The rise of social media has coincided with the emergence of an expressive citizenship model that emphasizes the role of expression in networked environments centering on personal interests. Yet relatively little is known about how civic participation might develop from daily, general social media use. Drawing on communication infrastructure theory, this study uses two-wave survey data from Taiwan to investigate which types of Facebook users are more likely to become civic action takers and how. Results show that high public expressers—those who manifest higher levels of public expression (e.g., updating status)—have more integrated connectedness to the civic information sharing network, which in turn facilitates civic participation. This pathway to civic participation is relatively open to users with diverse levels of political interest. Overall, these findings help to explain how general social media users become civic action takers, presenting important implications for addressing inequalities in civic participation.
AnZ.Mendiola-SmithL. (2018). Mapping communication infrastructure theory onto Twitter: Network integration and neighborhood storytelling. International Journal of Communication, 12, 4292–4312. https://doi.org/1932–8036/20180005
3.
Ball-RokeachS. J. (1998). A theory of media power and a theory of media use: Different stories, questions, and ways of thinking. Mass Communication and Society, 1(1–2), 5–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.1998.9676398
4.
Ball-RokeachS. J.KimY.-C.MateiS. (2001). Storytelling neighborhood: Paths to belonging in diverse urban environments. Communication Research, 28(4), 392–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365001028004003
5.
BarnidgeM.HuberB.de ZúñigaH. G.LiuJ. H. (2018). Social media as a sphere for “risky” political expression: A twenty-country multilevel comparative analysis. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 23(2), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161218773838
6.
BennettW. L. (2008). Changing citizenship in the digital age. In BennettW. L. (Ed.), Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth (Vol. 1, pp. 1–24). MIT Press.
7.
BimberB.CunillM. C.CopelandL.GibsonL. (2015). Digital media and political participation: The moderating role of political interest across acts and over time. Social Science Computer Review, 33(1), 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314526559
8.
BondR. M.FarissC. J.JonesJ. J.KramerA. D. I.MarlowC.SettleJ. E.FowlerJ. H. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489(7415), 295–298. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11421
9.
BouchillonB. C. (2018). Patching the melting pot: Sociability in Facebook groups for engagement, trust, and perceptions of difference. Social Science Computer Review, 37(5), 611–630. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318791241
10.
BoulianneS. (2019). Revolution in the making? Social media effects across the globe. Information, Communication & Society, 22(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1353641
11.
BrandtzægP. B. (2012). Social networking sites: Their users and social implications—A longitudinal study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(4), 467–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01580.x
12.
BurkeM.MarlowC.LentoT. (2010). Social network activity and social well-being. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1909–1912. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753613
13.
CohenC. J.KahneJ. (2012). Participatory politics: New media and youth political action. MacArthur Research Network on Youth and Participatory Politics.
14.
DaryantoA. (2020). Tutorial on heteroskedasticity using heteroskedasticityV3 SPSS macro. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 16(5), v8–v20. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.16.5.v008
Delli CarpiniM. X.KeeterS. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters? Yale University Press.
17.
DimmickJ. W. (2003). Media competition and coexistence: The theory of the niche. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18.
DurbinJ.WatsonG. S. (1950). Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression: I. Biometrika, 37(3/4), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.2307/2332391
19.
Dutta-BergmanM. J. (2004). Complementarity in consumption of news types across traditional and new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48(1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4801_3
20.
ErhardtJ.FreitagM. (2019). The Janus-face of digitalization: The relation between Internet use and civic engagement reconsidered. Social Science Computer Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319861966
21.
FletcherR.NielsenR. K. (2017). Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2450–2468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817724170
22.
FrisonE.EggermontS. (2020). Toward an integrated and differential approach to the relationships between loneliness, different types of Facebook use, and adolescents’ depressed mood. Communication Research, 47(5), 701–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215617506
23.
GeiserC. (2013). Data analysis with Mplus. The Guilford Press.
24.
Gil de ZúñigaH.WeeksB.Ardèvol-AbreuA. (2017). Effects of the news-finds-me perception in communication: Social media use implications for news seeking and learning about politics. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(3), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12185
HalpernD.ValenzuelaS.KatzJ. E. (2017). We face, I tweet: How different social media influence political participation through collective and internal efficacy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(6), 320–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12198
27.
HargittaiE.WalejkoG. (2008). The participation divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital age. Information, Communication & Society, 11(2), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180801946150
28.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
29.
HayesA. F.CaiL. (2007). Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation. Behavior Research Methods, 39(4), 709–722. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192961
30.
HeissR.SchmuckD.MatthesJ. (2019). What drives interaction in political actors’ Facebook posts? Profile and content predictors of user engagement and political actors’ reactions. Information, Communication & Society, 22(10), 1497–1513. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1445273
31.
JenkinsH.ItoM.boydd. (2016). Participatory culture in a networked era: A conversation on youth, learning, commerce, and politics. Polity Press.
32.
JungE.KimY.-C. (2018). Commuting, communication, and community engagement from a communication infrastructure theory perspective. Communication Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218801745
33.
KahneJ.BowyerB. (2018). The political significance of social media activity and social networks. Political Communication, 35(3), 470–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1426662
34.
