Numerous studies have shown that platform differences can affect users’ online political engagement. However, there are few studies exploring the impact of different terminals on the online political engagement of netizens on the same platform. To explore this issue, this study captured user messages from four different terminals of the Leadership Message Board on People's Daily Online: the WeChat Mini Program; application client; mobile webpage; and PC webpage. The aim was to discover the differences in user political engagement behavior when using different terminals for the same platform. The findings show that although users try to engage in political issues online on the same platform with similar purposes, the differences in what terminal they use to access it significantly affect the results of such engagement. Concepts of “rehearsal space,” “psychological ownership,” and “redirection convenience” are introduced to help explain this phenomenon.
AlbertI. O. (2009). Whose e-governance?: A critique of online citizen engagement in Africa. International Journal of EBusiness and EGovernment Studies, 1(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.18278/aia.5.1.5
2.
AndersenK.StrömbackJ. (2021). Media platforms and political learning: The democratic challenge of news consumption on computers and mobile devices. International Journal of Communication, 15(1), 300–319. https://doi.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/15511/3320
3.
AndersonC. L.AgarwalR. (2010). Practicing safe computing: A multimethod empirical examination of home computer user security behavioral intentions. MIS Quarterly, 34(3), 613–643. https://doi.org/10.2307/25750694
4.
AppelM.MengelkampC. (2022). Watching videos on a smartphone: Do small screens impair narrative transportation?Media Psychology, 25(5), 653–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2021.2025109
5.
AsenbaumH. (2021). Rethinking digital democracy: From the disembodied discursive self to new materialist corporealities. Communication Theory, 31(3), 360–379. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtz033
6.
BlaschkeM.HakiK.AierS.WinterR. (2019). Taxonomy of digital platforms: A platform architecture perspective. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 1(1), 572–586. http://doi.org/wi2019/track06/papers/3/
7.
BleiD. M.NgA. Y.JordanM. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(Jan), 993–1022. https://doi.org/10.5555/944919.944937
8.
BossettaM. (2018). The digital architectures of social media: Comparing political campaigning on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat in the 2016 US election. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(2), 471–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699018763307
9.
BoulianneS. (2020). Twenty years of digital media effects on civic and political participation. Communication Research, 47(7), 947–966. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218808186
10.
BoulianneS.LarssonA. O. (2023). Engagement with candidate posts on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook during the 2019 election. New Media & Society, 25(1), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211009504
11.
BovillM.LivingstoneS. (2013). Bedroom culture and the privatization of media use. In LivingstoneS.BovillM. (Eds.), Children and their changing media environment (pp. 179–200). Routledge.
12.
BrusseeV. (2022). Authoritarian design: How the digital architecture on China’s Sina Weibo facilitate information control. Asiascape: Digital Asia, 9(3), 207–241. https://doi.org/10.1163/22142312-bja10033
13.
CalistaD. J.MelitskiJ. (2007). E-government and e-governance: Converging constructs of public sector information and communications technologies. Public Administration Quarterly, 34(1/2), 87–120. https://doi.org/stable/41288283
14.
ChenH. T.ChanM.LeeF. L. (2016). Social media use and democratic engagement: A comparative study of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and China. Chinese Journal of Communication, 9(4), 348–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2016.1210182
15.
ChenS.WangJ. (2024). Virtual reality human–computer interactive English education experience system based on mobile terminal. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(13), 3560–3569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2190674
16.
ChenZ.ChanM. (2017). Motivations for social media use and impact on political participation in China: A cognitive and communication mediation approach. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(2), 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0174
17.
DelgoshaM. S.HajiheydariN. (2021). How human users engage with consumer robots? A dual model of psychological ownership and trust to explain post-adoption behaviours. Computers in Human Behavior, 117(2), 106660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106660
18.
DitchfieldH. (2020). Behind the screen of Facebook: Identity construction in the rehearsal stage of online interaction. New Media & Society, 22(6), 927–943. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819873644
19.
DourishP.BellG. (2007). The infrastructure of experience and the experience of infrastructure: Meaning and structure in everyday encounters with space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34(3), 414–430. https://doi.org/10.1068/b32035t
20.
DubowT.DevauxA.ManvilleC. (2017). Civic engagement: how can digital technology encourage greater engagement in civil society?RAND Europe .
21.
EkströmM.ShehataA. (2018). Social media, porous boundaries, and the development of online political engagement among young citizens. New Media & Society, 20(2), 740–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816670325
EvansS. K.PearceK. E.VitakJ.TreemJ. W. (2017). Explicating affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12180
FarS. B.RadA. I. (2022). Applying digital twins in metaverse: User interface, security and privacy challenges. Journal of Metaverse, 2(1), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.5220/0012296500003648
26.
FischerS.LelkesY. (2023). Emotion, affective polarization, and online communication. Emotions in the Digital World: Exploring Affective Experience and Expression in Online Interactions, 1(1), 401–421. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197520536.003.0021
27.
GanC. (2017). Understanding WeChat users’ liking behavior: An empirical study in China. Computers in Human Behavior, 68(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.002
28.
GleissM. S.SætherE. (2017). Approaches to civil society in authoritarian states: The case of China. Sociology Compass, 11(12), e12542. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12542
29.
