Previous scholarship on networked authoritarianism has examined an array of repressive legal and political strategies employed by regimes to constrain online political expression. How the tension between citizens’ desires to engage in online political expression and the possible dire consequences of doing so is resolved, however, is understudied. We address this lacuna by drawing upon concepts from risk and decision-making research and examining how the emotional and cognitive components of risk and decision-making shape citizens’ online political expression. Employing a three-wave panel survey of Turkish internet users collected over 8 months, our fixed-effects regression analyses show that anticipatory emotions drive expressive behavior, but that risk assessment does not. Furthermore, the influence of negative emotions on online expression is moderated by individuals’ degree of regime opposition. We discuss the importance of understanding the psychological mechanisms by which networked authoritarian contexts influences citizens’ decisions to engage in contentious online speech.
AldamaA.Vásquez-CortésM.YoungL. E. (2019). Fear and citizen coordination against dictatorship. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 31(1), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951629818809425
BarberáP.WangN.BonneauR.JostJ. T.NaglerJ.TuckerJ.González-BailónS. (2015). The critical periphery in the growth of social protests. PLoS One, 10(11), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143611
4.
BaumgartnerH.PietersR.BagozziR. P. (2008). Future-oriented emotions: Conceptualization and behavioral effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(4), 685–696. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.467
5.
BehrouzianG.NisbetE. C.DalA.ÇarkoğluA. (2016). Resisting censorship: How citizens navigate closed media environments. International Journal of Communication, 10, 23.
6.
BennettW. L.SegerbergA. (2013). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Cambridge University Press.
7.
BodeL. (2017). Gateway political behaviors: The frequency and consequences of low-cost political engagement on social media. Social Media+ Society, 3(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117743349
8.
BodeL.VragaE. K.BorahP.ShahD. V. (2014). A new space for political behavior: Political social networking and its democratic consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 414–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12048
9.
BoulianneS. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 524–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542
10.
CapelosT.ChronaS. (2018). The map to the heart: An analysis of political affectivity in Turkey. Politics and Governance, 6(4), 144–158. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i4.1576
11.
CarpiniM. X. D.CookF. L.JacobsL. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315–344. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630
12.
ChaikenS.TropeY. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. Guilford Press.
13.
ChronaS.BeeC. (2017). Right to public space and right to democracy: The role of social media in Gezi Park. Research and Policy on Turkey, 2(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/23760818.2016.1272267
14.
CialdiniR. B. (2001). The science of persuasion. Scientific American, 284(2), 76–81.
15.
CloreG. L. (1992). Cognitive phenomenology: Feelings and construction of judgment. The Construction of Social Judgments, 10, 133–163.
16.
CoeK.KenskiK.RainsS. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104
17.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18.
CooperK. E.NisbetE. C. (2016). Green narratives: How affective responses to media messages influence risk perceptions and policy preferences about environmental hazards. Science Communication, 38(5), 626–654. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016666843
19.
DamasioA. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. Avon.
EvelandW. P.Jr.ShahD. V.KwakN. (2003). Assessing causality in the cognitive mediation model: A panel study of motivations, information processing, and learning during campaign 2000. Communication Research, 30(4), 359–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203253369
25.
FinucaneM. L.AlhakamiA.SlovicP.JohnsonS. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1–17.
26.
FinucaneM. L.PetersE.SlovicP. (2003). Judgment and decision making: The dance of affect and reason. In SchneiderS. L.ShanteauJ. (Eds.). Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and Decision Research (pp. 327–364). Cambridge University Press.
GarrettR. K.LongJ. A.JeongM. S. (2019). New evidence on group polarization from partisan media to misperception: Affective polarization as mediator. Journal of Communication, 69(5), 490–517. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz028
30.
Gil de ZúñigaH.MolyneuxL.ZhengP. (2014). Social media, political expression, and political participation: Panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 612–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12103
31.
GranovetterM. (1978). Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 83(6), 1420–1443.
32.
GunitskyS. (2015). Corrupting the cyber-commons: Social media as a tool of autocratic stability. Perspectives on Politics, 13(1), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714003120
33.
HaciyakupoğluG.ZhangW. (2015). Social media and trust during the Gezi protests in Turkey. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(4), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12121
HolbertR. L.ParkE. (2019). Conceptualizing, organizing, and positing moderation in communication research. Communication Theory, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtz006
40.
HowardP. N. (2010). The digital origins of dictatorship and democracy. Oxford University Press.
41.
HowardP. N.HussainM. M. (2013). Democracy's fourth wave?: Digital media and the Arab Spring. Oxford University Press.
42.
KaspersonR. E.RennO.SlovicP.BrownH. S.EmelJ.GobleR.KaspersonJ. X.RatickS. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x
LinzJ. J. (2000). Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Lynne Reiner Publishers.
49.
LodgeM.TaberC. S. (2005). The automaticity of affect for political leaders, groups, and issues: An experimental test of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology, 26(3), 455–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00426.x
50.
