Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Individuals’ political internet use has been identified as a determinant of democratic attitudes. But awareness of online government surveillance and content restrictions may prohibit citizens from freely using the internet for democratic socialization. Using a comparative survey in the United States and Russia, this study explores how perceived internet freedom influences support for democracy by relatively constraining or expanding citizens’ worldviews. Implications for global democratic backsliding are discussed.

Keywords

democracy internet freedom relative deprivation censorship surveillance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Almond

Verba

1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Anckar

Fredriksson

2019. “Classifying Political Regimes 1800-2016: A Typology and a New Dataset.” European Political Science 18:84–96.

Babayan

2016. “The Return of the Empire? Russia’s Counteraction to Transatlantic Democracy Promotion in Its Near Abroad.” Democratization 22 (3): 438–58.

Bailard

C. S.

2014. Democracy’s Double-Edged Sword: How Internet Use Changes Citizens’ Views of Their Government. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Barnidge

Huber

Gil de Zúñiga

Liu

J. H.

2018. “Social Media as a Sphere for “Risky” Political Expression: A Twenty-Country Multilevel Comparative Analysis.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 23 (2): 161–82.

Behrouzian

Nisbet

E. C.

Dal

Çarkoğlu

2016. “Resisting Censorship: How Citizens Navigate Closed Media Environments.” International Journal of Communication 10:4345–67.

Boas

T. C.

Christenson

D. P.

Glick

D. M.

2018. “Recruiting Large Online Samples in the United States and India: Facebook, Mechanical Turk, and Qualtrics.” Political Science Research and Methods 8 (2): 232–50. doi:10.1017/psrm.2018.28.

Bratton

Mattes

Gyimah-Boadi

2005. Public Opinion, Democracy, and Market Reform in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Breuer

Groshek

2014. “Online Media and Offline Empowerment in Post-Rebellion Tunisia: An Analysis of Internet Use during Democratic Transition.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 11 (1): 25–44.

10.

Christensen

Groshek

2019. “Emerging Media, Political Protests, and Government Repression in Autocracies and Democracies from 1995 to 2012.” International Communication Gazette. Published electronically January 30. doi: 10.1177/1748048518825323.

11.

Claassen

2020. “Does Public Support Help Democracy Survive?” American Journal of Political Science 64:118–34.

12.

Couldry

2017. “Surveillance-Democracy.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 14 (2): 182–88.

13.

Dahl

1971. Polyarchy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

14.

Easton

1957. “An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems.” World Politics 9 (3): 383–400.

15.

Ellemers

Wilke

Vanknippenberg

1993. “Effects of the Legitimacy of Low Group or Individual Status on Individual and Collective Status Enhancement Strategies.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64 (5): 766–78.

16.

Esser

2013. “The Emerging Paradigm of Comparative Communication Enquiry: Advancing Cross-National Research in Times of Globalization.” International Journal of Communication 7 (2): 113–28.

17.

Fishkin

2016. “Deliberative Democracy.” In Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource, edited by Scott

R. A.

Kosslyn

S. M.

Buchmann

M. C.

, 1–16. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

18.

Freedom House. 2019. “Freedom in the World 2018: Democracy in Crisis.” https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2018.

19.

Gainous

Wagner

Gray

2016. “Internet Freedom and Social Media Effects: Democracy and Citizen Attitudes in Latin America.” Online Information Review 40 (5): 712–38.

20.

Greitemeyer

Sagioglou

2016. “Subjective Socioeconomic Status Causes Aggression: A Test of the Theory of Social Deprivation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 111 (2): 178–94.

21.

Guriev

S. M.

Treisman

2017. “The Popularity of Authoritarian Leaders: A Cross-National Investigation.” doi:10.2139/ssrn.2882915.

22.

Gutmann

Thompson

D. F.

2009. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.

23.

Habermas

1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

24.

Hayes

A. F.

Glynn

C. J.

Shanahan

2005. “Willingness to Self-Censor: A Construct and Measurement Tool for Public Opinion Research.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17 (3): 298–323.

25.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.

26.

Helsper

E. J.

2017. “The Social Relativity of Digital Exclusion: Applying Relative Deprivation Theory to Digital Inequalities.” Communication Theory 27:223–42.

27.

Howard

P. N.

Hussain

M. M.

2013. Democracy’s Fourth Wave? Digital Media and the Arab Spring. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

28.

Jee

2019. “Russia Wants to Cut Itself Off from the Global Internet. Here’s What That Really Means. MIT Technology Review, March 21. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613138/russia-wants-to-cut-itself-off-from-the-global-internet-heres-what-that-really-means/.

29.

Keller

W. W.

2017. Democracy Betrayed: The Rise of the Surveillance Security State. Chicago: Catapult.

30.

Kirsch

Welzel

2019. “Democracy Misunderstood: Authoritarian Notions of Democracy around the Globe.” Social Forces 98 (1): 59–92.

31.

