This article revisits Gabriel Tarde's Press-Conversation-Opinion-Action model, introducing proximity as a moderator to examine its relevance in contemporary digital communication environments. While social media connects people across distances, enabling global discourse and expanding the reach of public conversations, physical proximity continues to play a key role in translating awareness and collective opinion into tangible action. The analysis adapts Tarde's framework to contemporary communication contexts, offering a refined understanding of how proximity influences the flow from conversation to action in increasingly interconnected communication landscapes.
AbohS (2024) ‘It will never be well with SARS’: A discourse analytic study of the #EndSARS protests on social media. Discourse & Society35(2): 153–173.
2.
AndersonJCodutoKD (2022) Attitudinal and emotional reactions to the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. American Behavioral Scientist68(7): 913–931.
3.
BasarabaN (2021) The emergence of creative and digital place-making: A scoping review across disciplines. New Media and Society25(6): 1470–1497.
4.
BertoaFCRamaJ (2021) Polarization: What do we know and what can we do about it?Frontiers in Political Science3: 1–11.
5.
BirrellDGrayAM (2017) Devolution: The social, political and policy implications of Brexit for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Journal of Social Policy46(4): 765–782.
6.
BohmanJ (2004) Expanding dialogue: The internet, the public sphere and prospects for transnational democracy. The Sociological Review52: 131–155.
7.
BourdieuP (1990) Structures, habitus, practices. In The Logic of Practice(R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press, 52–65.
8.
BourdinSTorreA (2023) Leaving the discursive definition of populist social movements: The case of the Yellow Vest Movement. Journal of Regional Science63(1): 214–235.
9.
CammaertsB (2019) A genealogy of communicative affordances and activist self-mediation. In: HStephansenETreréCitizen Media and Practice: Currents, connections, challenges. Abington, UK: Routledge, 98–112.
10.
CastellsM (2011) The rise of the network society. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
11.
ChoWKRudolphTJ (2008) Emanating political participation: Untangling the spatial structure behind participation. British Journal of Political Science38(2): 273–289.
12.
Clarke HD, Goodwin M and Whiteley P (2017) Brexit: Why Britain voted to leave the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
CoddingtonMLewisSCBélair-GagnonV, et al. (2021) The imagined audience for news: Where does a journalist’s perception of the audience come from?Journalism Studies22(8): 1028–1046.
14.
CortinaG (2024) Proximity Politics: How Distance Shapes Public Opinion and Political Behaviors. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
15.
CrothersLBurgenerG (2021) Insurrectionary populism? Assessing the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Populism4(2): 129–145.
16.
CurranJ (2011) Media and Democracy. London: Routledge.
17.
CurticeJ (2017) Why leave won the UK's EU referendum. Journal of Common Market Studies55: 19.
18.
DavisDWWilsonDC (2023) ‘Stop the steal’: Racial resentment, affective partisanship, and investigating the January 6th insurrection. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science708(1): 83–101.
19.
EntmanRM (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43(4): 51–58.
20.
FabbriniF (2020) Brexit and the Future of the European Union: The Case for Constitutional Reforms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
FuchsC (2014) OccupyMedia! The Occupy Movement and social media in crisis capitalism. UK: Collective Ink.
22.
FuchsT (2017) Intercorporeality and interaffectivity. In: MeyerCJordanJSStreeckJ (eds) Intercorporeality: Emerging Socialities in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–23.
23.
GavinNT (2018) Media definitely do matter: Brexit, immigration, climate change and beyond. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations20(4): 827–845.
24.
GerbaudoP (2019). The Digital Party: Political Organization and Online Democracy. London: Pluto Press.
25.
GerbnerGGrossLMorganM, et al. (1986) Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process. Perspectives on Media Effects: 17–40.
26.
GinzburgB (2023) Slacktivism. Journal of Theoretical Politics35(2): 126–143.
27.
GoldenbergJLevyM (2009) Distance is not dead: Social interaction and geographical distance in the internet era. arXiv preprint arXiv:0906.3202.
28.
GoodwinMJHeathO (2016) The 2016 referendum, Brexit and the left behind: An aggregate-level analysis of the result. The Political Quarterly87(3): 323–332.
29.
Gormley-HeenanCAugheyA (2017) Northern Ireland and Brexit: Three effects on ‘the border in the mind’. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations19(3): 497–511.
30.
GripsrudJ (2007) Television and the European public sphere. European Journal of Communication22(4): 479–492.
31.
GrossmanE (2019) France’s yellow vests – symptom of a chronic disease. Political Insight10(1): 30–34.
32.
HallWTinatiRJenningsW (2018) From Brexit to Trump: Social media’s role in democracy. Computer51(1): 18–27.
33.
HamptonM (2005) Media studies and the mainstreaming of media history. Media History11(3): 239–246.
34.
HannaRRohmACrittendenVL (2011) We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business Horizons54(3): 265–273.
35.
HardyBW (2019) Public Opinion and Journalism. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–23.
36.
HartonHCGundersonMBourgeoisMJ (2022) ‘I’ll be there with you’: Social influence and cultural emergence at the capitol on January 6. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice26(3): 220–238.
37.
HatfieldECacioppoJTRapsonRL (1993) Emotional contagion. Current Directions in Psychological Science2(3): 96–99.
38.
HayesDLawlessJL (2018) The decline of local news and its effects: New evidence from longitudinal data. The Journal of Politics80(1): 332–336.
39.
HendersonAPooleEGJonesRW, et al. (2021) Analysing vote-choice in a multinational state: National identity and territorial differentiation in the 2016 Brexit vote. Regional Studies55(9): 1502–1516.
40.
