The relationship between social media use and youth’s political participation has been extensively studied. However, explanations for youth’s online collective political activism have been less explored. Previous studies have used the concept of internal political efficacy to examine the relationship between social media and political participation. However, this concept only explains individual political participation, while many political actions are performed collectively. Based on Social Cognitive theory this study propounds the concepts of online political self- and collective efficacy and explores their relationship to online collective political activism. Findings of a survey of members of three activist groups of a US Mid-Western university (n = 222) suggest that a correspondence exists between efficacy perceptions and the level of agency at which the political activities are performed online. Also, online collective efficacy perceptions influence individuals’ participation in online collective actions, but this relationship is moderated by the perceived interdependence of the actions.
AndersenR (2008) Modern Methods for Robust Regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
2.
BäckHTeorellJWestholmA (2011) Explaining modes of participation: a dynamic test of alternative rational choice models. Scandinavian Political Studies34(1): 74–97.
3.
BakerDF (2001) The development of collective efficacy in small task groups. Small Group Research32(4): 451–474.
4.
BakkerTPDe VreeseCH (2011) Good news for the future? Young people, Internet use, and political participation. Communication Research38(4): 451–470.
5.
BalchGI (1974) Multiple indicators in survey research: the concept “Sense of political efficacy”. Political Methodology1(2): 1–43.
6.
BanduraA (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
7.
BanduraA (1991) Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes50(2): 248–287.
8.
BanduraA (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
9.
BanduraA (2006) Guide for construction self-efficacy scales. In: PajaresFUrdanTC (eds) Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents. Greenwich, CT: IAP, pp.307–337.
10.
BennettWL (2008) Changing citizenship in the digital age. In: BennettWL (ed.) Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth, Cambridge, MA: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, pp. 1–24.
11.
BennettWLSegerbergA (2012) The logic of connective action. Information, Communication & Society15(5): 739–768.
12.
BoulianneS (2009) Does Internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication26(2): 193–211.
13.
BrowningCRFeinbergSLDietzRD (2004) The paradox of social organization: networks, collective efficacy, and violent crime in urban neighborhoods. Social Forces83(2): 503–534.
14.
BrunstingSPostmesT (2002) Social movement participation in the digital age. Small Group Research33(5): 525–554.
15.
CampbellAGurinGMillerWE (1954) The Voter Decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
16.
ChongD (1991) Collective Action and the Civil Rights Movement. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17.
ConroyMFeezellJTGuerreroM (2012) Facebook and political engagement: a study of online political group membership and offline political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior28(5): 1535–1546.
18.
CraigSCNiemiRGSilverGE (1990) Political efficacy and trust: a report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior12(3): 289–314.
DillmanDA (2007) Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
21.
EarlJHurwitzHMesinasA. (2013) This protest will be tweeted. Information, Communication & Society16(4): 459–478.
22.
EkströmMÖstmanJ (2013) Information, interaction, and creative production: the effects of three forms of internet use on youth democratic engagement. Communication Research. DOI: 10.1177/0093650213476295.
23.
EnjolrasBSteen-JohnsenKWollebækD (2013) Social media and mobilization to offline demonstrations: transcending participatory divides?New Media & Society15(6): 890–908.
24.
Fernández-BallesterosRDíez-NicolásJCapraraGV. (2002) Determinants and structural relation of personal efficacy to collective efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review51(1): 107–125.
25.
GreenleesIAGraydonJKMaynardIW (2001) The impact of collective efficacy beliefs on effort and persistence in a group task. Journal of Sports Sciences17(2): 151–158.
26.
GibsonCB (2003) The efficacy advantage: factors related to the formation of group efficacy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology33(10): 2153–2186.
27.
HairJFTathamRLAndersonRE. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis. 5th ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
28.
HamptonKN (2010) Internet use and the concentration of disadvantage: glocalization and the urban underclass. American Behavioral Scientist53(8): 1111–1132.
29.
