Many citizens feel powerless in the current globalized political context, despite the potential of digital media to increase their perceptions of being informed about politics and expand their opportunities to interact with elected officials to try to influence government decisions. We analyzed 193 studies to document the most popular ways to conceptualize, measure, and model political efficacy when also studying digital media. Furthermore, we conducted a meta-analysis of correlations. We find that the positive estimates are larger, on average, when considering internal political efficacy and smaller but still positive when considering external political efficacy. We also examine how the relationships differ according to the type of media use and political system, whether authoritarian (e.g. China) or democratic. We propose a theoretical framework that considers reciprocal effects. Online information may contribute to feelings of being informed about politics and feelings of being informed lead to online political participation.
AlbericiAIMilesiP (2016) Online discussion, politicized identity, and collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations19(1): 43–59.
2.
AmsalemENirL (2021) Does interpersonal discussion increase political knowledge? A meta-analysis. Communication Research48(5): 619–641.
3.
AmsalemEZoiznerA (2023) Do people learn about politics on social media? A meta-analysis of 76 studies. Journal of Communication73(1): 3–13.
4.
BanduraA (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
BoothASuttonAPapaioannouD (2016) Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
BoulianneS (2011) Stimulating or reinforcing political interest: using panel data to examine the use of news media and political interest. Political Communication28(2): 147–162.
7.
BoulianneS (2020) Twenty years of digital media effects on civic and political participation. Communication Research47(7): 947–966.
8.
BoulianneSKoc-MichalskaKBimberB (2020) Right-wing populism, social media and echo chambers in Western democracies. New Media & Society22(4): 683–699.
9.
BradyHEKentTB (2022) Fifty years of declining confidence & increasing polarization in trust in American institutions. Daedalus151(4): 43–66.
10.
CampbellAGurinGMillerW (1954) The Voter Decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
11.
ChamberlainA (2012) A time-series analysis of external efficacy. Public Opinion Quarterly76(1): 117–130.
12.
ChanM (2017) Media use and the social identity model of collective action: examining the roles of online alternative news and social media news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly94(3): 663–681.
13.
ChanMChenHTLeeFLF (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.
14.
ChangWC (2018) Media use and satisfaction with democracy: testing the role of political interest. Social Indicators Research140(3): 999–1016.
CraigSCNiemiRGSilverGE (1990) Political efficacy and trust: a report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior12(3): 289–314.
17.
DemertzisNMilioniDLGialamasV (2013) Internet use and political efficacy: the case of Cyprus. International Journal of Electronic Governance6(3): 187–208.
FinkelSE (1987) The effects of participation on political efficacy and political support: evidence from a West German panel. Journal of Politics49(2): 441–464.
20.
GeurkinkBZasloveASluiterR, et al. (2020) Populist attitudes, political trust, and external political efficacy: old wine and new bottles?Political Studies68(1): 247–267.
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.
23.
JohnsonTJKayeBK (2003) A boost or bust for democracy? How the web influenced political attitudes and behaviors in the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics8(3): 9–34.
24.
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.
25.
KenskiKStroudNJ (2006) Connections between Internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media50(2): 173–192.
26.
LeeSDiehlTValenzuelaS (2022) Rethinking the virtuous circle hypothesis on social media: subjective versus objective knowledge and political participation. Human Communication Research48(1): 57–87.
27.
LindFBoomgaardenHG (2019) What we do and don’t know: a meta-analysis of the knowledge gap hypothesis. Annals of the International Communication Association43(32): 210–224.
28.
Lorenz-SpreenPOswaldLLewandowskyS, et al. (2023) A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy. Nature Human Behaviour7: 74–101.
29.
LuSLuqiuLR (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. New Media & Society22(12): 2146–2165.
30.
MacháčkováHTkaczykM (2020) The effect of media and political beliefs and attitudes on trust in political institutions: a multilevel analysis on data from 21 European countries. Communication Today11(2): 64–83.
31.
MatthesJKnollJVon SikorskiC (2018) The “spiral of silence” revisited: a meta-analysis on the relationship between perceptions of opinion support and political opinion expression. Communication Research45(1): 1–31.
32.
MatthesJKnollJValenzuelaS, et al. (2019) A meta-analysis of the effects of cross-cutting exposure on political participation. Political Communication36(4): 523–542.
33.
MorrellME (2003) Survey and experimental evidence for a reliable and valid measure of internal political efficacy. The Public Opinion Quarterly67(4): 589–602.
34.
NamT (2012) Dual effects of the internet on political activism: reinforcing and mobilizing. Government Information Quarterly29(1): S90–S97.
35.
NiemiRGCraigSCMatteiF (1991) Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review85(4): 1407–1413.
36.
OserJGrinsonABoulianneS, et al. (2022) How political efficacy relates to online and offline political participation: a multi-level meta-analysis. Political Communication9(5): 607–633.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al. (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ372: n71.
39.
PanJChenKP (2018) Concealing corruption: how Chinese officials distort upward reporting of online grievances. American Political Science Review112(3): 602–620.
40.
RicoGGuinjoanMAnduizaE (2020) Empowered and enraged: political efficacy, anger and support for populism in Europe. European Journal of Political Research59(4): 797–816.
41.
RuessCHoffmannCPBoulianneS, et al. (2021) Online political participation: the evolution of a concept. Information, Communication & Society. Epub ahead of print 19 December. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2021.2013919.
42.
SasakiF (2016) Online political efficacy (OPE) as a reliable survey measure of political empowerment when using the Internet. Policy & Internet8(2): 197–214.
43.
SasakiF (2017) Does Internet use provide a deeper sense of political empowerment to the less educated?Information, Communication & Society20(10): 1445–1463.
44.
SchulzAMüllerPSchemerC, et al. (2018) Measuring populist attitudes on three dimensions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research30(2): 316–326.
45.
SiddawayAPWoodAMHedgesLV (2019) How to do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology70: 747–770.
46.
SkoricMMZhuQGohD, et al. (2016) Social media and citizen engagement: a meta-analytic review. New Media & Society18(9): 1817–1839.
47.
TheocharisYBarberaPFazekasZ, et al. (2016) A bad workman blames his tweets: the consequences of citizens’ uncivil Twitter use when interacting with party candidates. Journal of Communication66(6): 1007–1031.
48.
UslanerE (2004) Trust, civic engagement, and the Internet. Political Communication21(2): 223–243.
49.
UslanerE (2015) Trust, political. In: WrightJD (ed.) International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed.Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 658–663.
50.
WagnerKMGrayTJGainousJ (2017) Digital information consumption and external political efficacy in Latin America: does institutional context matter?Journal of Information Technology & Politics14(3): 277–291.
51.
YouYWangZ (2020) The Internet, political trust, and regime types: a cross-national and multilevel analysis. Japanese Journal of Political Science21(2): 68–89.
