International Political Efficacy Matters: A Dual-Pathway Model of Taiwanese Singing E-Petitions to Foreign Governments

Abstract

Signing e-petitions to foreign authorities received little attention from scholars due to the constraint of the relationship between citizenship and sovereignty. Yet, Taiwanese people constantly attempt to create and sign e-petitions to other authorities, especially during the coronavirus pandemic. The current study aims to examine this phenomenon and proposes a new concept namely international political efficacy to explain their behavior. Expanded from political efficacy, international political efficacy refers to individuals’ perception of their knowledge and experience about international affairs and issues. Meanwhile, the current study develops a dual-pathway model which comprises of rational and emotional routes as the theoretical framework. Through a survey, the findings confirm that emotional route failed to shape the e-petition signing intention, whereas rational and collective action concerns dominated the process. International political efficacy was confirmed valid through empirical data, and it can contribute to the theory development.

Keywords

e-petitions international political efficacy emotion dual-pathway Taiwan

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alathur

Vigneswara Ilavarasan

Gupta

M. P.

(2012). Citizen participation and effectiveness of e-petition: Sutharyakeralam–India. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 6(4), 392–403. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506161211267536

Alwitt

L. F.

Prabhaker

P. R.

(1994, November–December). Identifying who dislikes television advertising: Not by demographics alone. Journal of Advertising Research, 34, 17–29.

Antonetti

Manika

(2017). The offline spill-over of signing online petitions against companies: A dual pathway model. Information Technology & People, 30(4), 969–990. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-08-2016-0179

Asher

Leston-Bandeira

Spaiser

(2019). Do parliamentary debates of e-petitions enhance public engagement with parliament? An analysis of twitter conversations. Policy & Internet, 11(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.194

Bagozzi

R. P.

(1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178–204. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786945

Bagozzi

R. P.

Gopinath

Nyer

P. U.

(1999). The role of emotions in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 184–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070399272005

Batson

C. D.

Chao

M. C.

Givens

J. M.

(2009). Pursuing moral outrage: Anger at torture. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.017

Bearden

W. O.

Netemeyer

R. G.

Teel

J. E.

(1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1086/209186

Beato

(2014). From petitions to decision. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 12(4), 20–27.

10.

Bershadskaya

L. V.

Chugunov

Trutnev

(2013). E-participation development: A comparative study of the Russian, USA and UK E-petition initiatives. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. https://doi.org/10.1145/2591888.2591900

11.

Böhle

Riehm

(2013). E-petition systems and political participation: About institutional challenges and democratic opportunities. First Monday, 18(7). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i7.4220

12.

Campbell

Gurin

Miller

W. E.

(1954). The voter decides. Row, Peterson, and Co.

13.

Caprara

G. V.

Vecchione

Capanna

Mebane

(2009). Perceived political self-efficacy: Theory, assessment, and applications. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(6), 1002–1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.604

14.

Carlsmith

Darley

Robinson

(2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.2.284

15.

Carman

(2010). The process is the reality: Perceptions of procedural fairness and participatory democracy. Political Studies, 58(4), 731–751. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00840.x

16.

Carman

C. J.

(2006). The assessment of the Scottish parliament’s public petitions system 1999–2006 . Scottish Parliament.

17.

Coleman

Blumler

(2009). The Internet and democratic citizenship. Cambridge University Press.

18.

Craig

S. C.

Niemi

R. G.

Silver

G. E.

(1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12(3), 289–314.

19.

Cruickshank

Smith

(2011). Understanding the “e-petitioner.” Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 5(4), 319–329. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506161111173577

20.

Dumas

Harrison

T. M.

Hagen

Zhao

(2017). What do the people think? E-petitioning and policy decision making. In Paulin

A. A.

Anthopoulos

L. G.

Reddick

C. G.

(Eds.), Beyond bureaucracy: Towards sustainable governance informatisation (pp. 187–207). Springer International Publishing.

21.

Dumas

C. L.

Atrey

Lee

Harrison

T. M.

Fake

Zhao

Ravi

S. S

. (2016). E-petition information diffusion in online social networks [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 17th International Digital Government Research Conference on Digital Government Research, Shanghai, China. https://doi.org/10.1145/2912160.2912227

22.