HuxfordJ (2007) The proximity paradox: Live reporting, virtual proximity and the concept of place in the news. Journalism8(6): 657–674.
41.
IyengarSKrupenkinM (2018) Partisanship as social identity: Implications. The Forum16(1): 23–45.
JeppesenSGirouxHHoechsmannM, et al. (2022) The Capitol Riots: Digital Media, Disinformation, and Democracy Under Attack. London: Routledge.
44.
JurgensonN (2012) When atoms meet bits: Social media, the mobile web and augmented revolution. Future Internet4(1): 83–91.
45.
KatzELazarsfeldPF (1955). Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
46.
KaufmannE (2016) It’s NOT the economy, stupid: Brexit as a story of personal values. LSE European Politics and Policy (EUROPP) Blog.
47.
KeatingM (2019) Can the Anglo-Scottish Union survive Brexit?French Journal of British Studies24: 1–12.
48.
KellermanA (2022) Social-spatial interaction, proximity, and distance: From face-to-face to virtual communications. Applied Mobilities7(4): 394–412.
49.
KlapperJT (1961) The Effects of Mass Communication. New York: Free Press.
50.
KolbDG (2013) Virtually there: The paradox of proximity. In: MorrisonRLCooper-ThomasHD (eds) Relationships in Organizations. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 171–192.
51.
LasswellHD (1960) The structure and function of communication in society. The Communication Of Ideas37(1): 136–139.
52.
LazarsfeldPFBerelsonBGaudetH (1968) The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes up his Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
53.
LippmannW (1965) Public Opinion. New York: The Free Press.
54.
LoSSHHungSCFLooJHC, et al. (2021) The Dynamics of Peaceful and Violent Protests in Hong Kong: The Anti-Extradition Movement. Singapore: Springer.
55.
LynchM (2016) The New Arab War: Uprisings and Anarchy in the Middle East. New York: PublicAffairs.
56.
MaccaferriM (2019) Splendid isolation again? Brexit and the role of the press and online media in re-narrating the European discourse. Critical Discourse Studies16(4): 389–402.
57.
MadisonNKlangM (2020) The case for digital activism: Refuting the fallacies of slacktivism. Journal of Digital Social Research2(2): 28–47.
58.
MarrusMR (1971) The Politics of Assimilation: A Study of the French Jewish Community at the Time of the Dreyfus Affair. Oxford, UK: Oxford Clarendon Press.
59.
McCombsMShawDL (2005) The agenda-setting function of the press. In: Overholser G and Jamieson KH (eds) The Press. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 156–168.
60.
McLeodJMReevesB (1980) On the nature of mass media effects. In: WitheySBAbelesRP (eds) Television and Social Behavior: Beyond Violence and Children. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 17–54.
OttohFO (2018) Ethnic identity and conflicts in Africa. In The Palgrave Handbook of African Politics, Governance and Development. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 335–351.
68.
PapacharissiZ (2014) Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
69.
Pew Research Center. (2024). Social media and news fact sheet.
70.
PressmanJDevinE (2024) Profile: The diffusion of global protests after George Floyd’s murder. Social Movement Studies23(4): 558–565.
71.
ReicherS (2001) The psychology of crowd dynamics. In: HoggMTindaleSR (eds) Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 182–208.
72.
RenyTTNewmanBJ (2021) The opinion-mobilizing effect of social protest against police violence: Evidence from the 2020 George Floyd protests. American Political Science Review115(4): 1499–1507.
73.
ScheufeleDA (2000) Talk or conversation? Dimensions of interpersonal discussion and their implications for participatory democracy. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly77(4): 727–743.
74.
SchudsonM (1997) Why conversation is not the soul of democracy. Critical Studies in Media Communication14(4): 297–309.
75.
SchwartzbergM (2008) Voting the general will: Rousseau on decision rules. Political Theory36(3): 403–423.
76.
ShirkyC (2011) The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere, and political change. Foreign Affairs1(1): 28–41.
77.
TallapragadaMHardyBWLybrandE, et al. (2021) Impact of abstract versus concrete conceptualization of genetic modification (GM) technology on public perceptions. Risk Analysis41(6): 976–991.
78.
TardeG (1898). Opinion and conversation. In: Clark TN (ed)Gabriel Tarde on Communication and Social Influence. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 297–319.
79.
Touré-TilleryMFishbachA (2017) Too far to help: The effect of perceived distance on the expected impact and likelihood of charitable action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology112(6): 860.
80.
TufekciZ (2017). Witter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
81.
TufekciZWilsonC (2012) Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication62(2): 363–379.
82.
Valera-OrdazLLópez-GarcíaG (2019) Introduction. Activism, communication and social change in the digital age. Communication and Society32(4): 171–172.
83.
ValkenburgPMPeterJ (2013) The differential susceptibility to Media effects model. Journal of Communication63(2): 221–243.
84.
WallaceSJZepeda-MillánCJones-CorreaM, et al. (2013) Spatial and temporal proximity: Examining the effects of protests on political attitudes. American Journal of Political Science58(2): 433–448.
85.
WenzelA (2020) Community-Centered Journalism: Engaging People, Exploring Solutions, and Building Trust. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
86.
WilsonS (1982) Ideology and Experience: Anti-Semitism in France at the Time of the Dreyfus Affair. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press.
87.
XuDGuoJ (2023) In sight, in mind: Spatial proximity to protest sites and changes in peoples’ political attitudes. The British Journal of Sociology74(1): 83–104.
88.
Yuval-DavisN (2010) Theorizing identity: Beyond the ‘us’ and ‘them’ dichotomy. Patterns of Prejudice44(3): 261–280.
89.
ZuckermanE (2013) Rewire: Digital Cosmopolitans in the Age of Connection. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
