Understanding Online Political Participation: Theory of

5

Understanding Online Political Participation: Theory of Planned Behavior and Social Identity

Model of Deindividuation Effect to Predict Online Petition Behavior

Volume VIINomor 1

Maret 2018ISSN 2301-9816

JURNALKoMUNIKASIINdoNeSIA

Whisnu Triwibowo

Abstrak/Abstract

Kata kunci/Keywords:

The online petition is one of the latest forms of collective action as the Internet diminishes space, time and effort constraints. This technology also enables people to exercise citizenship that can, directly and indirectly, influence the policy making processes. Yet, it is argued the action is a shallow and passive as citizens engaged to merely clicking and thoughtless that would undermine the essence of democracy. This study examines individual’s action in signing an electronic petition that is perceived to be a rational and volitional behavior. Furthermore, the study also identifies the type of social influence that affects individuals’ intention to participate, the social identification. To sum up, an online petition is an active behavior, which personal constructs of planned action are commingled with an external structure of collective identity that enables a person to make an adequate judgment about political engagement. For future research, interrogating message elements as a medium of persuasion will disclose the effectivity of petition to arouse social-emotional attachment to compensate face-to-face communication and non-verbal cues.

Petisi online adalah salah satu bentuk tindakan kolektif terbaru di mana internet mengurangi Batasan-batasan ruang, waktu, dan upaya. Teknologi ini juga memungkinkan orang untuk menggunakan kewarganegaraan yang dapat, secara langsung dan tidak langsung, mempengaruhi proses pembuatan kebijakan. Namun, tindakan tersebut bersifat dangkal dan pasif ketika warga yang terlibat hanya berpartisipasi dengan mengklik dan tanpa berpikir yang akan melemahkan esensi demokrasi. Penelitian ini menguji tindakan individu dalam menandatangani petisi elektronik yang dianggap sebagai perilaku rasional dan punya tujuan tertentu. Selain itu, penelitian ini juga mengidentifikasi jenis pengaruh sosial yang memengaruhi niat individu untuk berpartisipasi, identifikasi sosial. Hasilnya, petisi online adalah perilaku aktif, di mana konstruk pribadi dari tindakan yang direncanakan bercampur dengan struktur eksternal identitas kolektif yang memungk-inkan seseorang untuk membuat penilaian yang memadai tentang keterlibatan politik. Penelitan di masa mendatang dapat menyelidiki elemen pesan sebagai media persuasi yang bisa mengungkapkan efektivitas petisi untuk membangkitkan ikatan sosial-emosional sebagai pengganti komunikasi tatap muka dan isyarat non-verbal.

Digital collective action, social movement, theory of planned behavior, SIDE, structural equation modelling, online petition

Tindakan kolektif digital, gerakan sosial, teori perilaku terencana, SIde, pemodelan persamaan struktural, petisi online

Department of Media & Information, Michigan State University

East Lansing, Michigan, United [email protected]

IntroductionIt is unequivocally assumed that the Internet has changed the terrain of politics and politi-cal communication as this technology enables diverse political activities and participation to empower citizenship. The internet has become a new place of polity of space of flows (Castells 1999) which propagates horizontal communica-tion among citizens in a network of solidarity that would promulgate social movement (p.

6

Whisnu Triwibowo, Understanding Online Political Participation

299).

Moreover, other scholars argue the internet also transposes hierarchical system of power into a decentralized structure that flattened govern-ment and citizen relationship (Coleman & Blum-ler, 2011, Zúñiga, Veenstra, Vraga, & Shah 2010). People can exercise power through networking, for example voicing critics to the government and almost unlikely this voice can be suppressed once it was distributed around the since it has no kill-er switch.

Does the Internet really liberate power in the hand of people? The answer can’t be so transpar-ent as it indeed provides chances to decentralize, equalize status and democratize decision making and therefore liberate and empower individuals (Spears & Lea 1994), yet, simultaneously yields a backlash of passivity, clicktivism or slacktivism (Morozov, 2009).

Extant literatures of internet studies identify two camps of thinking: the internet proponent and the opponent. The former argues technologi-cal capacities have changed the terrain of politi-cal processes into more open, level and lucid that diminish the old structure and set up a new social and an organizational pattern (Gonzales-Bailon, 2013, Dubois & Dutton, 2014). This means the Internet is perceived of being instrumental (Dut-ton, 2013; Webster, 2013) that it promotes vari-ety of political participations and involvements that ranging from the delivery service to decision making, these included electronic (e)-petition (Earl & Schussman, 2008; Wright, 2012); polit-ical consultation (Coleman & Blumler, 2011); online social movement (Gonzales-Bailon, 2013); fifth estate role (Dubois & Dutton, 2014); blogs to induce public opinions (Zúñiga, Veenstra, Vra-ga, & Shah 2010); and digital campaign (Marcin-kowski, & Metag, 2014). Meanwhile, the later raises issues of constant surveillance and coveil-lance (Rainie and Wellman, 2012); centralized control of powerful authority (van Laer & van Aelst, 2010) and shallow political participation of “slacktivism” through away clicks (Morozov, 2009) which degrade political sphere and citizen-ry.

The findings from empirical studies were not compelling and oftentimes contradictory, thus it is hard to measure the directionality of the in-ternet effect on politics. Subsequently it begs a question whether this digital technology can ben-efit democracy, mainly to the people to exercise power over status quo.

Building on the question above, this study tries to investigate individuals political participations in a digitally mediated environment which a cit-izen can directly exercise his power to the gov-ernment and state (Earl & Schussman, 2008, Wright, 2012,). An electronic petition (e-petition) was chosen as the quintessence of digital political participation which it is deemed as the material-ization of an ideal digital democracy to facilitate

direct links between citizens, politicians and gov-ernment.

