Machackova, H.,
& Šerek, J. (2017).
Does ‘clicking’ matter? The role of online participation in adolescents’ civic
development. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on
Cyberspace, 11(4), article 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/CP2017-4-5
Does ‘clicking’ matter? The role of online
participation in adolescents’ civic development
Hana Machackova & Jan Šerek
Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Brno,
Czech Republic
Abstract
This study focuses
on the role of online civic participation in the civic development of
adolescents. We build on the assumption that online civic participation differs
from more traditional offline civic participation in several key
characteristics, namely lacking proximity to other actors, possible
disconnection between civic actions and their outcomes, and a reduced hierarchy
within the online environment. Considering these specifics, the study examined
the longitudinal effect of online participation on the development of civic
identity, political self-efficacy, and attitudes toward social authorities.
Concurrently, we contrasted the impact of online participation with the impact
of offline civic participation. Data from a survey-based two-wave panel study
conducted in Spring 2014 and Autumn 2015 in the Czech Republic were utilized.
The sample comprised 768 adolescents (aged 14-17 in T1; 54% females). The
results showed that online participation predicted increased challenging
attitudes towards social authorities, while offline participation had the
opposite effect. Furthermore, online participation had no effect on political
self-efficacy or civic development, but offline participation positively
predicted civic identity. The findings are discussed with regard to the
specific benefits and limits of online civic participation.
Keywords: Online
participation; adolescence; civic development
Introduction
Civic development is the process during which people become aware of public
issues, develop their socio-political attitudes, and engage in various civic
and political activities (e.g., Sherrod, Torney-Purta, & Flanagan, 2010;
Yates & Youniss, 1998; Zaff, Malanchuk, & Eccles, 2008). These
activities are usually conceptualized as political and civic participation, though the specific
conceptualizations differ across various studies. As noted in review conducted
by Lutz, Hoffmann, and Meckel (2014), common definition of political
participation is one articulated by Verba, Schlozman, and Brady (1995, p.7),
denoting it as an “activity that is intended to or has the consequences of
affecting, either directly or indirectly, government action”. Civic
participation is defined in a broader sense, such as “citizens’ individual and
collective involvement in public affairs” (Park & Perry, 2008, p. 191).
Although civic development can be understood as a never-ending, life-long
process, numerous scholars pointed out the prominent role of adolescence in it
(for a review, see Sears & Brown, 2013). The main explanation is that
adolescents, compared to older age groups, are characterized by a relative
openness to socialization influences and subsequent attitude changes (Alwin
& Krosnick, 1991; Krosnick & Alwin, 1989). In this context, there has
been a growing emphasis on the fact that adolescents develop their
sociopolitical attitudes not only through the transmission of attitudes from
their families, schools, or media, but also through their own civic
participation (Quintelier & van Deth, 2014). Although adolescents are
typically not eligible to vote, they can become engaged in public issues
through other activities, such as taking part in political discussions, doing
voluntary work for civil associations, signing petitions, or wearing clothing
and accessories with social or political messages. It has been proposed that
through these civic activities, young people might develop their civic
identities (Yates & Youniss, 1998), sense of agency (Beaumont, 2010; 2011),
or other sociopolitical attitudes (Quintelier & van Deth, 2014).
However, participatory activities differ in their
impact on civic development. The recent debates often centered on the role of
the internet activities and online participation. Online participation is
analogous to offline participation, however, it is enhanced by conducting
specific actions in the online environment, such as through social media (see
Lutz et al., 2014). Additionally, as online and offline civic participation
differ in several characteristics, such as the extent of interpersonal contact,
it may lead to diverse civic outcomes in younger people. Previous research has
highlighted both positive and negative potential of internet use and online participation
in relation to young people’s civic life (Bakker & de Vreese, 2011;
Buckingham, 2008; Dahlberg, 2007; Dahlgren, 2005, 2009; Chadwick & Howard,
2010; Mossberger, Tolbert, & McNeal, 2007; Smith, Schlozman, Verba, &
Brady, 2009). However, we are still lacking evidence on the impact of
adolescents’ online civic participation on the changes in their attitudes. In
this study, we examine the longitudinal effects of youth civic participation on
their civic identity, political self-efficacy, and attitudes toward social
authorities. To understand the effects of online civic participation in a
broader context, we contrast them with the effects of offline civic
participation. Specifically, though both participatory types are often part of
one complex participatory pattern, in our analysis we investigate their single
effects independently one each other to gain a deeper understanding of their
specificities.
