The differential gains model has lent credence to the fact that the positive association between news consumption and political engagement differs across people who discuss politics more often and those who do not. This study extends the original differential gains model by incorporating a second moderator, political trust, and replicating in three Asian societies: Japan, Taiwan, and Mainland China. In addition to the main associations, results lent partial support to the original hypothesis in the context of Japan. Moreover, a three-way interaction emerged in China Mainland. That is, among Chinese who have higher levels of political social media use, those who discuss politics more often and distrust political institutions showed higher levels of civic engagement. This study advances the original differential gains model into a moderated moderation model. Beyond the communicative factors, results revealed the importance of political trust in buffering media effects.
AdlerRPGogginJ (2005)
What do we mean by civic engagement?Journal of Transformative Education3(3): 236–253.
2.
AlmondGVerbaS (1963) The Civic Culture.
Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
3.
BélangerÉNadeauR (2005)
Political trust and the vote in multiparty elections: The Canadian case. European Journal of Political Research44(1): 121–146.
4.
BodeL (2017)
Gateway political behaviors: The frequency and consequences of low-cost political engagement on social media. Social Media + Society3(4): 1–10.
5.
BoulianneS (2015)
Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society18(5): 524–538.
6.
BrundidgeJGarrettRKRojasH, et al. (2014)
Political participation and ideological news online: “Differential gains” and “differential losses” in a presidential election cycle. Mass Communication and Society17(4): 464–486.
7.
CacciatoreMAMengJReberBH, et al. (2018)
Globalization effects or a growing cultural divide? A three-year comparative analysis of trust predictors in the US and China. Chinese Journal of Communication11(1): 45–65.
8.
ChenCBaiYWangR (2019)
Online political efficacy and political participation: A mediation analysis based on the evidence from Taiwan. New Media & Society21(8): 1667–1696.
9.
ChenHTChanMLeeFLF (2016)
Social media use and democratic engagement: A comparative study of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and China. Chinese Journal of Communication9(4): 348–366.
10.
ChengYLiangJLeungL (2015)
Social network service use on mobile devices: An examination of gratifications, civic attitudes and civic engagement in China. New Media & Society17(7): 1096–1116.
11.
DahlgrenP (2005)
The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication22(2): 147–162.
12.
DimitrovaD VShehataAStrömbäckJ, 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.
13.
Economist Intelligence Unit (2018) Democracy Index 2018: Me Too? Political Participation, Protest and Democracy.
London:
EIU.
GibsonJL (2001)
Social networks, civil society, and the prospects for consolidating Russia’s democratic transition. American Journal of Political Science45(1): 51–68.
16.
Gil de ZúñigaHGarcia-PerdomoVMcGregorSC (2015)
What is second screening? Exploring motivations of second screen use and its effect on online political participation. Journal of Communication65(5): 793–815.
17.
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.
18.
Gil de ZúñigaHValenzuelaSWeeksBE (2016)
Motivations for political discussion: Antecedents and consequences on civic engagement. Human Communication Research42(4): 533–552.
19.
GoodwinJJasperJM (2006) Emotions and social movements. In: StetsJETurnerJH (eds) Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research (pp. 611–636).
Boston, MA:
Springer.
20.
GroshekJCutinoC (2016)
Meaner on mobile: Incivility and impoliteness in communicating contentious politics on sociotechnical networks. Social Media + Society2(4): 1–10.
21.
HalupkaM (2014)
Clicktivism: A systematic heuristic. Policy & Internet6(2): 115–132.
22.
HardyBWScheufeleDA (2005)
Examining differential gains from internet use: Comparing the moderating role of talk and online interactions. Journal of Communication55(1): 71–84.
23.
HayesAF (2013) An Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach.
New York, NY:
Guilford publications.
24.
HinenoyaKGatbontonE (2000)
Ethnocentrism, cultural traits, beliefs, and English proficiency: A Japanese sample. The Modern Language Journal84(2): 225–240.
25.
HsiehYPLiMH (2014)
Online political participation, civic talk, and media multiplexity: How Taiwanese citizens express political opinions on the web. Information Communication and Society17(1): 26–44.
26.
IkedaKILiuJHAidaM, et al. (2005)
Dynamics of interpersonal political environment and party identification: Longitudinal studies of voting in Japan and New Zealand. Political Psychology26(4): 517–542.
27.
InglehartRKlingemannH-D (2000) Genes, culture, democracy, and happiness. In: DienerESuhEM (eds) Culture and Subjective Well-Being.
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, pp. 165–184.
28.
JasperJM (1998)
The emotions of protest: Affective and reactive emotions in and around social movements. Sociological Forum13(3): 397–424.
29.
KaaseM (1999)
Interpersonal trust, political trust and non‐institutionalised political participation in Western Europe. West European Politics22(3): 1–21.
30.
KarpfD (2010)
Online political mobilization from the advocacy group’s perspective: Looking beyond clicktivism. Policy & Internet2(4): 7–41.
31.
KatzELazarsfeldP (1955) Personal Influence.
New York, NY:
The Free Press.
32.
KenskiKStroudNJ (2006)
Connections between internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media50(2): 173–192.
33.
Kent JenningsMZeitnerV (2003)
Internet use and civic engagement: A longitudinal analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly67(3): 311–334.
34.
KimHHS (2014)
Generalised trust, institutional trust and political participation: A cross-national study of fourteen southeast and Central Asian countries. Asian Journal of Social Science42(6): 695–721.
35.
KimYChenHT (2016)
Social media and online political participation: The mediating role of exposure to cross-cutting and like-minded perspectives. Telematics and Informatics33(2): 320–330.
36.
KimYHsuSHde ZúñigaHG (2013)
Influence of social media use on discussion network heterogeneity and civic engagement: The moderating role of personality traits. Journal of Communication63(3): 498–516.
