Content uploaded by Homero Gil de Zúñiga
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Homero Gil de Zúñiga on Mar 04, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
298 Int. J. Mobile Communications, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2019
Copyright © 2019 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
The impact of mobile communication uses on civic
engagement: moderating effects of exposure to
politically diverse and weak-tie networks
Chang Sup Park*
Department of Communication,
State University of New York,
Albany, New York, USA
Email: cpark2@albany.edu
*Corresponding author
Homero Gil de Zúñiga
Department of Communication,
University of Vienna, Austria
and
Universidad Diego Portales, Chile
Email: homero.gil.de.zuniga@univie.ac.at
Abstract: Based on a nationally representative survey (N = 1,540) of mobile
phone users, this study investigates how diverse types of mobile phone use
relate to exposure to different political and social views (i.e., crosscutting
exposure), attributes of people’s discussion network (i.e., weak-tie contacts),
and civic engagement. Results indicate that using mobile phones for
informational and expressive purposes is closely linked to exposure to diverse
viewpoints through mobile communication and engagement in civic affairs.
Recreational use of the mobile phone has a statistically significant link to
crosscutting exposure. Further, both crosscutting exposure and weak-tie
contacts moderate the association between mobile phone use for informational
and recreational purposes and civic engagement. In a three-way interaction,
crosscutting exposure and weak-tie contacts moderate the relationship between
informational mobile phone use and civic engagement.
Keywords: mobile phone; civic engagement; crosscutting exposure; weak ties.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Park, C.S. and
de Zúñiga, H.G. (2019) ‘The impact of mobile communication uses on civic
engagement: moderating effects of exposure to politically diverse and weak-tie
networks’, Int. J. Mobile Communications, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.298–325.
Biographical notes: Chang Sup Park is an Assistant Professor at the State
University of New York at Albany, where he teaches journalism and digital
media. His major research interests focus on mobile/social media, digital
journalism, and civic engagement. He is also interested in media representation
of immigrants and ethnic minorities.
Homero Gil de Zúñiga received his PhD in Politics at Universidad Europea de
Madrid and PhD in Mass Communication at University of Wisconsin –
Madison, he holds the Medienwandel Professorship at University of Vienna,
where he directs the Media Innovation Lab (MiLab). Prior to joining Vienna,
The impact of mobile communication uses on civic engagement 299
he also serves or has served as Nieman Journalism Lab Research Fellow at
Harvard University, at the Universidad Diego Portales, and at the Center for
Information Technology Policy at Princeton University. His research addresses
the influence of new technologies and digital media over people’s daily lives,
as well as the effect of such use on the overall democratic process.
Homero Gil de Zúñiga is a Doctor in Political Science at the Universidad
Europea de Madrid and also pursued his PhD in Mass Communication with a
minor in digital media from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Currently,
he holds the Medienwandel Professorship at the University of Vienna, Austria,
where he leads the Media Innovation Lab (MiLab). His research addresses the
influence of new technologies and digital media over people’s daily lives, as
well as the effect of such use on the overall democratic process.
1 Introduction
The mobile phone, the fastest diffusing medium ever (Jensen, 2013), is an integral part of
today’s human society, affecting diverse aspects of civic life (Campbell and Kwak, 2011;
Huang, 2016; Martin, 2014). The mobile phone is prominently used in promoting social
issues, social causes, and political campaigns (Murray, 2017). Despite some efforts to
understand the civic potential of the mobile phone, only recent studies have delved into
the effects mobile communications may have on civic life (e.g., Campbell and Kwak,
2010a, 2010b; Martin, 2016).
Drawing upon the crosscutting exposure thesis (Huckfeldt et al., 1995; Mutz, 2002b),
this study examines the role of the mobile phone in civic engagement, which is defined as
voluntary activity aimed at addressing social and/or community issues that are beneficial
to the collective well-being (Gil de Zúñiga and Valenzuela, 2011; Verba et al., 1995).
Exposure to dissonant viewpoints is a fundamental building block of democracy because
it develops a civic mindedness of mutual understanding and tolerance (Habermas, 2006;
Park and Kaye, 2017).
Concerning the impacts of digital media on crosscutting exposure, two competing
hypotheses provide fairly different predictions. One hypothesis posits that individuals are
more likely to avoid dissonant perspectives on the internet (Sunstein, 2001; van Alstyne
and Brynjolfsson, 2005), while the other hypothesis predicts that internet-based digital
media will enable individuals to encounter more diverse views (Bimber, 2004;
Papacharissi, 2002). To date, there has been little research about whether types of mobile
phone use have any significant link to crosscutting exposure. Thus, this study first tests
the competing hypotheses about crosscutting exposure in the context of mobile
communication. Particularly, this study focuses on how certain mobile phone activities
(i.e., information seeking, social interaction, and recreation) predict crosscutting exposure
because distinctive types of media use often lead to differing political consequences
(Wojcieszak and Mutz, 2009).
This study also investigates the moderating role of crosscutting exposure and weak
ties. Given that exposure to disagreement triggers greater cognitive action (Levine and
Russo, 1995), it is likely that crosscutting exposure plays a moderating role in the
association between mobile phone use and civic engagement. In addition, this study
examines how weak ties relate to mobile phone use, crosscutting exposure, and civic
300 C.S. Park and H.G. de Zúñiga
engagement, considering that the number of weak ties in one’s regular conversation
network is a crucial motivator of civic engagement (Gil de Zúñiga and Valenzuela, 2011;
Son and Lin, 2008).
Taken together, this study develops a model to measure the interconnections among
mobile phone use, citizens’ levels of crosscutting exposure, people’s mobile phone
contacts as a proxy for weak-ties connection, and their civic engagement. To this end,
this study analyses original survey data from a national sample of South Korean adults
gathered in 2014. Findings will contribute to extending the understanding of interplays
between mobile phone use, crosscutting exposure, and civic engagement, posing
significant ramifications to the future of democracy.
2 Literature review
2.1 Mobile communication and crosscutting exposure
Democratic theory has long considered crosscutting exposure an essential component of
a healthy and pluralistic democracy (Habermas, 2006; Gil de Zúñiga, 2015). Recent
empirical research demonstrates that exposure to dissimilar viewpoints has several
tangible benefits: increasing familiarity with the rationales of opposing views (Park and
Kaye, 2017), fostering political tolerance (Mutz, 2002a; Price et al., 2002), more careful
scrutiny of alternative perspectives (Delli Carpini et al., 2004; Mendelberg, 2002), and
developing an ability to differentiate among ideologically distinct attitudes (Gastil et al.,
2008). In short, most studies on exposure to dissonant viewpoints indicate pro-civic
consequences.
Despite considerable scholarly effort during the last two decades, the relationship
between digital media use and crosscutting exposure is not conclusive. Broadly, two
theoretical arguments have been proposed. One argument suggests that people use the
increased control provided by digital media to selectively expose themselves to
like-minded others and ideologically consonant information, avoiding exposure to
political difference (e.g., Iyengar and Hahn, 2009; Ksiazek et al., 2010). For example,
one study found that Twitter users are less likely to be exposed to cross-ideological
content, because the ability to build their own networks can result in politically
homogeneous clusters (Himelboim et al., 2013).
Another argument is that internet use contributes to deliberative democracy by
increasing people’s exposure to dissimilar viewpoints through the weakening of social
boundaries and the bridging of geographical divides (Brundidge, 2010; Kim, 2011). This
argument places considerable weight on the new opportunities offered by digital media.
Social networking sites users are more likely to encounter crosscutting perspectives
(Kim, 2011; Kim et al., 2013). This is because the various features of these platforms
create opportunities for inadvertent exposure. For example, people may be exposed to
more heterogeneous populations, hyperlinks, and interactive communication applications.
