Content uploaded by Homero Gil de Zúñiga
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Homero Gil de Zúñiga on Nov 21, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Cover image: Emrah Turudu /
Getty Images
Series Editor
Stuart Soroka
University of
California
About the Series
Cambridge Elements in Politics and
Communication publishes research
focused on the intersection of media,
technology, and politics. The series
emphasizes forward-looking reviews
of the field, path-breaking theoretical
and methodological innovations,
and the timely application of social-
scientific theory and methods to
current developments in politics and
communication around the world.
For over two decades, political communication research has hailed
the potentially reinvigorating eect of social media on democracy.
Social media was expected to provide new opportunities for
people to learn about politics and public aairs, and to participate
politically. Building on two systematic literature reviews on social
media, and its eects on political participation and knowledge
(2000–2020), and introducing empirical evidence drawing on four
original US survey datasets expanding over a decade (2009–2019),
this Element contends that social media has only partially fulfilled
this tenet, producing a Social Media Democracy Mirage. That
is, social media have led to a socio-political paradox in which
people are more participatory than ever, yet not necessarily more
informed.
Social Media Democracy Mirage
ZÚÑIGA et al.
ISSN 2633-9897 (online)
ISSN 2633-9889 (print)
Homero Gil de Zúñiga,
Hugo Marcos-Marné,
Manuel Goyanes and
Rebecca Scheauer
Social Media
Democracy
Mirage
How Social Media
News Fuels a Politically
Uninformed Participatory
Democracy
Politics and
Communication
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
Elements in Politics and Communication
edited by
Stuart Soroka
University of California
SOCIAL MEDIA
DEMOCRACY MIRAGE
How Social Media News Fuels
a Politically Uninformed
Participatory Democracy
Homero Gil de Zúñiga
University of Salamanca
Pennsylvania State University
Diego Portales University
Hugo Marcos-Marne
University of Salamanca
Manuel Goyanes
Charles III University of Madrid
Rebecca Scheffauer
University of Salamanca
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, United Kingdom
One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre,
New Delhi –110025, India
103 Penang Road, #05–06/07, Visioncrest Commercial, Singapore 238467
Cambridge University Press is part of Cambridge University Press & Assessment,
a department of the University of Cambridge.
We share the University’s mission to contribute to society through the pursuit of
education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781009500869
DOI: 10.1017/9781009053266
© Homero Gil de Zúñiga, Hugo Marcos-Marne, Manuel Goyanes
and Rebecca Scheffauer 2024
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions
of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take
place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press & Assessment.
When citing this work, please include a reference to the DOI 10.1017/9781009053266
First published 2024
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-009-50086-9 Hardback
ISBN 978-1-009-05509-3 Paperback
ISSN 2633-9897 (online)
ISSN 2633-9889 (print)
Cambridge University Press & Assessment has no responsibility for the persistence
or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this
publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will
remain, accurate or appropriate.
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
Social Media Democracy Mirage
How Social Media News Fuels a Politically Uninformed
Participatory Democracy
Elements in Politics and Communication
DOI: 10.1017/9781009053266
First published online: November 2024
Homero Gil de Zúñiga
University of Salamanca
Pennsylvania State University
Diego Portales University
Hugo Marcos-Marne
University of Salamanca
Manuel Goyanes
Charles III University of Madrid
Rebecca Scheffauer
University of Salamanca
Author for correspondence: Homero Gil de Zúñiga, hgz@usal.es
Abstract: For over two decades, political communication research has
hailed the potentially reinvigorating effect of social media on
democracy. Social media was expected to provide new opportunities
for people to learn about politics and public affairs, and to participate
politically. Building on two systematic literature reviews on social
media, and its effects on political participation and knowledge
(2000–2020), and introducing empirical evidence drawing on four
original US survey datasets expanding over a decade (2009–2019), this
Element contends that social media has only partially fulfilled this tenet,
producing a Social Media Democracy Mirage. That is, social media have
led to a socio-political paradox in which people are more participatory
than ever, yet not necessarily more informed.
Keywords: social media, political participation, political knowledge, social
networking sites, systematic literature review
© Homero Gil de Zúñiga, Hugo Marcos-Marne, Manuel Goyanes
and Rebecca Scheffauer 2024
ISBNs: 9781009500869 (HB), 9781009055093 (PB), 9781009053266 (OC)
ISSNs: 2633-9897 (online), 2633-9889 (print)
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Systematic Literature Review: Social Media and Political
Participation 9
3 Systematic Literature Review: Social Media and Political
Knowledge 22
4 More Participation, Less Knowledge 29
5 Final Conclusions 40
Appendix 49
References 85
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
1 Introduction
Social science scholars have long been aware of the complexities and precarities
of democratic governance, and the challenges regarding the consolidation of
democratic institutions. In fact, recent years have seen increasing concerns about
the state of democracy worldwide. Freedom House, a nongovernmental organiza-
tion well known for its monitoring of democracy and freedom around the world,
suggested in 2020 that the world had been undergoing a fifteen-year democratic
decline (Gorokhovskaia et al., 2023). The Council of Europe has similarly reported
that democracy is increasingly at risk, even in places well known for their
democratic credentials (Birdwell et al., 2013).
Democratic backsliding is a multifaceted phenomenon, of course; but the
technological developments in communication that shape societies across the
world likely play a major role in both the sustainability and emergence of democ-
racy (Weare, 2002). Our modern world has been dubbed a “network society,”after
all, heavily influenced by digital technologies (Castells, 2009). Since the early days
of the twenty-first century, and in parallel with the popularization of information
and communication technologies (ICTs), a mushrooming body of literature has
examined the effects of digital technologies, especially social media, on various
political outcomes (Bimber & Copeland, 2013; Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2010). And the
role of digital media in our daily lives is only increasing over time. The Pew
Research Center (2021), a nonpartisan fact tank based in the USA, estimated that at
least 70 percent of American citizens used social media in 2021, a figure that barely
reached 5 percent in 2005. This proliferation of social media has sparked debates in
academic communities and beyond on the impact of social media on democracy.
The purpose of the current Element is thus to take stock of the burgeoning
literature exploring associations between social media and both (1) political
knowledge and (2) political participation. There is of course a longstanding
literature highlighting the role of participation and knowledge in sustaining
healthy democracies (e.g., Boulianne, 2020; Galston, 2001; Hopp et al., 2020;
Kleinberg & Lau, 2019; Lecheler & de Vreese, 2017; Lelkes, 2020; Parry et al.,
1992). But what does twenty years of research tell us about the impact of social
media on these critical outcomes? Our findings, in sum, are as follows.