Dumas

C. L.

LaManna

Harrison

T. M.

Ravi

Kotfila

Gervais

Hagen

Chen

. (2015). Examining political mobilization of online communities through e-petitioning behavior in we the people. Big Data & Society, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715598170

23.

Etikan

(2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5, 1. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

24.

Everington

(2019, October 4). Petition demanding Germany open diplomatic relations with Taiwan exceeds threshold. Taiwan News. https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3790571

25.

Federico

C. M.

Golec

Dial

J. L.

(2005). The relationship between the need for closure and support for military action against Iraq: Moderating effects of national attachment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(5), 621–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271588

26.

Filatova

Balabanova

Golubev

Ibragimov

. (2017). E-participation in EEU countries: A case study of government websites. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3129757.3129782

27.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

28.

Gefen

Straub

D. W.

(2004). Consumer trust in B2C e-commerce and the importance of social presence: Experiments in e-products and e-services. Omega, 32(6), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2004.01.006

29.

Gleeson

J. P.

Cellai

Onnela

J.-P.

Porter

M. A.

Reed-Tsochas

(2014). A simple generative model of collective online behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(29), 10411–10415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1313895111

30.

Grégoire

Laufer

Tripp

T. M.

(2010). A comprehensive model of customer direct and indirect revenge: Understanding the effects of perceived greed and customer power. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(6), 738–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-009-0186-5

31.

Gulati

G. J. J.

Williams

C. B.

Yates

D. J.

(2014). Predictors of on-line services and e-participation: A cross-national comparison. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 526–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.005

32.

Haenlein

Kaplan

A. M.

(2004). A beginner’s guide to partial least squares analysis. Understanding Statistics, 3(4), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328031us0304_4

33.

Hagen

Harrison

T. M.

Uzuner

Ö.

May

Fake

Katragadda

(2016). E-petition popularity: Do linguistic and semantic factors matter? Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 783–795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.07.006

34.

Hair

J. F. J.

Sarstedt

Hopkins

Kuppelwieser

. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128

35.

Hale

S. A.

Margetts

Yasseri

. (2013). Petition growth and success rates on the UK no. 10 downing street website [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Web Science Conference, Paris, France. https://doi.org/10.1145/2464464.2464518

36.

Han

Hoskins

Sim

J. B.-Y.

(2014). The relationship between civic attitudes and voting intention: An analysis of vocational upper secondary schools in England and Singapore. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 44(5), 801–825. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2013.780874

37.

Holt

C. L.

Clark

E. M.

Roth

D. L.

Crowther

Kohler

Fouad

Foushee

Lee

P. A.

Southward

P. L

. (2010). Development and validation of an instrument to assess perceived social influence on health behaviors. Journal of Health Psychology, 15(8), 1225–1235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105310365178

38.

Hough

(2012). Do legislative petitions systems enhance the relationship between parliament and citizen? The Journal of Legislative Studies, 18(3–4), 479–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2012.706057

39.

Hsu

C.-L.

Lin

J. C.-C.

(2016). Effect of perceived value and social influences on mobile app stickiness and in-app purchase intention. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 108, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.04.012

40.

Hsu

C.-L.

H.-P.

(2004). Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Information & Management, 41(7), 853–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.08.014

41.

Huddy

Khatib

(2007). American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 63–77.

42.

Jungherr

Jürgens

(2010). The political click: Political participation through e-petitions in Germany. Policy & Internet, 2(4), 131–165. https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2866.1084

43.

Lee

C.-p.

Chen

D.-y.

Huang

T.-y.

(2014). The interplay between digital and political divides: The case of e-petitioning in Taiwan. Social Science Computer Review, 32(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313497470

44.

Leston-Bandeira

(2019). Parliamentary petitions and public engagement: An empirical analysis of the role of e-petitions. Policy and Politics. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319X1557923042011

45.

Lin

S.-J.

(2014). Media use and political participation reconsidered: The actual and perceived influence of political campaign messages. Chinese Journal of Communication, 7(2), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2014.905867

46.

