Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

High identifiers to political parties are typically the most cognitively and behaviorally engaged during elections. Using a national postelection survey of voters (N = 924) in the 2016 Hong Kong Legislative Council Election, the present study examined the relationship between partisan strength and a variety of social media behaviors. Findings showed that partisan strength was positively associated with social media use during the campaign. However, the relationships were generally only significant under conditions of lower ambivalence toward political parties and less disagreement among one’s friendship networks. Implications for the findings are discussed.

Keywords

elections Hong Kong social media Facebook party identification ambivalence disagreement

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aharony

(2015). What’s app: A social capital perspective. Online Information Review, 39, 26-42.

American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2016). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. Revised 2016. Retrieved from http://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/publications/Standard-Definitions20169theditionfinal.pdf

Basinger

S. J.

Lavine

(2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 99, 169-184.

Bode

Vraga

E. K.

Borah

Shah

D. V.

(2014). A new space for political behavior: Political social networking and its democratic consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 414-429.

Boulianne

(2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 524-538.

Campbell

Converse

Miller

Stokes

(1960). The American voter. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey. (2016). Public opinion and political development in Hong Kong: Survey results [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.com.cuhk.edu.hk/ccpos/images/news/TaskForce_PressRelease_160722c_English.pdf

Chan

(2016). Social network sites and political engagement: Exploring the impact of Facebook connections and uses on political protest and participation. Mass Communication and Society, 19, 430-451.

Chan

(2018). Reluctance to talk about politics in face-to-face and Facebook settings: Examining the impact of fear of isolation, willingness to self-censor, and peer network characteristics. Mass Communication and Society, 21, 1-23.

10.

Chan

Lee

F. L. F.

Chen

H. T.

(2016). Exploring the potential for mobile communications to engender an engaged citizenry: A comparative study of university students in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. In Wei

(Ed.), Mobile media, political participation, and civic activism in Asia (pp. 193-213). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

11.

Cheung

(2016, September 29). Hong Kong pan-democrat and localist election candidates trump rivals on social media, study finds. South China Morning Post. Retrieved from http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2023676/hong-kong-pan-democrat-and-localist-election-candidates

12.

Dalton

R. J.

(2016). Party identification and its implications. Retrieved from http://politics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-72

13.

Dimitrova

D. V.

Shehata

Strömbäck

Nord

L. W.

(2014). The effects of digital media on political knowledge and participation in election campaigns: Evidence from panel data. Communication Research, 41, 95-118.

14.

Facebook. (2017). Facebook Q4 2016 results. Retrieved from https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_presentations/FB-Q4’16-Earnings-Slides.pdf

15.

George

(2016). Facebook will launch “Megaphone” for the first time in Hong Kong for the upcoming Legislative Council Election Sept 4, 2016 [Facebook post]. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/george.chen/posts/10153747028702341

16.

Gil de Zúñiga

Jung

Valenzuela

(2012). Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 319-336.

17.

Gil de Zúñiga

Molyneux

Zheng

(2014). Social media, political expression, and political participation: Panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of Communication, 64, 612-634.

18.

Greene

(2004). Social identity theory and party identification. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 136-153.

19.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guildford Press.

20.

Hayes

A. F.

Montoya

A. K.

Rockwood

N. J.

(2017). The analysis of mechanisms and their contingencies: PROCESS versus structural equation modeling. Australasian Marketing Journal, 25, 76-81.

21.

Huckfeldt

Johnson

P. E.

Sprague

(2004). Political disagreement: The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

22.

Huckfeldt

Mendez

J. M.

Osborn

(2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25, 65-95.

23.

Hyun

K. D.

Kim

(2015). Differential and interactive influences on political participation by different types of news activities and political conversation through social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 328-334.

24.

Iyengar

Westwood

S. J.

(2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 690-707.

25.

Johnson

T. J.

Perlmutter

D. D.

(Eds.). (2011). New media, campaigning and the 2008 Facebook election. New York, NY: Routledge.

26.

Kim

Chen

H. T.

(2016). Social media and online political participation: The mediating role of exposure to cross-cutting and like-minded perspectives. Telematics and Informatics, 33, 320-330.

27.

Klofstad

C. A.

Sokhey

A. E.

McClurg

S. D.

(2013). Disagreeing about disagreement: How conflict in social networks affects political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 120-134.

28.

Lavine

H. G.

(2001). The electoral consequences of ambivalence toward presidential candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 915-929.

29.

Lavine

H. G.

Johnston

C. D.

Steenbergen

M. R.

(2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

30.

Lewis-Beck

M. S.

Jacoby

W. G.

Norpoth

Weisberg

H. F.

(2008). The American voter revisited. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

31.

Heatherly

K. A.

Lee

J. K.

(2016). Cross-cutting exposure on social networking sites: The effects of SNS discussion disagreement on political participation. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 74-81.

32.

Mutz

D. C.

(2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 838-855.

33.

Newman

Fletcher

Kalogeropoulos

Levy

D. A. L.

Nielsen

R. K.

(2017). Digital news report 2017. Available from http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/

34.

Nir

(2005). Ambivalent social networks and their consequences for participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 422-442.

35.

Nir

Druckman

J. N.

(2008). Campaign mixed-message flows and timing of vote decision. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20, 326-346.

36.

Office of the Communications Authority. (2016). Key communications statistics. Retrieved from http://www.ofca.gov.hk/mobile/en/media_focus/data_statistics/key_stat/index.html

37.

Ortmann

(2015). The Umbrella Movement and Hong Kong’s protracted democratization process. Asian Affairs, 46, 32-50.

38.

Pew Research Center. (2015). Social networking fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/social-networking-fact-sheet

39.

Rainie

Smith

Schlozman

K. L.

Brady

Verba

(2012). Social media and political engagement. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/10/19/social-media-and-political-engagement/

40.

Scheufele

D. A.

Hardy

B. W.

Brossard

Waismel-Manor

I. S.

Nisbet

(2006). Democracy based on difference: Examining the links between structural heterogeneity, heterogeneity of discussion networks, and democratic citizenship. Journal of Communication, 56, 728-753.

41.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In Worchel

Austin

W. G.

(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

42.

Tang

Lee

F. L. F.

(2013). Facebook use and political participation: The impact of exposure to shared political information, connections with public political actors, and network structural heterogeneity. Social Science Computer Review, 31, 763-773.

43.

Thompson

M. M.

Zanna

M. P.

Griffin

D. W.

(1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In Petty

R. E.

Krosnick

J. A.

(Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361-386). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

44.

Yung

Leung

L. Y.-m.

(2014). Facebook as change? Political engagement in semi-democratic Hong Kong in its transition to universal suffrage. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 7, 291-305.

Partisan Strength and Social Media Use Among Voters During the 2016 Hong Kong Legislative Council Election: Examining the Roles of Ambivalence and Disagreement

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References