Czech Republic), University of Jena

(Germany), University of Bologna (Italy), University of Porto (Portugal), Orebro University (Sweden), Ankara University

(Turkey) and Queen’s University Belfast (UK)

Thank you!

[email protected]@fss.muni.cz

[email protected]@fss.muni.cz

Documents

Online civic participation among youth: An extension of traditional participation, or a new quality? Paper presented at the Surrey PIDOP Conference on