The existing literature suggests, in short, that social media use is associated
with increased political participation (see Boulianne, 2020; Gil de Zúñiga et al.,
2012; Halpern et al., 2017). For instance, studies exploring the connection
between social media use and social movements suggest that the use of social
media has led to a growing likelihood of engaging both in online and offline
political activities. This has been found for movements such as Black Lives
Matter in the USA (Cox, 2017; Mundt et al., 2018; Wilkins et al., 2019), the
1Social Media Democracy Mirage
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
15-M square-occupation movement in Spain (Micó & Casero-Ripollés, 2014),
the 2011 Egypt uprising (Clarke & Kocak, 2020), student and environmental
mobilization in Chile (Scherman et al., 2015), or antigovernment protest in
Thailand (Sinpeng, 2021).
The story is rather different where political knowledge is concerned, how-
ever. Social media platforms were initially theorized as community spaces
with the potential to contribute to a democratic public sphere and to foster
political learning, whether employing intentional news-seeking or through
incidental exposure to news and political discussions (Trenz, 2009; Valeriani
& Vaccari, 2016). These positive expectations have not been thoroughly
confirmed by empirical analyses. Indeed, recent research suggests that social
media, far from having a positive effect on political knowledge, may actually
prevent political learning (Cacciatore et al., 2018; Lee & Xenos, 2019;
Shehata & Strömbäck, 2018). Empirical studies suggestthatpeopleeither
learn less as compared to those who are exposed to traditional news, or there
are null direct effects derived from using social media for news (Gil de
Zuñiga, Borah & Goyanes, 2021; Knobloch-Westerwick & Meng, 2011;
Skovsgaard & Andersen, 2020; Valenzuela et al., 2018). In a recent meta-
analysis Amsalem and Zoizner (2023) likewise raised doubt about the positive
effects of social media on political knowledge. According to their results,
knowledge gains are small to nonexistent. In short, there are well-founded
concerns that social media use for news may not consistently contribute to
a more informed public opinion.
Combining the results of these two strands of literature, political participation
and political knowledge, it stands to reason that social media may be nurturing
a socio-political paradox where people are increasingly more participatory, yet
not necessarily more informed. In this Element, we label this phenomenon as
the Social Media Democracy Mirage and argue that this paradox may be key to
understanding many of the current political phenomena affecting liberal dem-
ocracies. Specifically, the Social Media Democracy Mirage entails the amplifi-
cation of political beliefs and activities on social media which are not
necessarily sustained by factual information about politics. While we do not
claim that the widespread use of social media will unmistakably push societies
into a pathway of democratic erosion, we believe the mirage label resonates
with the unfulfilled potential of social media use for information.
This Element includes three sections that can be read independently or as
a whole:
•a systematic literature review of social media and political participation
(Section 2)
2Politics and Communication
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
•a systematic literature review of social media and political knowledge
(Section 3)
•a quantitative analytical assessment of the link between social media, polit-
ical knowledge, and participation using survey data from the USA (Section 4)
In the literature review Sections 2 and 3, we present an overview of the growing
body of work connecting social media, political participation, and political
knowledge. We examine more than 500 peer-reviewed articles which were
published in over 150 journals from 2001 to 2020. Our systematic reviews
contribute to the ongoing discussion on the interplay between the affordances
for action that social media enables, and citizens’means to obtain information
about public affairs. In Section 4 of the Element, we take advantage of a unique
collection of four original datasets collected online in the USA between 2009
and 2020. Relying on these data, we further illustrate the participatory yet
uninformed consequences of social media news use that underline the Social
Media Democracy Mirage. Section 5 contains some concluding remarks and
suggestions for future research in political communication.
Before diving into our analyses, however, the following sections (1) define
political participation and knowledge, (2) describe the function and process of
systematic literature reviews, and (3) outline the theoretical framework –more
specifically, the “research clusters”that structure our literature reviews and
empirical analysis.
1.1 Defining Participation and Knowledge
The definitions of political participation often gravitate around the identification
of activities aiming at influencing policy-making or government actions (Verba
et al., 1995). While many were initially associated with “offline electoral activ-
ities,”such as working for a political party or voting (Conway, 1985;Saldaña
et al., 2015), the emergence of the internet has broadened our conception of
political participation to include, for instance, campaign contributions, protesting,
writing a letter to a politician, and so on, both online and offline (Halpern et al.,
2017; Yang & DeHart, 2016).
Citizens’participation is a fundamental building block for most notions of
democracy (Parvin, 2018). Declines in voter turnout have thus raised concern
among social science scholars, particularly considering that turnout rates may be
lower than the official turnout figures, especially where there are gaps between
registered voters and voting-age population. These gaps increase considerably in
electionsother than national ones,such as state elections, and can be found across
countries and regions beyond the USA (Lijphart, 1997). Although low election
turnout is often seen as a consequence of the malfunctioning of democracies
3Social Media Democracy Mirage
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
(Grönlund & Setälä, 2007), representative democracies also benefitfromthe
electoral participation as such participation is not only the outcome of democratic
illness, but also a potential means to deal with this issue. Some democratic
theorists underscore that higher levels of voter turnout increase the chances that
the voices of various groups in society are heard (Rosema, 2007), and this is
particularly important if we consider that the chances of abstaining are not
randomly distributed among the population. Young, less educated, and low-
income people are consistently less likely to vote (Blais et al., 2004;Gallego,
2009;Lijphart,1997; Wattenberg, 2020). In that sense, social media news use
could be an interesting tool to foster electoral participation among young people,
who are more likely to be present online (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008), and also
older people from cohorts that were early socialized in social media environments
(Prensky, 2001).
Beyond voting, political participation is even more important for alternative
understandings of democracy such as the deliberative one, which builds upon
the exchange of ideas between individuals that do not form a homogeneous
group (Steiner et al., 2017). A textbook example of the importance of participa-
tion can be seen in the design of current mechanisms for democratic innovation
(e.g., participatory budgets, mini-publics, deliberative meetings, etc.), which
often offer alternative spaces for citizens’engagement in political life. In this
regard, we can think of political participation as an opportunity for citizens from
diverse backgrounds to be treated as equals in public affairs and reduce spaces
for demagogies, oppressive rules, and government inefficiencies. In sum, there
is an overall agreement on the importance of participation in a democracy, and
such participation can take many different forms.
Some vital forms of political participation in our empirical analysis include
attending rallies and demonstrations, sending letters or emails to political
organizations, newspapers, or elected officials, or volunteering to help with
political causes. Although they are different, these forms of participation share
a minimal core: they relate to citizens’voices being heard in the public sphere
(online and analogical). Some forms of political participation associated with
protest are more often used by underprivileged groups (Lipsky, 1968; van
Stekelenburg & Klandermans, 2013), which show the potential of social
media news use to foster types of participation not so conditioned by structural
inequalities. Although some theorists call for an adjustment of our expectations
on the extent to which widespread participation can be achieved (Parvin, 2018),
there is little doubt that important shortcomings of liberal democracies such as
the USA could be addressed with it.
