The ubiquitous use of Internet-connected media enables individuals to stay in constant touch with personal contacts in an “always-on” society. Consequently, some individuals have developed the habit of being permanently connected with others through digital media. This article examines the psychological and political consequences of permanent connectedness. Analysis of two independent sets of data collected via a two-wave panel survey and an online experiment reveals that, over time, permanent connection—the behavior of constantly engaging in mediated communication—increased the perception of permanent togetherness with others, which I label as permanently connected perception. This perception was in turn positively associated with news sharing through the belief that information one shares online can instantly be received and responded to by online contacts as it is shared. Findings emphasize the “spillover” influence of permanent connectedness, in which perpetual mediated communication encourages political behavior, news sharing, and the role of the permanently connected perception in mediating this process.
Al-GhaithW (2015) Understanding social network usage: impact of co-presence, intimacy, and immediacy. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications6(8): 99–111.
2.
BakardjievaM (2009) Subactivism: lifeworld and politics in the age of the Internet. The Information Society25(2): 91–104.
3.
BanduraA (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral changes. Psychological Review84: 191–215.
4.
BanduraA (1982) Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist37(2): 122–147.
5.
BarnidgeMArdèvol-AbreuAde ZúñigaHG (2018) Content-expressive behavior and ideological extremity: an examination of the roles of emotional intelligence and information network heterogeneity. New Media & Society20(2): 815–834.
6.
BayerJBCampbellSWLingR (2016) Connection cues: activating the norms and habits of social connectedness. Communication Theory26: 128–149.
7.
BennettLWSegerbergA (2012) The logic of connective action: digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society15(5): 739–768.
8.
BodeLVragaEKTroller-RenfreeS (2017) Skipping politics: measuring avoidance of political content in social media. Research & Politics4(2): 1–7.
9.
BoulianneS (2015) Social media use and participation: a meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society18(5): 524–538.
10.
BrownJDCantorJ (2000) An agenda for research on youth and the media. Journal of Adolescent Health27(2): 2–7.
11.
CampbellSW (2020) Cutting the cord: social and scholarly revolutions as CMC goes mobile. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication25(1): 101–110.
12.
CappellaJNKimHSAlbarracínD (2015) Selection and transmission processes for information in the emerging media environment: psychological motives and message characteristics. Media Psychology18(3): 396–424.
13.
ChamberD (2013) Social Media and Personal Relationships: Online Intimacies and Networked Friendship. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
14.
CheeverNARosenLDCarrierLM, et al. (2014) Out of sight is not out of mind: the impact of restricting wireless mobile device use on anxiety levels among low, moderate and high users. Computers in Human Behavior37: 290–297.
15.
CouldryNLivingstoneSMarkhamT (2007) Connection or disconnection? Tracking the mediated public sphere in everyday life. In: ButschR (ed.) Media and Public Spheres. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 28–42.
16.
EkströmMÖstmanJ (2013) Information, interaction, and creative production: The effects of three forms of Internet use on youth democratic engagement. Communication Research2(6): 796–818.
17.
EllisonNBVitakJ (2015)). Social network site affordances and their relationship to social capital processes. In: SundarSS (ed.) The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 203–227.
18.
FoxJHoltLF (2018) Fear of isolation and perceived affordances: the spiral of silence on social networking sites regarding police discrimination. Mass Communication and Society21(5): 533–554.
19.
Gil de ZúñigaHJungNValenzuelaS (2012) Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement, and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication17(3): 319–336.
20.
Gil de ZúñigaHMolyneuxLZhengP (2014) Social media, political expression, and political participation: panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of Communication64(4): 612–634.
21.
Gil de ZúñigaHWeeksBArdèvol-AbreuA (2017) Effects of the news-finds-me perception in communication: social media use implications for news seeking and learning about politics. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication22 (3): 105–123.
22.
GnambsTBatinicB (2011) Evaluation of measurement precision with Rasch-type models: the case of the short generalized opinion leadership scale. Personality and Individual Differences50(1): 53–58.
23.
GoffmanE (1963) Behavior in Public Places. New York: The Free Press.
24.
GohDLingRHuangL, et al. (2019) News sharing as reciprocal exchanges in social cohesion maintenance. Information, Communication, & Society22(8): 1128–1144.
25.
HasellAWeeksBE (2016) Partisan provocation: the role of partisan news use and emotional responses in political information sharing in social media. Human Communication Research42(4): 641–661.
26.
HayesAF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.
27.
HorwoodSAnglimJ (2019) Problematic smartphone usage and subjective and psychological well-being. Computers in Human Behavior97: 44–50.
28.
IhmJKimEM (2018) The hidden side of news diffusion: understanding online news sharing as an interpersonal behavior. New Media & Society20(11): 4346–4365.
29.
KatzJAakhusM (Eds) (2002) Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
KimDHEllisonNB (2021) From observation on social media to offline political participation: The social media affordances approach. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 9March2021. DOI: 10.1177/1461444821998346
31.
