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.
AlathurS.Vigneswara IlavarasanP.GuptaM. 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
2.
AlwittL. F.PrabhakerP. R. (1994, November–December). Identifying who dislikes television advertising: Not by demographics alone. Journal of Advertising Research, 34, 17–29.
3.
AntonettiP.ManikaD. (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
4.
AsherM.Leston-BandeiraC.SpaiserV. (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
5.
BagozziR. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178–204. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786945
6.
BagozziR. P.GopinathM.NyerP. 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
7.
BatsonC. D.ChaoM. C.GivensJ. 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
8.
BeardenW. O.NetemeyerR. G.TeelJ. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1086/209186
9.
BeatoG. (2014). From petitions to decision. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 12(4), 20–27.
10.
BershadskayaL. V.ChugunovA.TrutnevD. (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.
BöhleK.RiehmU. (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.
CampbellA.GurinG.MillerW. E. (1954). The voter decides. Row, Peterson, and Co.
13.
CapraraG. V.VecchioneM.CapannaC.MebaneM. (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.
CarlsmithK.DarleyJ.RobinsonP. (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.
CarmanC. (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.
CarmanC. J. (2006). The assessment of the Scottish parliament’s public petitions system 1999–2006. Scottish Parliament.
17.
ColemanS.BlumlerJ. (2009). The Internet and democratic citizenship. Cambridge University Press.
18.
CraigS. C.NiemiR. G.SilverG. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12(3), 289–314.
19.
CruickshankP.SmithC. (2011). Understanding the “e-petitioner.”Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 5(4), 319–329. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506161111173577
20.
DumasC.HarrisonT. M.HagenL.ZhaoX. (2017). What do the people think? E-petitioning and policy decision making. In PaulinA. A.AnthopoulosL. G.ReddickC. G. (Eds.), Beyond bureaucracy: Towards sustainable governance informatisation (pp. 187–207). Springer International Publishing.
21.
DumasC. L.AtreyA.LeeJ.HarrisonT. M.FakeT.ZhaoX.RaviS. 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.
DumasC. L.LaMannaD.HarrisonT. M.RaviS.KotfilaC.GervaisN.HagenL.ChenF. (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.
EtikanI. (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
FedericoC. M.GolecA.DialJ. 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
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
28.
GefenD.StraubD. 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.
GleesonJ. P.CellaiD.OnnelaJ.-P.PorterM. A.Reed-TsochasF. (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.
GrégoireY.LauferD.TrippT. 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.
GulatiG. J. J.WilliamsC. B.YatesD. 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.
HaenleinM.KaplanA. 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.
HagenL.HarrisonT. M.UzunerÖ.MayW.FakeT.KatragaddaS. (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.
HairJ. F. J.SarstedtM.HopkinsL.KuppelwieserG. (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.
HaleS. A.MargettsH.YasseriT. (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.
HanC.HoskinsB.SimJ. 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.
HoltC. L.ClarkE. M.RothD. L.CrowtherM.KohlerC.FouadM.FousheeR.LeeP. A.SouthwardP. 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.
HoughR. (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.
HsuC.-L.LinJ. 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.
HsuC.-L.LuH.-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.
HuddyL.KhatibN. (2007). American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 63–77.
42.
JungherrA.JürgensP. (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.
LeeC.-p.ChenD.-y.HuangT.-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-BandeiraC. (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.
LinS.-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.
LindnerR.RiehmU. (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.
LindnerR.RiehmU. (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.
MacintoshA.AdamsN.WhyteA.JohnstonJ. (2008). Epetitioning in the Scottish Parliament. In ChenH.BrandtL.GreggV.TraunmüllerR.DawesS.HovyE.MacintoshA.LarsonC. A. (Eds.), Digital government: E-government research, case studies, and implementation (pp. 487–501). Springer US.
49.
MackeyA.GassS. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Lawrence Erlbaum.
50.
MarzęckiR. (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-PestiK.KirchlerE. (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
PuschmannC.BastosM. T.SchmidtJ.-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.
ReichertF. (2016). How internal political efficacy translates political knowledge into political participation. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 12(2), 221–241.
56.
RothìD. M.LyonsE.ChryssochoouX. (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.
SarstedtM.RingleC.HenselerJ.HairJ. (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.
SchatzR. T.StaubE.LavineH. (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.
ShulmanS. 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.
StürmerS.SimonB.LoewyM.JörgerH. (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-MorseE. (2009). Who counts as an American? The boundaries of national identity. Cambridge University Press.
62.
TolandJ. (2011). E-petitions in local government: The case of Wellington City Council. International Reports on Socio-Informatics, 8(2), 15–22.
63.
UloK. L. M.HidayantoA. N.SandhyaduhitaP. I.FitrianiW. R.MeylianaAbidinZ. (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 HeijdenH. (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.
VicenteM. R.NovoA. (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
WetzelsM.Odekerken-SchroderG.van OppenC. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 177–195.
68.
WrightS. (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.
WrightS. (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.
WrightS. (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.
YasseriT.HaleS.MargettsH. (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.