The e-petition allows citizens to instill political agenda that can influence a decision-making pro-cess through the Internet. It is produced, distrib-uted and presented online and involves low-cost effort (Van Laer, & Van Aelst, 2010; Segerberg & Bennet, 2012; Della Porta & Mosca, 2005; Ben-nett & Segerberg, 2013; Segerberg & Bennett, 2011). Furthermore, similar to off-line political engagements it can also assist and accomplish its ultimate goal, that is, to serve a democratic purpose (Chadwick, 2008).

Several events have shown e-petition is an effective means to initiate collective actions, for example the British’s case in 2011 when 8 mil-lion signatures were generated from over 5 mil-lion unparalleled email addresses to bombard the Prime Minister official website. Petitioners suc-cessfully rectified or cancelled out government policy initiatives that were opposed by the pub-lic (Margetts, Hale and Yasseri, 2014). Another case was in February 2007, 1.8 million signed an online petition against a road charging policy ini-tiative that was endorsed by the UK Government (BBC, 2007) and subsequently this strong public opposition resulted in the postponement of the initiative.

The internet has changed the way public sol-idarity and cooperation was formed (Castells 1999) and previous theory such as Resources Mo-bilization theory (RMT) is inadequate in explain-ing digital collective action. The theory postulates top down mechanism to instigate a collective ac-tion through structural processes (McAdam, Tar-row & Tilly, 1996; Fligstein & McAdam, 2011) and organizations are important actors which engender resources to initiate and to direct in-dividual involvement in the movement (McCar-thy & Zald, 1977). In digital milieu a collective action is built around non-personal attachment, anonymity and decentralized approach (van Laer & van Aelst, 2010).

A movement can be a spontaneous action that the idea was circulated in the net and gains sup-ports from individuals who share similar interest. It had lowered barriers to entry to activate collec-tive action such as time, money, skills and efforts (van Laer & van Aelst, 2010) and this provides opportunities for citizens to engage closely with politics without concerns about the availability of resources and risks to support a political cause. Yet, it is hard to measure the effectivity of digital collective action since this action consists of weak ties, thus this raises questions about collective identity, social capital, norms and power distri-bution that were the main ingredients of off-line collective action (Tarrow & Tilly, 1996; Morris, 2000; Tarrow & Tollefson, 1994).

One of the answer is that Computer-Mediat-ed Communication (CMC) facilitates a new so-cial setting which diminishes the old boundaries (Postmes, Spears & Lea, 1998) when anonymity

7

Jurnal Komunikasi Indonesia Volume VII, Nomor 1, Maret 2018

leads to normative conduct (Postmes, Spears, Sakhel and de Groot, 2001) and strong social at-tachment (Leas, Spears, and de Groot, 2002). It can be argued that an online network, which con-sists primarily of weak, bridging ties (Granovet-ter, 1973) is likely to benefit digital connection more so than strong, bonding ties (Putnam, 2001) because the Internet would enable anonymous in-dividuals who share a similar interest in certain issues to connect and join with the civic action.

Pew Global research (2014) indicate that on-line collective actions have increased markedly in the past few years and almost exceeded tradi-tional ones. This finding supports CMC approach that an individual bottom up initiative works better than structural influence. Therefore, indi-viduals have more control over collective action than organizations. To address this issue, the social movement studies have extensively re-searched on an individual level to disclose social psychological mechanism that drive individuals’ involvement in the collective action (Tarrow & Tilly, 1996; Morris, 2000) and these studies sug-gest human action is a rational and motivated be-havior which utilize a systematic scheme to pro-cess information (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Ajzen, 1988; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010; Ajzen, 2012).

Therefore, this study tries to elucidate the extent social and psychological factors affect in-dividuals involvement in a collective action. A reasoned action theory (Ajzen 1988, Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) provides a framework to interrogate psychological elements to predict behavior, while collective identity as social determinant can also influence these ac-tion as assumed by CMC approach (Postmes & Spears, 1998; Postmes & Brunsting, 2002).

Literature ReviewSocial Movement Repertoire

There are two big school of thoughts in the so-cial movement literatures: (1) structural based theory from classical social theories of Marx and Durkheim (Tarrow & Tilly, 1996; Morris, 2000; Tarrow & Tollefson, 1994). A movement was perceived as a function of structure which an individual who occupies a role in the structure will function accordingly and subsequently this approach was developed into resource mobiliza-tion theory (McCarthy & Zald, 1977; McAdam, Tarrow & Tilly, 1996; Tarrow & Tollefson, 1994; Fligstein & McAdam, 2011); (2) actor-based the-ory emphasizes a social psychology paradigm to interrogate psychological and social factors of a movement (Morris, 2000; Tarrow & Tollefson, 1994; Klandermans 1984; McAdam)

Resource mobilization theory (RMT) empha-sizes organizational resources, political oppor-tunity and collective identity (McCarthy & Zald, 1977; McAdam, Tarrow & Tilly, 1996; Tarrow & Tollefson, 1994; Fligstein & McAdam, 2011). So-cial movement can only be understood as a struc-

tural process where organizations become prom-inent actors to instigate, coordinate and mobilize actors. Organizational resources become prom-inent factors for action where all various forms of capital (e.g. material and non-material) are possessed by an organization (McAdam, Tarrow & Tilly, 1996; Tarrow & Tollefson, 1994). With abundant resources, organizations can frame an issue to form a collective identity (Fligstein & McAdam, 2011) that will attract people to join with collective action, and organizations also can see and create a political opportunity for the ac-tion (McCarthy & Zald, 1977). The individual is a rational actor who is involved in social action in response to external stimuli and his/her behavior can be perceived as playing a role as a member of a group or organizations. RMT has been the dom-inant paradigm in social movement and many social movements around 1960-1980 have been studied using this theory (Tarrow & Tilly, 1996; Morris, 2000; Tarrow & Tollefson, 1994).