KarapanosE.TeixeiraP.GouveiaR. (2016). Need fulfillment and experiences on social media: A case on Facebook and WhatsApp. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 888–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.015
KimY.-C.ShinE.ChoA.JungE.ShonK.ShimH. (2019). SNS dependency and community engagement in urban neighborhoods: The moderating role of integrated connectedness to a community storytelling network. Communication Research, 46(1), 7–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215588786
37.
Kligler-VilenchikN. (2013). Decreasing world suck: Fan communities, mechanisms of translation, and participatory politics. MacArthur Foundation.
38.
Kligler-VilenchikN. (2017). Alternative citizenship models: Contextualizing new media and the new “good citizen.”New Media & Society, 19(11), 1887–1903. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817713742
39.
Kligler-VilenchikN. (2019). Friendship and politics don’t mix? The role of sociability for online political talk. Information, Communication & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1635185
40.
KnightC. R.BrintonM. C. (2017). One egalitarianism or several? Two decades of gender-role attitude change in Europe. American Journal of Sociology, 122(5), 1485–1532. https://doi.org/10.1086/689814
41.
LaiC.-H.TangT. (2018). From information behaviors to disaster preparedness: Navigating individuals’ general and disaster curation in U.S., China, and Australia. Computers in Human Behavior, 88, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.023
42.
LaneD. S.Dal CinS. (2018). Sharing beyond Slacktivism: The effect of socially observable prosocial media sharing on subsequent offline helping behavior. Information, Communication & Society, 21(11), 1523–1540. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1340496
43.
LeungL. (2009). User-generated content on the internet: An examination of gratifications, civic engagement and psychological empowerment. New Media & Society, 11(8), 1327–1347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341264
44.
LiteratI.ChenN.-T. N. (2014). Communication infrastructure theory and entertainment-education: An integrative model for health communication. Communication Theory, 24(1), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12011
45.
MinozziW.SongH.LazerD. M. J.NebloM. A.OgnyanovaK. (2019). The incidental pundit: Who talks politics with whom, and why?American Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12469
46.
NahS.YamamotoM. (2017). Civic technology and community building: Interaction effects between integrated connectedness to a storytelling network (ICSN) and Internet and mobile uses on civic participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(4), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12189
47.
NorrisP. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press.
48.
ParkC. S.KayeB. K. (2017). The tweet goes on: Interconnection of Twitter opinion leadership, network size, and civic engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 174–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.021
49.
PenneyJ. (2014). Social media and symbolic action: Exploring participation in the Facebook red equal sign profile picture campaign. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 20(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12092
50.
PingreeR. J. (2007). How messages affect their senders: A more general model of message effects and implications for deliberation. Communication Theory, 17(4), 439–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00306.x
51.
PriorM. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge University Press.
52.
RainieH.WellmanB. (2012). Networked: The new social operating system. MIT Press.
53.
ShahD. V.KwakN.HolbertR. L. (2001). “Connecting” and “disconnecting” with civic life: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18(2), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846001750322952
54.
ShehataA.EkströmM.OlssonT. (2015). Developing self-actualizing and dutiful citizens: Testing the AC-DC model using panel data among adolescents. Communication Research, 43(8), 1141–1169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215619988
55.
ShinD. H. (2008). The development of community telecommunication infrastructure: An evaluation of rural telecommunications project. International Journal of Information Management, 28(4), 322–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.02.003
56.
ShinD. H.KweonS. H. (2011). Evaluation of Korean information infrastructure policy 2000–2010: Focusing on broadband ecosystem change. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 374–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.009
ThorsonK. (2014). Facing an uncertain reception: Young citizens and political interaction on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society, 17(2), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.862563
59.
ThorsonK.WellsC. (2016). Curated flows: A framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory, 26(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12087
60.
ThorsonK.XuY.EdgerlyS. (2018). Political inequalities start at home: Parents, children, and the socialization of civic infrastructure online. Political Communication, 35(2), 178–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1333550
61.
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
62.
ValenzuelaS.CorreaT.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2018). Ties, likes, and tweets: Using strong and weak ties to explain differences in protest participation across Facebook and Twitter use. Political Communication, 35(1), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1334726
63.
VerbaS.SchlozmanK. L.BradyH. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.
64.
VermuntJ. K.MagidsonJ. (2002). Latent class cluster analysis. In HagenaarsJ. A.MccutcheonA. L. (Eds.), Applied latent class analysis (pp. 89–106). University Press.
65.
WangL.YangA.ThorsonK. (2019). Serial participants of social media climate discussion as a community of practice: A longitudinal network analysis. Information, Communication & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1668457
66.
WellsC.ThorsonK. (2017). Combining big data and survey techniques to model effects of political content flows in Facebook. Social Science Computer Review, 35(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315609528
67.
WilkinH. A. (2013). Exploring the potential of communication infrastructure theory for informing efforts to reduce health disparities. Journal of Communication, 63(1), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12006
68.
XenosM.VromenA.LoaderB. D. (2014). The great equalizer? Patterns of social media use and youth political engagement in three advanced democracies. Information, Communication & Society, 17(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.871318
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.