GuanT.ChenX. (2023). The emerging scientific public sphere in China’s digital economy: Weibo discussions on facial recognition technology. Public Understanding of Science, 32(2), 208–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221113957
30.
Haro-de-RosarioA.Sáez-MartínA.del Carmen Caba-PérezM. (2018). Using social media to enhance citizen engagement with local government: Twitter or Facebook?New Media & Society, 20(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816645652
31.
HelmondA. (2013). The algorithmization of the hyperlink. Computational Culture, 3(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/2012/01/14/1206167
32.
HuangY.WangL. (2021). Political values and political trust in the digital era: How media engagement divides Chinese netizens. International Journal of Sociology, 51(3), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207659.2021.1881870
33.
HugentoblerL. (2022). The Instagram interview: Talking to people about travel experiences across online and offline spaces. Media and Communication, 10(3), 247–260. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i3.5340
34.
IosifidisP. (2011). The public sphere, social networks and public service media. Information, Communication & Society, 14(5), 619–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2010.514356
Koc-MichalskaK.LillekerD. G.VedelT. (2016). Civic political engagement and social change in the new digital age. New Media & Society, 18(9), 1807–1816. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815616218
37.
LeeS.NanzA.HeissR. (2022). Platform-dependent effects of incidental exposure to political news on political knowledge and political participation. Computers in Human Behavior, 127(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107048
38.
Lee-GeillerS.LeeT. D. (2019). Using government websites to enhance democratic e-governance: A conceptual model for evaluation. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 208–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.003
39.
MaZ.CaoY. (2023). Political participation in China: Towards a new definition and typology. Social Sciences, 12(10), 531. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12100531
40.
MacaranasA.AntleA. N.RieckeB. E. (2015). What is intuitive interaction? Balancing users’ performance and satisfaction with natural user interfaces. Interacting with Computers, 27(3), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwv003
41.
MariappanP. M.RaghavanD. R.AleemS. H. A.ZobaaA. F. (2016). Effects of electromagnetic interference on the functional usage of medical equipment by 2G/3G/4G cellular phones: A review. Journal of Advanced Research, 7(5), 727–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2016.04.004
42.
McGillT.ThompsonN. (2017). Old risks, new challenges: Exploring differences in security between home computer and mobile device use. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(11), 1111–1124. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2017.1352028
43.
MutsvairoB.dos SantosF. O.ChitananaT. (2023). De-westernizing digital politics: A global south viewpoint. In ColemanS. (Ed.), Handbook of digital politics (pp. 16–58). Edward Elgar Publishing.
44.
PapacharissiZ. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: A comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media & Society, 11(1–2), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444808099577
45.
PierceJ. L.KostovaT.DirksK. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84
46.
PostillJ. (2020). Digital politics and political engagement. In HorstH.MillerD. (Eds.), Digital anthropology (pp. 165–184). Routledge.
47.
PourazadN.StocchiL.NarseyS. (2023). A comparison of social media influencers’ KPI patterns across platforms: Exploring differences in followers and engagement on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Twitter.Journal of Advertising Research, 63(2), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2023-008
48.
RonzhynA.CardenalA. S.Batlle RubioA. (2023). Defining affordances in social media research: A literature review. New Media & Society, 25(11), 3165–3188. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221135187
49.
RosenbergH.Vogelman-NatanK. (2022). The (other) two percent also matter: The construction of mobile phone refusers. Mobile Media & Communication, 10(2), 216–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/20501579211033885
50.
SuW. (2016). A virtual public sphere and its limitations – Microblog, online civic engagement in China and its interplay with the state. The Journal of International Communication, 22(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13216597.2015.1076734
51.
WagnerK. M.GainousJ.AbbottJ. P. (2021). Gender differences in critical digital political engagement in China: The consequences for protest attitudes. Social Science Computer Review, 39(2), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319865907
52.
WeismuellerJ.HarriganP.CoussementK.TessitoreT. (2022). What makes people share political content on social media? The role of emotion, authority and ideology. Computers in Human Behavior, 129(2), 107150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107150
53.
XuP.JohnsonK.RundlettA. (2022). E-participation in contemporary China: A comparison with conventional offline participation. Chinese Public Administration Review, 13(3), 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/15396754221107115
54.
YanH.TingY. (2018). The effectiveness of online citizen evaluation of government performance: A study of the perceptions of local bureaucrats in China. Public Personnel Management, 47(4), 419–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026018767475
55.
YangZ.VicariS. (2021). The pandemic across platform societies: Weibo and Twitter at the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic in China and the West. Howard Journal of Communications, 32(5), 493–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2021.1945510
56.
Yeo, H. S., Lee, B. G., & Lim, H. (2015). Hand tracking and gesture recognition system for humancomputer interaction using low-cost hardware. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 74, 2687–2715.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-013-1501-1
57.
Zhang, N. D. Y., Zhen, X. Y., & Zhao, Q. X. (2023). Government responsiveness: The “full response” model as daily governance – Empirical analysis of local government service “immediate response to complaints” based on LDA theme modeling[政府回应性：作为日常治理的”全回应”模式––基于LDA主题建模的地方政务服务”接诉即办”实证分析]. 中国行政管理/ Chinese Administrative Management, 12(03), 68–78.
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.
