The role of social network characteristics in further dissipating political participation among adolescents and young adults or mobilizing them into participatory action is debatable. This study analyzes survey data from 10 Southeast European democracies to examine the influence of informational use of online media (Internet and social media) and social network characteristics on political interest–based participatory gaps among adolescents and young adults. The findings support the reinforcement thesis that politically interested individuals exploit the benefits of online media use, thereby exacerbating participation gaps between low- and high-interest groups. These gaps are further amplified in more heterogeneous networks for both adolescents and young adults. In contrast, politically interested adolescents are more likely to politically disengage within more extensive social networks and, hence, resemble politically detached young adults. Overall, the findings support the reinforcement thesis across age groups where greater network heterogeneity amplifies participatory gaps for both adolescents and young adults, but network size plays a conditional role for adolescents.
AhmedS (2020) Concurrent media news use and gender-based political participation inequality in a low-income democracy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research32(4): 815–828.
2.
AhmedSChoJ (2019) The roles of different news media use and press freedom in education generated participation inequality: An eight country comparative analysis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media63(3): 566–586.
3.
AhmedSMadrid-MoralesD (2021) Is it still a man’s world? Social media news use and gender inequality in online political engagement. Information, Communication & Society24(3): 381–399.
4.
BakkerTPDe VreeseCH (2011) Good news for the future? Young people, Internet use, and political participation. Communication Research38(4): 451–470.
5.
BimberBFlanaginAStohlC (2012) Collective Action in Organizations: Interaction and Engagement in an Era of Technological Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BoulianneS (2009) Does Internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication26(2): 193–211.
7.
BoulianneSTheocharisY (2020) Young people, digital media, and engagement: a meta-analysis of research. Social Science Computer Review38(2): 111–127.
8.
BrandtzægPBLüdersMSkjetneJH (2010) Too many Facebook “friends”? Content sharing and sociability versus the need for privacy in social network sites. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction26(11–12): 1006–1030.
9.
BrownBBLarsonJ (2009) Peer relationships in adolescence. In: LernerRSteinbergL (eds), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Wiley, pp. 74–103.
10.
BukowskiWMNewcombAFHartupWW (1998) The Company They Keep: Friendships in Childhood and Adolescence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
CampbellSWKwakN (2011) Political involvement in “mobilized” society: the interactive relationships among mobile communication, network characteristics, and political participation. Journal of Communication61(6): 1005–1024.
12.
ChanM (2016) 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.
13.
ChoJKeumH (2016) Leveling or tilting the playing field: social networking sites and offline political communication inequality. The Social Science Journal53(2): 236–246.
14.
Dostie-GouletE (2009) Social networks and the development of political interest. Journal of Youth Studies12(4): 405–421.
15.
EkströmMShehataA (2018) Social media, porous boundaries, and the development of online political engagement among young citizens. New Media & Society20(2): 740–759.
16.
ElderGHJr (1985) Life Course Dynamics: Trajectories and Transitions, 1968-1980. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
17.
EllisonNSteinfieldCLampeC (2007) The benefits of Facebook “friends”: social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12(4): 1143–1168.
18.
Gil de ZúñigaHLiuJH (2017) Second screening politics in the social media sphere: advancing research on dual screen use in political communication with evidence from 20 countries. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media61(2): 193–219.
19.
GranovetterM (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology78: 1360–1380.
20.
GrassoMT (2016) Generations, Political Participation and Social Change in Western Europe. London: Routledge.
21.
HayesAF (2017) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford publications.
22.
HeissRMatthesJ (2019) Does incidental exposure on social media equalize or reinforce participatory gaps? Evidence from a panel study. New Media & Society21(11–12): 2463–2482.
23.
HenkelF (2019) Youth in Southeast Europe Demand a Decent Future! (FES Youth Studies SEE 2018/2019). Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
24.
HivelyMHEvelandWPJr (2009) Contextual antecedents and political consequences of adolescent political discussion, discussion elaboration, and network diversity. Political Communication26(1): 30–47.
25.
HolbertRLParkE (2020) Conceptualizing, organizing, and positing moderation in communication research. Communication Theory30(3): 227–246.
26.
JugertPEcksteinKNoackP, et al. (2013) Offline and online civic engagement among adolescents and young adults from three ethnic groups. Journal of Youth and Adolescence42(1): 123–135.
27.
JusićM (2019) The Jobless and the Insecure (FES Youth Studies SEE 2018/2019). Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
28.
KahneJBowyerB (2018) The political significance of social media activity and social networks. Political Communication35(3): 470–493.
29.
KarnowskiVKümpelASLeonhardL, et al. (2017) From incidental news exposure to news engagement. How perceptions of the news post and news usage patterns influence engagement with news articles encountered on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior76: 42–50.
30.
KimCLeeJK (2016) Social media type matters: investigating the relationship between motivation and online social network heterogeneity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media60(4): 676–693.
31.