Another key for democracies is political knowledge, which is broadly defined
as “the various bits of information about politics that citizens hold”(Delli Carpini
4Politics and Communication
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
&Keeter,1993, p. 1179). Looking at the minimal representative core of democ-
racy, voters are expected to cast their votes after considering various political
alternatives, a task that can be more easily achieved when abundant political
knowledge is available. In this regard, individuals who are more knowledgeable in
politics are better equipped to choose parties that are in line with their preferred
issues, and their positioning in these issues (Andersen et al., 2005). These
knowledgeable individuals are also more likely to exercise reasoned economic
voting (Gomez & Wilson, 2001) and to react to credible corruption accusations
(Weitz-Shapiro & Winters, 2017). Political knowledge is closely associated with
media literacy, a variable capturing the ability of individuals to engage construct-
ively with journalism (Maksl et al., 2015) that is crucial to avoid fake news
(Bulger & Davison, 2018). The relevance of the duo media literacy–political
knowledge is beyond doubt in the context of electoral campaigns increasingly
shaped by fake news (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017; Mutahi & Kimari, 2020;Quandt
et al., 2019; Rosa, 2019).
The positive effects of political knowledge also spread beyond the realm of
elections. For example, the mechanisms of direct democracy, such as referen-
dums, are sometimes implemented as a way to address some limitations of
representative democracies, creating spaces for individuals to express their
preferences without the mediation of institutions or parties. However, the
ability an individual has to express their own voice often depends on political
knowledge (Christin et al., 2002; Hobolt, 2007). Likewise, more knowledge-
able individuals might find it easier to participate in social movements that are
in line with their ideas, attitudes, and preferences, and to choose more effec-
tive ways to influence elected officials. Additionally, political knowledge
correlates with the acceptance of democratic principles, which explains why
some governments invest time and money to improve political knowledge
among their citizens (Galston, 2001).
1.2 Systematic Literature Reviews
Despite its substantive importance, the direction and magnitude of the effects of
social media on political participation and political knowledge remain unclear.
Unlike other communication research domains (Ahmed et al., 2019; Garrido
et al., 2011; Naab & Sehl, 2017; Wang et al., 2019; Williams, 2019), we lack
a thorough and organized examination of empirical findings with a holistic
narrative that is able to guide future social scientific theoretical and empirical
endeavors. The purpose of our systematic literature reviews is thus to better
unravel the association between social media use and both political knowledge
5Social Media Democracy Mirage
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
and political participation. Our systematic reviews particularly contribute to the
literature as follows.
•They examine and problematize the items and measurements used thus far in
the literature focusing on political knowledge and political participation. This
is particularly important because different streams of literature may have
distinct definitions and measurements that complicate comparative interpret-
ations of main findings.
•They help understand the granularity of the published material in terms of
research patterns (territory of data collection, authorship structure, methodo-
logical approaches, etc.), which is key to unraveling underexplored areas and
limitations.
1.3 Theoretical Framework
Before we present the literature review, we lay out our four-faceted main
theoretical frameworks that underpin research on the links between social
media and political participation and political knowledge. The defined facets
of the theoretical framework were established in an iterative process. A priori
facets were entered into conversation and dialogue with post-hoc analysis of the
studies under scrutiny, yielding five potential clusters of research: (1) media
effects, (2) interpersonal communication, (3) expressive political content, (4)
structural effects, and (5) a miscellanea category. Figure 1 illustrates the
research foci of studies situated at the intersection of social media, political
participation, and political knowledge discussed in the literature reviews
(Sections 2 and 3), highlighting and distinguishing the categories in which
relevant papers can fall. We also point out the most salient authors for each
research strand. These authors were chosen either due to their number of
publications within the research clusters topics or by the impact of their findings
in the literature, which we will discuss in later Sections 2 and 3. We also briefly
present the theoretical foundations of each facet.
1.3.1 Media Effects
Media effects have been a research pillar in political science even before social
media became relevant. Researchers have examined the effects of exposure to
traditional and later to online news (Bimber & Copeland, 2013; Martin, 2008;
McLeod et al., 1999). In a functioning democracy, media fulfils a variety of
functions ranging from holding those in power accountable to providing citi-
zens with the information they need to make informed decisions. With the
advent of the internet, there is more information than ever before and social
6Politics and Communication
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
media allows for easy distribution and consumption. With these developments,
new research topics within media effects emerged, including the effects of social
media news, second screening, and incidental news exposure (Giglietto & Selva,
2014;Heiss&Matthes,2019; Pastrana Valls, 2017; Saldaña et al., 2015). Thus,
Interpersonal
Communication
Expressive Political
Content
Structural Effects
Miscellanea
Expressive Political
Content
Structural Effects
Miscellanea
Expressive Political
Content
Structural Effects
Miscellanea
• Social media news
• Incidental Exposure
• Receiving Information
• Hopp, Ferrucci, Vargo,
& Fisher, 2020
• Molaei, 2018
• Naderer, Heiss, &
Matthes, 2020
• Chen & Chan, 2017
• Houston, McKinney,
Hawthorne & Spialek, 2018
• Jennings Coker, McKinney,
& Warner, 2017
• Valenzuela, Bachmann,
& Bargsted, 2019
• Beckers, Van Aelst,
Verhoest & D’Haenens, 2020
• Bode, 2016
• Boukes, 2019
• Gottfried, Hardy, Holbert,
Winneg & Jamieson, 2017
• Pasek, more, & Romer, 2009
• Hjorth & Adler-Nissen,
2019
• Kanihan & Rim, 2018
• Woo Yoo & Gil de Zúñiga,
2014
• Political discussion
• Interpersonal discussion
attributes
• Cognitive effects of
discussion
• Expressing views on
social media
• Sender Effects
• Mobilizing Effects
• Sharing Information
• General SNS Use
• Political SNS Use
• SNS for Protests/
Mobilization
• SNS Use for Campaigns/
by Politicians
• Income
• Education
• Age
• Ideology
• Gender
• Heiss & Matthes, 2019
• Lee & Xenos, 2020
• Saldaña, Mcgregor, &
Zúñiga, 2015
• Skoric & Poor, 2013
• Valeriani & Vaccari, 2016
• Cacciatore et al., 2018
• Edgerly, Thorson, & Wells,
2018
• Erkel & Van Aelst, 2020
• Feezell & Ortiz, 2019
• Park & Kaye, 2019
• Alberici & Milesi, 2018
• Cao, 2020
• Gil de Zúñiga, Diehl, &
Ardévol-Abreu, 2017
• Kahne & Bowyer, 2018
• Kim & Chen, 2015
• Tang & Lee, 2013
• Chapman & Coffé, 2016
• Moffett & Rice, 2018
• Park, 2015
• Rice & Moffett, 2019
• Yamamoto, Nah, & Bae,
2019
• Gainous, Abbott, &
Wagner, 2020
• Hamanaka, 2020
• Jensen, 2017
• Penney, 2017
• Theocharis & Lowe, 2016
• Valenzuela, Arriagada, &
Scherman, 2014
• Vissers & Stolle, 2014
• Ahmadi & Wohn, 2018
• Bode, 2017
• Chunly, 2019
• Hargittai & Shaw, 2013
• Nam, 2011
• Nam & Stromer-Galley 2012
• Vicente & Novo, 2014
• Zumarraga-Espinosa, 2020
Interpersonal
Communication
Media EffectsMedia Effects
Interpersonal
Communication
Media Effects
Theoretical
Approaches
Most Salient
Authors for
Participation
Most Salient
Authors for
Knowledge
Figure 1 Research categories serving as basis for both systematic
literature reviews.