One concerns in this area is that prior studies have focused on media users’ political
predispositions – partisanship or ideology (e.g., Mutz, 2002b; Stroud, 2010) – to explain
encountering or avoiding crosscutting viewpoints. However, exposure to or avoidance of
dissimilar information can take place regardless of party preference. For example, many
The impact of mobile communication uses on civic engagement 301
people check tweets regularly via their mobile phones during an election campaign,
mainly because Twitter provides recent updates of the campaign in real-time, rather than
because Twitter provides information aligned to their political orientation. In other
words, Twitter use is motivated not only by an effort to find support or avoid challenges,
but also by a reflection of their personal interest in or curiosity for the campaign
(Gil de Zúñiga and Valenzuela, 2010). Additionally, people may not avoid dissonant
information when they think that information might be useful for future decisions or
engagement in discussion with others (Pingree, 2007). Therefore, the odds of
encountering dissonant information may be more contingent upon types of mobile phone
use than upon the political predisposition of a mobile phone user.
Another concern is that different types of media exercise different impacts on
crosscutting exposure. The mobile phone offers multiple layers of communication
(Huang, 2016; Ishii, 2006; Ling, 2008), suggesting that it may have different implications
for crosscutting exposure compared with other media. One striking characteristic of the
mobile phone is multimodality (Leander and Vasudevan, 2009); the mobile phone adopts
a variety of media at one place, including television, radio, social networking services,
and so forth. This medium is also distinct from others in that it allows users to seamlessly
weave interactions with both strong and weak ties (Rainie and Wellman, 2012;
Bachmann and Gil de Zúñiga, 2013). Thus, the mobile phone offers a greater opportunity
to meet diverse information than other media (Lee and Kwak, 2016). At the same time,
the mobile phone is the most ‘private’ medium in human history, by which some users
communicate mostly with close-knit ties (Gergen, 2008). Indeed, some scholars argue
that many people now live in floating worlds of friends and family members, due to the
anytime – anywhere affordances of mobile communication (Gergen, 2003; Ishii, 2006).
Therefore, focusing on why and how people use their mobile phone instead of how often
they use their mobile phone will better capture the subtle relationship between the mobile
phone and crosscutting exposure.
Drawing upon the above reasoning, this study concentrates on examining how types
of mobile phone use predict crosscutting exposure, controlling for political interest and
ideology in the analysis. For instance, information-focused uses are likely to result in
encountering more diversity on the mobile phone than on other media. In contrast,
relation-focused use will meet less diversity on the mobile phone than on other media.
Depending on specific types of mobile phone use, the odds of meeting dissonant
viewpoints may vary significantly.
Accordingly, this study focuses on the interconnection of mobile phone usage types
and exposure to dissimilar viewpoints. Based on previous literature in this area
(Campbell and Kwak, 2010a, 2010b, 2011; Chan, 2015; Lee et al., 2014), this study
examines how the following three usage types relate to crosscutting exposure and civic
engagement:
1 information seeking and expression about news and public affairs
2 sociability with family and friends
3 personal recreation.
A factor analysis supports such categorisation (Table 1).
302 C.S. Park and H.G. de Zúñiga
Table 1 Confirmatory factor analysis of mobile phone use items
Item Informational
use
Relational
use
Recreational
use
Went online to read opinions of others regarding
social issues
0.880
Accessed news 0.869
Called others to discuss social matters 0.858
Used text/instant messages to discuss social matters 0.816
Called friends or family just to be social 0.718
Used text/instant messages to interact with friends
or family to be social
0.712
E-mailed friends or family to be social 0.745
Went online to share content that is entertaining 0.845
Browsed web just for fun 0.804
Went online for games and other forms of
entertainment
0.823
Notes: N = 1,530. Standardised factor loadings. x2 = 569.21; p < 0.001; df = 18;
RMSEA = 0.044; CFI = 0.953; TLI = 0.968.
Individuals seek and obtain different gratifications when they use mobile phones
(Campbell and Kwak, 2011). Informational use of the mobile phone, defined as using
mobile phones to gather and discuss content about news and public affairs (Campbell and
Kwak, 2011), can help users encounter heterogeneous viewpoints or information not
frequently found in their immediate circle (Wilken, 2011). Research shows that people
select news on social media based on social endorsement cues provided by other users,
rather than partisan cues aligned with their political orientation or partisanship (Messing
and Westwood, 2012). Similarly, people who use mobile phones for information seeking
are exposed to information that their acquaintances or co-workers endorse, as well as
information that resonates with their preferences. In this process, informational uses of
mobile phones can increase opportunities for users to come in contact with dissimilar
views, despite their selective preferences for attitude-consistent messages (Kim et al.,
2013).
H1 Use of the mobile phone for informational and expressive purposes is positively
related to crosscutting exposure.
Sociability, or relational use refers to mobile phone use to manage close-tie relationships
(Lee and Kwak, 2016; Ling, 2008). Relational use remarkably stands out in mobile
communication because it lowers the threshold for interaction with a select group of
others (Ling, 2008). Particularly, mobile communication allows ‘perpetual contact’ with
close ties virtually at any time and place (Katz and Aakhus, 2002), which may lead to
small and like-minded clusters (Gergen, 2008). Consequently, individuals who use
mobile phones mainly for relationships with like-minded and close-knit ties may insulate
themselves from others or those who hold dissimilar views (Ling, 2008; Wilken, 2011).
H2 Use of the mobile phone for relational purposes is negatively associated with
crosscutting exposure.
The impact of mobile communication uses on civic engagement 303
Recreational use refers to using mobile phones primarily for distraction or personal
entertainment (Kwak et al., 2011). Although recreational media users do not intentionally
seek differing viewpoints, they often meet information from various sources while
enjoying entertainment (Stroud and Muddiman, 2012). For example, when surfing the
web for fun, mobile phone users can accidentally meet diverse, sometimes dissonant,
information because the lowered sense of social presence experienced through the mobile
phone may reduce the social risks and potential negative effects of exposure to dissenting
views (Stromer-Galley, 2000). Wojcieszak and Mutz (2009) found that apolitical online
group activities were more likely to contribute to exposure to crosscutting perspectives.
Building upon the above reasoning and literature, the current study hypothesises:
H3 Use of the mobile phone for personal recreation purposes is positively related to
crosscutting exposure.
2.2 Crosscutting exposure and civic engagement
This study also examines how exposure to differing viewpoints via the mobile phone
relates to civic engagement. In this study civic engagement is conceptualised as citizens’
voluntary civic actions that are not political in nature but are directed toward solving
community problems as a main objective (Verba et al., 1995). The underlying rationale
guiding this definition is that individuals’ civic behaviours do not seek to influence the
government or political institutions, but rather aim to foster community life and
citizenship via charity donations, voluntary work for non-political groups, or taking part
in community projects. Being involved in civic associations and volunteer work not only
helps develop civic skills but also fosters trust in others, thereby enabling collective
action to address social needs (Adler and Goggin, 2005).
The association between crosscutting experiences and civic engagement has been a
subject of debate for decades. The debate has revolved around two conceptual
frameworks. One stream of research claims that divergent viewpoints deter participation
because the cross-pressures of conflict and inconsistency (with one’s previously held
beliefs) drive people in opposite directions, diminish interest, foster ambivalence, and
discourage turnout (Huckfeldt et al., 2004; Mutz, 2006).
Mutz (2002a), for example, demonstrated negative effects of network heterogeneity
on political participation because of ‘cross-cutting pressures’. She explained that
individuals entrenched in politically heterogeneous social networks steer clear of politics
out of the desire not to threaten the harmony of their social relationships. Also, meeting
heterogeneity may create greater ambivalence about political actions, discouraging
decisive political action (Mutz, 2002a). However, little empirical evidence has been
found to support the cross-pressures hypothesis.
Another stream of research has demonstrated positive impacts as the result of
encountering differences on civic engagement (Huckfeldt et al., 2004; Price et al., 2002;
Scheufele et al., 2004). Discussion with diverse people usually results in network
members having to compromise between different viewpoints, motivating these
individuals to re-evaluate the issues where conflict occurs (Knight and Johnson, 1994).
Exposure to disagreement is also likely to produce greater cognitive activity (Levine and
Russo, 1995), forcing individuals to learn about alternative perspectives and to reflect
more carefully on what they already know, thereby enhancing political knowledge and
304 C.S. Park and H.G. de Zúñiga
understanding (McPhee et al., 1963). Increased political knowledge is positively related
to increased political participation (Ikeda and Boase, 2011).
