Scholars have long debated the efficacy of social media in facilitating offline collective action. This research seeks to fill a gap in that literature by examining the role of social ties in determining intention to participate in different types of collective action. Survey findings show that aspects of tie strength—reciprocity, duration, and affect—have different impact on intention to participate in high- and low-cost political actions. Findings from this study have theoretical implication for the field as well as practical implication for social movement organizers seeking to mobilize supporters using social media.
ArnoldG (2011) The impact of social ties on coalition strength and effectiveness: the case of battered women’s movement in St Louis. Social Movement Studies10(2): 13–150.
2.
BanduraA (1997) Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
3.
BastosMTMerceaDCharpentierA (2015) Tents, tweets, and events: the interplay between ongoing protests and social media. Journal of Communication65: 320–250.
4.
BennettW (2003) Communication global activism. Information, Communication & Society6(2): 143–168.
5.
BennettLWSegerbergA (2012) The logic of connective action. Information, Communication & Society15(5): 739–768.
6.
BennettLWSegerbergA (2013) The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BondRMFarissCJJonesJJ, et al. (2012) A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature489: 295–298.
8.
BoulianneS (2015) Social media use and participation: a meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society18(5): 524–538.
9.
BrunstingSPostmesT (2002) Social movement participation in the digital age: predicting offline and online collective action. Small Group Research33: 525–554.
CarsonC (1981) In Struggle: SNCC And the Black Awakening of the 1960S. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
ChadwickA (2013) The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. London: Oxford University Press.
13.
ChafeWH (1980) Civilities and Civil Rights: Greensboro, North Carolina, and the Black Struggle for Freedom. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14.
ChoiD-HShinD-H (2016) A dialectic perspective on the interactive relationship between social media and civic participation: the moderating role of social capital. Information, Communication & Society20(2): 151–166.
15.
FabrigarLRMacCallumRCWegenerDT, et al. (1999) Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in Psychological research. Psychological Methods4(3): 272–299.
16.
FisherDDowMRayR (2017) Intersectionality takes it to the streets: mobilizing across diverse interests for the Women’s March. Science Advances3(9): 1–8.
17.
Gil de ZunigaHValenzuelaS (2011) The mediating path to a stronger citizenship: online and offline networks, weak ties, and civic engagement. Communication Research38(3): 397–421.
GranovetterM (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology78: 1360–1380.
20.
HarlowSGuoL (2014) Will the revolution be tweeted or facebooked? Using digital communication tools in immigrant activism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19: 463–478.
21.
HsiaoY (2018) Understanding digital natives in contentious politics: explaining the effect of social media on protest participation through psychological incentives. New Media & Society20: 1–22.
22.
JeongHJLeeM (2013) The effect of online media platforms on joining causes: the impression management perspective. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media57(4): 439–455.
23.
KaiserHF (1974) An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika39(1): 31–36.
24.
KaunAUldamJ (2018) “Volunteering is like any other business”: civic participation and social media. New Media & Society20(6): 2186–2207.
25.
KavadaA (2015) Creating the collective: social media, the occupy movement and its constitution as a collective action. Information, Communication & Society18(8): 872–886.
26.
KlarMKasserT (2009) Some benefits of being an activist: measuring activism and its role in psychological well-being. Political Psychology30(5): 755–777.
27.
KrackhardtD (1992) The strength of strong ties: the importance of philos in organizations. In: NohriaNEcclesR (eds) Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 216–239.
28.
KwakNShahDHolbertLR (2004) Connecting, trusting and participating: the direct and interactive effects of social associations. Political Research Quarterly57(4): 643–652.
29.
LaneDDal CinS (2017) Sharing beyond slacktivism: the effect of socially observable prosocial media sharing on subsequent offline helping behavior. Information, Communication & Society21(11): 1523–1540.
30.
LeFebvreRArmstrongC (2018) Grievance-based social movement mobilization in the #Ferguson Twitter storm. New Media & Society20(1): 8–28.