7Social Media Democracy Mirage
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
we expect media effects on political knowledge and political participation to be as
prevalent on social media as they are with traditional media.
1.3.2 Interpersonal Communication Effects
Another relevant theoretical angle to account for the relationship between
social media and political participation/political knowledge is interpersonal
communication. This entails studies focusing on “political discussion, the
rational, deliberative exchange of arguments, and its implications for an
informed and participatory citizenry”(Scheufele, 2000,p.727).Suchaform
of discussion has been previously outlined as an integral antecedent for
engaging in a variety of political activities (Huckfeldt & Sprague, 1995;
Shah et al., 2005; Valenzuela et al., 2012)andithasevenbeenreferredtoas
the soul of democracy (De Tocqueville, 1863).
1.3.3 Expressive Political Content
The third research framework revolves around expressive political content or,
more generally, sender or self-effects. This line of work refers to the effects that
sending a message has on the sender themselves (Pingree, 2015;Shah,2016;
Valk e n burg, 2017), potentially leading to a change in emotions, attitudes, cogni-
tions, as well as behaviors (Aronson, 1999; Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2015;Pingree,
2007; Rojas & Puig-i-Abril, 2009; Valkenburg, 2017). In offline settings, attempts
to persuade others also affect the potential persuader (Janis & King, 1954), which
is sometimes referred to as self-persuasion (Aronson, 1999). An additional aspect
associated with self-effects is the writing paradigm that has experienced new-
found popularity with the internet (Ko & Kuo, 2009; Lee et al., 2016;Pennebaker,
1997), as it allows smooth political expression in the virtual realm.
The internet and social media in particular come with several affordances that
can amplify self-effects in comparison to the offline realm. First of all, it allows
for what Castells (2007) refers to as mass self-communication, making it
possible to reach a global audience. Furthermore, users are more inclined to
share information and express themselves than in an offline setting (Christofides
et al., 2009). Since it allows for asynchronous communication and provides the
option to easily reach a larger audience, social media lends itself as an expres-
sion hub, opening the possibility to more self-effects (Boyd, 2010; Shah, 2016).
1.3.4 Structural Effects
This cluster of research addresses the role of structural variables, mainly socio-
economic status, gender, education, internet access, and digital skills, many of
which are shown to impact online and offline participation. Higher-income and
8Politics and Communication
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
socio-economic status tend to go hand in hand with better education, which in
turn relates to skill and access levels. For decades, many researchers have
dedicated their time and efforts to investigating the potential influences of
these variables on different types of political variables. Thus, it is expected
that the intersection of social media and structural variables has emerged as
a popular research subject. Different theories have been proposed in this context
from the “rich get richer”approach to contrary effects of the internet and social
media being able to bridge gaps that are usually widened by differences in
education, income, or gender. Social media is a free, fairly simple, and time-
efficient tool to get engaged in politics. Thus, the fourth framework will focus
on these variables.
2 Social Media and Political Participation
In gathering the articles for this task, we strictly follow the Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines that
transparently identify a number of criteria widely used for reporting literature
reviews and meta-analyses (Moher et al., 2015). The literature search was
conducted in February 2021 using academic search databases, namely
Scopus, Academic Search Ultimate, and Web of Science, to compile
a comprehensive review. In order to identify relevant articles, we used the
following keywords: “political participation”AND “social media”OR “social
networking sites and political participation”OR “Twitter and political partici-
pation”OR “Facebook and political participation.”Studies (i.e., articles)
included in the analysis should meet the following criteria: written in English
and published by a peer-review journal (indexed in Journal of Citation Reports
(JCR) and/or Scopus) between 2000 and 2021. We decided to sample this
time frame because we aimed to provide the most updated literature review
on the subject.
After applying the aforementioned criteria, the initial search yielded 1,348
results for social media and political participation. We then used reference
management software Zotero to scan our results to find all duplicates (612
articles were removed). We carefully read the abstracts and excluded the
journals that were either not peer-reviewed or off-topic before eliminating
310 articles (e.g., articles not concerned with political participation, articles
focused on nonsocial media aspects such as TV news, radio, or the internet in
general, research summaries, theoretical papers, or research recommendations,
articles about social networks in the offline realm). We kept a total of 426
articles after applying these criteria (see Figure 2).
9Social Media Democracy Mirage
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
2.1 Quantitative Analysis
We started the analysis by collecting 426 articles which discuss the effects of
social media on political participation. These articles were published in 176
different journals –New Media & Society published the largest number of
articles (n = 31), followed by Information Communication & Society (n = 27).
Seven journals altogether account for almost one third of all published articles
(n = 135), while 105 journals only published one article each. A full list of the
journals can be found in Table 1A.
Regarding authorship, USA-based scholars led research efforts in the sub-
field with 137 publications, followed by scholars based in the UK (n = 30),
Hong Kong (n = 21), Australia (n = 17), and Canada (n = 17). As for the
country of data collection, a large majority of the papers used data from the
USA (n = 117), followed by China (n = 19), the UK (n = 18), and South Korea
Figure 2 Social media and political participation process.
10 Politics and Communication
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
(n = 15). While there are 65 different countries represented in the analytical
framework, only 46 articles are comparative in nature. Articles on social
media and political participation started to emerge in 2001, but research in
this domain skyrocketed after 2011 and peaked in 2020 with 109 publications.
For the measurement of social media use, most of the studies utilized overall
social media indicators or inquired about different platforms that were later com-
bined into one averaged index (n = 298). For distinct measurements, Facebook was
consistently selected as the most representative social media platform to be studied
(n = 68), followed by Twitter (n = 38). There are, however, several studies focusing
on other social media platforms, partially unique to certain geographic areas, such
as Weibo in China or VK in Russia (n = 16). An overview over the items used most
commonlyformeasurementscanbefoundinTables4A–14A.