37.
LanamäkiARajanenMÖÖRniA, et al. (2015). Once you step over the first line, you become sensitized to the next: towards a gateway theory of online participation. In: ICIS 2015. Thirty sixth international conference on information systems, Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 13–16 December 2015. USA:
AIS, pp. 1–17.
38.
LeeSH (2017)
Digital democracy in Asia: The impact of the Asian internet on political participation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics14(1): 62–82.
39.
LiXChanM (2017)
Comparing social media use, discussion, political trust and political engagement among university students in China and Hong Kong: An application of the O–S–R–O–R model. Asian Journal of Communication27(1): 65–81.
40.
LiuJHIkedaKIWilsonMS (1998)
Interpersonal environment effects on political preferences: The “Middle path” for conceptualizing social structure in New Zealand and Japan. Political Behavior20(3): 183–212.
41.
LoaderBDMerceaD (2011)
Networking democracy? Social media innovations and participatory politics. Information, Communication & Society14(6): 757–769.
42.
LotanGGraeffEAnannyM, et al. (2011)
The revolutions were tweeted: Information flows during the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. International Journal of Communication5: 1375–1405.
43.
McLarenL (2012)
Immigration and trust in politics in Britain. British Journal of Political Science42(1): 163–185.
44.
McLeodJMScheufeleDAMoyP (1999)
Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication16(3): 315–336.
45.
MakitaTIdaM (2001)
Highlights of value change in Japan. International Journal of Public Opinion Research13(4): 426–432.
46.
MillerAHListhaugO (1990)
Political parties and confidence in government: A comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States. British Journal of Political Science20(3): 357–386.
47.
NeoRL (2019)
Mediation or moderation? Examining how politically like-minded and dissimilar conversations influence the relationship between social media political information consumption and political participation. Communication Studies70(2): 151–171.
48.
NisbetMCScheufeleDA (2004)
Political talk as a catalyst for online citizenship. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly81(4): 877–896.
49.
RanWYamamotoM (2015)
Attitudinal ambivalence as a protective factor against junk food advertisements: A moderated mediation model of behavioral intention. Journal of Health Communication20(8): 893–902.
50.
SaherNNazSTasleemI, et al. (2013)
Does paternalistic leadership lead to commitment? Trust in leader as moderator in Pakistani context. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business5(1): 443–455.
51.
SaitoS (2008)
Television and political alienation: Does television news induce political cynicism and inefficacy in Japan?International Journal of Japanese Sociology17(1): 101–113.
52.
SantosAVegasSUyaguariF, et al. (2020)
Increasing validity through replication: An illustrative TDD case. Software Quality Journal28(2): 371–295.
53.
ScheufeleDA (2002)
Examining differential gains from mass media and their implications for participatory behavior. Communication Research29(1): 46–65.
54.
ShahDMcLeodJYoonS (2001)
Communication, context, and community: An exploration of print, broadcast, and internet influences. Communication Research28(4): 464–506.
55.
ShinD (2011) Confucianism and Democratization in East Asia.
New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
56.
SkoricMMZhuQPangN (2016)
Social media, political expression, and participation in Confucian Asia. Chinese Journal of Communication9(4): 331–347.
SuYXiaoX (2020)
Beyond the differential gains model: The effects of authoritarian orientation, social media use, and political discussion on political participation in Taiwan and South Korea. Atlantic Journal of Communication28(4): 241–256.
59.
TangGLeeFLF (2013)
Facebook use and political participation: The impact of exposure to shared political information, connections with public political actors, and network structural heterogeneity. Social Science Computer Review31(6): 763–773.
60.
Torney-PurtaJBarberCHRichardsonWK (2004)
Trust in government-related institutions and political engagement among adolescents in six countries. Acta Politica39(4): 380–406.
61.
TufekciZ (2014)
Social movements and governments in the digital age: Evaluating a complex landscape. Journal of International Affairs68(1): 1–18.
62.
TufekciZWilsonC (2012)
Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir square. Journal of Communication62(2): 363–379.
63.
WeeksEC (2000)
The practice of deliberative democracy: Results from four large‐scale trials. Public Administration Review60(4): 360–372.
64.
WojcieszakMEMutzDC (2009)
Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement? Journal of Communication59(1): 40–56.
65.
XenosMMoyP (2007)
Direct and differential effects of the internet on political and civic engagement. Journal of Communication57(4): 704–718.
66.
XenosMVromenALoaderBD (2014)
The great equalizer? Patterns of social media use and youth political engagement in three advanced democracies. Information Communication & Society17(2): 151–167.
67.
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.
68.
YamamotoMNahS (2018)
Mobile information seeking and political participation: A differential gains approach with offline and online discussion attributes. New Media & Society20(5): 2070–2090.
69.
YangHCDeHartJL (2016)
Social media use and online political participation among college students during the US election 2012. Social.Media + Society2(1): 1–18.
70.
YuCH (2005)
The evolving party system in Taiwan, 1995–2004. Journal of Asian and African Studies40(1–2): 105–123.
71.
ZhangNSkoricMM (2018)
Media use and environmental engagement: Examining differential gains from news media and social media. International Journal of Communication12: 1–24.
72.
ZhangW (2012)
The effects of political news use, political discussion and authoritarian orientation on political participation: Evidences from Singapore and Taiwan. Asian Journal of Communication22(5): 474–492.
73.
ZhongZWangTHuangM (2017)
Does the great fire wall cause self-censorship? The effects of perceived internet regulation and the justification of regulation. Internet Research27(4): 974–990.
74.
ZulkarnainZPPrasojoE (2020)
Understanding Japan’s civil service system: Norms, meritocracy, and institutional change. Policy & Governance Review5(1): 1–17.
