facebook and political participation 1 running head ... · pdf filefacebook and political...
TRANSCRIPT
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.
Facebook and Political Participation 2
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.
Facebook and Political Participation 3
“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
Facebook and Political Participation 4
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
Facebook and Political Participation 5
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).
Facebook and Political Participation 6
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
Facebook and Political Participation 7
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
Facebook and Political Participation 8
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
Facebook and Political Participation 9
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).
Facebook and Political Participation 10
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
Facebook and Political Participation 11
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
Facebook and Political Participation 12
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
Facebook and Political Participation 13
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?
Facebook and Political Participation 14
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
Facebook and Political Participation 15
“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
Facebook and Political Participation 16
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%
Facebook and Political Participation 17
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%
Facebook and Political Participation 18
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%
Facebook and Political Participation 19
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
Facebook and Political Participation 20
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
Facebook and Political Participation 21
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%
Facebook and Political Participation 22
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
Facebook and Political Participation 23
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.
Facebook and Political Participation 24
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
Facebook and Political Participation 25
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
Facebook and Political Participation 26
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).
Facebook and Political Participation 27
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
Facebook and Political Participation 28
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 and Political Participation 29
Facebook Intensity 0.241 5.546 0.001
Political Participation 0.250 5.300 0.001
Exposure to Network’s
Political Activity on
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-
Facebook and Political Participation 30
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
Facebook and Political Participation 31
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 and Political Participation 32
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
Facebook and Political Participation 33
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
Facebook and Political Participation 34
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
Facebook and Political Participation 35
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.
Facebook and Political Participation 36
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.
Facebook and Political Participation 37
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
Facebook and Political Participation 38
Communication, 13, 231-251.
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.
Facebook and Political Participation 39
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
Communication, 55, 71-84.
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.
Facebook and Political Participation 40
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
Facebook and Political Participation 41
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:
Facebook and Political Participation 42
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.