In terms of methods, 317 articles drew upon quantitative data, while 68 used
qualitative methods and 39 combined quantitative and qualitative methodological
approaches. Most quantitative studies relied on survey data (n = 241), content
analysis (n = 58), and mixed methods (n = 52). A total of 20 studies used
interviews and 10 others employed focus groups. Moreover, 14 studies followed
experimental designs and nine relied on ethnography and participant observation.
The remaining 22 articles were grouped under “other”methodologies (e.g., case
studies, or principal component analyses).
Most papers (n = 345) focused on citizens as a primary unit of analysis, while
some articles addressed political leaders (n = 21) and democratic systems as
a whole (n = 6) and others concentrated on more than one of the aforementioned
units (e.g., leaders and citizens) (n = 20). Of the articles, 33 included video clips,
websites, or songs as units of the analysis or main object of investigation. A large
majority of the papers (n = 366) relied on cross-sectional data, while 38 articles
used longitudinal dataand 15 articles combinedboth. For the remaining 7 articles,
neither one of those descriptions was applicable, as they were mostly theoretical.
The summary of the data can be seen in the following graphs (Figures 3 to 5and
Figure 1A). More detailed information on the data used in the figures can be found
in Tables 2A and 3A.
2.2 Qualitative Analysis: Thematic Patterns of Social Media
and Political Participation Research
2.2.1 Main Findings
In general, it appears that the use of social media news to some degree replicates
the influence that the use of traditional news exerts on political participation.
Despite few studies presenting contrary results, deliberate use of news on social
networking sites, regardless of the social media platform or specific
11Social Media Democracy Mirage
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
measurement, positively relates to participation. Incidental exposure, on the
other hand, is more complex to pin down and only has positive effects under
certain conditions. In terms of interpersonal communication, network size and
discussion seem to produce the most consistent effects on participation. For
expression, pinning down effects is somewhat more complex as studies tend to
fold expressive behaviors into other social media measurements. Finally, in
terms of structural effects researchers point to a still existent gender gap with
men engaging in more visible participatory behaviors. For younger people,
social media plays a bigger part when it comes to engagement which is often
Figure 3 Data collection and first author origins depicted by country.
Figure 4 Number of studies depicted by applied methods, additionally divided
by quantitative or qualitative as well as cross-sectional, longitudinal, and
combined data collection.
12 Politics and Communication
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
noted as a positive trend. The expectation that social media might help previ-
ously disadvantaged groups (those with less income and/or less education) has
been mostly disproved.
2.2.2 Measuring Political Participation
A challenge for the comparability of the results has to do with the diverse waysin
which political participation is measured. Most researchers measure both online
and/or offline participation with different political activities and a different num-
ber of items (Ahmed & Cho, 2019; Park & Kaye, 2018; Saldaña et al., 2015;
Stromback et al., 2018; Towner & Muñoz, 2018). Some scholars, however, focus
more on participation measures capturing aspects such as voting (Diehl et al.,
2019; Towner, 2013), activism/protest (Diehl et al., 2019; Karakaya & Glazier,
2019), or low- and high-effort participation (Heiss & Matthes, 2019). Despite
these different approaches, a vast majority of the studies showcased a positive
influence of social media use on political participation.
2.2.3 Media Effects
Despite the extensive research conducted so far, the magnitude of the associations
between media and political participation remains uncertain (Ahmad et al., 2019;
Li et al., 2016; Saldaña et al., 2015). Based on the positive influence traditional
media use was found to have, many expected news consumption on social media to
Figure 5 Number of studies depicted by the primary objects under
investigation, additionally divided by social media platform in question.
13Social Media Democracy Mirage
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
similarly impact participatory behaviors. Saldaña and colleagues (2015), for
instance, presented results from the UK and the USA that attest to the significant
impact of media (e.g., traditional news and social media news, the latter of which
was captured with eight items) in predicting online and offline political participa-
tion. The mobilizing impact of social media is replicated in other countries (Skoric
&Poor,2013; Stromback et al., 2018;Zhang&Lin,2014) where media variables,
such as informational social media use (six items), social media news use (three
items), and the interaction of Facebook use and attention to traditional news, were
applied. In most studies, social media news consumption appears to positively
influence political participation online and offline(GildeZúñigaetal.,2014;Park
& Kaye, 2018; Saldaña et al., 2015).
Beyond intentional exposure to news in social media, both survey-based studies
and experimental studies have focused on the impact of incidental news exposure
(Heiss & Matthes, 2019,2021; Lee & Xenos, 2020;Lu,2019). Some researchers
voiced the hope that incidental exposure to news might be able to produce similar
results to deliberate news consumption and could, thus, bridge the gap between
those who are already engaged in politics and those who are largely uninterested.
Experimental approaches have evidenced that encountering political information
embedded in a humorous context can increase the likelihood of political participa-
tion –directly and indirectly via elaboration, which might be more marked for
those who generally would not engage with political information on social media
(Heiss & Matthes, 2021). Lee and Xenos (2020) highlighted that the relationship
between incidental news exposure and political participation is reciprocal, influen-
cing each other indirectly via political social media use. Moreover, results from
a two-wave panel study suggested that the potential influence of incidental news
exposure depends strongly on how participation is measured. While there is a direct
positive influence on low-effort online participation, the effect on high-effort online
participation is conditional on political interest (Heiss & Matthes, 2019).
Another viable research avenue within media effects that has recently garnered
attention is the effect of second or dual screening. Users actively search for more
information on or discuss about, for example, candidates while watching a debate,
thereby engaging with more information and, as was theorized, might then be
more inclined to engage in politics themselves. Vaccari and Valeriani (2018b), for
example, showed that dual screening for political content positively influences
online and offline political participation and additionally interacts with political
interest. Results from twenty different countries further validated those findings,
showing a positive association between second screening and political participa-
tion and even political expression on social media (Gil de Zúñiga & Liu, 2017).
Lin (2019) found similar tendencies for civic engagement and highlighted that
dual screening leads to higher civic engagement attitudes, which in turn fosters
14 Politics and Communication
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
engagement. In addition to these positive indications stemming from survey
research, Giglietto and Selva (2014) used content analysis to validate the influence
of second screening. Their results showed that second screening elicits political
participation, specifically during interviews and group discussion programs.
In line with the importance of considering how social media use is measured,
results from a three-wave panel study on campaign information showed that
YouTube and Tumblr had no significant influence on any form of participation,
thereby showing that platform-specific affordances can greatly impact how
social media use relates to political participation. In contrast, Facebook use
positively predicted online participation, while Twitter and Google+ use correl-
ated positively with both online and offline participation. However, none of
them influenced voting turnout (Towner, 2013). Nevertheless, Zhang et al.
(2013) found that relying on Facebook/Google+, Twitter, and YouTube for
political information positively predicted online and offline participation.
Additionally, it appears that, especially for “Boomers,”attention to social
media is only relevant for online participation. While news use on Facebook,
YouTube, or Twitter did not significantly influence the applied index of offline
participation (five items), news use on Facebook and YouTube positively
related to online participation (index with eight items).
Overall, several studies found a positive effect of social media (news) use on
political persuasion (Kasadha, 2019), interest (Zhang et al., 2013), protest (Diehl
et al., 2019; Karakaya & Glazier, 2019; Zumarraga-Espinosa, 2020), voting (Diehl
et al., 2019;Hassimetal.,2020;Towner,2013), civic engagement (Gil de Zúñiga,
2012;Kim&Chen,2015), and environmental activism (Zhang & Skoric, 2018).
2.2.4 Interpersonal Communication
Literature on interpersonal communication in our analysis suggests that the
structure of interactions on social media may be the defining feature of the
effects on political behaviors. Thus, this research cluster refers to the impact of
different forms of political discussion (e.g., discussion with homogeneous vs.
heterogeneous networks, weak vs. strong ties), interpersonal discussion attri-
butes (e.g., network size), and places of discussion (e.g., via mobile phones).
More importantly, interpersonal communication frameworks are often com-
bined with those of media effects because news consumption helps promote
discussions (Shah et al., 2005) and broaden informational horizons that give
people access to a more varied set of news (Gil de Zúñiga & Valenzuela, 2011).
Akin to media effects and political participation, academic discussions have
increasingly revolved around the relations taking place on online platforms. This
new space for discussion comes with several affordances that differ substantially
15Social Media Democracy Mirage
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
from offline exchanges (Valenzuela et al., 2012). While offline interactions give
visual cues and are synchronous as well as oral in nature, online forms of discussion
can be asynchronous, written, and oftentimes anonymous (Lin, 2009). Moreover, it
becomes easier to connect with a wider array of people online, potentially boosting
people’s network size and the number of weak-tie contacts (Papacharissi, 2004),
both of which are influential when it comes to promoting political participation
(Granovetter, 1973; Valenzuela et al., 2012) as people are exposed to not only more
information but also to more diverse content. Furthermore, whereas some scholars
question the deliberative potential of online discussions (Strandberg, 2008), others
underline that active online discussions may carry a positive impact on political
participation, whether using formal or informal interactions. Thus, both discussions
with other users and with political actors could be beneficial in boosting individ-
uals’political participation (Abdulla et al., 2018; Akkor, 2017; Vaccari & Valeriani,
2018a).
Alberici and Milesi (2018) highlighted that it is the type of discussion that
plays an integral part in encouraging participatory behaviors, urging researchers
to further investigate disparate political discussion attributes. According to their
results, it is specifically constructive online discussions that can imbue
a person’s politicized identity with “meaning of responding to a moral obliga-
tion”(Alberici & Milesi, 2018, p. 143), making them participate in collective
action online and offline. The size of people’s discussion networks may also be
an important contributor to online and offline participation. There appears to be
a direct positive influence of network size on participation (Cao, 2020), a cross-
sectional finding that was replicated by two-wave panel studies as well (Gil de
Zúñiga, Diehl, et al., 2017; Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2014).
Additionally, Tang and Lee (2013) found evidence of bigger network size
increasing time spent on social media sites like Facebook, which leads to
exposure to more information and results in higher levels of participation.
Kahne and Bowyer (2018) found that while network size and friendship-
driven activities positively predict offline participation, the interaction of net-
work size and interest-driven online activities influence online and offline
participation, suggesting that more complex relationships are to be entangled
by future research. Political discussion effects were found to hold true irrespect-
ive of whether researchers consider people’s online or offline networks, thus
underlining this as an important factor in influencing their participation (Cao,
2020; Gil de Zúñiga, Diehl, et al., 2017; Gil de Zúñiga, Molyneux, et al., 2014;
Kahne & Bowyer, 2018; Tang & Lee, 2013).
Beyond the nature of exchanges and the size of networks, research has shown
that cultivating heterogeneous networks sparks higher levels of political par-
ticipation and even civic engagement (Kim & Chen, 2015; Tang & Lee, 2013;
16 Politics and Communication
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
Yoo & Gil de Zúñiga, 2019), an effect that was not reproduced for discussion
with more homogeneous networks (Yoo & Gil de Zúñiga, 2019), once more
building on the idea that these types of networks will provide more varied
information which then could lead to more participation. While Tang and Lee
(2013) only found a significant connection of network heterogeneity with
offline participation, results presented by Yoo and Gil de Zúñiga (2019) showed
that incidental news exposure influenced discussion heterogeneity, which posi-
tively affected online and offline participation. Some researchers focus their
measurements of network heterogeneity specifically on with whom people
discuss (Kim & Chen, 2015; Yoo & Gil de Zúñiga, 2019), whereas others
consider the make-up of a person’s (online) networks as a whole (Tang &
Lee, 2013).
Finally, the specific place in which people get informed may also be an
influential factor. Discussing politics via mobile phones (which is influenced
by consuming news via smartphones), for example, positively affects offline
participation (Kim et al., 2016). Even WhatsApp discussion appears to be
influential, positively correlating with activism and conventional participation.
These effects appear to be more pronounced for younger people (Gil de Zúñiga
et al., 2019). Moreover, information-seeking seems to spur online and offline
discussion. Results presented by Li and Chan (2017) show that online discus-
sion sparks higher levels of online participation, but offline discussion influ-
enced both online and offline participation. These findings were consistent for
both Hong Kong and China. Zhang et al. (2010) also came to similar conclu-
sions, highlighting that offline discussion positively relates to political and civic
participation.
2.2.5 Expressive Political Content
Some researchers see expressive political content as a form of participation in
itself (Chapman & Coffé, 2016), while others see a clear pathway from expressive
content to some forms of online and offline participation (Moffett & Rice, 2018;
Rice & Moffett, 2019), and even as a form of influencing and persuading other
citizens (Hosch-Dayican et al., 2016;Penney,2016). Nevertheless, building on
the idea of self-effects, many expected political expression to potentially lead to
more participation in the person who expressed themselves in the first place.
With expressive content, measures become more convoluted than with pre-
viously described research strands. A few studies feature separate variables
dedicated solely to expressive content. Instead, many researchers chose to
include this as an aspect of variables such as social media use (Robles et al.,
2015; Vissers & Stolle, 2014b; Zhang & Skoric, 2018). The studies focusing on
17Social Media Democracy Mirage
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
expressive actions present variables such as political expression on Snapchat
(Rice & Moffett, 2019), social media prosumption (Yamamoto et al., 2019),
creative internet use (Ekström & Östman, 2015), political tweeting (Bode &
Dalrymple, 2016), or simply political expression on social media (Chan et al.,
2017; Gil de Zúñiga, Molyneux, et al., 2014; Kwak et al., 2018).
While expressive use of social media generally appears to be an important
predictor of online (Chan et al., 2017; Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2014; Yamamoto
et al., 2019) and offline participation (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2014; Kwak et al.,
2018; Lane et al., 2017), some studies also highlight the importance of distinct
platforms. Using Facebook or Twitter to politically express oneself has also
shown a positive impact on different forms of participation (Bode & Dalrymple,
2016; Vissers & Stolle, 2014a). The influence of political expression as part of
using social media and the internet also extends to positively impacting envir-
onmental activism and consumerism (Zhang & Skoric, 2018).
Furthermore, some researchers point out more intricate paths to participation.
Lane et al. (2017) showed that cross-cutting discussion is what can spark
information sharing on social media, which leads to online and then offline
participation. Chen et al. (2017) highlighted the path from mobile news to
mobile political messaging and to political expression on social media, which
leads to both online and offline participation. Additionally, Yamamoto et al.
(2019) introduced the concept of social media prosumption, which includes
consuming and producing content online. Social Media prosumption will trig-
ger more political information seeking online, more online discussion hetero-
geneity, and via those two, more online political participation.
2.2.6 Structural Effects
Among the structural factors influencing participation, gender is highly dis-
cussed in previous research. The affordances offered by the internet and social
media seem to facilitate engagement to a bigger degree for men than for
women. Vochocová et al. (2016) question the “narrowing gender gap”that is
often associated with the online environment, heralding equal space and
opportunities for all genders to participate. Some studies suggest that this
gap is not closing, as males are more likely to participate in online political
activities such as political engagement, for example, being involved political
groups or charities, (Xenos et al., 2014), getting political information online
(Hargittai & Shaw, 2013), sharing political opinions online (Vicente & Novo,
2014), and mobilization online (Moraes et al., 2020; Nam & Stromer-Galley,
2012). Additionally, men usually engage in behaviors that are more outgoing
and visible like sharing their opinion or engaging politically online (Vicente &
18 Politics and Communication
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
Novo, 2014; Xenos et al., 2014). Despite these variations in the measurement
of the dependent variables, there is consistent evidence suggesting that males
are more prone to be involved in political activities online. The reasons why
gender gaps appear persistent are typically due to socio-economic factors.
Many forms of participation call for resources, like money and time, which
might not be available to women to the same extent (Schlozman et al., 1999).
Besides gender, one of the main structural predictors of online engagement
and political participation is age. Various studies have found that younger
individuals are more active within the context of social media. Although the
outcome variables and their measurements differ between studies (e.g., online
and offline participation, liking and sharing political content online, political
social media use, and mobilization), the effect appears to hold consistently for
political use of social media (Bode, 2017; Nam, 2011) and for using social
media information tools (Nam & Stromer-Galley, 2012). Similar results con-
cerning age were found across countries such as Cambodia (Chunly, 2019),
Finland (Strandberg, 2014), Germany (Hoffmann & Lutz, 2019), and the USA
(Bode, 2017).
Education is also considered a structural influence often associated with
political participation. A host of studies showed that people with higher levels
of education are more likely to engage politically (Rosenstone & Wolfinger,
1980; Schlozman et al., 2013; Verba et al., 1995), as citizen’s educational and
internet skill levels influence the abilities to navigate on the internet and partake
in political activities ; Nam, 2011). This could also be attributed to higher levels
of income usually associated with those with higher education (Manski, 1992).
Results regarding online activities, however, tend to be somewhat mixed. While
some studies found a connection between higher education, social media use,
and political activities (Ahmed & Cho, 2019; Hoffmann & Lutz, 2019;Woo
Yoo & Gil de Zúñiga, 2014), others have reverse findings, pointing out positive
connections of social media and participation for those with lower education
(Hoffman, 2012; Nam, 2011). Bode (2017) highlighted varying effects of
education depending on the type of political social media use (e.g., comments,
likes, replies). This suggests that the effect of education may be contingent on
a host of individual-level, meso-level, and macro-level variables.
Finally, several studies highlight the influence of income. So far,some studies
follow the “rich get richer”approach and claim that financially privileged
population layers in society will tend to be more politically engaged (Buente,
2015), as these citizens may have more money, time, and civic skills to partake
in political activities (Brady et al., 1995). However, other scholars suggest that
those who were previously excluded from the political system due to economic
reasons now have more opportunities to participate online (Spaiser, 2012), as
19Social Media Democracy Mirage
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
this environment calls for fewer resources in terms of time and (digital) access.
Despite this, scholarship examining political inequalities related to digital
connectivity argues that citizens from lower socio-economic backgrounds
might often remain excluded from political activities online (Sylvester &
McGlynn, 2010; Weber et al., 2003; Xu et al., 2018). While some found
a positive effect of higher income on offline participation (Garcia-Castañon
et al., 2011) and online participation (Bode & Dalrymple, 2016; Chunly, 2019;
Hoffman, 2012; Steinberg, 2015), only a few studies produced conflicting
results and show that social media help those from lower socio-economic
backgrounds to be more involved (Vicente & Novo, 2014; Wang et al., 2018;
Zumarraga-Espinosa, 2020).
2.2.7 Miscellanea
A number of journal articles do not easily fit into one of the four categories
outlined at the beginning of Section 2. This section groups these findings together,
as follows.
Overall Internet/Social Media Use. Several authors focused on social media use
per se, without looking at any specific factors like news use or expressive
content. While Theocharis and Lowe (2016) pointed out the negative effect of
general Facebook use on traditional civic offline and online participation in
Greece, other researchers highlight more positive influences. Zhang and Skoric
(2018) conducted a study in Hong Kong that revealed the negative influences of
relational social media use on environmental activism but pointed to positive
results for environmental consumerism. Similar results for general social media
use and political consumerism were found in the USA, where Gil de Zúñiga,
Copeland, et al. (2014) highlighted the mediating effect of general social media
use on the relationship between digital media use and political consumerism.
The same study also showed a positive connection between general social
media use and offline political participation. Results from all over the world
seemingly corroborate this positive influence. In Iran, Da Silva Nogueira and
Papageorgiou (2020) found evidence for a positive connection between social
media use and online political participation, as well as online political informa-
tion seeking. Mustapha and Omar (2020) confirmed these findings regarding
online political participation and generic social media use in Nigeria. However,
neither one of those two studies found significant results for general social media
use and offline political participation. While Lee et al. (2018)alsofound
apositiveinfluence of social media use on political engagement in South
Korea, they mentioned that these higher levels of engagement lead to more
polarization.
20 Politics and Communication
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
Political Social Networking Site (SNS) Use. Many researchers specifically
looked into political use of social media which includes behaviors such as
reading political news, expressing political opinions, participating in online
polls, or joining online causes and groups (Choi & Kwon, 2019; Valenzuela,
2013). However, although these behaviors fit into the aforementioned categor-
ies (e.g., reading political news would fall under 2.2.3 Media Effects), they are
often combined into a single instrument, thus generating this new subcategory.