31.
McAdamD (1982) Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
32.
McAdamD (1986) Recruitment to high-risk activism: The case of freedom summer. American Journal of Sociology92(1): 64–90.
33.
McAdamDPaulsenR (1993) Specifying the relationship between social ties and activism. American Journal of Sociology99(3): 640–667.
34.
MargettsHJohnPHaleS, et al. (2016) Political Turbulence: How Social Media Shape Collective Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
MerceaD (2016) Civic Participation in Contentious Politics: The Digital Foreshadowing of Protest. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
37.
MorrisX (1984) Origins of the Civil Rights Movements. New York: The Free Press.
38.
NekmatEGowerKKGozenbackWJ, et al. (2015) Source effects in the micro-mobilization of collective action via social media. Information, Communication & Society18(9): 1076–1091.
39.
PassyFMonschG-M (2014) Do social networks really matter in contentious politics?Social Movement Studies13(1): 22–47.
40.
PayneCM (1995) I’ve Got the Light of Freedom: The Organizing Tradition and the Mississippi Freedom Struggle. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
41.
PostmesTBrunstingS (2002) Collective action in the age of the internet: mass communication and online mobilization. Social Science Computer Review20(3): 290–301.
42.
RansbyB (2003) Ella Baker & the Black Freedom Movement: A Radical Democratic Vision. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
43.
SchmittN (1996) Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment8(4): 350–353.
44.
SchussmanASouleS (2005) Process and protest: accounting for individual protest participation. Social Forces84(2): 1083–1108.
45.
SkoricMPoorN (2013) Youth engagement in Singapore: the interplay of social and traditional media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media57(2): 187–204.
46.
SommaX (2009) How strong are strong ties? The conditional effectiveness of strong ties in protest recruitment attempts. Sociological Perspectives52(3): 289–308.
47.
SonJLinN (2008) Social capital and civic action: a network-based approach. Sciencedirect37(1): 330–349.
48.
TaberKS (2018) The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education48: 1273–1296.
49.
TangGLeeFLF (2013) Facebook use and political participation: the impact of exposure to shared political information, connections with public political actors, and network structural heterogeneity. Social Science Computer Review31(6): 763–773.
50.
TavakolMDennickR (2011) Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education2: 53–55.
51.
TremayneM (2014) Anatomy of protest in the digital era: a network analysis of Twitter and Occupy Wall Street. Social Movement Studies13(1): 110–126.
52.
TufekciT (2017) Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
53.
TufekciZWilsonC (2012) Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication62: 363–379.
54.
ValenzuelaS (2013) Unpacking the use of social media for protest behavior: the roles of information, opinion expression, and activism. American Behavioral Scientist57(7): 920–942.
55.
ValenzuelaSArriagadaASchermanA (2014) Facebook, Twitter and youth engagement: a quasi-experimental study of social media use and protest behavior using propensity score matching. International Journal of Communication8: 2046–2070.
56.
Van LaerJ (2010) Activists online and offline: the internet as an information channel for protest demonstrations. Mobilization: An International Journal15(3): 347–366.
57.
Van StekelenburgJ (2013) The political psychology of protest. European Psychologist18(4): 224–234.
58.
Van ZomerenMIyerA (2009) Introduction to the social and psychological dynamics of collective action. Journal of Social Issues65(4): 645–660.
59.
VelasquezALaRoseR (2015) Youth collective activism through social media: the role of collective efficacy. New Media & Society17(6): 899–918.
WoodL (2015) Idle no more, Facebook and diffusion. Social Movement Studies14: 5615–5621.
62.
WrightS (2009) The next generation of collective action research. Journal of Social Issues65(4): 859–879.
63.
ZhangYLeeFLF (2018) Examining the connectedness of connective action: the participant-initiated Facebook pages in Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement. International Journal of Communication12: 1591–1611.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
