In spring 2011, thousands of Wisconsin residents protested a controversial bill spearheaded by Governor Scott Walker. Protest engagement via social media was popular, especially among young people. The current study examines the relationship between young people's informational and expressive uses of four social media—Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Blogs—and their offline protest engagement. Survey results reveal that although college students used these social media to obtain information about the budget repair bill protests, only expressive uses related to offline protest engagement. We move research forward by examining the implications of multiple uses of political social media surrounding a compelling case study.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SmithA. 2011. 22% of online Americans used social networking or Twitter for politics in 2010 campaignRetrieved from Pew Internet and American Life Project website:www.pewinternet.org/∼/media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP-Social-Media-and-2010-Election.pdf. 2012 Jan. 5.
2.
SteinJ, SchultzeS, GlauberB. 2011. Budge-repair bill approved in early morning vote. Milwaukee, Wisconsin Journal Sentinel. www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116824378.html. 2011 Jun. 10.
3.
Wisconsin State Legislature. 2011. January 2011 Special Session Senate BillRetrieved from the Wisconsin State Legislation Web site:http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/JR1SB-11.pdf. 2011 Jun. 10.
4.
LaRoseR, MastroD, EastinM. Understanding internet usage: a social-cognitive approach to uses and gratifications. Social Science Computer Review, 2001; 19:395–413.
5.
PapacharissiZ, RubinA. Predictors of internet use. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 2000; 44:175–196.
6.
SongI, LaroseR, EastinMet al.Internet gratifications and internet addiction: on the uses and abuses of new media. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 2004; 7:384–394.
7.
StaffordT, StaffordM, SchkadeL. Determining uses and gratifications for the internet. Decision Sciences, 2004; 35:259–288.
8.
RubinA. Television uses and gratifications—the interactions of viewing patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting, 1983; 27:37–51.
9.
PayneG, SevernJ, DozierD. Uses and gratifications motives as indicators of magazine readership. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 1988; 65:909–913959.
10.
RuggieroT. Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication and Society, 2000; 3:3–37.
11.
ShaoG. Understanding the appeal of user-generated media: a uses and gratification perspective. Internet Research, 2009; 19:7–25.
12.
HaridakisP, HansonG. Social interaction and co-viewing with youtube: blending mass communication reception and social connection. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 2009; 53:317–335.
13.
KayeB. It's a blog, blog, blog, blog world: users and uses of weblogs. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 2005; 13:73–95.
14.
SelwynN. Faceworking: exploring students' education-related use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 2009; 34:157–174.
15.
UristaM, DongQ, DayK. Explaining why young adults use MySpace and Facebook through uses and gratifications theory. Human Communication, 2009; 12:215–229.
16.
ParkN, KeeK, ValenzuelaS. Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 2009; 12:729–733.
17.
GoffmanE. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor.
18.
HancockJ, TomaC. Putting your best face forward: the accuracy of online dating photographs. Journal of Communication, 2009; 59:367–386.
19.
DavisJ. Architecture of the personal interactive homepage: constructing the self through Myspace. New Media and Society, 2010; 12:1103–1119.
20.
BaekK, HoltonA, HarpDet al.The links that bind: uncovering novel motivations for linking on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 2005; 27:2243–2248.
21.
ManagoA, GrahamM, GreenfieldPet al.Self-presentation and gender on Myspace. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2008; 29:446–458.
22.
PempekT, YermolayevaY, CalvertS. College students' social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2009; 30:227–238.
23.
ThackerayR, HunterM. Empowering youth: use of technology in advocacy to affect social change. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 2010; 15:575–591.
24.
RheingoldH. 2008. Using participatory media and public voice to encourage civic engagement. BennettWL. Civic life online: learning how digital media can engage youth. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
25.
KwonK, NamY, LackaffD. Wireless protesters move around: Informational and coordinative use of information and communication technologies for protest politics. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 2011; 8:383–398.
26.
PasekJ, MoreE, RomerD. Realizing the social internet? Online social networking meets offline social capital. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 2009; 6:197–215.
27.
FarisD. Revolutions without revolutionaries? Network, theory, Facebook, and the Egyptian blogosphere. Arab Media and Society, 2008; 6:1–11.
28.
KushinM, YamamotoM. Did social media really matter? College students' use of online media and political decision making in the 2008 election. Mass Communication and Society, 2010; 13:608–630.
29.
VitakJ, ZubeP, SmockAet al.It's complicated: Facebook users' political participation in the 2008 election. Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking, 2011; 14:107–114.
30.
FarrowH, YuanY. Building stronger ties with alumni through Facebook to increase volunteerism and charitable giving. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2011; 16:445–464.
31.
LawrenceE, SidesJ, FarrellH. Self-segregation or deliberation? blog readership, participation, and polarization in American politics. Perspectives on Politics, 2010; 8:141–157.
32.
RojasH, Puig-I-AbrilE. Mobilizers mobilized: information, expression, mobilization and participation in the digital age. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2009; 14:902–927.
33.
SchussmanA, SouleS. Process and protest: accounting for individual protest participation. Social Forces, 2005; 84:1083–1108.
34.
DaltonR, Van SickleA, WeldonS. The individual-institutional nexus of protest behavior. British Journal of Political Science, 2009; 40:51–73.
35.
Van LaerJ, Van AelstP. Internet and social movement action repertoires opportunities and limitations. Information Communication and Society, 2010; 13:1146–1171.
36.
McPhailC, WohlsteinR. Individual and collective behaviors within gatherings, demonstrations, and riots. Annual Review of Sociology, 1983; 9:579–600.
37.
BaumgartnerJ, MorrisJ. MyFaceTube politics: social networking web sites and political engagement of young adults. Social Science Computer Review, 2010; 28:24–44.