Online Civic Participation
The rapid spread of the internet has created the
possibility of participating in civic actions not only offline but also via
online channels and platforms. This form of participation has quickly gained
attention, especially in relation to youth (Bennett, 2008; Buckingham &
Willett, 2006; Livingstone, Couldry, & Markham, 2007). Many online civic
actions are, to some extent, analogous to offline ones, e.g. signing online petitions,
discussing issues online, or expressing support for a political
party on the website. Others can be more specific to the online
environment, e.g. creating an interactive website centered on a certain
political issue.
What is common to all online activities is that they
are shaped by the specific affordances of the online environment. The use of
the term affordance varies among scholars (see, e.g. Nagy & Neff, 2015),
however, crucial is the notion that diverse properties and qualities of the
media and online environment can shape social behavior, including online
participation. Some of the key characteristics of participation in the online
environment are mentioned as beneficial and favorable: online activities are
easily-accessed and low-cost, relatively open to content creation, enable
encounters with diverse people, information, opinions and arguments, which can
enhance awareness and interest (Dahlgren, 2009; Chadwick & Howard, 2010).
Moreover, the online environment has a potential for increased networking,
information dissemination, and mobilization. It is favorable to less
hierarchical and more democratic participation (e.g., in online discussions) and
to the confrontation of diverse arguments (Dahlgren, 2009; Livingstone et al.,
2007; Östman, 2012; Wojcieszak & Mutz, 2009). Recent studies have focused
on the potential of social media. For instance, boyd (2010) discusses new
affordances of networked technologies, which affect social acts. These include
persistence, replicability, scalability (i.e., potential visibility), and
searchability of diverse content, such as information, materials, or
expressions. As boyd states, these affordances introduce new dynamics which
shape “networked publics”: invisible audiences, collapsed contexts, and
blurring of the private and the public. Considering these affordances, social
media can impact numerous forms of online participation from opinion
expressions, discussions, information sharing, and mobilizing for collective
action (Kim, Hsu, & de Zúñiga, 2013; Valenzuela, 2013; Warren, Sulaiman,
& Jaafar, 2014; Xenos, Vromen, & Loader, 2014).
All these features of online civic participation can be advantageous
compared to offline participation, especially for the youth (Livingstone,
2009). Majority of adolescents cannot engage in a prominent offline civic
activity, voting, and their offline participation can be limited by the lack of
resources and constraints of parents or school (Hirzalla & van Zoonen,
2011). The online environment can represent an environment where the youth can
engage more independently. Considering that large number of adolescents are
equipped with sufficient digital skills for basic operations on the internet,
(though differences still exist related to engagement and performance of
diverse activities, including politics; Hargittai, 2010; Min, 2010) and are
frequent users of digital technology and social media (Lenhart, 2015;
Subrahmanyam & Smahel, 2011; Tsitsika et al., 2014), the internet can
provide an open and accessible ground for civic activities. For example, in the
Czech Republic, from where this study originates, the internet is accessible to
most young people. According to the Czech Statistical Bureau, in 2014 (the year
of the first data collection), 93% of households with children had internet
access; moreover, 92% of people aged 16-24 used social network sites in the
previous three months (Český statistický úřad, n.d.). However, online political
participation is, on average, less common (in 2014, 7% of adults used internet
for political activities such as online petitions, online communication with a
politician, and online support to a political candidate, party, or event;
Macková & Macek, 2015). This is in line with the generally lower level of
institutionalized and non-institutionalized political participation in Central
and Eastern European countries as compared to Western European countries
(Hooghe & Quintelier, 2014).