HardinR (1982) Collective Action. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
30.
HarlowS (2012) Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan justice movement that moved offline. New Media & Society14(2): 225–243.
31.
HarlowSHarpD (2012) Collective action on the web. Information, Communication & Society15(2): 196–216.
32.
HayesR (2009) New Media, New Politics: Political Learning Efficacy and the Examination of Uses of Social Network Sites for Political Engagement. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
33.
HirzallaFvan ZoonenLde RidderJ (2011) Internet use and political participation: reflections on the mobilization/normalization controversy. Information Society27(1): 1–15.
JarvisSEMontoyaLMulvoyE (2005) The political participation of working youth and college students. CIRCLE Working Paper 36. Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE). Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED495213
36.
Katz-NavonTYErezM (2005) When collective and self-efficacy affect team performance: the role of task interdependence. Small Group Research36(4): 437–465.
37.
KenskiKStroudNJ (2006) Connections between Internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media50(2): 173–192.
38.
KerlingerFNLeeHB (2000) Foundations of Behavioral Research. San Diego, CA: Harcourt College Publishers.
39.
KruikemeierSvan NoortGVliegenthartR. (2014) Unraveling the effects of active and passive forms of political Internet use: does it affect citizens’ political involvement?New Media & Society16(6): 903–920.
40.
KullbackS (1997) Information Theory and Statistics. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
41.
LeeFLF (2006) Collective efficacy, support for democratization, and political participation in Hong Kong. International Journal of Public Opinion Research18(3): 297–317.
42.
LeeKM (2006) Effects of Internet use on college students’ political efficacy. Cyberpsychology & Behavior9(4): 415–422.
43.
LentRWSchmidtJSchmidtL (2006) Collective efficacy beliefs in student work teams: relation to self-efficacy, cohesion, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior68(1): 73–84.
44.
LimM (2012) Clicks, cabs, and coffee houses: social media and oppositional movements in Egypt, 2004–2011. Journal of Communication62(2): 231–248.
45.
LinJHPengWKimM. (2012) Social networking and adjustments among international students. New Media & Society14(3): 421–440.
46.
McPhersonJMWelchSClarkC (1977) The stability and reliability of political efficacy: using path analysis to test alternative models. The American Political Science Review71(2): 509–521.
47.
NorrisP (2009) Political activism: new challenges, new opportunities. In: BoixCStokesSC (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics. New York: The Oxford University Press, pp. 628–649.
48.
OlsonM (1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49.
ÖstmanJ (2012) Information, expression, participation: how involvement in user-generated content relates to democratic engagement among young people. New Media & Society14(6): 1004–1021.
50.
SampsonRJRaudenbushSWEarlsF (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science277(5328): 918–924.
StajkovicADLeeDNybergAJ (2009) Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology94(3): 814–828.
53.
ThorsonKDriscollKEkdaleB. (2013) Youtube, Twitter and the occupy movement. Information, Communication & Society16(3): 421–451.
54.
TufekciZWilsonC (2012) Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication62(2): 363–379.
55.
ValenzuelaSArriagadaASchermanA (2012) The social media basis of youth protest behavior: the case of Chile. Journal of Communication62(2): 299–314.
56.
Van der VegtGEmansBvan de VliertE (1998) Motivating effects of task and outcome interdependence in work teams. Group & Organization Management23(2): 124–143.
57.
VerbaSNieNH (1987) Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
58.
VitakJZubePSmockA. (2011) It’s complicated: Facebook users’ political participation in the 2008 election. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking14(3): 107–114.
59.
WangSI (2007) Political use of the Internet, political attitudes and political participation. Asian Journal of Communication17(4): 381–395.
60.
WollmanNStouderR (1991) Believed efficacy and political activity: a test of the specificity hypothesis. Journal of Social Psychology131(4): 557–566.
61.
YeichSLevineR (1994) Political efficacy: enhancing the construct and its relationship to mobilization of people. Journal of Community Psychology22(3): 259–271.