Landa

Meirowitz

2009. “Game Theory, Information, and Deliberative Democracy.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (2): 427–44.

32.

Leung

D. K. K.

Lee

F. L. F.

2014. “Cultivating an Active Online Counterpublic: Examining Usage and Political Impact of Internet Alternative Media.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 19 (3): 340–59.

33.

Levitsky

Ziblatt

2018. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown Publishing.

34.

Lührmann

Lindberg

S. I.

2019. “A Third Wave of Autocratization Is Here: What Is New about It?” Democratization 26 (7): 1095–1113.

35.

Marshall

M. G.

Gurr

T. R.

Jaggers

2017. “Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2016 Dataset Users’ Manual.” https://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4manualv2016.pdf.

36.

Mattes

2018. “Support for Democracy. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, edited by Thompson

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

37.

Meuleman

Abts

Schmidt

Pettigrew

T. F.

Davidov

2019. “Economic Conditions, Relative Deprivation and Ethnic Threat Perceptions: A Cross-National Perspective.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 46 (3): 593–611. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2018.1550157.

38.

Morgus

Sherman

Initiative

(2018). The Idealized Internet vs. Internet Realities (Version 1.0).

39.

Mou

Atkin

2016. “Understanding the Use of Circumvention Tools to Bypass Online Censorship.” New Media & Society 18 (5): 837–56.

40.

Niemi

R. G.

Craig

S. C.

Mattei

1991. “Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study.” American Political Science Review 85 (4): 1407–13.

41.

Nisbet

E. C.

Kamenchuk

Dal

2017. “A Psychological Firewall? Risk Perceptions and Public Support for Online Censorship in Russia.” Social Science Quarterly 98 (3): 959–75.

42.

Nisbet

E. C.

Stoycheff

(2013). Let the people speak: A multilevel model of supply and demand for press freedom. Communication Research 40 (5): 720–41.

43.

Nisbet

E. C.

Stoycheff

Pearce

K. E.

2012. “Internet Use and Democratic Demands: A Multinational, Multilevel Model of Internet Use and Citizen Attitudes about Democracy.” Journal of Communication 62 (2): 249–65.

44.

Plattner

M. F.

(2015). Is democracy in decline? Journal of Democracy 26 (1): 5–10.

45.

Pettigrew

T. F.

2015. “Samuel Stouffer and Relative Deprivation.” Social Psychology Quarterly 78 (1): 7–24.

46.

Reporters Sans Frontières. (2020). Index Details: Data of Press Freedom Ranking 2019. Retrieved from: https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table

47.

Schedler

2009. “Electoral Authoritarianism.” In The SAGE Handbook of Comparative Politics, eds. Landman

Todd

Robinson

Neil

, 381–94. Chicago: Sage.

48.

Shen

2017. “Internet Use, Freedom Supply, and Demand for Internet Freedom: A Cross-National Study of 20 Countries.” International Journal of Communication 11:2093–2114.

49.

Smith

H. J.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Pippin.

G. M.

Bialosiewicz

2012. “Relative Deprivation: A Theoretical and Meta-Analytic Review.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 16 (3): 203–32.

50.

Stouffer

S. A.

Suchman

E. A.

DeVinney

L. C.

Star

S. A.

Williams

R. M.

Jr.

1949. The American Soldier: Adjustment during Army Life (Studies in Social Psychology in World War II.). Oxford: Princeton University Press.

51.

Stoycheff

2016. “Under Surveillance: Examining Facebook’s Spiral of Silence Effects in the Wake of NSA Internet Monitoring.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 93 (2): 296–311.

52.

Stoycheff

Burgess

G. S.

Martucci

M. C.

2018. “Online Censorship and Digital Surveillance: The Relationship between Suppression Technologies and Democratization across Countries.” Information, Communication & Society 23 (4): 474–90. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2018.1518472.

53.

Stoycheff

Nisbet

E. C.

Epstein

2016. “Differential Effects of Capital-Enhancing and Recreational Internet Use on Citizens’ Demand for Democracy.” Communication Research. Published electronically April 25. doi:10.1177/0093650216644645.

54.

Teti

Abbott

Cavatorta

2019. “Beyond Elections: Perceptions of Democracy in four Arab Countries.” Democratization 26:645–65.

55.

Varieties of Democracy. 2019. “Democracy Facing Global Challenges: V-Dem Annual Democracy Report.” https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/99/de/99dedd73-f8bc-484c-8b91-44ba601b6e6b/v-dem_democracy_report_2019.pdf.

56.

Walker

Mann

1987. “Unemployment, Relative Deprivation and Social Protest.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 13 (2): 275–83.

57.

Wang

Mark

2015. “Internet Censorship in China: Examining User Awareness and Attitudes.” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 22 (6): 31.

58.

Wike

Simmons

Stokes

Fetterolf

2017. “Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2017/10/16/globally-broad-support-for-representative-and-direct-democracy/.

Relatively Democratic: How Perceived Internet Interference Shapes Attitudes about Democracy

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References