This study empirically examines the media participation hypothesis advanced by Bucy, analyzing the influence of traditional and participatory media use across six US presidential elections. Multivariate analyses of American National Elections Study data demonstrate that as participatory media become more prevalent and utilized in an electoral system, corresponding and statistically significant increases in political system efficacy—the perception of governmental responsiveness—can be observed among the heaviest users of participatory media. Enhanced engagement with interactive media in combination with traditional media also translates into more positive assessments of democratic processes than use of traditional media alone. At the same time, increased engagement with participatory media shows a weak and negative association with political trust. Findings for the study uphold the basic tenets of the hypothesis, suggesting the framework provides a useful lens for understanding the tightening relationship between citizenship, use of communication technology, and democratic processes.
BennettWLIyengarS (2008) A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication58(4): 707–731.
2.
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.
3.
BimberB (2003) Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Evolution of Political Power. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BoulianneS (2009) Does Internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication26(2): 193–211.
5.
BrunsA (2009) Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.
6.
BuchananB (1991) Electing a President: The Markle Commission Research on Campaign ‘88. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
7.
BucyEP (2005) The media participation hypothesis. In: McKinneyMSKaidLLBystromDGet al (eds) Communicating Politics: Engaging the Public in Democratic Life. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 107–122.
8.
BucyEPAffeRB (2006) The contributions of net news to cyber democracy: civic affordances of major metropolitan newspaper sites. In: LiX (ed.) Internet Newspapers: Making of a Mainstream Medium. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 227–242.
9.
BucyEPGregsonKS (2001) Media participation: a legitimizing mechanism of mass democracy. New Media & Society3(3): 359–382.
10.
CappellaJNJamiesonKH (1997) Spiral of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good. New York: Oxford University Press.
11.
ChadwickA (2013) The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. New York: Oxford University Press.
12.
ChaffeeSHZhaoXLeshnerG (1994) Political knowledge and the campaign media of 1992. Communication Research21(2): 305–324.
13.
ColemanSBlumlerJG (2009) The Internet and Democratic Citizenship: Theory, Practice, and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
DahlgrenP (2009) Media and Political Engagement: Citizens, Communication and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
DeuzeM (2011) Media life. Media, Culture & Society33(1): 137–148.
16.
DimitrovaDVShehataAStrömbäckJet al. (2014) The effects of digital media on political knowledge and participation in election campaigns: evidence from panel data. Communication Research41(1): 95–118.
17.
DrewDWeaverD (2006) Voter learning and interest in the 2004 presidential election: did the media matter?Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly83(1): 25–53.
18.
DylkoIMcCluskeyM (2012) Media effects in an era of rapid technological transformation: a case of user-generated content and political participation. Communication Theory22(3): 250–278.
19.
Gil de ZúñigaHMolyneuxLZhengP (2014) Social media, political expression, and political participation: panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of Communication64(4): 612–634.
20.
Gil de ZúñigaHPuig-I-AbrilERojasH (2009) Weblogs, traditional sources online, and political participation: an assessment of how the Internet is changing the political environ-ment. New Media & Society11(4): 553–574.
GraberDADunawayJ (2015) Mass Media and American Politics. 9th ed.Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
23.
GroshekJ (2011) Media, instability, and democracy: examining the Granger-causal relationships of 122 countries from 1946 to 2003. Journal of Communication61(6): 1161–1182.
24.
GrossmanLK (1995) The Electronic Republic: Reshaping American Democracy for the Information Age. New York: Viking Press.
25.
HamiltonJW (2003) Remaking media participation in early modern England. Journalism4(3): 293–313.
26.
HarrisonJHirstM (2007) Communication and New Media: From Broadcast to Narrowcast. New York: Oxford University Press.
27.
HindmanM (2009) The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
HolbertRL (2004) An embodied approach to the study of media forms: introducing a social scientific component to medium theory. Explorations in Media Ecology3(2): 101–120.
29.
IyengarS (2015) Media Politics: A Citizen’s Guide. 3rd ed.New York: W. W. Norton & Com-pany.
30.
IyengarSVavreckL (2012) Online panels and the future of political communication research. In: SemetkoHAScammellM (eds) The Sage Handbook of Political Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 225–240.
31.
JamiesonKH (1992) Dirty Politics: Deception, Distraction, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
JonesAS (2009) Losing the News: The Future of the News that Feeds Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
33.
LeeHWhitleyEA (2002) Time and information technology: temporal impacts on individuals, organizations, and society. Information Society18(4): 235–240.
34.
LevyPSLemeshowS (2008) Sampling of Populations: Methods and Applications. 4th ed.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
35.
McCombsMHolbertRLKiousisSet al. (2011) The News and Public Opinion: Media Effects on Civic Life. Cambridge: Polity Press.
36.
McLuhanM (1964) Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill.
37.
MargolisMResnickDK (2000) Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace ‘Revolution.’Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
38.
MilbrathLW (1965) Political Participation: How and Why Do People Get Involved in Politics?Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
39.
MooreMR (2010) Adaptation and new media. Adaptation3(2): 179–192.
40.
MoyPHussainMM (2011) Media influences on political trust and engagement. In: ShapiroRYJacobsLR (eds) The Oxford Handbook of American Public Opinion and the Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 220–235.
41.
MutzDCReevesB (2005) The new videomalaise: effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review99(1): 1–15.
42.
NegroponteN (1995) Being Digital. New York: Knopf.
43.
NewellJPilottaJJThomasJC (2008) Mass media displacement and saturation. International Journal on Media Management10(4): 131–138.
44.
NewhagenJE (2012) Hypernews, biological authenticity, and the mediation of what’s important. Politics and the Life Sciences31(1–2): 80–86.
45.
NewhagenJELevyMR (1998) The future of journalism in a distributed communication architecture. In: BordenDLHarveyK (eds) The Electronic Grapevine: Rumor, Reputation, and Reporting in the New Online Environment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 9–21.
46.
PapacharissiZ (2015) Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
ShahDVChoJEvelandWPJr.et al. (2005) Information and expression in a digital age: modeling internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research32(5): 531–565.
49.
SobierajSBerryJM (2011) From incivility to outrage: political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication28(1): 19–41.
50.
StrömbäckJEsserF (2009) Shaping politics: mediatization and media interventionism. In: LundbyK (ed.) Mediatization: Concepts, Changes, Consequences. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 205–223.
51.
Stromer-GalleyJ (2014) Presidential Campaigning in the Internet Age. New York: Oxford University Press.
52.
SundarSSBellurS (2011) Concept explication in the Internet age: the case of political interactivity. In: BucyEPHolbertRL (eds) Sourcebook for Political Communication: Methods, Measures, and Analytical Techniques. New York: Routledge, pp. 419–433.
53.
TichenorPADonohueGAOlienCN (1970) Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly34(2): 159–170.
54.
TolbertCJMcNealRS (2003) Unraveling the effects of the Internet on political participation. Political Research Quarterly56(2): 175–185.
55.
TsfatiYCohenJ (2013) Perceptions of media and media effects: the third-person effect, trust in media, and hostile media perceptions. In: ValdiviaANScharrerE (eds) International Encyclopedia of Media Studies: Media Effects/Media Psychology, vol. 5. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 128–146.
56.
XenosMMoyP (2007) Direct and differential effects of the Internet on political and civic engagement. Journal of Communication57(4): 704–718.
57.
XieWNewhagenJE (2014) The effects of communication interface proximity on user anxiety for crime alerts received on desktop, laptop, and hand-held devices. Communication Research41(3): 375–403.
