Sweden, with a high level of political participation and an avant-garde position regarding internet access, broadband and social media penetration in the population, is a critical case for studying social media in relation to political participation. Three types of users – members of political parties, members of interest organizations, and non-members – are interviewed in focus groups about their attitudes to political content in the social network site Facebook. The discussions show that although practices and attitudes vary, using social network sites alone does not drive previously inactive respondents to political participation. Respondents who are members of interest organizations view social network sites as valuable tools for participation, whereas respondents who are not refrain from sharing political views with their friends. They are exposed to political content and requests for participation, but prefer generally to remain passive.
AnduizaECantijochAGallegoA (2007) Political participation and the Internet: Descriptive hypotheses and causal mechanisms. Paper presented at the symposium ‘Changing politics through digital networks: The role of ICTs in the formation of new social and political actors and actions’, Florence, Italy, 5–6 October.
2.
BäckHTeorellJWestholmA (2006) Medborgarna och deltagandeparadoxen: Att förklara olika former av politiskt deltagande [The citizens and the paradox of participation: Explaining different forms of political participation]. In: EsaiassonPWestholmA (eds) Deltagandets mekanismer. Det politiska engagemangets orsaker och konsekvenser [The Mechanisms of Participation. The Causes and Consequences of Political Engagement]. Malmö: Liber, 50–67.
3.
BaumgartnerJMorrisJ (2010) MyFaceTube politics: Social networking web sites and political engagement of young adults. Social Science Computer Review28(1): 24–44.
4.
BlumlerJKavanaghD (1999) The third age of political communication: Influences and features. Political Communication16: 209–230.
5.
boydd (2008) Taken out of context: American teen sociality in networked publics. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
6.
BradyH (1999) Political participation. In: RobinsonJShaverPWrightsmanL (eds) Measures of Political Attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 737–801.
7.
BreindlYGustafssonN (2011) Leetocracy: Networked political activism and the continuation of elitism in competitive democracy. In ArayaDBreindlYHoughtonTJ (eds) Nexus: New Intersections in Internet Research. New York: Peter Lang, 193–212.
8.
CantijochMJorbaLSan MartinL (2008) Exposure to political information in new and old media: which impact on political participation?Paper presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, 28–21 August.
9.
CongeP (1988) Review: The concept of political participation: Toward a definition. Comparative Politics20(2): 241–249.
10.
DahlbergL (2007) Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: From consensus to contestation. New Media & Society9(5): 827–847.
11.
DavisA (2010) New media and fat democracy: The paradox of online participation. New Media & Society12(5): 745–761.
12.
EkmanNAmnåE (2009) Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a new typology. Youth and Society Working Paper: 2. Örebro: Örebro University.
13.
EllisonNSteinfeldCLampeC (2011) Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society13(6): 873–892.
FindahlO (2010) Svenskarna och Internet 2010 [The Swedes and the Internet 2010]. Report from World Internet Institute. Available at: http://www.iis.se/docs/SOI2010_web_v1.pdf (accessed 26 January 2012).
16.
GainesBMondakJ (2009) Typing together? Clustering of ideological types in online social networks. Journal of Information Technology & Politics6(3): 216–231.
17.
Gil de ZúñigaHPuig-I-AbrilERojasH (2009) Weblogs, traditional sources online and political participation: An assessment of how the internet is changing the political environment. New Media & Society11(4): 553–574.
18.
GladwellM (2010) Small change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted. The New Yorker, 4October.
19.
GranovetterMS (1973) The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology78(6): 1360–1380.
20.
GustafssonNHöglundL (2011) Sociala medier och politiskt engagemang [Social media and political engagement]. In: OscarssonHHolmbergSWeibullL (eds) Lycksalighetens ö. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, 511–524.
21.
HarrisonTBarthelB (2009) Wielding new media in web 2.0: Exploring the history of engagement with the collaborative construction of media products. New Media & Society11(1–2): 155–178.
22.
HindmanM (2008) The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
HundleyHShylesL (2010) US teenagers’ perceptions and awareness of digital technology: A focus group approach. New Media & Society12(3): 417–433.
24.
JoyceM (2010) Introduction: How to think about digital activism. In JoyceM (ed.) Digital Activism Decoded: The New Mechanisms of Change. New York: International Debate Education Association Press, 1–14.
25.
KarpfD (2010) Online political mobilization from the advocacy group’s perspective: Looking beyond clicktivism. Policy & Internet2(4): 7–41.
26.
LecknerSFachtM (eds) (2010) A Sampler of International Media and Communication Statistics 2010. Nordic Media Trends 12. Gothenburg: Nordicom. Available at: http://www.nordicom.gu.se/common/publ_pdf/NMT12.pdf (accessed 26 January 2012).
27.
LeungL (2009) User-generated content on the Internet: An examination of gratifications, civic engagement and psychological empowerment. New Media & Society11(8): 1327–1347.
28.
MichelettiM (2003) Political Virtue and Shopping: Individuals, Consumerism, and Collective Action. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
29.
MorozovE (2011) The Net Delusion. How Not to Liberate the World. New York: Allen Lane.
30.
NielsenRK (2011) Mundane internet tools, mobilizing practices, and the coproduction of citizenship in political campaigns. New Media & Society13(5): 775–771.
31.
NorrisP (2002) Democratic Phoenix. Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
ParkNKeeKValenzuelaS (2009) Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. Cyberpsychology & Behavior12(6): 729–733.
33.
PriorM (2007) Post-broadcast Democracy. How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
SchlozmanKLVerbaSBradyH (2010) Weapon of the strong? Participatory inequality and the internet. Perspectives on Politics8(2): 487–510.
36.
ScolariC (2009) Mapping conversations about new media: The theoretical field of digital communication. New Media & Society11(6): 943–964.
37.
ShirkyC (2008) Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. New York: Penguin Press.
38.
SteinfeldCEllisonNLampeC (2008) Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology29: 434–445.
39.
StewartKWilliamsM (2005) Researching online populations: The use of online focus groups for social research. Qualitative Research5(4): 395–416.
SweetserKKaidLL (2008) Stealth soapboxes: Political information efficacy, cynicism and uses of celebrity weblogs among readers. New Media & Society10(1): 67–90.
42.
TeorellJ (2003) Linking social capital to political participation: Voluntary associations and networks of recruitment in Sweden. Scandinavian Political Studies26(1): 49–66.
43.
TeorellJTorcalMMonteroJR (2007) Political participation: Mapping the terrain. In: Van DethJMonteroJRWestholmA (eds) Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies: A Comparative Analysis. London: Routledge, 334–357.
44.
VerbaSSchlozmanKLBradyH (1995) Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45.
WojcieszakM (2010) ‘Don’t talk to me’: Effects of ideologically homogeneous online groups and politically dissimilar offline ties on extremism. New Media & Society12(4): 637–655.
46.
WoodlyD (2008) New competencies in democratic communication? Blogs, agenda setting and political participation. Public Choice134: 109–123.
47.
ZhangWJohnsonTJSeltzerT. (2010) The revolution will be networked: The influence of social networking sites on political attitudes and behaviour. Social Science Computer Review28(1): 75–92.
48.
ZmerliSNewtonKMonteroJR (2007) Trust in people, confidence in political institutions, and satisfaction with democracy. In: Van DethJMonteroJRWestholmA (eds) Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies: A Comparative Analysis. London: Routledge, 35–65.
