Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-6
The effect of exposure to digital appeals to participate in collective action posted by influentials on protest information sharing: Evidence from Japan and South Korea
Contemporary collective action theories put large horizontal digitally connected networks at the center of mass political action. They posit that information sharing among ordinary social media users makes possible new forms of rapid mass political action. However, recent research has shown that influential individuals can play a number of key roles in facilitating networked political action in seemingly leaderless movements. Still, the role of influential individuals in stimulating protest information sharing on social media is an important aspect of networked collective action that remains understudied. This study seeks to address this. Specifically, it investigates the following question: does exposure to appeals to engage in protest increase individuals’ motivation to share protest information? Drawing on evidence from an original survey experiment, this study shows that digital appeals to engage in collective action posted by influential individuals do elicit an increase in motivation to share the appeal. However, this result obtains only for Korean respondents, whereas influential appeals appear to have no effect on Japanese respondents. I argue that this difference is in part a function of different citizenship norms in the two countries, and the corresponding effects on social network dynamics. Preliminary analysis supports this interpretation, but further investigation is warranted.
BakshyECameronMItamarR, et al. (2012) The role of social networks in information discussion. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web, Lyon, France, pp. 519–528.
2.
BarnidgeMHuberBGil de ZunigaH, et al. (2018) Social media as a sphere for “risky” political expression: A twenty-country multilevel comparative analysis. The International Journal of Press/Politics23(2): 161–182. DOI: 10.1177/1940161218773838.
3.
BennettLSegerbergA (2012) The logic of connective action. Information, Communication & Society15(5): 739–768. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661.
4.
BennettLSegerbergA (2013) The Logic of Connective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BimberB (2001) Information and political engagement in America: The search for effects of information technology at the individual level. Political Research Quarterly54(1): 53–67.
6.
CastellsM (2012) Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. Chichester: Wiley.
7.
ChaMHaddadiHBenevenutoF, et al. (2010) Measuring user influence on Twitter: The million follower fallacy. In: Proceedings of the 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 23–26.
8.
ChoYHKimYC (2017) Cultural foundation of Korean democracy’s instability: What democracy do Koreans support?Journal of the Korean Political Science Association [Hankuk Jeongchi Hak Hoi Bo]51(5): 5–28.
9.
CopelandLFeezellJ (2017) The influence of citizenship norms and media use on different modes of political participation in the US. Political Studies65(4): 805–823.
10.
DaltonRJ (2008) Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Studies56(1): 76–98.
11.
DaltonRShinDC (2006) Citizens, Democracy, and Markets Around the Pacific Rim: Congruence Theory and political culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Dang-XuanLStieglitzSWladarschJ, et al. (2013) An investigation of influentials and the role of sentiment in political communication on Twitter during election periods. Information, Communication & Society16(5): 795–825. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.783608.
13.
DomingosPRichardsonM (2001) Mining the network value of customers. In: Proceedings of the seventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, August, pp. 57–66.
14.
EarlJKimportK (2011) Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in the Internet Age. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
15.
FreemanJ (1972) The tyranny of structurelessness. Berkeley Journal of Sociology17: 151–164.
16.
HaddadMA (2007) Politics and Volunteering in Japan: A Global Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
HoogheMOserJMarienS (2016) A comparative analysis of ‘good citizenship’: A latent class analysis of adolescents’ citizenship norms in 38 countries. International Political Science Review37(1): 115–129. DOI: 10.1177/0192512114541562.
18.
HuHHLinJCuiWT (2015) Local opinion heterogeneity and individual participation in collective behavior: A reconsideration. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation18(2): 6. DOI: 10.18564/jasss.2775.
19.
HuckfeldtRSpragueJ (1995) Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20.
HuckfeldtRMendezJMOsbornT (2004) Disagreement, ambivalence and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology25(1): 65–95.
21.
HuiCTriandisH (1986) Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology6: 225–248. DOI: 10.1177/0022002186017002006.
22.
InglehartR (1997) Modernization and Post-modernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
InoguchiT (2002) Broadening the basis of social capital in Japan. In: PutnamR (ed.) Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 359–392.
JenkinsMD (2019) Explaining cross-country variation in collective action in the digital era. Journal of Information Technology and Politics16(1): 1–19.
26.
JenkinsMD (2020) Contextualizing the effect of digital protest appeals on political self-expression: Evidence from a cross-case comparison. International Journal of Communication14: 6266–6285.
27.
KarpfD (2017). Analytic activism: Digital listening and the new political strategy. New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
KatzELazarsfeldP (1955) Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. New York: The Free Press.
29.
KendeAKvan ZomerenMUjhelyiA, et al. (2016) The social affirmation use of social media as a motivator of collective action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology46(8): 453–469.