RMT failed to capture the free-riding phenom-ena in which individuals often ride the wave of a movement to reap benefits with minimal to no effort (Klandermans, 1984; Morris, 2000; Tarrow & Tollefson, 1994; Fligstein & McAdam, 2011). An American economist, Mancur Olson, pro-posed a cost-benefit model to examine individual behavior in social movement (McAdam, Tarrow & Tilly, 1996; Morris, 2000) and suggested that individuals participate because of a cost-benefit calculation, getting high benefit with low effort. This model provided an answer the free-riding problem, but failed to capture the complexity of individual behavior. The cost-benefit model em-phasizes personal advantage while neglecting non-material or social motives of behavior. Later the expectancy model was developed to synthe-size diverse motives of human behavior that may underpin involvement in a movement (Klander-mans, 1984; Brunstig & Postmes, 2002).

Klandermans (1984) identified three distinct motives: collective or goal motives, social motives and reward motives. Collective or goal motives refer to the attainability of the collective goal (e.g. number of participants who join the move-ment, expectancy regarding the effectiveness of movement, and evaluate the effective individual contribution during action); social motives indi-cate the perception of expectation of significant others and the personal importance reaction; and reward motives stress non-social cost and benefit of participation, such as money, skills and time (Klandermans, 1984; Brunstig & Postmes, 2002). The expectancy value has been criticized as over-emphasizing on individual capability having full control over its action which ignores individual attribute differences and social stratification. This model has been tested to analyze diverse so-cial movements, including: the labor movement in Netherland (Klandermans, 1984), the old peo-ple movement in Germany, the gay movement in the US (Simon, et al, 1998); and the Netherland

8


environmental movement (Postmes & Brunstig, 2002; Brunstig & Postmes, 2002). The expectancy model is still a valuable framework to study so-cial movement from the micro-level of individual behavior and this is relevant with modern condi-tion of society where political decision-making is highly personal and people join movements as in-dividual lifestyle choices (Giddens, 1990). Collec-tive action and identity formation are a personal choice that are facilitated through the fluidity of social networks (Bennet & Serberger, 2013; della Porta & Mosca, 2005; Castells, 2013)

Social Psychology Perspective on Online So-cial MovementPsychological Components of Behavior

Social psychology has been used extensively in social movement studies to examine the individu-al social behavior and two models have emerged: the cost-benefit model and the expectancy-val-ue model (Klandermans, 1984; Tarrow & Tilly, 1996; Morris, 2000; Tarrow & Tollefson, 1994). Individual autonomy and capability to conduct higher cognitive processing is central to a so-cial psychology perspective (Ajzen, 1988; Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen 2010; Bursting & Post-mes, 2002). The cost reward model was used for a limited time due to lack of explanatory power and therefore left expectancy value as a domi-nant framework for studying social movements (Tarrow & Tilly, 1996; Morris, 2000; Tarrow & Tollefson, 1994).

During the course the expectancy value mod-el has morphed into theory of reasoned action (TRA) since both constructs are overlapping (Klandermans, 1984; Simon, et al 1998) and they were built upon theory of attitude (Simon, et al 1998; Ajzen, 2012). The original Klandermans’ expectancy-value identified three motives as the main predictors of willingness to participate: col-lective, social and reward (Klandermans, 1984; Simon, et al 1998) and these constructs are an-alogues to subjective belief and subjective norms of TRA (Ajzen, 2012; Postmes & Brunig, 2002; Brunig & Postmes, 2002).

However, to predict intention to act using TRA is a flaw since political behavior is not fully voli-tional control behavior. Political action often ex-ceeds personal motivational factors, for example, when the availability of requisite opportunities and resources may interfere the outcome (Ajzen, 1988). Therefore the extension of TRA, later called theory of planned behavior (TPB), will be suitable to overcome volitional control problem (Ajzen, 2012; Ajzen 1991). A study of the voting behavior of US citizens found that political be-havior is unpredictable as evidenced by a low voter turnout during elections (Fishbein & Ajzen 2010). Many elements can inhibit a person’s de-cision to vote or not vote, particularly background factors such as individual, social and information (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2010).

Understanding a particular behavior of inter-

est could be challenging, but TPB provides a par-simonious model that encapsulates basic deter-minants of human social behavior (Ajzen, 1988; Ajzen 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen 2010). As a model that explains human social behavior, TPB has been used to examine diverse social behavior and meta-analysis proved TPB as an integrated mod-el has good predictive power (i.e. Accounted for the explained variance of intention and behavior) (McEachan, Conner, Taylor, & Lawton, 2011; Armitage & Conner 2001; Albarracin, Johnson, Fishbein, & Muellerleile, 2001). To extend the ar-gument, TPB has been tested in diverse fields of study, such as political science, marketing, health intervention, environmental behavior and oth-er behavioral studies (Ajzen, 1988; Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010; Ajzen, 2012; McEachan, Conner, Taylor, & Lawton, 2011; Armitage & Conner 2001; Albarracin, Johnson, Fishbein, & Muellerleile, 2001; Postmes & Brunig, 2002; Brunig & Postmes, 2002). For the above reasons, this paper will use TPB as its basic model to ex-amine online petition behavior.

Theory of planned behavior (TPB) is exten-sively referenced and used in social psychology research to predict and understand individual’s motivational influences on intention and behav-ior (Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992). TPB acknowl-edges fluctuation in controlling behavior because individuals were unlikely having complete voli-tional control (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2011; Armitage & Conner, 2001). TPB is commonly mistaken as a theory that measure only rational and delib-erate behavior because “planned” term in TPB. Planned refers to the consistency of formation of attitudes, perceived norms and perception of control and the intention they produce. This flow is not always perceived as reasoned, but often automatic from their belief about performing be-havior and also TPB never assumed that belief is accurate, unbiased and rational (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Cognitive foundations of belief can produce spontaneous and automatic fashion of behavior intention.

TPB can be a perfect substitute for Klander-mans’ expectancy-value model because it pro-vides more variance to predict political behavior. Individuals don’t have full control over political behavior, therefore, perceived behavioral con-trol would affect the outcome: intention to par-ticipate and behavior. Research on political be-havior using TPB has proved that this model is a better predictor of willingness or intention to participate than Klandermans’ model (Postmes & Brunstig, 2002; Simon, et al, 1998; Armitage & Conner 2001; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010).