Nevertheless, affordances of the online environment and consequently online
form of participation received also consideration related to the possible
drawbacks. A first possible drawback concerns the often-mentioned ease of
performing online actions without constraints of spatial barriers. Besides its
advantages, this characteristic of the online environment also means that
online actions are usually conducted at a physical distance from others, without
mutual visibility (Bargh & McKenna; 2004). These features can diminish
subjective connection to the targeted issues as well as the commitment put into
the (less effortful) actions. The features of online participation can also
affect perceptions of the effectiveness of the online actions. The external
efficiency, i.e., the actual effect of online participation on targeted or
pursued goals, has often been questioned. Though the empirical evidence is
scarce (as pointed out by Vissers and Stolle, 2014), the doubts concerning the
external efficiency of online participation have been reflected and studied
under the concept of slacktivism or clicktivism, which denote the views on
online participation as having no real-life impact besides an individual’s
self-satisfaction (Christensen, 2011; Lutz et al., 2014; Morozov, 2011; Štětka
& Mazák, 2014). Furthermore, the potential for creating a more democratic
environment unconstrained by authorities has also its downside in the form of
increased un-civility, hostility, and the absence of actual debate. These
outcomes might be more likely online than offline given the possibility of
concealing one’s identity and the lack of authority figures moderating ongoing
debates (Edwards, 2002; Lampe, Zube, Lee, Park, & Johnston, 2014; Suler,
2004; Wright & Street, 2007). Moreover, the potential to encounter diverse
individuals, opinions, and information is not necessarily realized. It is
possible that despite the almost unlimited choice of diverse sources,
individuals can select online groups and information that are simply confirming
pre-existing perspectives, values, and opinions (Garrett, 2009; Kahne,
Middaugh, Lee, & Feezell, 2012; Wojcieszak & Mutz, 2009). There is also
a vast quantity of misleading or false information, including “fake news” or
“clickbaits” (Chen, Conroy, & Rubin, 2015; Tandoc et al., 2017), which
creates biased impressions concerning civic and political issues. Additionally,
the diverse and simply reachable online resources that are available include those
that are directly anti-democratic, e.g. groups spreading extremist attitudes
(Costello, Hawdon, Ratliff, & Grantham, 2016; Pauwels & Schils, 2016).
The Effect of Online Participation on Civic
Development
Following this debate, prior research investigated differences
and similarities between online and offline participation (Gibson &
Cantijoch, 2013; Hirzalla & van Zoonen, 2011; Jugert, Eckstein, Noack,
Kuhn, & Benbow, 2013; Oser, Hooghe, & Marien, 2013; Šerek &
Machackova, 2014; Vissers & Stolle, 2014). Specific attention was paid to
the question of how online participation affects youth civic development. This
issue has been addressed by the examination of links between youth’s political
use of the internet and their civic or political participation. For example,
Quintelier and Vissers (2008) showed in a sample of 16-year old respondents in
Belgium that forwarding political e-mails was positively linked with offline
political participation. A panel survey among Swedish adolescents showed that
online political interaction increased both online and offline participation
(Ekström & Östman, 2013). In another panel study on a sample of US high
school students, Kahne, Lee, and Feezell (2013) found that politically driven
online participation was linked with greater political action and expression
and campaign participation, but it was not related to civic participation or
voting. Therefore, prior studies suggested the link between online activities
and greater future participatory behavior. However, we still lack evidence
about the specific effects of online participation on adolescents’ civic
attitudes. In the present study, we focused on the development of the following
attitudes: civic identity, political self-efficacy, and attitudes towards
social authorities. These attitudes reflect the motivation to engage in
societal issues, shape orientation towards the society (and its leaders), and
define the assessment of own capabilities in the pursuit of societal change.
Thus, they are essential factors underlying civic behavior. Considering the
specific factors of online participation, specifically the lack of proximity to
other actors, disconnection between civic actions and the outcomes, and a
reduced hierarchy within the online environment (Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Suler,
2004; Valkenburg, Peter, & Walther, 2016), we suggest that each of these
attitudes can be impacted differently by the online and offline participation.
In the text below, we introduce how these attitudes can be affected by
participation in an online environment and specify our research questions
regarding these attitudes.
Civic identity. First, by participating in collective civic actions, adolescents can
develop psychological connections and a sense of responsibility to their fellow
citizens, sometimes referred to as civic identity (Atkins & Hart, 2003;
Youniss, McLellan, & Yates, 1997). Such development could be enhanced by
the contact and a direct hands-on cooperation with people or groups coming from
different backgrounds and facing diverse problems. However, online
participation is mediated via online channels and is conducted at a relative
distance from the people it concerns, including individuals as well as whole
groups or communities. Hence, the contact often lacks direct interactions or
non-verbal communicative cues (Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Valkenburg et al.,
2016). Consequently, the effect of online participation on the development of
civic identity might be limited, particularly when compared with the effects of
offline participation.
