Political information efficacy theory was examined in this pretest-posttest experiment of Web interactivity. Experimental (high) and control (low) interactive conditions produced significantly different effects for the participants (N = 271). Exposure to highly interactive Web features resulted in significant increases in political information efficacy. Participants in the highly interactive condition were also significantly more likely than those in the low interactive condition to indicate that voting was an important behavior.
Acock, A., Clarke, H., & Stewart, M.C. (1985). A new model for old measures: A covariance structure analysis of political efficacy. Journal of Politics, 47, 1062-1084.
2.
Barber, B., Mattson, K., & Peterson, J. (1997). The state of “electronically enhanced democracy:” A survey of the Internet. New Brunswick, NJ: Walt Whitman Center for the Culture and Politics of Democracy.
3.
Bucy, E.P. (2004). The interactivity paradox: Closer to the news but confused. In E. P. Bucy & J. E. Newhagen (Eds.), Media access: Social and psychological dimensions (pp. 47-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W.E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston, IL: Row.
5.
Congress Online. (2002). Assessing and improving Capitol Hill Web sites. Retrieved January 28, 2002, from http://www.congressonlineproject.org/publications
6.
Finkel, S.E. (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 891-913.
7.
Foot, K.A., & Schneider, S.M. (2002). Online action in campaign 2000: An exploratory analysis of the U.S. political web sphere. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 46(2), 222-244.
8.
Hacker, K.L. (2000). The White House computer-mediated communication (CMC) systems and political interactivity. In K. L. Hacker & J. van Dijk (Eds.), Digital democracy: Issues of theory and practice (pp. 105-129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
Hansen, G.J., & Benoit, W.L. (2002, November). Presidential campaigning on the Web: The influence of candidate World Wide Web sites in the 2000 general election . Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
10.
Kaid, L.L., McKinney, M., & Tedesco, J.C. (2000). Civic dialogue in the 1996 presidential campaign: Candidate, media, and public voices. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
11.
Kaid, L.L., McKinney, M., & Tedesco, J.C. (2007). Political information efficacy and young voters . American Behavioral Scientist, 50(9), 1093-1111.
12.
Kiousis, S. (2002). Interactivity: A concept explication. New Media and Society, 4(3), 355-383.
13.
Levine, P., & Lopez, M. (2002). Youth voter turnout has declined by any measure . College Park, MD: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Retrieved October 8, 2003, from http://www.civicyouth.org/research/products/fact_sheets_outside.htm
14.
McMillan, S.J. (2002). Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: Users, documents, systems. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), The handbook of new media: Social shaping and consequences of ICTs (pp. 163-182). London: Sage.
15.
McPherson, J.M., Welch, S., & Clark, C. (1977). The stability and reliability of political efficacy: Using path analysis to test alternative models. American Political Science Review, 71, 509-521.
16.
National Association of Secretaries of State. ( 2000). New millennium survey: American youth attitudes on politics, citizenship, government, and voting. Retrieved October 8, 2003 , from http://www.stateofthevote.org
17.
Niemi, R.G., Craig, S.C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review , 85, 1407-1413.
18.
Nisbet, M., & Scheufele, D.A. (2004). Internet use and participation: Political talk as a catalyst for online citizenship. Journalism andMass Communication Quarterly, 81(4), 877-896.
19.
Owen, D., Davis, R., & Strickler, V.J. (1999). Congress and the Internet. Press/Politics, 4(2), 10-29.
20.
Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2004 ). Cable and Internet loom large in fragmented political news universe. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org
21.
Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2005 ). The Internet and campaign 2004: The Internet was a key force in politics last year as 75 million Americans used it to get news, discuss candidates in emails, and participate directly in the political process. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_2004_Campaign.pdf
22.
Rheingold, H. (1995). The virtual community (New ed.). London: Minerva.
23.
Schneider, S.M., & Foot, K.A. (2006). Web campaigning by U.S. presidential primary candidates in 2000 and 2004. In A. P. Williams & J. C. Tedesco (Eds.), The Internet election: Perspectives on the Web in campaign 2004 (pp. 21-36). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
24.
Selnow, G.W. (1998). Electronic whistle-stops: The impact of the Internet on American politics. Westport, CT: Praeger.
25.
Sparks, C. (2001). The Internet and the global public sphere. In W. L. Bennet & R. M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy (pp. 75-98). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Stromer-Galley, J. (2000). On-line interaction and why candidates avoid it . Journal of Communication, 50(4), 111-132.
27.
Stromer-Galley, J. (2004). Interactivity-as-product and interactivity-as-process . Information Society, 20(5), 391-394.
28.
Sundar, S.S., Kalyanaraman, S., & Brown, J. (2003). Explicating Web site interactivity: Impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Journal of Communication, 30(1), 30-59.
29.
Tedesco, J.C. (2006). Web interactivity and young adult political efficacy . In A. P. Williams & J. C. Tedesco (Eds.), The Internet election: Perspectives on the Web in campaign 2004 (pp. 187-202). Lanham, MD : Rowman and Littlefield.
30.
Tedesco, J.C., & Kaid, L.L. (2000, November). Candidate Web sites and voter effects: Investigating uses and gratifications. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Seattle, WA.