Belief is an imperative factor in online peti-tion behavior. It is assumed people consciously support a political cause and TPB is developed to explain human behavior that based on belief (Ajzen, 1988; Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). According to TPB, behavioral belief, nor-mative belief and control belief are antecedents

9


for attitude toward behavior, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control consecutively. From a theoretical perspective, TPB is highly compatible with the online petition phenomenon.

The principle of compatibility of TPB (Ajzen, 1988; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010; Ajzen, 1991) re-quires behavior under interest should be specif-ic action than the general behavior pattern, the principle of compatibility advises that attitude and behavior of interest must correspond in terms of action, target, context and time. The more spe-cific behavior of interest the more accurate TPB level of predictability (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010; McEachan, Conner, Taylor, & Lawton, 2011; Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992).

Social Component of BehaviorAn online petition is categorized as a social

movement in which individuals voluntarily par-ticipate in group action through persuasive or confrontational means to achieve a collective end driven by a distinct ideology, value or political purpose (Postmes & Brunsting, 2002). However, different lines of study have integrated online petition as a form of social movement (van Laer & van Aelst, 2010; Brunstig & Postmes, 2002) defined as “networks of informal interaction be-tween a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organizations, engaged in a political or cultural conflict on the basis of a shared collective identi-ty” (Diani, 1992, p. 13).

This would make social movement is a rep-ertoire of collective action or put differently, a social movement is the networks of collective action and in recent studies, these terms are of-ten used interchangeably (Postmes & Brunig, 2002; Brunig & Postmes, 2002; Varnali & Gor-gulu, 2015, Van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008; Kelly & Berlinger, 1995). Both concepts have overlapping constructs and there are three essential ideas that underpin both: interaction among people in a group setting, shared values that form group cohesion and agreement to work together to achieve a common outcome. The au-thor will use social movement since it is a general term used by political scientists.

A study of older peoples’ movement in Ger-many and the gay rights movement in the USA found that collective motive, social motive, and reward motive are predicting of willingness to participate and added social identification was significantly increased the variance explained (Simon, et al, 1998). Other studies of the envi-ronmental movement in the Netherlands also ob-tained similar findings that social identification was a significant predictor of intention to partic-ipate in the movement (Postmes & Brunig, 2002; Brunig & Postmes, 2002). These studies confirm the social movement definition (Diani, 1992) that social identity is a crucial concept in understand-ing individual participation in collective action (Klandermans, 2004).

However, the individual is living in a web of social structures and one’s identity may be strat-ified, that is, one can simultaneously identify as man, Asians, middle age and journalist, which one is the key identity? The research findings in-dicate that in the context of social movements, individual attachment to collective movement is the most visible social identity (Postmes & Brunig, 2002; Brunig & Postmes, 2002; Simon, et al, 1998; Kelly & Berlinger, 1995). For the pur-pose of this study, two distinct constructs have been developed to differentiate traditional and online social identity: one measuring attachment to a social group and the other gauging collective movement.

SIDE perspective is congruent with the so-cial identity perspective of a social movement that individuals will cognize with lower levels of identification in this case is the collective group identification by releasing higher levels of social category. This means the SIDE model is com-patible with the study of collective action in an online setting irrespective of the present state of the individual (i.e. anonymous and isolated) and proximity of the other group members (Postmes & Brunig, 2002).

SIDE model can provide the ideal circum-stance for online political participation that was less constrained. People can express or exercise their action with low effort and less time consum-ing. Put in the real context some people will feel comfortable in anonymous condition, particular-ly when donating through CMC or want to join with a cause through online petition rather than attending a public demonstration. However, one critique should be addressed that a collective ac-tion is a form of “slacktivism” when participation is shallow action.

There are two objectives that underpin this study: first combining two perspectives: social psychology and resource mobilization, and to examine online petition activity that has never studied before. A synthesis model is built that based on expectancy-value and social identity approach. Unlike the previous expectancy mod-el, TPB is used as a basic theoretical model be-cause this theory can provide better prediction of human behavior (McEachan, Conner, Taylor, & Lawton, 2011; Armitage & Conner 2001; Albar-racin, Johnson, Fishbein, & Muellerleile, 2001).

Additional concepts of social identity and col-lective identification were added into the model to increase the model’s explanatory power. This model also aligns with previous research to pre-dict intention through three factors: affective, individual and collective belief and cognitive cal-culation. Affective will be measured by collective identification, individual and collective belief or attitude toward behavior and subjective norms and cognitive calculation is perceived behavioral control

10


Purpose of StudyThis study offers a framework to understand

the new form of social movement: online peti-tion, which has been understudied in the politi-cal communication fi eld. Rather than to simplify online petition as slacktivism or fully rational decision, individual involvement is suspected as a complex mechanism in which psychological el-ement (Postmes & Brunig 2002; Zomeren, Post-mes & Spears, 2008; Segerberg & Bennet, 2012; Brunsting & Postmes, 2002; Della Porta & Mos-ca, 2005; Bennett & Segerberg, 2013; Segerberg & Bennett, 2011) and social identity (Varnali & Gorgulu, 2015; Spears, et al, 2002; Van Laer, & Van Aelst, 2010) can contributes all together.

A few studies have been done to elaborate structure and actor paradigms in the social move-ment fi eld (Postmes & Spears, 2008; Brunsting & Postmes, 2002; Bennett & Segerberg, 2013), and this study tries to corroborate previous fi ndings and to also elucidate whether weak ties play a signifi cant role than strong ties.

Design and MethodTheoretical Model

The model (fi gure 1) is a combination of TPB and SIDE model which several hypotheses (table 1) are developed to provide explanation of online petition. Hypotheses 1 to 4 were drawn from orig-inal study of TPB (Ajzen, 1988; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010; Ajzen, 2012) and these have been employed to several studies (e.g. Simon, et al, 1998; Lee & Robins, 1998; Armitage & Conner, 2001; Mad-den, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992; McEachan, Conner, Taylor, & Lawton, 2011), therefore:

H1: positive attitude towards online petition associates with higher intention to an online petition

H2: the strength of subjective norms increases intention to online petition

H3: perceived behavior control gives rise to intention to an online petition

H4: perceived behavior control infl uences to signing an online petition

H5: behavior intention and perceived behavior control positively associates with signing an online petition.

Subsequently SIDE model was incorporated to provide more variance into the model and social identity is identifi ed to have a direct connection to intention to participate (Postmes & Brunig, 2002; Brunig & Postmes, 2002):H6: higher attachment social identity as Amer-icans increases intention to an online petition

H7: higher attachment to a movement identity positively associate with intention to an online petition

Furthermore, the author wants to examine which social identifi cation would signifi cantly in-fl uence norms, is it as Americans or attachment to a movement? If an individual’s norms heavily rely to the movement, this would support CMC

Figure 1. Theoretical Model for online Petition Behavior

11


perspective that anonymity is benefi cial for on-line movement.RQ1: does attachment social identity as Ameri-cans would correlate with subjective norms?

RQ2: does attachment to a movement identity would correlate with subjective norms?

MethodTo test the hypotheses, the study is designed

and conducted through an online survey on Am-azon Mechanical Turk. An invitation to partici-pate in the study was posted on MTurk for 7 days in week four on November, 2015. MTurk worker qualifi cations for the current study included a “human intelligence task” (HIT) acceptance rate of 90% or greater. The subject pool was further limited to those who were located in the United States and at least signed one online petition in the past six months that related to political and environmental issues. 220 MTurkers completed the survey and they received 0.33 cents as an in-centive, yet only 187 questionnaires were passed the attentive check questions and used for the fi -nal analysis.

RespondentsDemographic data demonstrate the gender

proportion is equally distributed 49.7% male and 50.3% female yet, skewed toward Caucasian (80%). Approximately over half of the respon-dents have a degree from a college or equal to college with income over $40,000 a year. These fi ndings likely support digital inequality thesis, which savvy Internet users are coming from mid-dle-upper social economic class. Almost half of respondents have strong connections with dem-ocrat party and another one-third claimed as an independent. On average, three petitions were signed in the past six months and mostly relat-ed to political issues. However, the fi ndings can’t be generated outside this research context since participants are MTurkers who voluntarily in-volved can be perceived as a non-probability con-

venient sampling method.A self-report method for TPB has been heavily

criticized for promoting bias of self-presentation and social desirability, but meta-analysis indi-cated only a small effect (5%) has been identifi ed these factors affect TPB components (Armitage & Conner, 2001). Align with this, another problem was addressed to question behavior measure-ment. Some studies used a longitudinal design to measure behavior, but for cross sectional research often TPB measures past behavior as proxy of fu-ture behavior (Ajzen, 2012; Ajzen, 2011).

Validity and ReliabilityAdopting constructs from the theory of planned

behavior and SIDE, all indicators yield good con-vergent and discriminant validities, and reliabil-ity (table. 2)

Reliability tests were conducted to evaluate items consistence across constructs and all vari-ables are yielding a high cronbach’s alpha rang-ing from 0.75 to 0.90 (table.2). Subsequently, no items were dropped from this study.

Factor analysis also yields a similar result as all items were loaded into their constructs and no items were dropped from the analysis. This indicates the study has strong internal validity, mainly for confi rmatory factor analysis, which the theoretical model was supported by the sta-tistical results. Moreover, further analysis using SEM can be conducted as good latent variables would adequately estimate parameter of the entire theoretical model (Dijkstra & Henseler, 2015).

AnalysisBehavioral Intention

Initially, OLS regression was conducted to test behavioral intention and regression anal-ysis corroborates TPB model attitude towards behavior, subjective norms and perceived con-trol were simultaneously explained individual behavioral intention. Perceive behavioral control is the strongest predictor of behavioral intention and its value almost twice of attitude toward be-

Table 1. Hypotheses of the Model

12


havior. It is likely individuals confidently believe that they are capable signing an online petition in the coming months and there are no inhibiting factors that can deter them from doing it. High self-efficacy can also directly promote real action when an individual believes he/she can deliver action in a specific circumstance to accomplish a goal (Bandura, 1986).

Moreover, the result also indicates three com-ponents of attitude, norms and control generate 45.2% proportion of variance in predicting be-havior intention and this finding corroborates previous TPB research that the model can yield moderate to high score of variance explained (Al-barracin, et al 2001; Armitage & Conner, 2001). Signing an online petition can be assumed as a volitional behavior which an individual carefully planned action through the consistency of forma-tion of attitudes, perceived norms and perception of control and the intention they produce. Some-one who has a propensity towards an online pe-tition, under influence of social norms to support a cause and having a high level of efficacy will engender intention that leads into real action. Hypotheses one to four were confirmed that TPB model is sufficiently predicted an individual be-havior signing an online petition.

Further model 2 (Table.2) attests limitation of computer-mediated environment where ver-bal and non-verbal cues are barely detected (β = -.0.82, p > .05) and this means individuals detract-ed from social groups when forming a collective action. Personal attributes were intangible that makes situational norms (i.e. identification to ac-tion) and group identity become salient (Postmes & Spears, 1998; Lea & Spears, 1991; Lea, Spears & de Groot, 2001). The result suggests attitude and group identification are statistically insignif-

icant and failed to generate variance explained to improve model prediction (Table 2, model 2). The finding only supports hypothesis: higher attach-ment to an online petition identification increases intention to an online petition and identification with the broader social group didn’t give much sense to an individual who support a petition.

Anonymity leads individuals to ground deci-sion using relevant and available resources. In the context of digital collective action, individuals who supported and signed a petition are less like-ly to have a personal attachment from previous encounters, thus a group identity is unattainable and people will heavily rely to an online petition itself, identification with the cause. Since individ-uals can’t relate to group identity, it deflates their subjective belief and simultaneously create un-certainty for final goal achievability. This process is similar to computer-mediated communication (Walther, 1996) assumption that communication through the computer is impersonal therefore the richness of text will drive further relationship for people whom they connected through the Inter-net. The cues-filtered-out condition, lack of so-cioemotional expression and text-based message become instrumental and functional which mes-sage elements (i.e. language content and style) are conduits of interpersonal cues (Walther, van de Heide, Ramirez Jr, Burgoon and Pena, 2014). Even though text-based message can convey non-verbal cues for emotional attachment, the process is taking longer than the face-to-face condition. The lack of group identity and interpersonal en-counter, an individual who support the petition decodes a message thoroughly to instigate social identity to the collective action.

Full model examines demographic data (Table 1, model 3) as control variables that might influence

Table 2. Validity and Reliability

Example of Indicator

I intend signing an online petition to support political action in the forthcoming six months (extremely unlikely/likely, 7 scales)

For me signing an online petition to support political action in the forthcoming six months (harmful/beneficial, 7 scales).

Most people who are important to me think that signing an online petition to support political action in the forthcoming six months (I should not/should, 7 scales)

For me signing an online petition to support political action in the forthcoming six months is (impossible/possible, 7 scales)

In many respects, I am like most other Americans (not true/true, 7 scales)

I feel strong with other political activists (not true/true, 7 scales)

Average Factor Loading

0.826

0.786

0.735

0.750

0.818

0.848

Discriminant Validity

0.827

0.787

0.739

0.763

0.827

0.854

Reliability

0.768

0.846

0.831

0.754

0.879

0.904

Constructs

Intention to behavior (3 item)

Attitude toward behavior (5 items)

Subjective norms

Perceived control

Social identity

Movement identity

13


individual’s intention to sign an online petition and the results show no demographic variables are sig-nifi cant. It seems participants are Internet literate that they are a homogenous group who acquire dig-ital dividend with their Internet use.

Behavior of InterestFurthermore, OLS tested two main determi-

nants of behavior in action and the fi ndings were surprising as none of them are statistically sig-nifi cant. However, when each variable was tested independently, the fi nding shows, fi rst an indi-vidual action signing an online petition is a prod-uct of behavior intention (β = 0.074, p < 0.001) and this confi rms the expectancy model (Ajzen, 2010; Ajzen, 1988) while an individual who has a strong disposition toward a behavior will almost certainly do the behavior intention.

This research also found no association be-tween behavioral control and individuals’ action (β = 0.022, p > 0.05) and it indicates in comput-er-mediated setting, a high degree of control of in-ternal and external factors hinders an individual to act spontaneously as intention mediates per-ceived control and actual behavior. The Internet enables a less constrained environment where one can safely conduct collective action with less risk or cost (Van Laer, & Van Aelst, 2010), but this only happens if an individual acquires posi-tive intention toward behavior.

It can be concluded based solely on the regres-sion analysis, TPB model works well to explain

signing an online petition. Individual behavior is perceived rational and volitional, and intention is a signifi cant predictor of behavior of target sign-ing online petition. Hypotheses one to four are supported.

Online Petition between Rational Action and So-cial Infl uence

Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was uti-lized to analyze the full model of signing online petition (Model fi t SRMR = 0.075, NFI 0.728) and it supports hypotheses 5 (r = 0.188, p < 0.05) and 6 (r = 0.169, p< 0.05). But, SEM slightly chang-es TPB model as attitude toward online petition is insignifi cant, and its relationship to intention is fully mediated by subjective norms. This war-rants that anonymity has created uncertainty for individuals and a positive attitude does not drive intention to participate in online petitions, rather they are trying to confi rm with signifi cant other’s preferences, the subjective norms. Social ties, mainly important persons, have a greater infl uence in CMC setting, on which individual lean when social cues are unavailable.

This fi nding may relate to the fi lter bubble (Pariser, 2012) and social media polarization phenomena (Lee, Choi, Kim & Kim, 2014), which describe a phenomenon in which social networks have strong infl uence on an individual’s action on the Internet. Individual behavior can be predict-ed by him/her social networks and often creates inclusive ties. In this regards, CMC may yield a

Table 3. oLS Regression of TPB

14


drawback and negative action, yet in the TPB model this is not the case as another construct, the perceived behavior control, can counterbal-ance negativity, when a person has fully control over behavior, not merely rely on signifi cant oth-ers.

Despite mediated through subjective norms, the study also identifi es a direct correlation be-tween attitude and actual behavior (r = 0.236, p < 0.05). This path supports previous fi ndings of attitude-behavior research that attitude sig-nifi cantly and substantially predicts behavior (Kraus, 1995). Following TPB model, attitude consists of behavioral beliefs which an individu-al makes an evaluation of the expected outcomes and this belief is the subjective probability that is readily available and can be accessed at a given moment (Ajzen, 1988).

This evidences SIDE has played a greater role in CMC setting when persons immerse in a collective action and anonymity hint to a loss of selfhood (Reicher, Spears & Postmes, 1995). Per-sons less inclined toward the outcome of the ac-tion, since they heavily attach to the petition and de-individuation gain positive effects without los-ing control over behavior, maximize the opportu-nity of individuals to exploit their collective iden-

tity (Ajzen & Fisbein 1980; Ajzen, 1988). It can be assumed that a person yields simple calculation of probability whether his/her action would have a future impact.

Someone who signs an online petition may en-gender positive beliefs about the action and its future outcomes. This is a shortcut mechanism whenever a decision should be made immediate-ly and no subjective norms or state control are available. In this context, this path attitude-be-havior can be perceived as “one click away activ-ism” that has been criticized heavily as passive or clicktivism (Morozov, 2009).

Another important aspect to be highlighted is subjective norms to social identity relationship as weak ties have broadened the scope of referent groups. The TPB constructs only defi ne norms as perceived of desirable behavior that referred to important others’ expectation and behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2011) and this study found individual membership as part of the greater so-cial group affects perception about norms. In the CMC context, information becomes an important commodity as individuals’ reliance on text-based petition would be prominent and weak ties can serve the informational purposes (Granovetter 1973). Several studies show weak ties is benefi t-

Figure 2. Structural equation Model of Factors that Contributes to online Petition BehaviorModel fi t indicators: SRMR 0.075, NFI 0.728

Table 4. Hypotheses of Findings

15


ed individuals who seek new information (Boer & Westhoff, 2006; Weening & Midden 1991) and this to be the case in the context of online peti-tions. People are looking for conformity not only through their importance person, but also look up to the social group. Internet, mainly news web-sites and social media offer the platform where information about social group are free and can be accessed anytime. In the future, a distinction between strong and weak ties may be irrelevant as the Internet can provide dense connectivity that will diminish close and distance relation-ship.

Meanwhile, identification of the cause of a movement directly affects intention to sign an online petition and this support previous studies (Simon, et al, 1998; Lee & Robins, 1998) which social and emotional attachment stimulates an individual’s readiness to execute a given behav-ior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1988). A person’s attach-ment to a movement would instigate positive in-tention signing online petition and then leads to actual behavior.

ConclusionTraditionally petition is a top-down collective

action where an organization instigates the ac-tion and information diffuses through interper-sonal communication. Society has changed and new technology has become prominent as our so-cial morphology (Castells, 2000; Castells, 2013) and has reformatted social connection and simul-taneously political participation. The Internet di-minishes time and space constraints for political activity while simultaneously reducing social identity as people can anonymously join in a col-lective action. Due to the low cost of involvement and anonymity condition, the Internet opponents

claimed digital collective action is clicktivism or slacktivism activity (Morozov, 2009).

This study identified that online petition to a certain degree is a volitional behavior when social norms and behavioral control affects an individu-al’s intention which leads to signing an online pe-tition. Positive attitude toward signing online pe-tition creates two routes: first, it directly affects behavior, and secondly mediated by subjective norms it can arouse favorable intention toward behavior. Align with this, the identification of an issue has compensated the lack of group identity which individual derived socioemotional attach-ment through the text-based message.

Furthermore, this study elucidates two types of social connection: identification of social group and identification with the movement. The for-mer correlate with a person’s subjective norm, while the latter associated with the intention to a given behavior. All in all, individual political par-ticipation in CMC setting is a rational action with a degree of control that was influenced by social pressure: attached to a social group and tied to the movement. The findings have challenged pre-vious studies that digital political participation is neither rational action nor slacktivism. Social pressure still plays an important role in support-ing or inhibiting individual action.

The author acknowledges that this study did not disclose a mechanism to what extent one pe-tition can generate thousands of signatures while others were failing in the first place, nor exam-ine message elements as a medium of persua-sion that can explain the effectivity of petition to arouse socioemotional attachment to compensate face-to-face communication and non-verbal cues. These two suggestions can be pursued in future research.

BibliographyAjzen, I. (2012). Martin Fishbein’s Legacy the Reasoned Action Ap-

proach. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 640 (1), 11-27.

_______.(2011). The Theory of Planned Behavior: Reactions and Reflec-tions. Psychology & Health, 26(9), 1113-1127

_______ (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behav-ior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.

_______ (1988). Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

_______ & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of Goal-Directed Behavior: Attitudes, Intentions, and Perceived Behavioral Control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(5), 453-474.

_______& M. Fishbein (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. New Jersey: Prenctice Hall, Inc.

Albarracin, D., Johnson, B. T., Fishbein, M., & Muellerleile, P. A. (2001). Theories of Reasoned Action and Planned Behavior as Mod-els of Condom Use: a Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulle-tin, 127(1), 142.

Anduiza, E., Cristancho, C., & Sabucedo, J. M. (2014). Mobilization through Online Social Networks: the Political Protest of the Indignados in Spain. Information, Communication & Soci-ety, 17(6), 750-764.

Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Meta‐Analytic Review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471-499.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. . New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

BBC (2007, February 10). Road petition breaks a million. BBC.com. Re-trieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6349027.stm

Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. In-formation, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739-768.

Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2013). The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bleakley, A., & Hennessy, M. (2012). The Quantitative Analysis of Rea-soned Action Theory. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 640(1), 28–41.

Brunsting, S., & Postmes, T. (2002). Social Movement Participation in the Digital Age Predicting Offline and Online Collective Action. Small Group Research, 33(5), 525-554.

Chadwick, A. (2008). Web 2.0: New challenges for the Study of e-De-mocracy in an Era of Informational Exuberance. ISJLP, 5, 9.

Castells, M. (1999). Grassrooting the Space of Flows. Urban Geography, 20(4), 294-302.

_________. (2013). Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

_________. (2000). Toward a Sociology of the Network Society. Contem-porary Sociology, 693-699.

Coleman, S., & Blumler, J.G. (2011). The Wisdom of Which Crowd? On the Pathology of a Listening Government. The Political Quarter-ly, 82(3), 355-364.

Della Porta, D., & Mosca, L. (2005). Global-net for Global Movements? A Network of Networks for a Movement of Movements. Journal of Public Policy, 25(01), 165-190.

16


Diani, M. (1992). The Concept of Social Movement. The Sociological Re-

view, 40(1), 1-25.Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent Partial Least Squares

Path Modeling. Management Information Systems Quarter-ly, 39(2), 297-316.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2011). Toward a General Theory of Strate-gic Action Fields. Sociological Theory, 29(1), 1-26.

Gidden, A. (1990). The Consequence of Modernity. In S. Appelrouth & L. D. Endles (eds), Sociological Theory in the Contemporary Era (pp.541-553). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Gil de Zúñiga, H., Molyneux, L., & Zheng, P. (2014). Social Media, Po-litical Expression, and Political Participation: Panel Analysis of Lagged and Concurrent Relationships. Journal of Communica-tion, 64(4), 612-634.

Gonzales-Bailon, S. (2013). Online Social Networks and Bottom-up Pol-itics. In Dutton, W.H. & Graham, M. (eds). Society and the In-ternet: How Information and Social Networks are Changing our Lives (pp.209-222). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.

Kelly, C., & Breinlinger, S. (1995). Identity and Injustice: Exploring Wom-en’s Participation in Collective Action. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 5(1), 41-57.

Klandermans, B. (1984). Mobilization and Participation: Social-Psycho-logical Expansions of Resource Mobilization Theory. American Sociological Review, 49(5), 583-600.

_____________. (2004). The Demand and Supply of Participation: So-cial-Psychological Correlates of Participation in Social Move-ments. The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements (pp. 360-379). Blackwell Publishing. Blackwell Reference Online. 04 April 2015 <http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/toc-node.html?id=g9780631226697_chunk_g978063122669717

Kraus, S. J. (1995). Attitudes and the Prediction of Behavior: A Me-ta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(1), 58-75.

Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet Paradox: A Social Technology that Reduces Social Involvement and Psychological Well-be-ing?. American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017.

Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-Mediated Communication, De-individuation and Group Decision-Making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(2), 283-301.

Lea, M., Spears, R., & de Groot, D. (2001). Knowing Me, Knowing You: Anonymity Effects on Social Identity Processes Within Groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(5), 526-537.

Lee, J. K., Choi, J., Kim, C., & Kim, Y. (2014). Social Media, Network Heterogeneity, and Opinion Polarization. Journal of Communi-cation, 64(4), 702-722.

Madden, T. J., Ellen, P. S., & Ajzen, I. (1992). A Comparison of the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Theory of Reasoned Action. Per-sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(1), 3-9.

Margetts, H., Scott A.H., & Yaseri, T. (2014). Big Data and Collective Action. In Dutton, W.H. & Graham, M. (eds). Society and the In-ternet: How Information and Social Networks are Changing our Lives (pp.223-237). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Morozov, E. (2009). The Brave New World of Slacktivism. Foreign Poli-cy, 19(05) at http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/19/the_brave_new_world_of_slacktivism, accessed 03 November 2014.

McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (1996). To Map Contentious Politics. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 1(1), 17-34.

McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory. American Journal of Sociology, 1212-1241.

McEachan, R. R. C., Conner, M., Taylor, N. J., & Lawton, R. J. (2011). Prospective Prediction of Health-Related Behaviours with the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Meta-Analysis. Health Psychol-ogy Review, 5(2), 97-144.

Morris, A. (2000). Reflections on Social Movement Theory: Criticisms and Proposals. Contemporary Sociology, 445-454.

Pariser, E. (2011). The filter Bubble: How the New Personalized web is Changing What We Read and How We Think. New York: Pen-guin.

Postmes, T., & Brunsting, S. (2002). Collective Action in the Age of the Internet Mass Communication and Online Mobilization. Social Science Computer Review, 20(3), 290-301.

_________, Spears, R., Sakhel, K., & Groot, D. D. (2001). Social Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication : The Effects of Ano-nymity on Group Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1243–1254.

_________, & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and Antinormative Be-havior: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123(3), 238.

_________, Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or Building Social Boundaries? SIDE-Effects of Computer-Mediated Communica-tion. Communication Research, 25(6), 689-715.

Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling Alone: the Collapse and Revival of Amer-ican Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Phenomena. European Review of Social Psy-chology, 6(1), 161–198.

Simon, B., Loewy, M., Stürmer, S., Weber, U., Freytag, P., Habig, C., & Spahlinger, P. (1998). Collective Identification and Social Move-ment Participation. Journal of Personality and Social psycholo-gy, 74(3), 646.

Segerberg, A., & Bennett, W. L. (2011). Social Media and the Organi-zation of Collective Action: Using Twitter to Explore the Ecol-ogies of Two Climate Change Protests. The Communication Review, 14(3), 197-215.

Spears, R., Lea, M., Corneliussen, R. A., Postmes, T., & Ter Haar, W. (2002). Computer-Mediated Communication as a Channel for Social Resistance the Strategic Side of SIDE. Small Group Re-search, 33 (5), 555-574.

Tarrow, S. (2005). The New Transnational Activism. Cambridge University Press.

________. (1994). Contentious Politics and Social Movement. In Tarrow, S. (ed). Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Ac-tion and Politics (pp. 10-25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Theocharis, Y., Lowe, W., van Deth, J. W., & García-Albacete, G. (2015). Using Twitter to Mobilize Protest Action: Online Mobilization Pat-terns and Action Repertoires in the Occupy Wall Street, Indig-nados, and Aganaktismenoi Movements. Information, Commu-nication & Society, 18(2), 202-220.

Van Laer, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2010). Internet and Social Movement Action Repertoires: Opportunities and Limitations. Information, Com-munication & Society, 13(8), 1146-1171.

Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an Integra-tive Social Identity Model of Collective Action: a Quantitative Research Synthesis of Three Socio-Psychological Perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134 (4), 504-535.

Varnali, K., & Gorgulu, V. (2015). A Social Influence Perspective on Ex-pressive Political Participation in Twitter: the Case of# Occupy-Gezi. Information, Communication & Society, 18(1), 1-16.

Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Ramirez Jr, A., Burgoon, J. K., & Peña, J. (2015). Interpersonal and Hyperpersonal Dimensions of Computer-Mediated Communication. The Handbook of the Psy-chology of Communication Technology, 1-22.

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.

Westerman, D., Spence, P. R., & Van Der Heide, B. (2014). Social Me-dia as Information Source: Recency of Updates and Credibility of Information. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(2), 171–183.

Wojcieszak, M. (2011). When Deliberation Divides: Processes Under-lying Mobilization to Collective Action. Communication Mono-graphs, 78(3), 324-346.

Wright, S. (2012). Assessing (e-) Democratic Innovations: “Democratic Goods” and Downing Street e-Petitions. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(4), 453-70.

Documents

Understanding Online Political Participation: Theory of