RQ1: Does online
participation predict changes in civic identity?
Political self-efficacy. Another important component in civic development is the formation of
internal political self-efficacy, i.e. a “personal belief regarding the ability
to achieve desired results in the political domain through personal engagement
and an efficient use of one’s own capacities and resources” (Caprara,
Vecchione, Capanna, & Mebane, 2009; p. 1002). One of the most important
ways through which self-efficacy is developed are mastery experiences, that is
situations when individuals successfully achieve desired goals and attribute
their success to their own abilities (Bandura, 1997; Beaumont, 2011; Pajares
& Urdan, 2006). Online participation might boost self-efficacy because it
decreases participatory barriers and provides opportunities to take an active
part in the civic processes even for those who would refrain from doing so
offline (Kenski & Stroud, 2006). However, self-efficacy is not dependent
only upon engaging in the activities per se but depends also on subjective
interpretations of one’s accomplishments. Online participation may involve an
absence of a connection to “visible” outcomes. Online actions are performed in
a mediated environment, at a distance from the actors, raising the question of
whether it can bring “tangible benefits” similar to offline interaction (Shah,
Cho, Eveland, & Kwak, 2005). Moreover, online environments offer not only a
venue for participation but also multiple other activities (notably communication
and entertainment), diverting users’ attention from the pursued issues
(Ekström, Olsson, & Shehata, 2014). Considering also the expressed doubts
about the lack of external efficiency of online participation, that is whether
is online participation efficient in the achievement of stated goals,
involvement in online participatory activities can result in lack of a sense of
accomplishment due to the disconnection from visible or tangible outcomes.
Thus, we can ask whether online participation substantially contributes to
political self-efficacy development.
RQ2: Does online
participation predict changes in political self-efficacy?
Attitudes toward social authorities. Finally, participation might be related to the
development of adolescents’ attitudes toward authorities or non-conventional
behavior challenging prevailing rules and systems. These are reflected, for
example, in the acceptance of non-conventional civic participation or, on the
contrary, authoritarianism, i.e. beliefs in coercive social control, respect
for authorities, and conformity to traditions (Duckitt, 2009). As described
above, the online environment diminishes barriers (and inhibition of
self-expression) based on authority (Suler, 2004). In this sense, the internet
potentially presents an environment enabling free speech of diverse actors,
providing them with opportunities for challenging and contesting authorities
(Akdeniz, 2002; Dahlgren, 2005; Dahlberg, 2007; Savigny, 2002). The internet
also provides opportunities for increased awareness about the complexity of
social issues by confrontation with diverse and non-conventional experiences
and opinions (Brundidge, 2010). Therefore, we presume that online participation
may increase people’s acceptance of non-conventional behavior and make them less
authoritarian, i.e. more vigilant toward social authorities.
RQ3: Does online
participation predict changes in political self-efficacy?
Differences from offline participation. Finally, all effects are considered not only
with regard to selected attitudes, but also in comparison to the effects of
offline participation. Though in many cases, civic participation is realized in
both online and offline realm, questions prevail regarding the specific effects
of online activities. Thus, our analysis will investigate the effect of both
these participatory types independently, to assess whether their effects
differ.
RQ4: Does online
participation affect socio-political attitudes differently than offline
participation?
Aim of the Study
This study´s aim is to enhance our understanding of
the role of online participation in adolescents’ civic development.
Specifically, we investigate how participatory activities affect the
development of civic identity, political self-efficacy, and attitudes toward
systems and authorities. To put the development of these characteristics in
context, we concurrently examine the effect of participation in traditional,
offline activities. In our investigation, we also control for possible effects
of gender and school track, as these variables may diversify participatory
patterns (Cicognani, Zani, Fournier, Gavray & Born, 2012).
Method
Participants and Procedure
Data were taken from a broader longitudinal study
conducted in the Czech Republic in mid-2014 (T1) and 1.5 year later (T2). This Central
European country was a part the Eastern Block of communist countries until 1989
and today it is a member of the European Union (since 2004) with relatively
advanced democracy (e.g., classified as a free country by the Freedom House or
as a flawed democracy by the Economic Intelligence Unit; Economist Intelligence
Unit, 2017; Freedom House, 2017). A random cluster sampling of schools was used
within four (out of 14) Czech regions. The sample at T1 consisted of 1,137 high
school students (53% females) aged 14 to 17 at T1 (M = 15.99; SD =
0.55), out of which 768 participated in both data collections and were included
in the analyses (54% females; M = 15.99; SD =
0.55). Two-thirds of the students (67% in the original sample, 66% in the final
sample) were from vocationally oriented high schools, while others were from
academically oriented grammar schools.