The contrasting camps have one argument in common: crosscutting exposure plays a
substantial role in connecting media use to one’s civic awareness and triggering the
individual’s civic consciousness. Social capital theory posits that interaction with socially
and politically heterogeneous people positively affects political efficacy (Putnam, 2000),
which is a precondition of civic engagement. Put differently, crosscutting exposure may
play a supplemental – although not primary or direct – role in civic engagement.
Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that in certain situations crosscutting exposure may
interact with mobile phone use, triggering civic engagement.
Evidence of the direct association between informational use of mobile
communication and civic engagement is solid (Martin, 2016; Campbell and Kwak, 2011;
Kwak et al., 2011). In addition, several studies suggest that encountering ‘diverse’
information expands opportunities to learn about civic issues, positively influencing the
level of confidence in one’s ability to understand public issues (Ardèvol-Abreu et al.,
2017; Putnam, 2000). Enhanced civic competence can eventually result in increased civic
engagement. Similarly, Scheufele et al. (2004) found that encountering political
heterogeneity promotes individuals’ political participation by motivating them to gain
political knowledge through news consumption. Therefore, it logically follows that
meeting diversity through informational uses of the mobile phone will be beneficial to
triggering involvement in civic affairs.
H4 Crosscutting exposure has a moderating effect on the association between mobile
phone use for informational and expressive purposes and civic engagement.
Keeping relationships only with close-knit people may have a negative influence on
social connections (Granovetter, 1982) because it promotes alienation from open
discussions with others, ultimately strengthening selective sociality (Gergen, 2008; Ling,
2008). However, under certain conditions relational use of the mobile phone may result
in increased civic engagement (Campbell and Kwak, 2010a). For example, a person’s
casual chatting with friends and family does not prevent the person from disseminating
political information by sparking up a conversation about public issues (Gil de Zúñiga
et al., 2016). Relationship maintenance also offers models of social behaviour that people
can emulate in civic life and motivates them to consider the broader issues of their
community. This study asserts that such a positive scenario could become more plausible
with the help of crosscutting exposure, because diverse information is likely to offer
substantial opportunities to learn about and participate in public affairs. At least one study
offers empirical support this idea. In that study, crosscutting discussion and strong
homogeneity in the mobile phone interact with each other to predict increased political
participation (Lee and Kwak, 2016).
H5 Crosscutting exposure has a moderating effect on the association between mobile
phone use for relational purposes and civic engagement.
Research shows that recreational uses of traditional media (e.g., Besley, 2006) and the
internet (e.g., Cho et al., 2003) do not contribute to civic engagement. However,
non-civic activities such as spending time with people and getting to know other
individuals offer “a natural setting for public discussion by lowering the barriers of
psychological and social influences” [Gil de Zúñiga et al., (2016), p.535].
The impact of mobile communication uses on civic engagement 305
The current study expects that crosscutting exposure will influence the association
between recreational use of mobile phones and civic engagement because encountering
diversity can broaden the scope of attention to civic affairs beyond personal or
recreational interests (Hurtado and DeAngelo, 2012). In other words, crosscutting
exposure may help dispel the proposed troublesome link between recreational use of
mobile phones and civic engagement. Thus, this research poses:
H6 Crosscutting exposure has a moderating effect on the association between mobile
phone use for recreational purposes and civic engagement.
2.3 Moderating role of weak ties between mobile phone use and civic
engagement
This study also aims to contribute to the literature about mobile phone use in civic life by
examining the role of weak ties, which has a positive association with civic engagement
(e.g., Gil de Zúñiga and Valenzuela, 2011; Son and Lin, 2008).
Rainie and Wellman (2012) argue that the mobile phone empowers people by
propagating a new form of ‘networked individualism’, which is characterised by readily
available information and perpetual links with a diverse array of people – both strong and
weak ties. If people have frequent contacts with weak ties in addition to avid demand for
information, they have a greater probability of being recruited to participate in civic or
community events (Kotler-Berkowitz, 2005). Expanded weak ties can also provide
information and resources that individuals do not find in their immediate environment of
relatives and close friends. Expanded weak ties can provide a variety of information that
stimulates learning about civic issues, even to those who use their mobile phone for
relational and recreational purposes. On the other hand, as weak ties shrink, the
likelihood of getting involved in the civic process is reduced because fewer weak ties
provide less opportunity to get in contact with those who hold different viewpoints.
Based on the above reasoning and literature, the following is posed:
H7 The number of weak-tie contacts via the mobile phone has a moderating effect on
the association between mobile phone use (informational, relational, and
recreational) and civic engagement.
2.4 Weak ties and crosscutting exposure
An individual’s strong, homogeneous ties function as a basis for repeated exposure to
agreeable beliefs and values (McPherson et al., 2001). To the contrary, weak ties provide
information and resources that individuals do not find in strong-tie connections
(Valenzuela et al., 2011). In the civic realm, the strength of weak ties lies in the provision
of diverse information (La Due Lake and Huckfeldt, 1998; Wellman, 1997). This line of
reasoning implies that weak ties and crosscutting exposure in mobile communication are
correlated.
H8 The number of weak-tie contacts and crosscutting exposure via the mobile phone
are positively related.
This study expects statistically significant interaction (moderation) effects between
mobile phone use and crosscutting exposure in predicting civic engagement (H4, H5, and
306 C.S. Park and H.G. de Zúñiga
H6). In addition, research shows that weak ties provide non-redundant, diverse
information that stimulates learning and offers new opportunities of mobilisation
(Gil de Zúñiga and Valenzuela, 2011; La Due Lake and Huckfeldt, 1998). Therefore, it is
likely that crosscutting exposure and weak ties make a synergistic impact on civic
engagement. Given that little empirical evidence exists regarding the possible interaction
effect, this study poses the following research question:
RQ1 How do weak-tie contacts influence the association between mobile phone use
(informational, relational, and recreational), crosscutting exposure, and civic
engagement?
Figure 1 Research model
3 Method
3.1 Data collection
This study relies on online survey data collected from the residents of South Korea
between 1 June and 30 June 2014. To assure the representativeness of the sample, data
were collected using stratified quota sampling. Based on the 2012 voter registration data
(about 41,300,000 registered voters) of the Korea Election Management Commission,
this study selected 5,000 adults using a four-way cross-classification system to preserve
representation (age × gender × education × income). This stratified quota sampling differs
from conventional probability sampling procedures, yet produces highly comparable data
(Eveland and Shah, 2003). The target participants were provided the present survey’s
URL via e-mails. To increase the response rate, subjects were entered into a raffle for 10
$20 gift cards, and two reminder e-mails (10 June and 20 June) were sent out. The
invitation obtained 1,540 responses. The response rate was 30.8% (AAPOR RR3, 2011).
Demographic characteristics of the sample resemble the profiles of the population
figures of South Korea (OECD, 2017; Statistics Korea, 2017), with respect to age (mean
The impact of mobile communication uses on civic engagement 307
age: 37.2 in the sample and 39 in the population) and education (two-year college degree:
45.9% in the sample and 45% in the population). The median household income of the
population (KRW 412,000) is within the range of the sample median (KRW 4,000,001 ~
5,000,000). The sample contains more females (51%) than the population (49%), but the
difference is only 2% point. Such differences can be explained partially by the fact that
the labour force participation rate for Korean women (53.1%) is lower than that of
Korean men (74.5%) (Park and Cho, 2017). It is likely that Korean female adults who do
not have jobs have more time to participate in surveys. Additionally, Smith (2008)
suggests a theory that females tend to respond more actively to a request than males
because females value characteristics consistent with connective selves, such as empathy
or emotional closeness while males are more likely to place a high value on separative
characteristics.
3.2 Measurement
3.2.1 Types of mobile phone use
Eleven items were drawn from previous studies (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2012; Leung and
Wei, 2000; Wei and Lo, 2006). Respondents indicated during the last month how often
they engaged in the following activities using their mobile phone on a five-point scale
ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very frequently). Information/expression use:
1 went online to read opinions of others regarding social issues
2 accessed news
3 called others to discuss social matters
4 used text/instant messages to discuss social matters
5 went online to express my opinions about social issues.