30.
KisslerJHerbertCPeykP, et al. (2007) Buzzwords: Early cortical responses to emotional words during reading. Psychological Science18(6): 475–480. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01924.x.
31.
KwakHLeeCParkH, et al. (2010) What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, Raleigh, NC, USA, 26–30 April 2010, pp. 591–600.
32.
LazarsfeldPFBerelsonBGaudetH (1944) The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.
33.
McAdamDMcCarthyJDZaldMN (1996) Introduction: Opportunities, mobilizing structures, and framing processes – toward a synthetic, comparative perspective on social movements. In: McAdamDMcCarthyJDZaldMN (eds) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–20.
34.
MaclachlanPL (2002) Consumer Politics in Postwar Japan: The Boundaries of Citizen Activism. New York: Columbia University Press.
35.
McCarthyJDZaldMN (1977) Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology82(6): 1212–1241.
36.
McGartyCThomasEFLalaG, et al. (2014) New technologies, new identities, and the growth of mass opposition in the Arab Spring. Political Psychology35: 725–740. DOI: 10.1111/pops.12060.
37.
MiyataKYamamotoHOgawaY (2015) What affects the Spiral of Silence and the Hard Core on Twitter? An analysis of the nuclear power issue in Japan. American Behavioral Scientist59(9): 1129–1141. DOI: 10.1177/0002764215580618.
38.
MocanuDBaronchelliAPerraN, et al. (2013) The Twitter of Babel: Mapping world languages through microblogging platforms. PloS One8(4): e61981.DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061981.
39.
MutzD (2002) The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science46(4): 838–855.
40.
NirL (2005) Ambivalent social networks and their consequences for participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research17(4): 422–442. DOI: 10.1093/ijpor/edh069.
41.
NirL (2011) Disagreement and opposition in social networks: Does disagreement discourage turnout?Political Studies59(3): 674–692. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00873.x.
42.
Noelle-NeumannE (1993) The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion, Our Social Skin. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
43.
OgawaYYamamotoHKakukoM (2014) The effect that the majority recognition of the opinion and the homogeneity of the personal network structure bring for tweets in Twitter: Verification of the spiral of silence theory in Twitter focusing on the nuclear power generation. Transactions of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence29(5): 483–492.
44.
PoellTAbdullaRRiederB, et al. (2016) Protest leadership in the age of social media. Information, Communication & Society19(7): 994–1014. DOI:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1088049
RogersEM (1962) Discussion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
47.
SchenkMJersCTschortnerA (2009) Wer ist Meinungsfuhrer? – Zur Dierenzierung des Meinungsfuhrerkonzeptes. In: DahindenUSussDKonstanzUVK (eds) Kommunikationswissenschaft. Medienrealitaten.
48.
SiegelDA (2009) Social networks and collective action. American Journal of Political Science53(1): 122–138.
49.
SmithSMPettyRE (1996) Message framing and persuasion: A message processing analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin22(3): 257–268. DOI: 10.1177/0146167296223004.
50.
SongHJEvelandWPJr (2015) The structure of communication networks matters: How network diversity, centrality, and context influence political ambivalence, participation, and knowledge. Political Communication32(1): 83–108.
51.
Steinert-ThrelkeldZC (2017) Spontaneous collective action: Peripheral mobilization during the Arab Spring. American Political Science Review111(2): 379–403.
52.
TarrowS (2008) The strategy of paired comparison: Toward a theory of practice. Comparative Political Studies43(2): 230–259.
53.
TokinoyaH (1989) Testing the spiral of silence in East Asia. KEIO Communication Review10: 35–49.
54.
TrottV (2018) Connected feminists: Foregrounding the interpersonal in connective action. Australian Journal of Political Science53(1): 116–129. DOI: 10.1080/10361146.2017.1416583.
55.
TufekciZWilsonC (2012) Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication62: 363–379. DOI: 10.1111/j.14602466.2012.01629.x.
56.
ValenzuelaSParkNKeeKF (2009) Is there social capital in a social network site? Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14: 875–901.
57.
VinkenHNishimuraYWhiteBLJ, et al. (eds) (2010) Civic Engagement in Contemporary Japan: Established and Emerging Repertoires. New York: Springer.
58.
WassermanSFaustK (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
59.
WattsDDoddsP (2007) Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation, Journal of Consumer Research34(4): 441–458.
60.
ZhaoXZhanMWongCW (2018) Segmenting and understanding publics in a social media information sharing network: An interactional and dynamic approach. International Journal of Strategic Communication12(1): 25–45. DOI: 10.1080/1553118X.2017.1379013.
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.