Many studies highlight the positive influence of this type of social media use on
other kinds of online and offline participation, activism, and political protest
(Choi & Kwon, 2019; Chon & Park, 2020; Gainous et al., 2020; Valenzuela,
2013; Vissers & Stolle, 2014a).
Mobilizing, Protest. In addition to the political use of social media, some studies
also present social media as a tool for organizing and participating in protests, as
well as mobilizing people. Studies demonstrate a positive influence when
applying overall social media measures (Bond et al., 2012; Costanza-Chock,
2012; Dey, 2020; Hamanaka, 2020; Joia & Soares, 2018; Maher & Earl, 2019)
and hold true even for the effects showcased by distinct platforms such as
Twitter, Facebook, or WhatsApp (Soares et al., 2021; Valenzuela et al., 2014).
Results from several papers show the possibilities offered by social media to
create a form of digital governance that includes citizens in government
decision-making (Joia & Soares, 2018;Soaresetal.,2021). Social media is
particularly useful to organize protests and initiate mobilizations as it is used
more by the vanguards of demonstrations and during times when protests are not
already running high (Hamanaka, 2020; Valenzuela et al., 2014). According to
Bond et al. (2012), mobilizing messages on social media does not only influence
participation but also self-expression, information seeking, and voting as such
mobilization can indirectly influence friends of people initially exposed to them.
SNS Use by Politicians, Legislative Bodies, and Campaigns. Several studies
also investigate the adoption of SNS as a communication tool for politicians,
political campaigns, political parties, as well as government bodies and institu-
tions. Results thus far attest to the great potential and a steady rise in the
implementation of SNS as a valuable political communication tool. This was
documented by studies with diverse geographical backgrounds such as the
USA, the UK, Sweden, and Germany (Cogburn & Espinoza-Vasquez, 2011;
Gerl et al., 2018; Housholder & LaMarre, 2013; Jiang, 2017; Penney, 2017;
Ridge-Newman, 2020). Other studies/scholars also found a positive influence
of social media use for campaigns and politicians for either influencing partici-
pation, individual engagement, or political news consumption (e.g., Cogburn &
Espinoza-Vasquez, 2011; Housholder & LaMarre, 2013), even if these effects
21Social Media Democracy Mirage
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
are at times only marginal (Jensen, 2017; Larsson, 2020). These effects
remained consistent across different SNS platform measures such as general
SNS use, Facebook, or Twitter use (Amaral et al., 2016;Jensen,2017;
Larsson, 2020). This shows the mobilizing potential of social media.
However, more research needs to be conducted as several studies highlight
that politicians and legislative bodies struggle to realize the full potential of
social media as communicative tools (Amaral et al., 2016; Faria & Rehbein,
2016; Pillay, 2019).
3 Social Media and Political Knowledge
This section presents findings from a systematic analysis of the relationship
between social media and political knowledge. Mimicking the structure used in
the preceding section, we followed the PRISMA guidelines (Moher et al., 2015)
for the literature review, which was conducted in February 2021 using the
following databases: Scopus, Academic Search Ultimate, and Web of Science.
The following keywords were used to identify relevant articles: “political know-
ledge”AND “social media”OR “social networking sites and political know-
ledge”OR “Twitter and political knowledge”OR “Facebook and political
knowledge.”We included articles written in English and published in a peer-
reviewed journal (indexed in JCR and/or Scopus) between 2000 and 2021.
The initial search yielded 1,556 results for social media and political know-
ledge. We then used Zotero to remove duplicates (808 articles) and excluded
either non-peer-reviewed, off-topics, or non-English articles (673 articles). Our
final sample was 75 articles (see Figure 6).
3.1 Quantitative Analysis
For this analysis, we started with a systematic search for articles relating to
political knowledge and social media. After compiling a corpus of published
manuscripts, we coded and sorted the articles. We began with a quantitative
analysis of the articles before looking into the findings by using a qualitative
analysis. The seventy-five articles on the relationship between social media and
political knowledge were published in forty different journals. New Media &
Society has the highest number of articles (n = 6), followed by the Journal of
Information Technology & Politics (n = 5). Twenty-three journals published one
article each. A majority of the first authors were based in the USA (n = 38),
followed byAustria (n = 6), Hong Kong (n= 4), and the Netherlands (n = 3). Most
articles used data gathered in the USA (n = 37), followed by those focusing on
China, Sweden, and South Korea (n = 3). Overall, the articles analyzed data from
22 Politics and Communication
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
twenty-six countries, and three of them applied a comparative logic and included
data from more than one country.
Focusing on time trends, while the first articles on political knowledge and
social media were published in 2009, it was not until 2016 that the number of
publications increased substantially (reaching sixteenarticles published in 2020).
Regarding the operationalization of social media use, most researchers either
applied a general measure of social media or inquired about different platforms to
combine them into one averaged measurement (n = 55). Facebook was the most
popular platform for researchers (n = 12), followed by Twitter (n = 5), while some
studies focused on other platforms such as Weibo or VK (n = 3). The most
common items used for measuring constructs can be found in Tables 18A to 22A.
Regarding methods, seventy-two of the articles drew upon quantitative data,
which evidences a clear pattern in the subfield. Two articles used qualitative
methods, while one article combined quantitative and qualitative techniques.
Most quantitative studies relied on survey data (n = 58), followed by
Figure 6 Social media and political knowledge process.
23Social Media Democracy Mirage
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
experiments (n = 8), mixed methods (n = 5), and content analysis (n = 4). Most
papers (seventy-three) examined the relationship between social media use and
political knowledge using samples of citizens, while some focused on sub-
samples such as students or young people. Additionally, fifty-seven articles
utilized cross-sectional data, five used longitudinal data, and thirteen combined
both. The quantitative results of this systematic literature review are presented
in the following figures (Figures 7 to 9and Figure 6A in the Appendix). Detailed
information on the data used in these figures can be found in Tables 15A to 17A.
Figure 7 Data collection and first author’s origins depicted by country.
Figure 8 Number of studies depicted by applied methods, additionally divided
by quantitative or qualitative methods, as well as cross-sectional, longitudinal,
and combined data collection.
24 Politics and Communication
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053266
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 20 Nov 2024 at 16:04:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
3.2 Qualitative Analysis: Research Objects and Methods in Social
Media and Political Knowledge Research
3.2.1 Main Findings
The biggest takeaway from the studies focused on political knowledge is that
there is no agreement on effects regarding directionality, size, or whether there
are any effects at all. Social media news use appears to not be influential overall,
with studies showing positive, negative, and null results. Interpersonal commu-
nication was mostly only found to impact political knowledge if