Lindner

Riehm

(2009). Electronic petitions and institutional modernization. International parliamentary E-petition systems in comparative perspective. JeDEM—eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.29379/jedem.v1i1.3

47.

Lindner

Riehm

(2011). Broadening participation through E-petitions? An empirical study of petitions to the German parliament. Policy & Internet, 3(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2866.1083

48.

Macintosh

Adams

Whyte

Johnston

(2008). Epetitioning in the Scottish Parliament. In Chen

Brandt

Gregg

Traunmüller

Dawes

Hovy

Macintosh

Larson

C. A.

(Eds.), Digital government: E-government research, case studies, and implementation (pp. 487–501). Springer US.

49.

Mackey

Gass

(2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Lawrence Erlbaum.

50.

Marzęcki

(2019). Constructive emotions? Patriotism as a predictor of civic activity in Poland. Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/ipo.2019.15

51.

Meier-Pesti

Kirchler

(2003). Nationalism and patriotism as determinants of European identity and attitudes towards the euro. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 32(6), 685–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2003.10.006

52.

Morozov

. (2009). The brave new world of slacktivism. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/05/19/the-brave-new-world-of-slacktivism/

53.

Morva

(2016). Are e-petitions operative for change? On the effectiveness and the transformative potential of e-petitioning. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sek:iacpro:3505977

54.

Puschmann

Bastos

M. T.

Schmidt

J.-H.

(2017). Birds of a feather petition together? Characterizing e-petitioning through the lens of platform data. Information, Communication & Society, 20(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1162828

55.

Reichert

(2016). How internal political efficacy translates political knowledge into political participation. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 12(2), 221–241.

56.

Rothì

D. M.

Lyons

Chryssochoou

(2005). National attachment and patriotism in a European nation: A British study. Political Psychology, 26(1), 135–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00412.x

57.

Sarstedt

Ringle

Henseler

Hair

(2014). On the emancipation of PLS-SEM: A commentary on Rigdon (2012). Long Range Planning, 47, 154–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2014.02.007

58.

Schatz

R. T.

Staub

Lavine

(1999). On the varieties of national attachment: Blind versus constructive patriotism. Political Psychology, 20(1), 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895x.00140

59.

Shulman

S. W.

(2009). The case against mass E-mails: Perverse incentives and low quality public participation in U.S. federal rulemaking. Policy & Internet, 1(1), 23–53. https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2866.1010

60.

Stürmer

Simon

Loewy

Jörger

(2003). The dual-pathway model of social movement participation: The case of the fat acceptance movement. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090142

61.

Theiss-Morse

(2009). Who counts as an American? The boundaries of national identity. Cambridge University Press.

62.

Toland

(2011). E-petitions in local government: The case of Wellington City Council. International Reports on Socio-Informatics, 8(2), 15–22.

63.

Ulo

K. L. M.

Hidayanto

A. N.

Sandhyaduhita

P. I.

Fitriani

W. R.

Meyliana Abidin

. (2019). Factors influencing Internet users’ intention to sign e-petitions. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 13(3/4), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-01-2019-0006

64.

van der Heijden

(2003). Factors influencing the usage of websites: The case of a generic portal in The Netherlands. Information & Management, 40(6), 541–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00079-4

65.

Vicente

M. R.

Novo

(2014). An empirical analysis of e-participation. The role of social networks and e-government over citizens’ online engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 31(3), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.12.006

66.

We the People. (2020). Take actions on supporting Taiwan for joining WHO. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/take-actions-supporting-taiwan-joining-who

67.

Wetzels

Odekerken-Schroder

van Oppen

(2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 177–195.

68.

Wright

(2012). Assessing (e-)democratic innovations: “Democratic Goods” and downing street e-petitions. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.712820

69.

Wright

(2015). Populism and downing street E-petitions: Connective action, hybridity, and the changing nature of organizing. Political Communication, 32, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2014.958256

70.

Wright

. (2016). “Success” and online political participation: The case of Downing Street E-petitions. Information, Communication & Society, 19(6), 843–857. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1080285

71.

Yasseri

Hale

Margetts

. (2013). Modeling the rise in Internet-based petitions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.0239. https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0239

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.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB