In the time since the rise of the Internet, it has often been claimed that it has the potential to contribute to the quality of democracy by fostering citizens’ involvement in politics. So far, empirical evidence regarding this purported effect has been mixed, and many questions about the consequences of specific forms of political Internet use (PIU) have remained unanswered. This study expands the knowledge about the relation between PIU and political involvement by examining the effect of active and passive forms of PIU on citizens’ political involvement: more specifically, interest and voter turnout during election times. The results obtained from a panel study of a representative sample of the Dutch population (N = 985) reveal a positive relation between particular forms of PIU on the one hand and voter turnout and political interest on the other hand. In addition, for two specific forms of PIU, the positive effect on voter turnout is more prevalent for citizens who exhibit lower levels of political interest.
AlesinaAFGiulianoP (2011) Family ties and political participation. Journal of the European Economic Association9(5): 817–839.
4.
BakkerTPDe VreeseCH (2011) Good news for the future? Young people, Internet use, and political participation. Communication Research38(4): 451–470.
5.
BaumgartnerJCMorrisJS (2010) MyFaceTube politics. Social Science Computer Review28(1): 24–44.
6.
BernsteinRChadhaAMontjoyR (2001) Overreporting voting: why it happens and why it matters. Public Opinion Quarterly65(1): 22–44.
7.
BestSKruegerB (2005) Analyzing the representativeness of Internet political participation. Political Behavior27(2): 183–216.
8.
BimberB (2001) Information and political engagement in America: the search for effects of information technology at the individual level. Political Research Quarterly54(1): 53–67.
9.
BimberB (2003) Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Evolution of Political Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BondRMFarissCJJonesJJ. (2012) A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature489(7415): 295–298.
11.
BoulianneS (2009) Does Internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication26(2): 193–211.
12.
BoulianneS (2011) Stimulating or reinforcing political interest: using panel data to examine reciprocal effects between news media and political interest. Political Communication28(2): 147–162.
13.
BucyEPGregsonKS (2001) Media participation a legitimizing mechanism of mass democracy. New Media & Society3(3): 357–380.
14.
CBS (2011) Statline: ICT Gebruik Van Huishoudens Naar Huishoudkenmerken. Voorburg/Heerlen: CBS.
15.
DahlgrenP (2005) The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication22(2): 147–162.
16.
DavisR (1999) The Web of Politics: The Internet’s Impact on the American Political System. New York: Oxford University Press.
17.
DawsonJF (2013) Moderation in management research: what, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology00: 1–19.
18.
Delli CarpiniMX (2004) Mediating democratic engagement: the impact of communications on citizens’ involvement in political and civic life. In: KaidLL (ed.) Handbook of Political Communication Research. London: Erlbaum, pp. 395–434.
19.
De VreeseCH (2007) Digital renaissance: young consumer and citizen?Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science611(1): 207–216.
20.
De VreeseCHSemetkoHA (2002) Cynical and engaged. Communication Research29(6): 615–641.
21.
De ZúñigaHG (2009) Blogs, journalism, and political participation. In: PapacharissiZ (ed.) Journalism and Citizenship: New Agendas. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 108–123.
22.
DimitrovaDVShehataAStrömbäckJ. (2011) The effects of digital media on political knowledge and participation in election campaigns: evidence from panel data. Communication Research. Available at: http://crx.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/11/02/0093650211426004 (accessed 2 November 2011).
23.
DonovanTTolbertCJSmithDA (2009) Political engagement, mobilization, and direct democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly73(1): 98–118.
24.
EfronB (1982) The Jackknife, the Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans. Philadelphia: SIAM.
25.
EvelandWPMoreyAC (2011) Challenges and opportunities of panel designs. In: BucyEPHolbertRL (eds) The Sourcebook for Political Communication Research. London/New York, UK/US: Routledge, pp. 19–33.
26.
EvelandWPMartonKSeoM (2004) Moving beyond “just the facts” the influence of online news on the content and structure of public affairs knowledge. Communication Research31(1): 82–108.
GibsonRKMcAllisterI (2011) Do online election campaigns win votes? The 2007 Australian “YouTube” election. Political Communication28(2): 227–244.
30.
HardyBWScheufeleDA (2006) Examining differential gains from Internet use: comparing the moderating role of talk and online interactions. Journal of Communication55(1): 71–84.
31.
HindmanM (2009) The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
HirzallaFVan ZoonenLDe RidderJ (2011) Internet use and political participation: reflections on the mobilization/normalization controversy. Information Society27(1): 1–15.
33.
KatoshJPTraugottMW (1981) The consequences of validated and self-reported voting measures. Public Opinion Quarterly45(4): 519–535.
34.
KenskiKStroudNJ (2006) Connections between Internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media50(2): 173–192.
35.
KimY (2011) The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference: the relationships among SNSs, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior27(2): 971–977.
36.
KruikemeierSVan NoortGVliegenthartR. (2013) Getting closer: the effects of personalized and interactive online political communication. European Journal of Communication28(1): 53–66.
37.
KushinMJYamamotoM (2010) Did social media really matter? College students’ use of online media and political decision making in the 2008 election. Mass Communication and Society13(5): 608–630.
38.
LeeEJShinSY (2012) Are they talking to me? Cognitive and affective effects of interactivity in politicians’ Twitter communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking15(10): 515–535.
39.
MargolisMResnickD (2000) Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace “Revolution.”Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
40.
MarkusGB (1979) Analyzing Panel Data. Beverly Hills, CA/London: SAGE.
41.
MillerRG (1974) The jackknife-a review. Biometrika61(1): 1–15.
42.
MoyPManosevitchEStammK. (2005) Linking dimensions of Internet use and civic engagement. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly82(3): 571–586.
43.
MuntingaDGMoormanMSmitEG (2011) Introducing COBRAs. International Journal of Advertising30(1): 13–46.
44.
NielsenRK (2011) Mundane Internet tools, mobilizing practices, and the coproduction of citizenship in political campaigns. New Media & Society13(5): 755–771.
45.
NorrisP (2001) Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
46.
PotvinCRoffDA (1993) Distribution-free and robust statistical methods: viable alternatives to parametric statistics. Ecology74(6): 1617–1628.
47.
PriorM (2010) You’ve either got it or you don’t? The stability of political interest over the life cycle. Journal of Politics72(3): 747–766.
RovaiAPBarnumKT (2003) On-line course effectiveness: an analysis of student interactions and perceptions of learning. Journal of Distance Education18(1): 57–73.
50.
RuttenRGelissenJ (2008) Technology, talent, diversity and the wealth of European regions. European Planning Studies16(7): 985–1006.
51.
ShahDVChoJEvelandWP. (2005) Information and expression in a digital age. Communication Research32(5): 531–565.
52.
ShahDVKwakNHolbertRL (2001) “Connecting” and “disconnecting” with civic life: patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication18(2): 141–162.
53.
ShahDVMcLeodDMKimE (2007) Political consumerism: how communication and consumption orientations drive “lifestyle politics.”Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science611(1): 217–235.
54.
ShehataAStrömbäckJ (2011) A matter of context: a comparative study of media environments and news consumption gaps in Europe. Political Communication28(1): 110–134.
55.
SoltF (2008) Economic inequality and democratic political engagement. American Journal of Political Science52(1): 48–60.
56.
StrömbäckJShehataA (2010) Media malaise or a virtuous circle? Exploring the causal relationships between news media exposure, political news attention and political interest. European Journal of Political Research49(5): 575–597.
57.
SundarSSKalyanaramanSBrownJ (2003) Explicating web site interactivity. Communication Research30(1): 30–59.
58.
SylvesterDEMcGlynnAJ (2010) The digital divide, political participation, and place. Social Science Computer Review28(1): 64–74.
59.
TedescoJC (2007) Examining Internet interactivity effects on young adult political information efficacy. American Behavioral Scientist50(9): 1183–1194.
60.
TolbertCJMcNealRS (2003) Unraveling the effects of the Internet on political participation?Political Research Quarterly56(2): 175–185.
61.
UtzS (2009) The (potential) benefits of campaigning via social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14(2): 221–243.
62.
VerbaSSchlozmanKLBradyHE (1995) Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
63.
VliegenthartRVan NoortG (2010) Is it worth the effort? The characteristics and effectiveness of party websites in the Dutch local election campaign of 2010. Res Publica52(3): 315–333.
64.
WalgraveSVan AelstPNuytemansM (2008) Do the vote test: the electoral effects of a popular vote advice application at the 2004 Belgian elections. Acta Politica43(1): 50–70.
65.
WangSI (2007) Political use of the Internet, political attitudes and political participation. Asian Journal of Communication17(4): 381–395.
66.
WardSGibsonRLusoliW (2003) Online participation and mobilisation in Britain: hype, hope and reality. Parliamentary Affairs56(4): 652–668.
67.
WeaverDH (1996) What voters learn from media. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science546: 34–47.
68.
WeberLMLoumakisABergmanJ (2003) Who participates and why? An analysis of citizens on the Internet and the mass public. Social Science Computer Review21(1): 26–42.
69.
XenosMMoyP (2007) Direct and differential effects of the Internet on political and civic engagement. Journal of Communication57(4): 704–718.
70.
ZhangWJohnsonTJSeltzerT. (2010) The revolution will be networked. Social Science Computer Review28(1): 75–92.