KimJHyunKD (2017) Political disagreement and ambivalence in new information environment: exploring conditional indirect effects of partisan news use and heterogeneous discussion networks on SNSs on political participation. Telematics and Informatics34(8): 1586–1596.
32.
KimYRussoSAmnåE (2017) The longitudinal relation between online and offline political participation among youth at two different developmental stages. New Media & Society19(6): 899–917.
33.
KovačićMDolenecD (2018) Youth participation in Eastern Europe in the age of austerity. In: Young People Re-Generating Politics in Times of Crises. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 375–394.
34.
LazarsfeldPFMertonRK (1948) Mass communication, popular tastes, organized social action. In:BrysonL (ed.) The Communication of Ideas. New York: The Institute for Religious and Social Studies, pp. 492–512.
35.
LeighleyJE (1990) Social interaction and contextual influences on political participation. American Politics Quarterly18(4): 459–475.
LinN (2001) Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
38.
McLeodJMScheufeleDAMoyP, et al. (1999) Understanding deliberation: the effects of discussion networks on participation in a public forum. Communication Research26(6): 743–774.
39.
McPhersonMSmith-LovinLCookJM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology27(1): 415–444.
40.
MoellerJShehataAKruikemeierS (2018) Internet use and political interest: growth curves, reinforcing spirals, and causal effects during adolescence. Journal of Communication68(6): 1052–1078.
41.
MutzDC (2002) The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science46: 838–855.
42.
NesiJChoukas-BradleySPrinsteinMJ (2018) Transformation of adolescent peer relations in the social media context. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review21(3): 267–294.
43.
OserJBoulianneS (2020) Reinforcement effects between digital media use and political participation: a meta-analysis of repeated-wave panel data. Public Opinion Quarterly84: 355–365.
44.
PriorM (2010) You’ve either got it or you don’t? The stability of political interest over the life cycle. The Journal of Politics72(3): 747–766.
45.
PutnamRD (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Touchstone.
46.
RahbarqaziMBaghbanSMNYenghabadiNS (2019) Participation in political protest: tracing direct and indirect effects of news usage and social interaction. Observatorio (OBS*)13(4): 35–51.
47.
RussoSStattinH (2017) Stability and change in youth’s political interest. Social Indicators Research132(2): 643–658.
48.
ScheffauerRGoyanesMde ZúñigaHG (2021) Beyond social media news use algorithms: how political discussion and network heterogeneity clarify incidental news exposure. Online Information Review45: 633–650.
49.
ScheufeleDAHardyBWBrossardD, et al. (2006) Democracy based on difference: examining the links between structural heterogeneity, heterogeneity of discussion networks, and democratic citizenship. Journal of Communication56(4): 728–753.
50.
SchlozmanKLVerbaSBradyHE (2010) Weapon of the strong? Participatory inequality and the Internet. Perspectives on Politics8(2): 487–509.
51.
ScottCFBay-ChengLYPrinceMA, et al. (2017) Time spent online: latent profile analyses of emerging adults’ social media use. Computers in Human Behavior75: 311–319.
52.
SearsDLevyS (2003) Childhood and adult political development. In:SearsDHuddyLJervisR (eds) Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 60–109.
53.
ShenFWangNGuoZ, et al. (2009) Online network size, efficacy, and opinion expression: assessing the impacts of Internet use in China. International Journal of Public Opinion Research21(4): 451–476.
54.
SkoricMMZhuQGohD, et al. (2016) Social media and citizen engagement: a meta-analytic review. New Media & Society18(9): 1817–1839.
55.
TewksburyDWeaverAJMaddexBD (2001) Accidentally informed: incidental news exposure on the World Wide Web. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly78(3): 533–554.
56.
TurčiloLOsmićAKapidžićD, et al. (2019) Youth Study Bosnia and Herzegovina 2018/2019 (FES Youth Studies SEE 2018/2019). Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
57.
ValenzuelaSKimYGil de ZúñigaH (2012) Social networks that matter: exploring the role of political discussion for online political participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research24(2): 163–184.
58.
ValenzuelaSSommaNMSchermanA, et al. (2016) Social media in Latin America: deepening or bridging gaps in protest participation?Online Information Review40(5): 695–711.
59.
ValerianiAVaccariC (2016) Accidental exposure to politics on social media as online participation equalizer in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. New Media & Society18(9): 1857–1874.
60.
VerbaSSchlozmanKLBradyHE (1995) Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
WoodMABukowskiWMLisE (2016) The digital self: how social media serves as a setting that shapes youth’s emotional experiences. Adolescent Research Review1(2): 163–173.
63.
WrzusCHänelMWagnerJ, et al. (2013) Social network changes and life events across the life span: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin139(1): 53.
64.
XenosMVromenALoaderBD (2014) The great equalizer? Patterns of social media use and youth political engagement in three advanced democracies. Information, Communication & Society17(2): 151–167.
65.
ZizekB (2017) Digital socialization? An exploratory sequential analysis of anonymous adolescent internet-social interaction. Human Development60(5): 203–232.
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.
