Prior scholarship has consistently shown that informed citizens tend to better understand government actions, expectations, and priorities, potentially mitigating radicalism such as partaking in illegal protest. However, the role of social media may prove this relationship to be challenging, with an increasingly pervasive use of applications such as WhatsApp for information and mobilization. Findings from a two-wave US panel survey data show that WhatsApp news is negatively associated to political knowledge and positively associated to illegal protest. Less politically knowledgeable citizens also tend to engage in illegal protest more frequently. Results also suggest an influential role of political knowledge in mediating the effects of WhatsApp news over illegal protests. Those who consume more news on WhatsApp tend to know less about politics which, in turn, positively relates to unlawful political protest activities. This study suggests that WhatsApp affordances provide fertile paths to nurture illegal political protest participation.
AnduizaECristanchoCSabucedoJM (2014) Mobilization through online social networks: the political protest of the indignados in Spain. Information, Communication & Society17(6): 750–764.
BapayeJABapayeHA (2021) Demographic factors influencing the impact of coronavirus-related misinformation on WhatsApp: cross-sectional Questionnaire Study. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance7(1): e19858.
5.
BeckerJCTauschNSpearsR, et al. (2011) Committed dis(s)idents: participation in radical collective action fosters disidentification with the broader in-group but enhances political identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin37(8): 1104–1116.
6.
BimberBDavisR (2003) Campaigning Online: The Internet in US Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
BodeLVragaEK (2015) In related news, that was wrong: the correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. Journal of Communication65(4): 619–638.
8.
BoukesMVliegenthartR (2019) The knowledge gap hypothesis across modality: differential acquisition of knowledge from television news, newspapers, and news websites. International Journal of Communication13: 22.
9.
BoulianneS (2015) Social media use and participation: a meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society18(5): 524–538.
10.
BreuschTSPaganAR (1979) A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society47: 1287–1294.
11.
CacciatoreMAYeoSKScheufeleDA, et al. (2018) Is Facebook making us dumber? Exploring social media use as a predictor of political knowledge. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly95(2): 404–424.
12.
CarpiniMXDKeeterS (1996) What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. London: Yale University Press.
13.
ChaffeeSFrankS (1996) How Americans get political information: print versus broadcast news. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science546(1): 48–58.
14.
ChanM (2017) Social network sites and political engagement: exploring the impact of Facebook connections and uses on political protest and participation. Mass Communication and Society19(4): 430–451.
15.
ChowJ (2012) The attitudes of English adolescents to protest activities: reflections from the International Civic and Citizenship Study on 2011 England Riots. Journal of Youth Studies15(1): 177–191.
16.
DiGraziaJ (2014) Individual protest participation in the United States: conventional and unconventional activism. Social Science Quarterly95(1): 111–131.
17.
DimitrovaDVShehataAStrömbäckJ, et al. (2014) The effects of digital media on political knowledge and participation in election campaigns: evidence from panel data. Communication Research41(1): 95–118.
18.
FinkelSERuleJ (1986) Relative deprivation and related psychological theories of civil violence: a critical review. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change9: 47–69.
19.
FinnJGil de ZúñigaH (2011) Online credibility and community among blog users. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology48(1): 1–9.
20.
GallinaMDeCastellarnauA (2019) Is it all about education? A study of the impact of media exposure on political knowledge in Italy. Italian Political Science14(3): 1–18.
21.
Gil de ZúñigaHArdèvol-AbreuACasero-RipollésA (2019) WhatsApp political discussion, conventional participation and activism: exploring direct, indirect and generational effects. Information, Communication & Society24: 201–218.
22.
Gil de ZúñigaHDiehlTArdèvol-AbreuA (2018) Assessing civic participation around the world: how evaluations of journalists’ performance leads to news use and civic participation across 22 countries. American Behavioral Scientist62(8): 1116–1137.
23.
Gil de ZúñigaHKoc-MichalskaKRömmeleA (2020) Populism in the era of Twitter: how social media contextualized new insights into an old phenomenon. New Media & Society22(4): 585–594.
24.
GlatzTDahlV (2016) The role of family experiences for adolescents’ readiness to use and participate in illegal political activity. International Journal of Behavioral Development40(1): 11–20.
25.
GrassoMTGiugniM (2016) Protest participation and economic crisis: the conditioning role of political opportunities. European Journal of Political Research55(4): 663–680.
26.
GroshekJDimitrovaD (2011) A cross-section of voter learning, campaign interest and intention to vote in the 2008 American election: did Web 2.0 matter. Communication Studies Journal9(1): 355–375.
27.
HayesA (2018) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. London: The Guilford Press.
28.
HsiaoY (2018) Understanding digital natives in contentious politics: explaining the effect of social media on protest participation through psychological incentives. New Media & Society20(9): 3457–3478.
29.
