This study examines, through a content analysis of the census of news stories posted in a Colombian online political community, how status cues and informational cascades shape participation in online political discussions. Specifically, it looks at how the authors’ news stories posting increase rate, the number of news story sources, the velocity at which comments to a news story start to appear, and the comment interactivity affect discussion participation. Results suggest that cues that signal expertise influence participation, while discussion among users also influences the decision of others to participate. However, the effect of these variables is stronger for some topics. Implications for the constitution of public spheres are discussed.
AgrestiAFinlayB (2009) Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
2.
BikhchandaniSHirshleiferDWelchI (1992) A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy100(95): 992–1026.
3.
BurkeMMarlowCLentoT (2009) Feed me: Motivating newcomer contribution in social network sites. In: Proceedings of the 27th International SICCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, pp.945–954.
4.
CohenJ (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
5.
CohenJ (1992) Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science1(3): 98–101.
6.
CrossleyNRobertsJM (2004) Introduction. In: CrossleyNRobertsJM (eds) After Habermas: New Perspectives on the Public Sphere. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.1–27.
7.
DahlbergL (2001) The internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication and Society4(4): 615–633.
8.
DahlbergL (2007) Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: From consensus to contestation. New Media & Society9(5): 827–847.
9.
DahlgrenP (2005) The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication22(2): 147–162.
10.
FioreALeeTeirnanSSmithM (2002) Observed behavior and perceived value of authors in Usenet newsgroups: bridging the gap. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, pp.323–330.
11.
FraserN (2007) Transnationalizing the public sphere: On the legitimacy and efficacy of public opinion in a post-Westphalian world. Theory, Culture & Society24(4): 7–30.
12.
GalegherJSproullLKieslerS (1998) Legitimacy, authority, and community in electronic support groups. Written Communication15(4): 493–530.
13.
GelmanASternH (2006) The difference between ‘significant’ and ‘not significant’ is not itself statistically significant. The American Statistician60(4): 328–331.
14.
GoldbergG (2011) Rethinking the public/virtual sphere: The problem with participation. New Media & Society13(5): 739–754.
15.
GripsrudJ (2009) Digitizing the public sphere: Two key issues. Javnost-The Public16(1): 5–16.
16.
HabermasJ (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
17.
HimelboimI (2008) Reply distribution in online discussions: A comparative network analysis of political and health newsgroups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14(1): 156–177.
18.
HimelboimIGleaveESmithM (2009) Discussion catalysts in online political discussions: Content importers and conversation starters. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14(4): 771–789.
19.
HoSSMcLeodDM (2008) Social-psychological influences on opinion expression in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Communication Research35(2): 190–207.
20.
KellyJWFisherDSmithM (2006) Friends, foes, and fringe: Norms and structure in political discussion networks. In: Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference on Digital Government Research. New York: ACM, pp.412–417.
21.
KimJY (2006) The impact of internet use patterns on political engagement: A focus on online deliberation and virtual social capital. Information Polity11(1): 35–49.
22.
KoopRJansenHJ (2009) Political blogs and blogrolls in Canada: Forums for democratic deliberation?Social Science Computer Review27(2): 155–173.
23.
KrantzDH (1999) The null hypothesis testing controversy in psychology. Journal of the American Statistical Association94(448): 1372–1381.
24.
LampeCResnickP (2004) Slash(dot) and burn: Distributed moderation in a large online conversation space. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, pp.543–550.
25.
NgEWJDetenberBH (2005), The impact of synchronicity and civility in online political discussions on perceptions and intentions to participate. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication10: 00. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00252.x
26.
PapacharissiZ (2002) The virtual sphere. New Media & Society4(1): 9–27.
27.
PapacharissiZ (2004) Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society6(2): 259–283.
28.
PostmesTSpearsRLeaM (2000) The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research26(3): 341–371.
29.
PriceVNirLCappellaJN (2006) Normative and informational influences in online political discussions. Communication Theory16(1): 47–74.
30.
RojasH (2008) Strategy versus understanding. Communication Research35(4): 452–480.
31.
RojasHPuig-i-AbrilE (2009) Mobilizers mobilized: Information, expression, mobilization and participation in the digital age. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14(4): 902–927.
32.
RojasHShahDVFriedlandLA (2011) A communicative approach to social capital. Journal of Communication61(4): 689–712.
33.
ShahDVChoJEvelandWP. (2005) Information and expression in a digital age. Communication Research32(5): 531–565.
34.
TanKWPSweeDLimC. (2008) The impact of language variety and expertise on perceptions of online political discussions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13(1): 1083–6101.
35.
TanisMPostmesT (2003) Social cues and impression formation in CMC. Journal of Communication53(4): 676–693.
WaltherJB (1992) Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research19(1): 52–90.
38.
WaltherJB (1996) Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research23(1): 3–43.
39.
WiseKHammanBThorsonK (2006) Moderation, response rate, and message interactivity: Features of online communities and their effects on intent to participate. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12(1): 24–41.
40.
WrightSStreetJ (2007) Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums. New Media & Society9(5): 849–869.