LodgeM.TaberC. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge University Press.
MacKinnonR. (2012). Consent of the networked: The worldwide struggle for Internet freedom. Basic Books.
54.
MargettsH.JohnP.HaleS.YasseriT. (2016). Political turbulence: How social media shape collective action. Princeton University Press.
55.
McAdamD. (1986). Recruitment to high-risk activism: The case of freedom summer. American Journal of Sociology, 92(1), 64–90. https://doi.org/10.1086/228463
56.
MoralesJ. S. (2020). Perceived popularity and online political dissent: Evidence from Twitter in Venezuela. The International Journal of Press Politics, 25(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161219872942
57.
MorozovE. (2011). The net delusion: The dark side of Internet freedom. PublicAffairs.
58.
NiemiR. G.CraigS. C.MatteiF. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1407–1413. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963953
59.
NisbetE. C.KamenchukO.DalA. (2017). A psychological firewall? Risk perceptions and public support for online censorship in Russia. Social Science Quarterly, 98(3), 958–975. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12435
60.
NisbetE. C.StoycheffE. (2013). Let the people speak: A multi-level model of supply and demand for press freedom. Communication Research, 40(5), 720–741. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211429117
61.
OrtonyA.CloreG.CollinsA. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge University Press.
PhamM. T. (2007). Emotion and rationality: A critical review and interpretation of empirical evidence. Review of General Psychology, 11(2), 155–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.11.2.155
RødE. G.WeidmannN. B. (2015). Empowering activists or autocrats? The internet in authoritarian regimes. Journal of Peace Research, 52(3), 338–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343314555782
68.
RojasH.Puig-i-AbrilE. (2009). Mobilizers mobilized: Information, expression, mobilization and participation in the digital age. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 902–927. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01475.x
69.
RojasH.ValenzuelaS. (2019). A call to contextualize public opinion-based research in political communication. Political Communication, 36(4), 652–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1670897
70.
RosaE. A. (2003). The logical structure of the social amplification of risk framework (SARF): Metatheoretical foundation and policy implications. In PidgeonN. K.KaspersonR. E.SlovicP. (Eds.), The social amplification of risk (pp. 47–79). Cambridge University Press.
71.
RosemanI. J.AntoniouA. A.JoseP. E. (1996). Appraisal determinants of emotions: Constructing a more accurate and comprehensive theory. Cognition and Emotion, 10(3), 241–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999396380240
72.
SanovichS.StukalD.TuckerJ. A. (2018). Turning the virtual tables: Government strategies for addressing online opposition with an application to Russia. Comparative Politics, 50(3), 435–482. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041518822704890
73.
SchedlerA. (2013). The politics of uncertainty: Sustaining and subverting electoral authoritarianism. Oxford University Press.
74.
ShahD. V.ChoJ.EvelandW. P.Jr.KwakN. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age: Modeling internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32(5), 531–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205279209
75.
SkoricM. M.ZhuQ.PangN. (2016). Social media, political expression, and participation in Confucian Asia. Chinese Journal of Communication, 9(4), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2016.1143378
76.
SlovicP. (1992). Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In KrimskyS.GoldingD. (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 117–152). Praeger.
77.
SlovicP.FinucaneM. L.PetersE.MacGregorD. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x
78.
SmithC. A.EllsworthP. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813–838.
79.
SternR. E.HassidJ. (2012). Amplifying silence: Uncertainty and control parables in contemporary China. Comparative Political Studies, 45(10), 1230–1254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414011434295
80.
StoycheffE.NisbetE. C. (2014). What’s the bandwidth for democracy? Deconstructing internet penetration and citizen attitudes about governance. Political Communication, 31(4), 628–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2013.852641
81.
TaberC. S.YoungE. (2013). Political information processing. In HuddyL.SearsD. O.LevyJ. S. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology (2nd ed., pp. 525–558). Oxford University Press.
82.
TellegenA. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report. In TumaA. H.MaserJ. D. (Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp. 681–706). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
VaccariC.ValerianiA.BarberáP.BonneauR.JostJ. T.NaglerJ.TuckerJ. A. (2015). Political expression and action on social media: Exploring the relationship between lower-and higher-threshold political activities among Twitter users in Italy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12108
89.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063
90.
WeeksB. E.GarrettR. K. (2019). Emotional characteristics of social media and political misperceptions. In KatzJ. E.MaysK. K. (Eds.), Journalism & truth in an age of social media (pp. 236–250). Oxford University Press.
91.
WitteK. (1994). Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Communications Monographs, 64(2), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759409376328
92.
YesilB. (2016). Media in new Turkey: The origins of an authoritarian neoliberal state. University of Illinois Press.
YoungL. E. (2019). The psychology of state repression: Fear and dissent decisions in Zimbabwe. American Political Science Review, 113(1), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305541800076X
95.
ZajoncR. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151–175.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