ImhoffRDieterleLLambertyP (2020) Resolving the puzzle of conspiracy worldview and political activism: belief in secret plots decreases normative but increases nonnormative political engagement. Social Psychological and Personality Science12: 71–79.
30.
KarapanosETeixeiraPGouveiaR (2016) Need fulfillment and experiences on social media: a case on Facebook and WhatsApp. Computers in Human Behavior55: 888–897.
31.
KenskiKStroudNJ (2006) Connections between Internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media50(2): 173–192.
32.
KlandermansB (1984) Mobilization and participation: social-psychological expansions of resource mobilization theory. American Sociological Review49: 583–600.
33.
KoenkerRBassettGJr (1982) Robust tests for heteroscedasticity based on regression quantiles. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society50: 43–61.
34.
KuhnHP (2004) Adolescent voting for right-wing extremist parties and readiness to use violence in political action: parent and peer contexts. Journal of Adolescence27(5): 561–581.
35.
LeeSXenosM (2019) Social distraction? Social media use and political knowledge in two US Presidential elections. Computers in Human Behavior90: 18–25.
36.
LuskinRC (1990) Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior12(4): 331–361.
37.
McAllisterI (2016) Internet use, political knowledge and youth electoral participation in Australia. Journal of Youth Studies19(9): 1220–1236.
38.
MasipPSuauJRuiz-CaballeroC, et al. (2021) News engagement on closed platforms. Human factors and technological affordances influencing exposure to news on WhatsApp. Digital Journalism. Epub ahead of print 4 June. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2021.1927778.
39.
NewsomJT (2012) Basic longitudinal analysis approaches for continuous and categorical variables. In NewsomJTJonesRNHoferSM (eds) Longitudinal Data Analysis: A Practical Guide for Researchers in Aging, Health, and Social Sciences. New York: Routledge, pp. 143–179.
40.
NormanDA (1998) The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
PariserE (2011) The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. New York: Penguin Press.
43.
PivenFFClowardR (2012) Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare. New York: Random House.
44.
ScheufeleDA (2002) Examining differential gains from mass media and their implications for participatory behavior. Communication Research29(1): 46–65.
45.
ŠerekJMachackovaHMacekP (2018) Who crosses the norms? Predictors of the readiness for non-normative political participation among adolescents. Journal of Adolescence62: 18–26.
StoffregenTA (2003) Affordances as properties of the animal-environment system. Ecological Psychology15(2): 115–134.
51.
SwartJPetersCBroersmaM (2019) Sharing and discussing news in private social media groups: the social function of news and current affairs in location-based, work-oriented and leisure-focused communities. Digital Journalism7(2): 187–205.
52.
TajfelHTurnerJC (1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology of Intergroup Relations5: 7–24.
53.
TauschNBeckerJCSpearsR, et al. (2011) Explaining radical group behavior: developing emotion and efficacy routes to normative and nonnormative collective action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology101(1): 129–148.
54.
TeorellJ (2000) A resource model of social capital: networks, recruitment and political participation in Sweden. In: Workshop “Voluntary Associations, Social Capital and Interest Mediation: Forging the Link,” ECPR joint sessions, Copenhagen, 14–19 April.
55.
ValenzuelaSBachmannIBargstedM (2019) The personal is the political? What do WhatsApp users share and how it matters for news knowledge, polarization and participation in Chile. Digital Journalism9: 155–175.
56.
ValenzuelaSCorreaTGil de ZúñigaH (2018) Ties, likes, and tweets: using strong and weak ties to explain differences in protest participation across Facebook and Twitter use. Political Communication35(1): 117–134.
57.
ValerianiAVaccariC (2018) Political talk on mobile instant messaging services: a comparative analysis of Germany, Italy, and the UK. Information, Communication & Society21(11): 1715–1731.
58.
VragaEKTullyM (2019) News literacy, social media behaviors, and skepticism toward information on social media. Information, Communication & Society24: 150–166.
59.
WrightSC (2010) Collective action and social change. In: DovidioJFHewstoneMGlickP, et al. (eds) Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, pp. 577–596.
60.
WalkerLMannL. (1987) Unemployment, relative deprivation, and social protest. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin13(2): 275–283.
61.
WrightSCTaylorDMMoghaddamFM (1990) Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: from acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology58(6): 994–1003.
62.
YamamotoMKushinMJDalisayF (2015) Social media and mobiles as political mobilization forces for young adults: examining the moderating role of online political expression in political participation. New Media & Society17(6): 880–898.
63.
YamamotoMKushinMJDalisayF (2018) How informed are messaging app users about politics? A linkage of messaging app use and political knowledge and participation. Telematics and Informatics35(8): 2376–2386.
64.
YarchiMBadenCKligler-VilenchikN (2020) Political polarization on the digital sphere: a cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Political Communication38: 1–42.
65.
ZhuQSkoricMShenF (2017) I shield myself from thee: selective avoidance on social media during political protests. Political Communication34(1): 112–131.
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.