Based on the preference of the school, paper (43%) or
online (57%) questionnaires were administered at schools under the supervision
of trained administrators. Students completed the questionnaire in one school
hour (45 minutes) as a part of their classes and were not financially or
materially rewarded for their participation. All foreign scales were translated
into Czech using the translation back-translation procedure.
Measures
Online and offline civic participation (T1). Measures of participation were developed by the authors of the study.
Respondents were asked whether they participated, in the past 12 months, in
“activities linked to some social, local, environmental, or political issue”.
Six items captured online participation: signing an online petition (P1);
expressing an opinion through a social network site (P2); trying to persuade
somebody in an online discussion (P3); writing an online article or blog (P4);
creating an SNS group or webpage (P5); voting in an online opinion poll (P6).
Eight items measured offline participation: signing a printed petition (P7);
taking part in demonstrations or protests (P8); helping an organization (P9);
taking part in a cultural event (P10); distributing leaflets, posters or other
materials (P11); wearing a T-shirt, badge or other symbol (P12); trying to
persuade somebody in personal discussion (P13); leading a group of people
(P14). The questions were responded to on an ordinal response scale consisting
of “never” ( = 1), “once” ( = 2), “twice” ( = 3) and “more than twice” ( = 4).
In total, 62% participants did at least one online activity and 79% at least
one offline activity (see Table 1 for more details). For most activities, the
frequencies of involvement did not significantly differ (Mann-Whitney U test, ps>.05)
between adolescents who were included in the longitudinal analyses (n = 768)
and those who participated only at T1 (n = 369). The exceptions were wearing a
T-shirt, badge or other symbol, which was more common for adolescents included
in the analyses (p<.05), and writing an online article or blog, which was
more common for adolescents who were not included (p<.05).
|
Never
|
Once
|
Twice
|
More than twice
|
|
|
Online participation
|
||||
|
P1 Signing an online petition
|
70
|
18
|
5
|
8
|
|
P2 Expressing an opinion through a social network
site
|
63
|
18
|
6
|
14
|
|
P3 Trying to persuade somebody in an online
discussion
|
84
|
8
|
3
|
5
|
|
P4 Writing an online article or blog
|
92
|
4
|
1
|
3
|
|
P5 Creating an SNS group or webpage
|
94
|
4
|
1
|
1
|
|
P6 Voting in an online opinion poll
|
62
|
20
|
6
|
12
|
|
Offline participation
|
||||
|
P7 Signing a printed petition
|
69
|
22
|
6
|
3
|
|
P8 Taking part in demonstrations or protests
|
89
|
7
|
2
|
2
|
|
P9 Helping an organization
|
80
|
12
|
3
|
4
|
|
P10 Taking part in a cultural event
|
39
|
26
|
11
|
24
|
|
P11 Distributing leaflets, posters or other
materials
|
78
|
12
|
4
|
6
|
|
P12 Wearing a T-shirt, badge or other symbol
|
72
|
16
|
4
|
8
|
|
P13 Trying to persuade somebody in personal
discussion
|
74
|
15
|
4
|
8
|
|
P14 Leading a group of people
|
91
|
5
|
2
|
2
|
Table 1. Frequencies
(%) of Online and Offline Participatory Activities.
Civic identity (T1 and T2).
Three items were used to measure civic identity: “When
you think about your life and your future, how important is it to you
personally to (a) help the other ones, who had been less lucky (CI1); (b) do
something to improve community (CI2); and (c) to help your own country (CI3)?”
(Flanagan, Bowes, Jonsson, Csapo, & Sheblanova, 1998; Flanagan et al.,
1999). A four-point response scale ranged from “not important at all” ( = 1) to
“very important” ( = 4). MT1 = 3.00; MT2 =
2.92.
Political self-efficacy (T1 and T2).
