Is Social Media Changing How We Understand Political Engagement? An Analysis of Facebook and the 2008 Presidential Election
| Published date | 01 December 2013 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1065912913482758 |
| Date | 01 December 2013 |
| Author | Robert C. Patton,Juliet E. Carlisle |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2013
Article
Political Research Quarterly
66(4) 883 –895
Is Social Media Changing How We
© 2013 University of Utah
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Understand Political Engagement?
DOI: 10.1177/1065912913482758
prq.sagepub.com
An Analysis of Facebook and the 2008
Presidential Election
Juliet E. Carlisle1 and Robert C. Patton2
Abstract
This research conceptualizes political engagement in Facebook and examines the political activity of Facebook users
during the 2008 presidential primary (T1) and general election (T2). Using a resource model, we test whether factors
helpful in understanding offline political participation also explain political participation in Facebook. We consider
resources (socioeconomic status [SES]) and political interest and also test whether network size works to increase
political activity. We find that individual political activity in Facebook is not as extensive as popular accounts suggest.
Moreover, the predictors associated with the resource model and Putnam’s theory of social capital do not hold true
in Facebook.
Keywords
Facebook, political participation, 2008 election, social media, social network sites
Introduction
While the Internet is not a new player in American
campaigns and elections, the 2008 U.S. presidential cam-
There is little doubt that social networking sites (SNS)
paign stands out in terms of the prominent role that SNS,
such as Facebook have raised the attention of scholars
in particular Facebook, played. Facebook, for example,
interested in social media’s effects on the political land-
cosponsored with ABC News a presidential debate on
scape. In October 2007, roughly one year before the 2008
January 5, 2008, and provided users the ability to become
U.S. presidential election, Facebook touted more than
actively involved before, during, and after the debate in
fifty million active users with a majority logging onto the
its “U.S. Politics” application (Facebook 2009a). As part
system at least once a day (Facebook 2009b), and by
of the “application,” users were able to give live feed-
August 2008, a little over one month before Election Day,
back, take part in debate groups, and see behind-the-
Facebook reached one hundred million active members
scenes postings from ABC News reporters at the debate,
(Facebook 2010). Social media also played a major role
add support for their favorite candidate, and even register
in the 2012 U.S. presidential election with Facebook cit-
to vote. Inasmuch as user engagement during the presi-
ing nine million of its users voting in the November elec-
dential debate is unique, our article seeks to understand
tion (Facebook 2012). Moreover, Facebook and other
how SNS, such as Facebook, are changing the nature of
SNS have been used to mobilize individuals to participate
political participation. We consider whether the same
in protests around the globe such as the London youth
antecedents that predict offline participation also predict
riots in the summer of 2011 and the 2009 Iranian protest
online participation. Finally, we consider the extent to
against the reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and
which users engaged themselves over the course of the
most especially those in the Middle East, collectively
referred to as the Arab Spring. Despite popular accounts
illustrating the ability of social media to mobilize users
1University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA
for political activity, little empirical work in the academy
2Moscow, ID, USA
has measured the nature of political engagement occur-
ring within these sites. The 2008 U.S. presidential cam-
Corresponding Author:
Juliet E. Carlisle, Political Science Department, University of Idaho,
paign, often regarded as the first Facebook election,
875 Perimeter Drive, MS 5102, Moscow, ID 83844, USA.
offers an excellent opportunity to address this topic.
