Does political efficacy equally predict news engagement across countries? A multilevel analysis of the relationship among internal political efficacy,media environment and news engagement
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December, 2020
Does political efficacy equally predict news engagement across countries? A multilevel analysis of the relationship among internal political efficacy,media environment and news engagement
This study serves as the first to examine the mechanism of news engagement with regard to the three proposed dimensions (i.e. overall news engagement, user-user news engagement, and user-content news engagement) across 36 countries. We employed hierarchical linear modeling to test how internal political efficacy and media environment—both political and technological, shape news engagement based on the multinational cross-sectional survey data (N = 72,930). The findings showed that internal political efficacy was positively associated with news engagement. Press freedom was negatively associated with user-content news engagement; Internet penetration was negatively associated with the three indicators of news engagement. Press freedom negatively moderated the effect of internal political efficacy on user-content news engagement. The study advances our understanding about the individual and contextual mechanisms of news engagement. It also renders significant implications for news organizations to consider the role of media environment while practicing engagement.
AalbergTBlekesauneAElvestadE (2013) Media choice and informed democracy: toward increasing news consumption gaps in Europe?The International Journal of Press/Politics18(3): 281–303.
BanajiSCammaertsB (2015) Citizens of nowhere land: youth and news consumption in Europe. Journalism Studies16(1): 115–132.
4.
BardoelJDeuzeM (2001) “Network journalism”: converging competencies of old and new media professionals. Australian Journalism Review23(2): 91–103.
5.
BestMLWadeKW (2009) The Internet and democracy: global catalyst or democratic dud?Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society29(4): 255–271.
6.
BimberB (2017) Three prompts for collective action in the context of digital media. Political Communication34(1): 6–20.
7.
BimberBFlanaginAStohlC (2012) Collective Action in Organizations: Interaction and Engagement in an Era of Technological Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BradleyC (2013) Handbook of Psychology and Diabetes: A Guide to Psychological Measurement in Diabetes Research and Practice. London: Routledge
9.
BrunsA (2008) Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: From Production to Produsage (vol. 45). New York: Peter Lang.
10.
ChanMChenHTLeeFL (2017) Examining the roles of mobile and social media in political participation: a cross-national analysis of three Asian societies using a communication mediation approach. New Media & Society19(12): 2003–2021.
11.
ChanMChenHTLeeFL (2018) Examining the roles of political social network and internal efficacy on social media news engagement: a comparative study of six Asian countries. The International Journal of Press/Politics24: 127–145.
12.
CurranJIyengarSBrink LundA, et al. (2009) Media system, public knowledge and democracy: a comparative study. European Journal of Communication24(1): 5–26.
13.
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. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 395–434.
14.
DiehlTBarnidgeMGil de ZúñigaH (2018) Multi-platform news use and political participation across age groups: toward a valid metric of platform diversity and its effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly96:428–451.
15.
FinkelSE (1985) Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: a panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science29: 891–913.
16.
FletcherRParkS (2017) The impact of trust in the news media on online news consumption and participation. Digital Journalism5(10): 1281–1299.
GarrettKR (2006) Protest in an information society: a review of literature on social movements and new ICTs. Information, Communication & Society9(2): 202–224.
19.
GöbelC (2013) The information dilemma: how ICT strengthen or weaken authoritarian rule. Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift115(2013): 367–384.
20.
González BailónS (2013) Social science in the era of big data. Policy & Internet5(2): 147–160.
21.
GoodeL (2009) Social news, citizen journalism and democracy. New Media & Society11(8): 1287–1305.
22.
GroshekJ (2009) The democratic effects of the Internet, 1994-2003: a cross-national inquiry of 152 countries. International Communication Gazette71(3): 115–136.
23.
HaLXuYYangC, et al. (2018) Decline in news content engagement or news medium engagement? A longitudinal analysis of news engagement since the rise of social and mobile media 2009–2012. Journalism19(5): 718–739.
24.