The scale was constructed based on general guidelines
for creating self-efficacy scales (Bandura, 2006) and other political
self-efficacy measures (Caprara et al., 2009; Sohl & Arensmeier, 2015).
Adolescents assessed whether they believed they could carry out four political
activities in the place where they lived. Items were: “organize a demonstration
(PE1),” “organize a petition (PE2),” “negotiate with local politicians (PE3),”
“lead a group of people that is enforcing a certain cause (PE4).” Four-point
response scales ranged from “absolutely disagree” ( = 1) to “absolutely agree”
( = 4). MT1 = 2.30; MT2 =
2.29.
Acceptance of non-conventional activism (T1 and T2). Adolescents’
acceptance of non-conventional forms of political
activism, our first indicator of attitudes towards social authorities, was
measured by three items loosely based on measures of repressive potential
(Finkel, Sigelman, & Humphries, 1999; Marsh & Kaase, 1979). Items were:
“Protesters who disregard the police should always be punished hard (AN1),” “We
should eliminate so called activists who only criticize the government but
don't actually do anything (AN2),” and “Demonstrations and protests at squares
should be under stricter control (AN3).” Four-point response scales ranged from
“absolutely disagree” ( = 1) to “absolutely agree” ( = 4). All items were
reversed so that a higher score indicates higher acceptance of non-conventional
activism. MT1 = 2.47; MT2 =
2.40.
Authoritarianism (T1 and T2). The second indicator of attitudes towards social
authorities, specifically adolescents’ compliance with
social authorities and traditions, was measured by six items selected from the
scale of right-wing authoritarianism (Funke, 2005; translated to Czech by
Ťápal, 2012). Sample items: “Obedience and respect for authority are the most
important values children should learn” or “The withdrawal from tradition will
turn out to be a fatal fault one day.” Four-point response scales ranged from
“absolutely disagree” ( = 1) to “absolutely agree” ( = 4), a higher score
indicates a higher authoritarianism. MT1 = 2.80; MT2 =
2.87.
Data Analysis
Four structural equation models predicting changes in
civic identity, political self-efficacy, acceptance of non-conventional
activism, and authoritarianism were estimated (using robust weighted least
squares estimator) using Mplus 6.1 (see Figure 1). Ordinal indicators of online
and offline participation were estimated using probit regressions. Other
indicators were treated as continuous and estimated using linear regressions.
Indicators of authoritarianism were reduced to three parcels using an item-to-construct
balance procedure (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). Occasional
missing values were treated using a pairwise present approach.
Results
Measurement Model of Civic Participation
Confirmatory factor analysis showed that a two factor
model assuming two correlated latent variables, representing online and offline
activities (χ274 = 216.14; CFI =
.96; TLI = .96; RMSEA = .05; WRMR =
1.14), had a better fit than a one-factor model assuming that all activities
indicated a single latent dimension (χ275 = 501.54; CFI =
.89; TLI = .87; RMSEA = .09; WRMR =
1.82). Standardized factor loadings in the two-factor model ranged from .43 to
.91 (all factor loadings can be found in Figures 1 to 4) and the correlation
between the factors was .63. No residual correlations had to be allowed except
for correlations between signing online and offline petitions (r =
.38) and between trying to persuade somebody online and personally (r =
.56). Two indicators of convergent validity – average variance extracted (AVE)
and composite reliability (CR) – showed a good validity (AVE>.50 and
CR>.70) for online participation (AVE = .62, CR = .90) and a slightly worse
but acceptable validity for offline participation (AVE = .43, CR = .85).
For each outcome variable, cross-time measurement
invariance was tested by comparing a model assuming no invariance over time and
a model assuming full metric and scalar invariance (i.e. identical
unstandardized factor loadings and intercepts of indicators from T1 to T2).
According to Cheung & Rensvold (2002), a difference in CFI between the
models should be lower than .01 to retain the assumption of invariance. Our
analyses showed measurement invariance for all outcomes, that is for civic
identity (ΔCFI = .003), political self-efficacy (ΔCFI =
.005), acceptance of non-conventional activism (ΔCFI<.001), and
authoritarianism (ΔCFI = .003). Thus, all subsequent models were
restricted to assume full metric and scalar measurement invariance of outcome
variables.
To further investigate convergent validity of our
outcome measures, we computed AVE and CR scores for all outcomes T1 and T2.
These indices showed a good validity (AVE>.50 and CR>.70) for civic
identity (AVET1 = .57, CRT1 = .80, AVET2 =
.55, CRT2 = .79), political self-efficacy (AVET1 =
.67, CRT1 = .89, AVET2 = .68, CRT2 =
.89) and authoritarianism (AVET1 = .65, CRT1 =
.85, AVET2 = .69, CRT2 = .87), and a slightly
worse validity for acceptance of non-conventional activism (AVET1 =
.46, CRT1 = .71, AVET2 = .39, CRT2 =
.65).
Longitudinal Effects of Online and Offline
Participation
Results from the main analyses are presented in
Figures 1 to 4. Changes in civic identity were positively predicted by offline
but not online participation (which had a weak negative but non-significant
effect). On the other hand, changes in the acceptance of non-conventional
activism were positively predicted by online but not offline participation.
Standardized effects of participation on changes in authoritarianism were
greater than .10, online participation predicting authoritarianism negatively
while offline participation predicting authoritarianism positively, but they
were significant only at the .06 level. Finally, changes in political
self-efficacy were not predicted by online or offline participation.
Discussion
Our study investigated the role of
online civic participation in adolescents’ civic development, specifically in
the development of civic identity, political self-efficacy, and attitudes
toward social authorities. Results revealed that online and offline civic
participation affected the formation of adolescents’ attitudes differently.
The findings showed that the
development of civic identity (the sense of connection and responsibility to
fellow citizens) was not affected by online participation, but it was
positively predicted by offline participation. The lack of an effect of online
participation could be explained by its specific character: online
participation is typically performed at a relative distance from other people,
demanding no direct interactions or hands-on cooperation. As suggested by Metz,
McLellan, and Youniss (2003), youth concern for the broader society and fellow
citizens is often raised through direct participation in activities within a
communal or organizational context that explicitly expresses pro-societal
stances and norms. Such direct exposure typically accompanies many offline
activities, such as volunteering for civic organizations or organizing public
protests. On the other hand, these experiences might be limited or even lacking
in online participation that involves virtual forms of interpersonal contact.
Next, our findings suggested no
effect of online or offline participation on adolescent’s political
self-efficacy. This finding might be considered surprising because adolescents’
practicing of their civic skills via both types of participation should help
them to gain mastery experiences that, consequently, would increase their
confidence in their own capabilities (Beaumont, 2010). Consistent with our
expectations, one explanation for our findings regarding online participation
could be that online activities provide only a limited number of opportunities
to feel a sense of accomplishment, which is one of the important factors in the
development of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). However, considering that offline
activities also did not have any effect on participants’ political
self-efficacy, alternative explanations seem to be more plausible. One of them
is that the one and half year time lag between our first and second measurement
was too short to provide adolescents with enough mastery experiences that would
affect their sense of efficacy. Another explanation concerns our measurement of
political self-efficacy, which was relatively narrowly focused only on some
types of civic activities, such as organizing a demonstration or negotiating
with politicians. It is possible that if we had included measures of political
self-efficacy better reflecting adolescents’ actual civic behaviors (e.g.,
self-efficacy regarding voluntary work), the association between participation
and the changes in self-efficacy beliefs could be found.
Finally, we found an effect of
online, but not offline, participation on a greater acceptance of
non-conventional, authority-challenging activism. Similarly, we found a weak
effect of online participation on more negative attitudes towards social
authorities and conventions, that is lower authoritarianism. The effect of
offline participation on authoritarianism was exactly the opposite, but it
should be noted that both effects on authoritarianism were not significant and
thus should be treated only with caution. These findings outline a general
trend in which online participation seems to rather enhance attitudes
challenging systems and authorities, while offline participation decreases
them. To take an optimistic perspective on the findings, we might interpret
them by focusing on the beneficial effects of the online environment on youth
development. Such an interpretation would emphasize that participating online can
lead to the development of more independent and novel opinions through
experiences with diverse online information resources (Kahne et al., 2012),
online debates and argumentations, or active participation in the environment
with less authority- or power-based barriers (Dahlgren, 2005, 2013; Dahlberg,
2007; Savigny, 2002). This could support positive views of online participation
as a mean to enhance deliberation: to increase general awareness (Shah et al.,
2005), develop more open yet critical perspectives on societal issues, and
promote decreased compliance toward authorities, development of autonomy, and
individuation (Fenton & Barassi, 2011). However, we should not dismiss also
a less optimistic interpretation. In our results, online participation did not
predict changes in civic identity, which means that growing individuation is
probably not accompanied by increasing social concern. Hence, a question
remains as to whether the non-conventional and authority-challenging attitudes,
developed through online participation, are oriented towards contributing to
the common good (e.g., by challenging social injustice), or whether they might
result, for instance, in greater acceptance of radically intolerant attitudes.
