While social networking sites (SNSs) have become popular news platforms where people receive and post news, little is known about why some people are relatively more active in receiving and posting news on SNSs. Based on the uses and gratification perspective, this study investigates (a) the direct and indirect effects of online news seeking on SNS news posting, through SNS news exposure, (b) the role of technology adoption as a moderator between online news seeking and SNS news exposure, and (c) the role of media bias perceptions and partisanship strength as moderators between SNS news exposure and SNS news posting. Analysis of 2010 Pew Research Center Media Consumption Survey data (N = 2,259) reveal that online news seeking significantly predicts SNS news posting, both directly and indirectly. While technology adoption was not a significant moderator, media bias perception and partisanship strength significantly interacted with SNS news exposure in predicting SNS news posting.
AndersonR.DardenneR.KillenbergG. (1996). The conversation of journalism: Communication, community, and news (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger.
3.
BartelsL. (2000). Partisanship and voting behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 35–50.
4.
BlumlerJ. G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research, 6, 9–36.
5.
BryceJ. (1973). The American commonwealth (Vol. 3). London, England: Macmillan. (Original work published 1888)
6.
CampbellA.ConverseP.MillerW.StokesD. (1960). The American voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons; Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7.
ConroyM.FeezellJ.GuerreroM. (2012). Facebook and political engagement: A study of online political group membership and offline political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1535–1546.
8.
Delli CarpiniM.CookF.JacobsL. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315–344.
9.
DeSanctisG.PooleM. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5, 121–147.
10.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.
11.
DruckmanJ. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame?Journal of Politics, 63, 1041–1066.
12.
DunneÁ.LawlorM.RowleyJ. (2010). Young people’s use of online social networking sites—A uses and gratifications perspective. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 4, 46–58.
13.
EisensteinE. (1979). The printing press as an agent of change: Communications and cultural transformations in early-modern Europe (Vol. 2). Cambridge, England: Cambridge.
14.
EvelandW. P.Jr. (2001). The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news evidence from nonelection, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication Research, 28, 571–601.
15.
FinkelS.OppK. L. (1991). Party identification and participation in collective political action. The Journal of Politics, 53, 339–371.
16.
GastilJ.DillardJ. (1999). Increasing political sophistication through public deliberation. Political Communication, 16, 3–23.
17.
Gil de ZúñigaH.JungN.ValenzuelaS. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 331–336.
18.
GillmorD. (2004). We the media: Grassroots journalism by the people, for the people. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.
19.
GlynnC.HugeM.HoffmanL. (2012). All the news that’s fit to post: A profile of news use on social networking sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 113–119.
20.
GouldnerA. (1976). The dialectic of ideology and technology: The origins, grammar, and future of ideology. London, England: Macmillan.
21.
GreeneS. (2002). The social-psychological measurement of partisanship. Political Behavior, 24, 171–197.
22.
HabermasJ. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1) (McCarthyT., Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
HayesA. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420.
25.
HayesA. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
26.
HetheringtonM. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review, 95, 619–631.
27.
HolbertR. L.HillM.LeeJ. (2014). The political relevance of entertainment media. In ReinemannC. (Eds.), Handbooks of communication science, Vol. 18: Political communication (pp. 427–446). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
28.
HoltonV. (2011). Negating nodes and liquid fragmentation: Extending conversations of diffusion, social networks, and fragmentation. Communication Theory, 22, 279–298.
29.
HowardP.HussainM. (2011). The role of digital media. Journal of Democracy, 22, 35–48.
30.
HwangH.PanZ.SunY. (2008). Influence of hostile media perception on willingness to engage in discursive activities: An examination of mediating role of media indignation. Media Psychology, 11, 76–97.
KatzE. (1992). On parenting a paradigm: Gabriel Tarde’s agenda for opinion and communication research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 4, 80–85.
33.
KatzE.BlumlerJ. G.GurevitchM. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 509–523.
34.
KimJ.WyattR.KatsE. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16, 361–385.
35.
KochN. (1994). Changing times? The effect of The New York Times on college students’ political information and behavior. Social Science Journal, 31, 29–38.
LavineH. G.JohnstonC. D.SteenbergenM. R. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
38.
LeeE. J. (2012). That’s not the way it is: How user-generated comments on the news affect perceived media bias. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 32–45.
39.
LeeC. S.MaL. (2012). News sharing in social media: The effect of gratifications and prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 331–339.
40.
LimJ. S.GolanG. (2011). Social media activism in response to the influence of political parody videos on Youtube. Communication Research, 38, 710–727.
McLeodJ. M.ScheufeleD. A.MoyP.HorowitzE. M.HolbertR. L.ZhangW.…ZubricJ. (1999). Understanding deliberation the effects of discussion networks on participation in a public forum. Communication Research, 26, 743–774.
43.
MinS. J. (2007). Online vs. face-to-face deliberation: Effects on civic engagement. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1369–1387.
44.
NermeenS. (2011). Towards the Egyptian revolution: Activists’ perceptions of social media for mobilization. Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research, 4, 273–209.
45.
PattieC.JohnstonR. (2009). Conversation, disagreement, and political participation. Political Behavior, 31, 261–285.
46.
PreacherK.HayesA. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.
PriceV. (2006). Citizens deliberating online: Theory and some evidence. In DaviesT.NoveckB. S. (Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, research and practice (pp. 37–58). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
49.
PriceV.CappellaJ. (2002). Online deliberation and its influence: The electronic dialogue project in campaign 2000. IT & Society, 1, 303–329.
RahnW. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472–496.
RogersE. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
54.
RojasH. (2010). “Corrective” actions in the public sphere: How perceptions of media and media effects shape political behaviors. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22, 343–363.
55.
RuggieroT. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication and Society, 3, 3–37.
SobelM. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structure. Sociological Methodology, 16, 159–186.
59.
StanleyJ.WeareC. (2004). The effects of Internet use on political participation: Evidence from an agency online discussion forum. Administration & Society, 36, 503–527.
60.
StreinerD. L. (2003). Being inconsistent about consistency: When coefficient alpha does and doesn’t matter. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 217–222.
TardeG. (1989). Opinion and conversation (RuthJ., Trans.). Unpublished translation of L’opinion et la foule [Mass opinion]. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France. (Original work published 1899)
63.
Van DijkJ. (2000). Widening information gaps and policies of prevention. In HackerK. L.van DijkJ. (Eds.), Digital democracy: Issues of theory & practice (pp. 166–183). London, England: Sage.
64.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425–478.
65.
VishwanathA. (2009). From belief-importance to intention: The impact of framing on technology adoption. Communication Monographs, 76, 177–206.
66.
WeeksB.HolbertR. L. (2013). Predicting dissemination of news content in social media: A focus on reception, friending, and partisanship. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 90, 212–232.
67.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