HalpernDValenzuelaSKatzJE (2017) We face, I tweet: how different social media influence political participation through collective and internal efficacy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication22(6): 320–336.
25.
HanitzschTVan DalenASteindlN (2018) Caught in the nexus: a comparative and longitudinal analysis of public trust in the press. The International Journal of Press/Politics23(1): 3–23.
26.
HoltonAEChyiHI (2012) News and the overloaded consumer: factors influencing information overload among news consumers. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking15(11): 619–624.
27.
HoranTJ (2013) “Soft” versus “hard” news on microblogging networks: semantic analysis of Twitter produsage. Information, Communication & Society16(1): 43–60.
28.
HowardPN (2010) The Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Information Technology and Political Islam. New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
HwangMIThornRG (1999) The effect of user engagement on system success: a meta-analytical integration of research findings. Information & Management35(4): 229–236.
IyengarS (1980) Subjective political efficacy as a measure of diffuse support. Public Opinion Quarterly44: 249–256.
32.
JungJYQiuJLKimYC (2001) Internet connectedness and inequality: beyond the “divide.”Communication Research28(4): 507–535.
33.
KalogeropoulosANegredoSPiconeI, et al. (2017) Who shares and comments on news? A cross-national comparative analysis of online and social media participation. Social Media+ Society3(4): 2056305117735754.
34.
KhanML (2017) Social media engagement: what motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube?Computers in Human Behavior66: 236–247.
35.
KsiazekTBPeerLLessardK (2016) User engagement with online news: conceptualizing interactivity and exploring the relationship between online news videos and user comments. New Media & Society18(3): 502–520.
36.
LawrenceRGRadcliffeDSchmidtTR (2018) Practicing engagement: participatory journalism in the Web 2.0 era. Journalism Practice12(10): 1220–1240.
37.
LeeCSMaL (2012) News sharing in social media: the effect of gratifications and prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior28(2): 331–339.
38.
LeeFLF (2006) Collective efficacy, support for democratization, and political participation in Hong Kong. International Journal of Public Opinion Research18(3): 297–317.
39.
LeeSH (2015) News engagement versus news consumption: does online news use promote civic engagement?Electronic News9(2): 75–90.
40.
LelkesYSoodGIyengarS (2017) The hostile audience: the effect of access to broadband internet on partisan affect. American Journal of Political Science61(1): 5–20.
41.
LewisSCHoltonAECoddingtonM (2014) Reciprocal journalism: a concept of mutual exchange between journalists and audiences. Journalism Practice8(2): 229–241.
42.
LimJSHwangYKimS, et al. (2015) How social media engagement leads to sports channel loyalty: mediating roles of social presence and channel commitment. Computers in Human Behavior46: 158–167.
43.
LivingstoneSMarkhamT (2008) The contribution of media consumption to civic participation. The British Journal of Sociology59(2): 351–371.
44.
McCay-PeetLQuan-HaaseA (2016) A model of social media engagement: user profiles, gratifications, and experiences. In: O’BrienHLalmasM (eds) Why Engagement Matters: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives and Innovations on User Engagement with Digital Media. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
45.
MacKinnonR (2011) China’s “networked authoritarianism.”Journal of Democracy22(2): 32–46.
46.
McQuailD (2000) Mcquail’s Mass Communication Theory. 4th ed.London: SAGE.
47.
MillsLAKnezekGKhaddageF (2014) Information seeking, information sharing, and going mobile: three bridges to informal learning. Computers in Human Behavior32: 324–334.
48.
MorozovE (2011) The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate the World. London: Penguin.
49.
MoyoD (2009) Citizen journalism and the parallel market of information in Zimbabwe’s 2008 election. Journalism Studies10(4): 551–567.
50.
NapoliPM (2011) Audience Evolution: New Technologies and the Transformation of Media Audiences. New York: Columbia University Press.
51.
NelsonJL (2019) The next media regime: the pursuit of “audience engagement” in journalism. Journalism. Epub ahead of print 9 July 2019. DOI: 10.1177/1464884919862375.