This study outlined the potential
effect of online participation on youth civic development. Among the study’s
strengths are the large sample size and panel design. However, the study also
has several limitations. The first limitation is the self-reported format of
the data, which might be in future studies overcome by triangulation of more
methods (e.g., by supplementing the survey data with interviews, or by
consensual records of actual online behavior). Furthermore, we studied only
three selected components related to civic development, yet there are other
factors that can help our understanding of this process (e.g., the
above-mentioned civic self-efficacy). Also, our conceptualization of online and
offline civic participation captured only a limited range of activities, while
others were not included. For instance, capturing a greater number of protest
activities would help to deepen our insight into the examined developmental
effects. Moreover, the answer scale for these activities was ordinal and did
not distinguish more frequent participatory activities. Although the overall
intensity of participation is partially captured via the overall involvement in
the number of activities, the absence of the measurement of the more frequent
participation poses a limitation and may be the reason why we did not detect
some of the studied effects. Additionally, some non-significant effects might
be caused by the fact that the link is not direct. We focused solely on the
effect of participation; however, civic development is also affected by other
factors, for example the social environment and the overall context (see e.g.
Zaff, Malanchuk, & Eccles, 2008), which, besides their own direct effect,
can shape the effect of participation on civic development. Future studies are
encouraged to include these factors to better understand youth civic
development. Finally, since our data originate from the Czech Republic, our
findings should be generalized to countries with similar political and
democratic climate and rates of internet penetration.
Despite these limitations, our
study contributes to the understanding of civic development in youth. Our
findings support the presumption that the performed actions promote the
development of certain characteristics connected to civic life. We also showed
that the effect of online participatory activities is different from offline
ones: they enhance the development of attitudes challenging social authorities
but have no effect on the development of civic identity (which was increased
via offline participation) and political self-efficacy (which was not linked
with offline participation either). These findings highlight contributions and
limits of online participation in adolescents’ civic development, which should
be reflected in further debates about the consequences of engagement in
different types of participatory activities. Specifically, it should be
recommended to encourage youth to engage in both forms of activities, since
each form provides specific opportunities for the civic development; while
engagement in online participatory activities solely is limited in this regard.
REVIEW JURNAL
1.
Judul
:
Apakah 'mengeklik' penting? Peran partisipasi
online dalam pengembangan sipil remaja
2.
Jurnal :
Journal
of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace,
Vol 11 no (4),2017 article 5
3.
Nama
penulis : Hana Machackova & Jan Šerek
4. Tujuan penulisan : Meneliti efek longitudinal partisipasi online pada
pengembangan identitas kewarganegaraan, kemandirian politik, dan sikap terhadap otoritas sosial. Secara bersamaan, kami membandingkan dampak partisipasi online dengan dampak partisipasi sipil offline.
5. Metode : Partisipan dan Prosedur
Data diambil dari studi longitudinal yang lebih luas yang dilakukan di Republik Ceko pada pertengahan 2014 (T1) dan 1,5 tahun kemudian (T2)
6. Sampel : Sampel terdiri 768 remaja (usia 14-17 di T1; 54%
perempuan)
7. Hasil : Hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa partisipasi online
diprediksi meningkatkan sikap menantang terhadap otoritas sosial, sementara partisipasi offline memiliki efek sebaliknya. Selain itu, partisipasi online tidak berpengaruh pada self-efficacy politik atau pengembangan sipil, tetapi partisipasi offline secara positif memprediksi identitas sipil.
8. Kesimpulan : Temuan menunjukkan bahwa pengembangan
identitas kewarganegaraan (rasa koneksi dan tanggung jawab kepada sesama warga) tidak terpengaruh oleh partisipasi online, tetapi itu diprediksi positif oleh partisipasi offline.
Komentar
Posting Komentar