Relational use:
1 called friends or family to be social
2 sent texts or instant messages to friends or family to be social
3 e-mailed friends or family to be social.
Recreational use:
1 went online for games and other forms of entertainment
2 browsed web just for fun
3 went online to share content that is entertaining.
Before creating average items constructs, the authors tested the validity of categories by
conducting a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Based on a three-factor model using
Mplus, the results indicated that one item (‘went online to express my opinions about
social issues’) had a low factor loading. Therefore, we removed the item. The analysis in
Table 1 shows an adequate fit, x2 = 569.21; p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.044; CFI = 0.953;
TLI = 0.968.
308 C.S. Park and H.G. de Zúñiga
3.2.2 Crosscutting exposure
Following Kim (2011), this study asked respondents during the past three months how
often they were exposed to socially or politically disagreeing messages on the mobile
phone via:
1 texting (including instant messaging)
2 web searching
3 social media use.
The responses were coded on a four-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (regularly)
(α = 0.73, M = 2.23, SD = 1.02).
3.2.3 Weak-tie contacts
Extending Gil de Zúñiga and Valenzuela’s (2011) measure of weak-tie discussion, this
study asked participants to estimate the number of non-family members, acquaintances or
unfamiliar people with whom they communicated about social or political affairs via their
mobile phone during the last two weeks (M = 4.29, SD = 2.55).
3.2.4 Civic Engagement
Relying on Gil de Zúñiga and Valenzuela (2011) and Zukin et al. (2006), the current
study asked respondents during the past three months how frequently they participated in
the following activities on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very
frequently):
1 worked or volunteered for non-political groups, such as a community project
2 attended a meeting to discuss neighbourhood problems
3 raised money for a charity or participated in a run/walk/bike for charity
4 bought a certain product or service because I like the social or political values of the
company
5 banned a product or service because I disagree with the social or political values of
the company1 (α = 0.80, M = 2.68, SD = 1.25).
As control variables, this study included age, gender, education, household income,
political interest, political efficacy, political talk, and news exposure, all of which were
found to influence civic engagement (Campbell and Kwak, 2011; Jennings and Zeitner,
2003; Shah et al., 2005).
Drawing upon Gil de Zúñiga et al. (2014b) and Campbell and Kwak (2011), News
Exposure was measured by asking participants during the last week how often they
consumed news about current events or public issues from:
1 network television
2 cable TV
3 daily newspapers
The impact of mobile communication uses on civic engagement 309
4 web-only newspapers
5 news aggregators (i.e., Daum news, Naver news) on a five-point scale.
Responses were combined into an additive index (α = 0.71, M = 2.45, SD = 2.01).
Table 2 Descriptive statistics of variables
Variable Minimum Maximum Mean SD
Cronbach alpha
(
α
)/Spearman
Brown coefficient
Age 19 64 37.2 13.6
Gender Females: 51%
Education Middle
school or
less
Graduate
degree
Median:
two-year college
Household income KRW
2,000,000
or less
KRW
10,000,001
or more
Median: KRW
4,000,001 ~
5,000,000
News exposure 1 5 2.45 2.01
α = 0.71
Offline political talk 1 5 2.13 1.28
α = 0.78
Online political talk 1 5 2.49 1.39 Spearman Brown
coefficient = 0.70
Strength of party ties 1 7 4.20 2.47
Political efficacy 1 5 2.83 1.06
α = 0.85
Political interest 1 5 2.85 1.53
Informational use 1 5 2.69 0.97
α = 0.80
Relational use 1 5 3.30 1.02
α = 0.77
Recreational use 1 5 3.08 0.96
α = 0.76
Weak-tie contacts 0 20 4.29 2.55
Crosscutting exposure 1 4 2.23 1.02
α = 0.73
Civic engagement 1 5 2.68 1.25
α = 0.80
Political interest was assessed on a five-point scale by asking respondents how much
they are interested in political affairs (M = 2.85, SD = 1.53). Strength of party ties was
measured on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (very weak) to 7 (very strong) (M = 4.20,
SD = 2.47). Following Craig et al. (1990), political efficacy was assessed on a five-point
agree/disagree scale with the following three items:
1 I consider myself well-qualified to participate in politics
2 I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of the important political issues facing
our country
3 I think that I am as well informed about politics and government as most people
(α = 0.85, M = 2.83, SD = 1.06).
This study also controlled for offline and online political talk, which are closely related to
civic engagement (Nisbet and Scheufele, 2004). Drawing upon Gil de Zúñiga et al.
310 C.S. Park and H.G. de Zúñiga
(2014b) and Pan et al. (2006), offline political talk was measured on a five-point scale by
asking during the last two weeks how often respondents talked about politics face to face
or over the phone with:
1 friends
2 family
3 acquaintances (α = 0.78, M = 2.13, SD = 1.28).
Online political talk was assessed on a five-point scale by asking respondents during the
last two weeks how often they talked about politics:
1 on a web site
2 via an e-mail (Spearman Brown coefficient = 0.70, M = 2.49, SD = 1.39).
Table 3 Partial correlation among mobile phone usage types, crosscutting exposure, weak-tie
contacts, and civic engagement
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Informational use - 0.05 –0.01 0.17*** 0.06 0.22***
2 Relational use - 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.04
3 Recreational use - 0.12* 0.10* 0.05
4 Crosscutting exposure - 0.25*** 0.10*
5 Weak-tie contacts - 0.15*
6 Civic engagement -
Notes: Cell entries are partial correlation coefficients, controlling for age, gender,
education, income, news exposure, political interest, political efficacy, strength of
party ties, offline political talk, and online political talk. *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001.
N = 1,505.
3.3 Data analysis
To test the research question and hypotheses, a series of hierarchical ordinary least
squares (OLS) regressions were run in which the independent variables were entered in
the model in blocks. To test moderation effects (H4, H5, H6, H7, and RQ1), interaction
terms were created. To prevent the potential problems with multi-collinearity between
interaction terms and their components, all of the variables were centred before being
used to create interaction terms (Aiken et al., 1991).
4 Results
This study expected a positive association between informational use and crosscutting
exposure (H1) and between recreational use and crosscutting exposure (H3). Both
hypotheses received support (β = 0.21, p < 0.001; β = 0.09, p < 0.05, respectively). But
use of the mobile phone for relationship maintenance had a negative, though
insignificant, association with crosscutting exposure (H2, β = –0.02).
The impact of mobile communication uses on civic engagement 311
Table 4 Results of hierarchical regression predicting civic engagement
Crosscutting exposure
(N = 1,518)
Civic engagement
(N = 1,505)
Control variables
Age –0.05 0.05
Gender (0 = male, 1 = female) 0.03 0.04
Education 0.05 0.07
Household income –0.03 0.04
News exposure 0.11* 0.12**
Offline political talk 0.13** 0.11*
Online political talk 0.15*** 0.09*
Strength of party ties –0.07* 0.08*
Political efficacy 0.15*** 0.23***
Political interest 0.10* 0.28***
R2 5.6% 9.8%
Mobile phone use
Informational use 0.21*** 0.17***
Relational use –0.02 –0.04
Recreational use 0.09* –0.02
Inc. R2 12.5% 11.2%
Weak-tie networks
Weak-tie contacts 0.26*** 0.11*
Inc. R2 4.5% 3.5%
Crosscutting exposure
Crosscutting exposure 0.13**
Inc. R2 6.1%
Total R2 22.6% 30.6%
Notes: Cell entries are standardised coefficients. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
In terms of the direct relationship between mobile phone use and civic engagement, only
informational use had a positive link (β = 0.17, p < 0.001), while relational use and
recreational use had null associations (β = –0.04; β = –0.02, respectively). As shown in
Table 5, the interaction effect between informational use and crosscutting exposure is
significant (H4, β = 0.09, p < 0.05), meaning that those who use mobile phones
frequently for information seeking and expression are more likely to engage in civic
affairs when they encounter more dissimilar viewpoints on their mobile phone. Also, the
interaction effect between recreational use and crosscutting exposure was statistically
significant (H6, β = 0.08, p < 0.05). Crosscutting exposure did not moderate the
relationship between relational use and civic engagement (H5, β = 0.04).
H7 (the moderation role of weak ties between mobile phone use and civic
engagement) received support (Table 5). The relationship between mobile phone use and
civic engagement was stronger among those who have greater weak-tie contacts,
312 C.S. Park and H.G. de Zúñiga
regardless of usage types (informational use x weak ties, β = 0.11, p < 0.05; relational use
× weak ties, β = 0.08, p < 0.05; recreational use × weak ties, β = 0.09, p < 0.05).
H8 proposed a positive association between weak-tie contacts and crosscutting
exposure, and this hypothesis was supported, β = 0.26, p < 0.001 (Table 4). The
three-way interaction among mobile phone use, crosscutting exposure, and weak-tie
contacts (RQ1, β = 0.11, p < 0.05) indicates that using the mobile phone for
information/expression purposes is closely tied to greater involvement in civic affairs
primarily among those who are exposed to diverse viewpoints and have wider weak ties
on their mobile phone (Table 6).
Table 5 Interactions between mobile phone use and crosscutting exposure/weak-tie contacts
Civic engagement
Prior blocks (R2) 30.6%
Informational use × Crosscutting exposure 0.09*
Relational use × Crosscutting exposure 0.04
Recreational use × Crosscutting exposure 0.08*
Informational use × Weak-tie contacts 0.11*
Relational use × Weak-tie contacts 0.08*
Recreational use × Weak-tie contacts 0.09*
Inc. R2 3.2%
Total R2 33.8%
Notes: Prior blocks include age, gender, education, income, news exposure, political
interest, political efficacy, strength of party ties, offline political talk, online
political talk, informational use, relational use, recreational use, weak-tie contacts,
and crosscutting exposure. Cell entries are standardised coefficients after
controlling for prior blocks. *p < 0.05. N = 1,505.
Table 6 Interactions between informational use, crosscutting exposure and weak-tie contacts
Civic engagement
Prior blocks (R2) 33.8%
Informational use × Crosscutting exposure × Weak-tie contacts 0.11*
Relational use × Crosscutting exposure × Weak-tie contacts 0.02
Recreational use × Crosscutting exposure × Weak-tie contacts 0.03
Inc. R2 0.8%
Total R2 34.6%
Notes: Prior blocks include age, gender, education, income, news exposure, political
interest, political efficacy, strength of party ties, offline political talk, online
political talk, informational use, relational use, recreational use, weak-tie contacts,
crosscutting exposure, informational use × crosscutting exposure, relational use
× crosscutting exposure, recreational use × crosscutting exposure, informational
use × weak-tie contacts, relational use × weak-tie contacts, and recreational use
× weak-tie contacts. Cell entries are standardised coefficients after controlling for
prior blocks. **p < 0.01. N = 1,505.
The impact of mobile communication uses on civic engagement 313
Figure 2 The interaction between mobile phone use and crosscutting exposure in predicting civic
engagement (see online version for colours)
Figure 3 The interaction between mobile phone use and weak-tie contacts in predicting civic
engagement (see online version for colours)
314 C.S. Park and H.G. de Zúñiga
Figure 3 The interaction between mobile phone use and weak-tie contacts in predicting civic
engagement (continued) (see online version for colours)
Figure 4 Predicting civic engagement from the interaction between informational use and
crosscutting exposure as moderated by weak-tie contacts (see online version
for colours)
The impact of mobile communication uses on civic engagement 315
5 Discussion
The purpose of this study is to examine the role of crosscutting exposure regarding civic
engagement in the context of mobile communication. Theories of deliberative democracy
posit that exposure to dissonant viewpoints is critical in shaping democratic citizenship
(Benhabib, 1992; Habermas, 1989). However, existing findings are divided as to whether
contemporary digital media are positively related to crosscutting exposure, and whether
crosscutting exposure has a significant link to civic engagement. Considering that the
mobile phone is one of the most commonly used media for civic or political involvement
(Campbell and Kwak, 2011; Martin, 2016), this study argues that examining what roles
crosscutting exposure plays in connecting mobile phone use to civic engagement is a
timely matter with significant theoretical and practical implications.
The current study makes four conceptual and methodological contributions to the
crosscutting exposure theory. First, this study differs methodologically from prior studies
that focused on political predispositions as a prime variable that explains exposure to or
avoidance of crosscutting viewpoints (Galston, 2002; Mutz, 2002b; Stroud, 2010).
Instead, this study is based on the fact that many mobile phone users encounter dissimilar
information while they search for information because of their curiosity for, or necessity
of, future political discussions (Pingree, 2007). It should also be noted that while people
engage in recreational activities via their mobile phone, they accidentally come across
dissonant viewpoints or information. Accordingly, besides political predispositions, this
study considers mobile phone usage types as an important predictor of crosscutting
exposure.
Indeed, the analysis demonstrates a positive association between informational and
recreational uses of mobile phones and encountering diverse viewpoints. The positive
link between informational use and crosscutting exposure is closely related to the fact
that mobile phone users access news or information through keyword search tools or
internet portals such as Google and Yahoo (Lee and Kwak, 2016). Such an approach
allows mobile phone users to encounter more diverse information than when they
consume news through traditional media. Also, information-seeking mobile phone users
may not avoid encountering diversity because of the utility of dissonant information for
future debate (Pingree, 2007). Always-on connectivity of the mobile phone make users
feel the necessity of being prepared for conversations that may take place at any moment.
The positive association between recreational use of the mobile phone and
crosscutting exposure can be partly explained by the inadvertency thesis, which posits
that the changing structural boundaries of the contemporary online public sphere allow
individuals to inadvertently expose themselves to differing opinions (Brundidge, 2010).
People encounter unintended public affairs information while engaging in recreational
activities using their mobile phone (Hwang and Shim, 2010). Informal associations via
mobile communication encourage individuals to be receptive to information about public
issues (Kwak et al., 2004). Considering that the mobile phone is a highly multimodal
medium, one that possesses the characteristics of numerous other media and has become
an indispensable tool in today’s life, incidental exposure to dissimilar information may
take place while users seek entertainment on their mobile phone.
However, the analysis shows no positive association between relational use of the
mobile phone and crosscutting exposure. This is in part because communication with
close-knit ties takes away the opportunity to encounter dissonant viewpoints.
316 C.S. Park and H.G. de Zúñiga
Concentrating on communication with small networks and like-minded others may be an
indicator of social ‘privatism’ – or a withdrawal into a more private world of family and
friends (Fischer, 2005). This form of social withdrawal resonates with the proposition
that intensive mobile communication among a small number of close friends and family
members can lead to insularity (Habuchi, 2005; Ling, 2008) or monadic clusters (Gergen,
2008).
A second theoretical contribution of the current study is that it reveals nuanced
mechanisms by which crosscutting exposure works between mobile phone usage types
and civic engagement. Prior studies focused either on the relationship between general
media use and crosscutting exposure or on the association between crosscutting exposure
and civic engagement. Few studies considered all the three variables simultaneously.
The present study found that informational or recreational users are more likely to
partake in civic activities such as volunteering for non-political groups and attending a
meeting to discuss neighbourhood problems when they encounter diverse political views
via their mobile phone. This finding indicates that crosscutting exposure plays a crucial
role in raising mobile phone users’ awareness of civic matters. This outcome is
meaningful for two reasons. First, given that digital media increasingly provide more
diverse information and perspectives, their role as a civic engagement motivator deserves
more attention than in any other time. Particularly, smartphones equipped with an
increasing number of embedded media are expected to change the dynamics of civic
engagement (Martin, 2016). Second, it should be noted that incidental exposure to
dissonant information could be an important factor in explaining contemporary civic
engagement. Passing time or entertainment seeking may end up engaging in civic matters
through accidental encountering of dissimilar viewpoints, which broadens the scope of
attention to civic affairs beyond personal interests (Hurtado and DeAngelo, 2012).
Considering that many young adults of today are increasingly disengaged from the public
process (Snell, 2010), this study’s finding suggests a practical and promising hope for the
mobile phone’s role for democracy.
A third contribution of this study lies in the finding of the moderating role of weak
ties. The number of weak-tie contacts moderated the impact of informational, relational,
and recreational uses of the mobile phone on civic engagement. The analysis also found a
three-way interaction effect; that is, the group of people who consume more information,
encounter more diverse viewpoints and have larger weak-tie networks, are those who
participate most actively in civic affairs.
Implied in the finding of the pro-social role of weak-tie connection is the benefit of
having access to diverse groups of people and novel, non-redundant information. People
with larger weak-tie contacts also have deeper understanding of civic affairs than people
with smaller weak-tie contacts because large weak ties can offer more opportunities to
develop civic consciousness (Gastil and Dillard, 1999; Klofstad, 2007). Son and Lin
(2008) found that weak ties are more effective than strong ties for citizen engagement in
civic activities. In addition, individuals who have more frequent contact with weak ties
have more probabilities of being recruited to participate (Kotler-Berkowitz, 2005).
Following these rationales, weak ties should reinforce the effects of informational use of
the mobile phone on civic participation. It should be noted that weak-tie contacts played a
significant moderating role even in relational and recreational uses of the mobile phone.
Accordingly, the mobile phone, regardless of different usage types, can provide a
meaningful opportunity to meet diversity and engage in civic processes if users have
large weak-tie communication networks. The significant three-way interaction offers
The impact of mobile communication uses on civic engagement 317
evidence that when civic engagement is constructed through mobile communication,
having a relatively large weak-tie network is an important trigger for the benefits of
heterogeneity to play out in a constructive way.
Lastly, this study is one of the first attempts to examine how the crosscutting
exposure theory can be applied to mobile communication. Researchers have investigated
the relationship between mobile phone use and civic/political engagement (e.g., Kwak
et al., 2011; Martin, 2016), but few studies treated crosscutting exposure as a major
theoretical construct. Several studies probed the relationship between digital media use
and crosscutting exposure, but they focused on either political use of social networking
sites (e.g., Kim, 2011) or internet use in general (e.g., Brundidge, 2010). Surprisingly,
few studies exist that examined the intertwined connections between mobile phone uses,
crosscutting exposure, and civic engagement.
In addition to the four theoretical contributions, this study also has practical
implications. The finding that informational and recreational use of the mobile phone is
significantly associated with exposure to dissonant viewpoints has important implications
for the mobile phone industry, educators, or civic organisations. For example, mobile
phone developers may learn from this study about how certain embedded modes of
communication or functions of the mobile phone could be beneficial for users to engage
in the public process. Educators may consider utilising the mobile phone in courses about
civic engagement and democracy. For governments, this study provides practical ideas
about how the society can boost citizen engagement in civic and public affairs.
Although this research was conducted in one of the most wired countries on the
planet, this study’s findings may be generalised to other nations. As of 2016, the average
number of mobile phone subscriptions per 100 people around the globe is 101.55
(The World Bank, 2017). Considering that the mobile phone is deeply integrated into our
daily life across the world, this study’s findings can be applicable to other societies.
5.1 Limitations and future research
Several caveats invite us to be cautious when interpreting the findings. The nature of the
cross-sectional data may not be well-suited for testing cause-effect relationships. To
ensure causality among variables, a panel survey should be conducted. Another limitation
lies in the need to consider more diverse types of mobile phone use, such as social utility,
instrumentality (Wei, 2008), or convenience (Liu, 2009). Future research should also
examine how mobile phone use interacts with a variety of network characteristics such as
network diversity and how these characteristics influence civic engagement. Lastly, this
study did not find a moderating effect of crosscutting exposure between relational use of
the mobile phone and civic engagement, and a three-way interaction effect was observed
only from the relationship between informational use of the mobile phone and civic
engagement. Future research should take more fine-grained approaches to resolve such
inconsistencies.
5.2 Conclusions
Limitations notwithstanding, this study advances the theory of crosscutting exposure by
illuminating how distinct types of mobile phone use are associated with people’s level of
exposure to dissonant viewpoints, the characteristic of their weak-tie phone contacts, and
318 C.S. Park and H.G. de Zúñiga
the ways individuals engage in civic life. Informational and recreational uses of the
mobile phone predicted crosscutting exposure. Crosscutting exposure moderated the
relationship between mobile phone use (informational and recreational) and civic
engagement, and weak ties moderated the association between all three modes of mobile
phone use and civic engagement.
References
Adler, R.P. and Goggin, J. (2005) ‘What do we mean by ‘civic engagement?’’ Journal of
Transformative Education, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.236–253.
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G. and Reno, R.R. (1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting
Interactions, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
American Association for Public Opinion Research [AAPOR] (2011) Standard Definitions: Final
Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, 7th ed., AAPOR, Deerfield, IL.
Ardèvol-Abreu, A., Diehl, T. and Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2017) ‘Antecedents of internal political
efficacy: incidental news exposure online and the mediating role of political discussion’,
Politics, DOI: 10.1177/0263395717693251.
Bachmann, I. and Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2013) ‘News platform preference as a predictor of political
and civic participation’, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media
Technologies, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.496–512
Benhabib, S. (1992) Situating the Self, Polity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Besley, J.C. (2006) ‘The role of entertainment television and its interactions with individual values
in explaining political participation’, Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, Vol. 11,
No. 2, pp.41–63.
Bimber, B. (2004) ‘The internet and political fragmentation’, Paper presented at the Democracy in
the 21st Century Conference, Urbana-Champagne, IL.
Brundidge, J. (2010) ‘Encountering ‘difference’ in the contemporary public sphere: the
contribution of the internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks’, Journal of
Communication, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp.680–700.
Campbell, S.W. and Kwak, N. (2010a) ‘Mobile communication and social capital: an analysis of
geographically differentiated usage patterns’, New Media & Society, Vol. 12, No. 3,
pp.435–451.
Campbell, S.W. and Kwak, N. (2010b) ‘Mobile communication and civic life: linking patterns of
use to civic and political engagement’, Journal of Communication, Vol. 60, No. 3,
pp.536–555.
Campbell, S.W. and Kwak, N. (2011) ‘Political involvement in ‘mobilized’ society: the interactive
relationships among mobile communication, network characteristics, and political
participation’, Journal of Communication, Vol. 61, No. 6, pp.1005–1032.
Chan, M. (2015) ‘Mobile phones and the good life: examining the relationships among mobile use,
social capital and subjective well-being’, New Media & Society, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.96–113.
Cho, J., Rojas, H. and Shah, D.V. (2003) ‘Social capital and media’, in Christensen, K. and
Levinson, D. (Eds.): Encyclopedia of Community: from the Village to the Virtual World,
pp.1291–1295, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Craig, S.C., Niemi, R.G. and Silver, G.E. (1990) ‘Political efficacy and trust: a report on the NES
pilot study items’, Political Behavior, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.289–314.
Delli Carpini, M.X., Cook, F.L. and Jacobs, L.R. (2004) ‘Public deliberation, discursive
participation, and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature’, Annual Review of
Political Science, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.315–344.
Eveland, W.P. and Shah, D.V. (2003) ‘The impact of individual and interpersonal factors on
perceived news media bias’, Political Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp.101–117.
The impact of mobile communication uses on civic engagement 319
Fischer, C.S. (2005) ‘Bowling alone: what’s the score?’, Social Networks, Vol. 27, No. 2,
pp.155–167.
Galston, W.A. (2002) Liberal Pluralism: the Implications of Value Pluralism for Political Theory
and Practice, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Gastil, J. and Dillard, J.P. (1999) ‘Increasing political sophistication through public deliberation’,
Political Communication, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.3–23.
Gastil, J., Black, L. and Moscovitz, K. (2008) ‘Ideology, attitude change, and deliberation in small
face-to-face groups’, Political Communication, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.23–46.
Gergen, K.J. (2003) ‘Self and community in the new floating worlds’, in Nyiri, K. (Ed.): Mobile
Democracy: Essays on Society, Self and Politics, pp.103–114, Passagen, Vienna, Austria.
Gergen, K.J. (2008) ‘Mobile communication and the transformation of the democratic process’, in
Katz, J. (Ed.): Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies, pp.297–310, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2015) ‘Toward a European public sphere? The promise and perils of modern
democracy in the age of digital and social media’, International Journal of Communication,
Vol. 9, pp.3152–3160.
Gil de Zúñiga, H. and Valenzuela, S. (2010) ‘Who uses Facebook and why’, in Wittkower, D.
(Eds.): Facebook and Philosophy: What’s on your Mind?, pp.21-31, Open Court, Chicago, IL.
Gil de Zúñiga, H. and Valenzuela, S. (2011) ‘The mediating path to a stronger citizenship: online
and offline networks, weak ties, and civic engagement’, Communication Research, Vol. 38,
No. 3, pp.397–421.
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Copeland, L. and Bimber, B. (2014a) ‘Political consumerism: civic engagement
and the social media connection’, New Media & Society, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.488–506.
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Molyneux, L. and Zheng, P. (2014b) ‘Social media, political expression, and
political participation: panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships’, Journal of
Communication, Vol. 64, No. 4, pp.612–634.
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Jung, N. and Valenzuela, S. (2012) ‘Social media use for news and individuals’
social capital, civic engagement and political participation’, Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.319–336.
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Valenzuela, S. and Weeks, B.E. (2016) ‘Motivations for political discussion:
antecedents and consequences on civic engagement’, Human Communication Research,
Vol. 42, No. 4, pp.533–552.
Granovetter, M.S. (1982) ‘The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited’, in Marsden, P.V.
and Lin, N. (Eds.): Social Structure and Network Analysis, pp.105–130, Sage, Beverly Hills,
CA.
Habermas, J. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Translated by Thomas
Burger, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Habermas, J. (2006) ‘Political communication in media society: does democracy still enjoy an
epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research’, Communication
Theory, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.411–426.
Habuchi, I. (2005) ‘Accelerating reflexivity’, in Ito, M., Okabe, D. and Matsuda, M. (Eds.):
Personal, Portable, Pedestrian: Mobile Phones in Japanese Life, pp.165–182, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Himelboim, I., McCreery, S. and Smith, M. (2013) ‘Birds of a feather tweet together: integrating
network and content analyses to examine cross – ideology exposure on Twitter’, Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.40–60.
Huang, G. (2016) Using Mobile Phones for Teaching and Learning in Chinese Traditional
Undergraduate Education, Doctoral dissertation [online] http://nsuworks.nova.edu/gscis_etd
/983 (accessed 20 December 2017).
320 C.S. Park and H.G. de Zúñiga
Huckfeldt, R., Beck, P.A., Dalton, R.J. and Levine, J. (1995) ‘Political environments, cohesive
social groups, and the communication of public opinion’, American Journal of Political
Science, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp.1025–1054.
Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J.M. and Osborn, T. (2004) ‘Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement:
the political consequences of heterogeneous networks’, Political Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 1,
pp.65–95.
Hurtado, S. and DeAngelo, L. (2012) ‘Linking diversity and civic-minded practices with student
outcomes’, Liberal Education, Vol. 98, No. 2, pp.14–23.
Hwang, Y. and Shim, H. (2010) ‘Opinion leadership on Twitter and Twitter use’, Journal of
Korean Broadcasting, Vol. 24, pp.365–404.
Ikeda, K.I. and Boase, J. (2011) ‘Multiple discussion networks and their consequence for political
participation’, Communication Research, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp.660–683.
Ishii, K. (2006) ‘Implications of mobility: the uses of personal communication media in everyday
life’, Journal of Communication, Vol. 56, No. 2, pp.346–365.
Iyengar, S. and Hahn, K.S. (2009) ‘Red media, blue media: evidence of ideological selectivity in
media use’, Journal of Communication, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp.19–39.
Jennings, K.M. and Zeitner, V. (2003) ‘Internet use and civic engagement: a longitudinal analysis’,
Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 3, pp.311–334.
Jensen, K.B. (2013) A Handbook of Media and Communication Research: Qualitative and
Quantitative Methodologies, Routledge, New York, NY.
Katz, J.E. and Aakhus, M. (2002) Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public
Performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Kim, Y. (2011) ‘The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference: the
relationships among SNSs, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting
perspectives’, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.971–977.
Kim, Y., Hsu, S.H. and Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2013) ‘Influence of social media use on discussion
network heterogeneity and civic engagement: the moderating role of personality traits’,
Journal of Communication, Vol. 63, No. 3, pp.498–516.
Klofstad, C.A. (2007) ‘Talk leads to recruitment: how discussions about politics and current events
increase civic participation’, Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp.180–191.
Knight, J. and Johnson, J. (1994) ‘Aggregation and deliberation: on the possibility of democratic
legitimacy’, Political Theory, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.277–296.
Kotler-Berkowitz, L. (2005) ‘Ethnicity and political behavior among American Jews: findings from
the national Jewish population survey 2000–2001’, Contemporary Jewry, Vol. 25, No. 1,
pp.132–157.
Ksiazek, T.B., Malthouse, E.C. and Webster, J.G. (2010) ‘News-seekers and avoiders: exploring
patterns of total news consumption across media and the relationship to civic participation’,
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp.551–568.
Kwak, N., Campbell, S.W., Choi, J. and Bae, S.Y. (2011) ‘Mobile communication and public
affairs engagement in Korea’, Asian Journal of Communication, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp.485–503.
Kwak, N., Shah, D.V. and Holbert, R.L. (2004) ‘Connecting, trusting, and participating: the direct
and interactive effect of social associations’, Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 4,
pp.643–652.
La Due Lake, R. and Huckfeldt, R. (1998) ‘Social capital, social networks, and political
participation’, Political Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp.567–584.
Leander, K.M. and Vasudevan, L. (2009) ‘Multimodality and mobile culture’, in Jewitt, C. (Ed.):
The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, pp.127–139, Routledge, London, UK.
Lee, H. and Kwak, N. (2016) ‘Mobile communication and cross-cutting discussion: a cross-national
study of South Korea and the US’, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp.534–545.
The impact of mobile communication uses on civic engagement 321
Lee, H., Kwak, N., Campbell, S.W. and Ling, R. (2014) ‘Mobile communication and political
participation in South Korea: examining the intersections between informational and relational
uses’, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp.85–92.
Leung, L. and Wei, R. (2000) ‘More than just talk on the move: uses and gratifications of the
cellular phone’, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 77, No. 2, pp.308–320.
Levine, J.M. and Russo, E. (1995) ‘Impact of anticipated interaction on information acquisition’,
Social Cognition, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.293–317.
Ling, R. (2008) New Tech, New Ties: how Mobile Communication is Reshaping Social Cohesion,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Liu, C.C. (2009) ‘Measuring and prioritising value of mobile phone usage’, International Journal
of Mobile Communications, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.41–52.
Martin, J.A. (2014) ‘Mobile media and political participation: defining and developing an emerging
field’, Mobile Media & Communication, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.173–195.
Martin, J.A. (2016) ‘Mobile media activity breadth and political engagement: an online resource
perspective’, International Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.26–42.
McPhee, W., Smith, R.B. and Ferguson, J. (1963) ‘A theory of informal social influence’, in
McPhee, W. (Ed.): Formal Theories of Mass Behavior, pp.74–103, Free Press, New York,
NY.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. and Cook, J.M. (2001) ‘Birds of a feather: homophily in social
networks’, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp.415–444.
Mendelberg, T. (2002) ‘The deliberative citizen: theory and evidence’, Political Decision Making,
Deliberation and Participation, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.151–193
Messing, S. and Westwood, S.J. (2012) ‘Selective exposure in the age of social media:
endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online’, Communication
Research, Vol. 41, No. 8, pp.1042–1063.
Murray, J. (2017) ‘Youth social media and smartphone use: a problem or tool for good?’, Edtech
Times [online] https://edtechtimes.com/2017/05/30/youth-social-media-and-smartphone-use-a-
problem-or-tool-for-good/ (accessed 20 December 2017).
Mutz, D.C. (2002a) ‘Cross-cutting social networks’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 96,
No. 1, pp.111–126.
Mutz, D.C. (2002b) ‘The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation’,
American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp.838–855.
Mutz, D.C. (2006) Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy,
Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Nisbet, M.C. and Scheufele, D.A. (2004) ‘Political talk as a catalyst for online citizenship’,
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 81, No. 4, pp.877–896.
OECD (2017) OECD Stat [online] http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=RGRADSTY
(accessed 20 December 2017).
Pan, Z., Shen, L., Paek, H.J. and Sun, Y. (2006) ‘Mobilizing political talk in a presidential
campaign: an examination of campaign effects in a deliberative framework’, Communication
Research, Vol. 33, No. 5, pp.315–345.
Papacharissi, Z. (2002) ‘The virtual sphere’, New Media & Society, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.9–27.
Park, C.S. and Kaye, B.K. (2017) ‘Twitter and encountering diversity: the moderating role of
network diversity and age in the relationship between Twitter use and crosscutting exposure’,
Social Media & Society, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.231–248.
Park, H. and Cho, M. (2017) ‘Women in their thirties drop out of the labor market in huge
numbers’, Bloomburg [online] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-04/gender-
inequality-is-a-risk-for-south-korea-s-workforce (accessed 20 December 2017).
322 C.S. Park and H.G. de Zúñiga
Pingree, R.J. (2007) ‘How messages affect their senders: a more general model of message effects
and implications for deliberation’, Communication Theory, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.439–461.
Price, V., Cappella, J.N. and Nir, L. (2002) ‘Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative
opinion?’, Political Communication, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.95–112.
Putnam, R.D. (2000) Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital, Free Press, New York,
NY.
Rainie, H. and Wellman, B. (2012) Networked: the New Social Operating System, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Scheufele, D.A., Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D. and Nisbet, E.C. (2004) ‘Social structure and
citizenship’, Political Communication, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp.315–338.
Shah, D., Cho, J., Eveland Jr., W.P. and Kwak, N. (2005) ‘Information and expression in a digital
age: modeling internet effects on civic participation’, Communication Research, Vol. 32,
No. 5, pp.531–565.
Smith, G. (2008) Does Gender Influence Online Survey Participation? ERIC Document
Reproduction Service, No. ED 501717 [online] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/36f1/14ecf
21d27e2ca9c9825fbc85bba5c1b6162.pdf (accessed 20 May 2017).
Snell, P. (2010) ‘Emerging adult civic and political disengagement: a longitudinal analysis of lack
of involvement with politics’, Journal of Adolescent Research, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.258–287.
Son, J. and Lin, N. (2008) ‘Social capital and civic action: a network-based approach’, Social
Science Research, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp.330–349.
Statistics Korea (2017) Latest Indicators [online] http://kostat.go.kr/portal/eng/index.action
(accessed 20 December 2017).
Stromer-Galley, J. (2000) ‘On-line interaction and why candidates avoid it’, Journal of
Communication, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp.111–132.
Stroud, N.J. (2010) ‘Polarization and partisan selective exposure’, Journal of Communication,
Vol. 60, No. 3, pp.556–576.
Stroud, N.J. and Muddiman, A. (2012) ‘Exposure to news and diverse views in the internet age’,
Journal of Law and Policy in the Information Society, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.605–623.
Sunstein, C.R. (2001) republic.com, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
The World Bank (2017) Mobile Cellular Subscriptions (Per 100 People) [online]
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.CEL.SETS.P2 (accessed 20 December 2017).
Valenzuela, S., Kim, Y. and Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2011) ‘Social networks that matter: exploring the
role of political discussion for online political participation’, International Journal of Public
Opinion Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp.163–184.
van Alstyne, M. and Brynjolfsson, E. (2005) ‘Global village or cyber-Balkans? Modeling and
measuring the integration of electronic communities’, Management Science, Vol. 51, No. 6,
pp.851–868.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L. and Brady, H.E. (1995) Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in
American Politics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Wei, R. (2008) ‘Motivations for using the mobile phone for mass communications and
entertainment’, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.36–46.
Wei, R. and Lo, V. (2006) ‘Staying connected while on the move: cell phone use and social
connectedness’, New Media & Society, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.53–72.
Wellman, B. (1997) ‘An electronic group is virtually a social network’, in Kiesler, S. (Ed.): Culture
of the Internet, pp.179–205, Psychology Press, New York, NY..
Wilken, R. (2011) ‘Bonds and bridges: mobile phone use and social capital debates’, in Ling, R.
and Campbell, S.W. (Eds.): Mobile Communication: Bringing us Together and Tearing us
Apart, pp.127–146, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ.
Wojcieszak, M.E. and Mutz, D.C. (2009) ‘Online groups and political discourse: do online
discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement?’, Journal of Communication,
Vol. 59, No. 1, pp.40–56.
The impact of mobile communication uses on civic engagement 323
Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K. and Delli-Carpini, M.X. (2006) A New
Engagement? Political Participation, Civic Life, and the Changing American Citizen, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY.
Notes
1 Some authors argue that political consumerism is also a civic behaviour rather than just a
political activity geared to influencing the government or political institutions (see Gil de
Zúñiga et al., 2014a).
Appendix
Table A1 Survey questions
Age: what is your age?
Gender: what is your gender? 1. Male 2. Female
Education: what is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?
1. Middle school or
less
2. High school 3. Two-year
college
4. Four-year
college
5. Graduate
degree
Household income: what was your total household income before taxes in 2013?
1. KRW 2,000,000 or less 2. KRW 2,000,001 to
3,000,000
3. KRW 3,000,001 to
4,000,000
4. KRW 4,000,001 to
5,000,000
5. KRW 5,000,001 to
6,000,000
6. KRW 6,000,001 to
7,000,000
7. KRW 7,000,001 to
8,000,000
8. KRW 8,000,001 to
9,000,000
9. KRW 9,000,001 to
10,000,000
10. KRW 10,000,001 or
more
News exposure: during the last week how often did you consume news about current events or
public issues from (1) network television, (2) cable TV, (3) daily newspapers, (4) web-only
newspapers, and (5) news aggregators (for example, Daum news, Naver news)?
1. Never 2. Rarely 3. Sometimes 4. Often 5. Very often
Offline political talk: during the last two weeks how often did you talk about politics face to
face or over the phone with (1) friends, (2) family, and (3) acquaintances?
1. Never 2. Rarely 3. Sometimes 4. Often 5. Very often
Online political talk: during the last two weeks how often did you talk about politics on a
(1) web site, and (2) over an e-mail?
Strength of party ties: how strong do you feel about your party ties if you are affiliated with or
support any political party?
1. Very
weak
2. Weak 3. Somewhat
weak
4. Moderate 5. Somewhat
strong
6. Strong 7. Very strong
324 C.S. Park and H.G. de Zúñiga
Political interest: how much are you interested in politics?
1. Not at all 2. Little 3. Average 4. Much 5. Very much
Political efficacy: please indicate how much you agree with the following statements.
Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither
disagree
nor agree
Agree Strongly
agree
I consider myself well-qualified to
participate in politics
I feel that I have a pretty good
understanding of the important political
issues facing our country
I think that I am as well informed about
politics and government as most people
Types of mobile phone use: during the last month how often did you engage in the
following activities via your mobile phone?
Not at all Rarely Sometimes Regularly
Informational use
I went online to read opinions of others regarding
social issues
I accessed news
I went online to share news
I called others to discuss social matters
Relational use
I called friends or family to be social
I sent texts or instant messages to friends or
family to be social
I e-mailed friends or family to be social
Recreational use
I went online to upload entertaining content
I went online for games and other forms of
entertainment
I browsed the web just for fun
Crosscutting exposure: during the past three months how often were you exposed to
socially or politically disagreeing messages on your mobile phone via (1) texting
including instant messaging, (2) web searching, (3) social media use?
1. Never 2. Rarely 3. Sometimes 4. Regularly
Weak-tie contacts: please estimate the number of non-family members, acquaintances or
unfamiliar people with whom you communicated about social or political affairs via your
mobile phone during the last two weeks.
Civic engagement: during the past three months how often did you participate in the
following activities?
The impact of mobile communication uses on civic engagement 325
Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often Very often
I worked or volunteered for non-political
groups, such as a community project
I attended a meeting to discuss
neighbourhood problems
I raised money for a charity or participated in
a run/walk/bike for charity
I bought a certain product or service because
I like the social or political values of the
company
I banned a product or service because I
disagree with the social or political values of
the company