KimDHJangSMKenskiK (2021) Why do people share political information on social media?Digital Journalism9(8): 1123–1140.
32.
KimEIhmJ (2020) Online news sharing in the face of mixed audiences: context collapse, homophily, and types of social media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media64(5): 756–776.
33.
KlimmtCHefnerDReineckeL, et al. (2018) The permanently online and permanently connected mind: mapping the cognitive structures behind mobile internet use. In: VordererPHefnerDReineckeL, et al. (eds) Permanently Online, Permanently Connected: Living and Communicating in a POPC World. New York: Routledge, pp. 18–28.
34.
KümpelASKarnowskiVKeylingT (2015) News sharing in social media: a review of current research on news sharing users, content, and networks. Social Media + Society1(2): 1–14.
35.
LaneDSLeeSSLiangF, et al. (2019) Social media expression and the political self. Journal of Communication69(1): 49–72.
36.
LaRoseRConnollyRLeeH, et al. (2014) Connection overload? A cross cultural study of the consequences of social media connection. Information Systems Management31(1): 59–73.
37.
LeeSSLaneDKwakN (2020) When social media get political: how perceptions of open-mindedness influence political expression on Facebook. Social Media + Society6(2): 1–12.
38.
LicoppeC (2004) “Connected presence”: the emergence of a new repertoire for managing social relationships in a changing communication technoscape. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space22(1): 135–156.
39.
LinXSarkerSFeathermanM (2019) Users’ psychological perceptions of information sharing in the context of social media: a comprehensive model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce23(4): 453–491.
40.
LittE (2012)). Knock, knock. Who’s there? The imagined audience. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media56(3): 330–345.
41.
LittEHargittaiE (2016) The imagined audience on social network sites. Social Media + Society2(1): 1–12.
42.
MadianouM (2016) Ambient co-presence: transnational family practices in polymedia environments. Global Networks16(2): 183–201.
43.
MaierCLaumerSEckhardtA, et al. (2015) Giving too much social support: social overload on social networking sites. European Journal of Information Systems24(5): 447–464.
44.
MarwickAEboydd (2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society13(1): 114–133.
45.
Noelle-NeumannE (1983) Persönlichkeitsstärke [Personality strength]. Hamburg: Der Spiegel.
46.
OhSYBailensonJNWelchGF (2018) A systematic review of social presence: definition, antecedents, and implications. Frontiers in Robotics and AI5(14): 1–34.
47.
PapacharissiZ (2010) A Private Sphere: Democracy in a Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
PrzybylskiAKMurayamaKDeHaanCR, et al. (2013) Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior29(4): 1841–1848.
50.
ReineckeLKlimmtCMeierA, et al. (2018) Permanently online and permanently connected: development and validation of the online vigilance scale. PLoS ONE13(10): e0205384.
51.
RojasHBarnidgeM (2016) Egocentric publics and corrective action. Communication and the Public1(1): 27–38.
52.
RudatABuderJHesseFW (2014) Audience design in Twitter: retweeting behavior between informational value and followers’ interests. Computers in Human Behavior35: 132–139.
53.
ShahDVChoJEvelandWP, et al. (2005) Information and expression in a digital age: modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research32(5): 531–565.
54.
SkoricMMZhuQGohD, et al. (2016) Social media and citizen engagement: a meta-analytic review. New Media & Society18(9): 1817–1839.
55.
TurkleS (2011) Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.
56.
VelasquezARojasH (2017) Political expression on social media: the role of communication competence and expected outcomes. Social Media + Society3(1): 1–13.
57.
VitakJ (2012) The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media56(4): 451–470.
58.
VordererPKlimmtC (2020) The mobile user’s mindset in a permanently online, permanently connected society. In: LingRFortunatiLGogginG, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Mobile Communication and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190864385.013.4.
59.
VordererPHefnerDReineckeL, et al. (2018) Permanently Online, Permanently Connected: Living and Communicating in a POPC World. New York: Routledge.
60.
VordererPKromerNSchneiderFM (2016) Permanently online-permanently connected: exploration into university students’ use of social media and mobile smart devices. Computers in Human Behavior63: 694–703.
61.
VragaEKThorsonKKligler-VilenchikN, et al. (2015) How individual sensitivities to disagreement shape youth political expression on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior45: 281–289.
62.
WinterSNeubaumG (2016) Examining characteristics of opinion leaders in social media: a motivational Approach. Social Media + Society2(3): 1–12.
63.
XuBZhangWLiD (2011) Copresence and its social-relational antecedents in computer-mediated communication: the case of instant messenger. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction27(10): 991–1009.
64.
YuRP (2016) The relationship between passive and active non-political social media use and political expression on Facebook and Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior58: 413–420.
65.
ZhaoS (2003) Toward a taxonomy of copresence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments12(5): 445–455.
66.
ZhaoSEleshD (2008) Copresence as “being with.” Information, Communication & Society11(4): 565–583.