Email: carlisle@uidaho.edu
884
Political Research Quarterly 66(4)
2008 primary and general elections rather than during the
have led to a larger percentage of the voting population
one, isolated event. Using data compiled from student
being disengaged from the political process. He notes that
questionnaires, school records, and the students’ engaging in the political process over the years has
Facebook user profiles (text, images, applications, corre-
become less compelling thereby disaffecting voters. The
spondence, etc.) throughout the 2008 election cycle, we
question of whether the Internet revolution carries the
assess the level of political participation demonstrated by
same consequences for political participation as previous
college undergraduates and recent graduates in Facebook
information revolutions has become the focus of much
and factors that influence that participation.
scholarly research. Putnam (2000) and others (Best and
Our research uses a resource model to test whether the
Krueger 2005; Bimber 2001, 2003; Johnson and Kaye
same factors helpful in understanding offline political
2003; Katz and Rice 2002; Nisbet and Scheufele 2004;
participation are also useful in explaining online political
Shah et al. 2007; Xenos and Moy 2007) find that the
participation, especially in the context of Facebook. A
Internet (when measured as frequency of Internet use)
resource model hypothesizes that resources, political
has had either a negative or insignificant relationship
engagement, and recruitment facilitate political activity.
with engagement. In some cases (Bimber 2001; Katz and
Our model focuses on the first two components of the
Rice 2002), research demonstrates mixed results where
resource model—resources (socioeconomic status [SES])
different scales of engagement, measures of Internet use,
and political engagement (specifically, political interest).
or control variables yield different, positive, and perhaps
In addition, we test whether network size works as
significant results.
Putnam (2000) would predict—to increase one’s level of
Political communication scholars suggest that the con-
political activity.
temporary, new media era lowers the cost of accessibility
to political information thereby making it more likely that
The Internet and Politics
people are willing and able to invest themselves politi-
cally. Some argue that while evidence shows that the
Scholarly research on the role the Internet has played in
Internet facilitates political engagement, such engage-
civic and political life has mostly followed two trajecto-
ment is demonstrated by those already engaged. That is,
ries. The first considers the manner in which the Internet
the Internet has only perpetuated and reinforced existing
as a communication tool is used by campaigns, candi-
disparities—such as those associated with gender, SES,
dates, and causes (Bimber and Davis 2003; Foot and
race, and age (Bimber and Davis 2003; Davis 1999; Hill
Schneider 2006). The second trajectory seeks to under-
and Hughes 1998; Jennings and Zeitner 2003)—in politi-
stand and explain the effects of new media on individual
cal engagement, doing little to engage those who are typi-
civic and political behavior (Bimber 2003; Drew and
cally disengaged (Bimber 1999; Norris 1999). These
Weaver 2006; Jennings and Zeitner 2003; Johnson and
studies suggest that “[t]he new information environment
Kaye 2003; Katz and Rice 2002; Shah et al. 2005).
has not changed levels of engagement in any substantial
Understanding how the Internet, in a general sense, affects
way” (Bimber 2003, 24).
political and civic engagement is indeed important and
Another tack in the accessibility of information argu-
much has been learned from such research. Nevertheless,
ment is that the Internet can help convert or mobilize the
there is a gap in our understanding of how online social
politically disengaged to become politically engaged.
networks (e.g., Facebook) foster political engagement and
The Internet offers convenience and accessibility for a
activity. This research seeks to fill this gap.
larger swath of citizens, increased access to information,
Research on traditional offline social networks sug-
online opportunities for political expression and political
gests the important role an individual’s social network
action, identification and affiliation with like-minded
plays in facilitating political engagement. Putnam (1993,
citizens, and “the convenience (or novelty) of online
1995a, 2000) describes how an individual’s membership
engagement may draw in those disillusioned with tradi-
in civic organizations such as the Elk’s, bowling leagues,
tional modes of political participation” (Boulianne 2009,
and Rotary serve as conduits to promote political partici-
3). Although research on the effect of the Internet as a
pation. As the story goes, social networks, such as a
tool to organize for political participation is inchoate,
bowling league, help to foster interpersonal trust and
several findings suggest that the Internet can propel indi-
cooperation that spreads between and among individuals
viduals into political life especially in terms of allowing
in these informal social networks and from which spring
them to gather political information, connect with others,
the potentiality of civic and political engagement that
mobilize, and recruit individuals to causes and actions
serves community and...
To continue reading
Request your trial