52.
NeuendorfKA (2016) The Content Analysis Guidebook. London: SAGE.
53.
NewhagenJE (1994) Self-efficacy and call-in political television show use. Communication Research21(3): 366–379.
NiemiRGCraigSCMatteiF (1991) Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review85(4): 1407–1413.
56.
NisbetECStoycheffEPearceKE (2012) Internet use and democratic demands: a multinational, multilevel model of Internet use and citizen attitudes about democracy. Journal of Communication62(2): 249–265.
57.
ParkCSKayeBK (2018) News engagement on social media and democratic citizenship: direct and moderating roles of curatorial news use in political involvement. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly95: 1103–1127.
58.
PestinD (2011) News on the Go: How Mobile Devices are Changing the World’s Information Ecosystem. Washington, DC: Center for International Media Assistance and National Endowment for Democracy.
59.
Quan-HaaseAMartinKSchreursK (2016) Interviews with digital seniors: ICT use in the context of everyday life. Information, Communication & Society19(5): 691–707.
60.
RødEGWeidmannNB (2015) Empowering activists or autocrats? The Internet in authoritarian regimes. Journal of Peace Research52(3): 338–351.
61.
ResnickP (1996) PICS: Internet access controls without censorship. Communications of the ACM39(10): 87–94.
RobinsonS (2010) Traditionalists vs. convergers: textual privilege, boundary work, and the journalist—audience relationship in the commenting policies of online news sites. Convergence16(1): 125–143.
64.
SemetkoHAValkenburgPM (1998) The impact of attentiveness on political efficacy: evidence from a three-year German panel study. International Journal of Public Opinion Research10(3): 195–210.
65.
SenA (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
66.
ShehataAStrömbäckJ (2011) A matter of context: a comparative study of media environments and news consumption gaps in Europe. Political Communication28(1): 110–134.
67.
ShimHYouKHLeeJK, et al. (2015) Why do people access news with mobile devices? Exploring the role of suitability perception and motives on mobile news use. Telematics and Informatics32(1): 108–117.
68.
SmaeleHD (2004) Limited access to information as a means of censorship in post-communist Russia. Javnost-the Public11(2): 65–81.
69.
StrömbäckJDjerf-PierreMShehataA (2013) The dynamics of political interest and news media consumption: a longitudinal perspective. International Journal of Public Opinion Research25(4): 414–435.
70.
StroudNJScaccoJMCurryAL (2016) The presence and use of interactive features on news websites. Digital Journalism4(3): 339–358.
71.
TewksburyDHalsMLBibartA (2008) The efficacy of news browsing: the relationship of news consumption style to social and political efficacy. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly85(2): 257–272.
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.
74.
Van DammeKCourtoisCVerbruggeK, et al. (2015) What’s APPening to news? A mixed-method audience-centred study on mobile news consumption. Mobile Media & Communication3(2): 196–213.
75.
Van HeddeghemWLambertSLannooB, et al. (2014) Trends in worldwide ICT electricity consumption from 2007 to 2012. Computer Communications50: 64–76.
76.
VerbaSNieNHKimJO (1987) Participation and Political Equality: A Seven-Nation Comparison. University of Chicago Press.
77.
WangX (2009) Seeking channels for engagement: media use and political communication by China’s rising middle class. China: An International Journal7(01): 31–56.
78.
WeiRLoVH (2015) News on the move: predictors of mobile news consumption and engagement among Chinese mobile phone users. Electronic News9(3): 177–194.
79.
WeiRLoVHXuX, et al. (2014) Predicting mobile news use among college students: the role of press freedom in four Asian cities. New Media & Society16(4): 637–654.
80.
ZhouB (2015) Internet use, socio-geographic context, and citizenship engagement: a multilevel model on the democratizing effects of the Internet in China. In: ChenWReeseS (eds) Networked China. New York: Routledge.
