Connections between Internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation

Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media

Volumn 50, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 173-192

  Kenski, Kate ^a   Stroud, Natalie Jomini ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33646386611     PISSN: 08838151     EISSN: 15506878     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15506878jobem5002_1     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. Abramson, P. R., & Aldrich, J. H. (1982). The decline of electoral participation in America. American Political Science Review, 76, 502-521.
2. Anderson, D. M. (2003), Cautious optimism about online politics and citizenship. In D. M. Anderson & M. Cornfield (Eds.), The civic web: Online politics and democratic values (pp. 19-34). Oxford, England: Rowman & Littlefield.
3. Balch, G. I. (1974). Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept "sense of political efficacy." Political Methodology, 1 1-43.
4. Bimber, B. (1998). The Internet and political mobilization: Research note on the 1996 election season. Social Science Computer Review, 16, 391-401.
5. Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
6. Chaffee, S. H., Zhao, X., & Leshner, C. (1994). Political knowledge and the campaign media of 1992. Communication Research, 21, 305-324.
7. Converse, P. E. (1972). Change in the American electorate. In A. Campbell & P. E. Converse (Eds.), The human meaning of social change (pp. 263-337). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
8. Cornfield, M. (2003). Adding in the Net: Making citizenship count in the digital age. In D. M. Anderson & M. Cornfield (Eds.), The civic web: Online politics and democratic values (pp. 97-112). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
9. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (2003). The Internet and an informed citizenry. In D. M. Anderson & M. Cornfield (Eds.), The civic web: Online politics and democratic values (pp. 129-153). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
11. DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W. R., & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social implications of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 307-336.
12. Dulio, D. A., Goff, D. L., & Thurber, J. A. (1999). Untangled web: Internet use during the 1998 election. PS: Political Science and Politics, 32, 53-59.
13. Graber, D. (1996). The "new" media and politics: What does the future hold? PS: Political Science and Politics, 29, 33-36.
14. Hampton, K., & Wellman, B. (2003). Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet supports community and social capital in a wired suburb. City & Community, 2, 277-311.
15. Horrigan, J., Garrett, K., & Resnick, P. (2004). The Internet and democratic debate. Pew Internet and American Life Project and the University of Michigan School of Information. Retrieved May 6, 2005, from http://www. pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Political_Info_Report.pdf
16. Jamieson, K. H., & Kenski, K. (2004). Why the National Annenberg Election Survey? In D. Romer, K. Kenski, P. Waldman, C. Adasiewicz, & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), Capturing campaign dynamics: The National Annenberg Election Survey (pp. 1-11). New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Jennings, M. K., & Zeitner, B. (2003). Internet use and civic engagement: A longitudinal analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 311-334.
18. Johnson, T. J., Braima, M. A. M., & Sothirajah, J. (1999). Doing the traditional media sidestep: Comparing the effects of the Internet and other nontraditional media with traditional media in the 1996 presidential campaign. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76, 99-123.
19. Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2003). A boost or a bust for democracy? How the Web influenced political attitudes and behaviors in the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(3), 9-34.
20. Kaid, L. L. (2003). Effects of political information in the 2000 presidential campaign. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 677-691.
21. Kenski, K. (2003a), The National Annenberg Election Survey 2000. The Polling Report, 19(15), 1, 7-8.
22. Kenski, K. (2003b). Testing political knowledge: Should knowledge questions use two response categories or four? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15, 192-200.
23. Kenski, K. (2004). The rolling cross-section design. In D. Romer, K. Kenski, P. Waldman, C. Adasiewicz, & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), Capturing campaign dynamics: The National Annenberg Election Survey (pp. 56-65). New York: Oxford University Press.
24. Kenski, K., & Jomini, N. (2004, May). The reciprocal effects of external and internal political efficacy: Results from the 2000 U.S. presidential election. Paper presented at the conference of the World Association for Public Opinion Research, Phoenix, AZ.
25. Kohut, A., Rainie, L., Doherty, C., Parker, K., Flemming, G., Dimock, M., et al. (2000). Youth vote influenced by online information: Internet election news audience seeks convenience, familiar names. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved May 2, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/ PRC_Politics_Report.pdf
26. Krueger, B. S. (2002). Assessing the potential of Internet political participation in the United States: A resource approach. American Politics Research, 30, 476-498.
27. Lin, Y., & Lim, S. (2002). Relationships of media use to political cynicism and efficacy: A preliminary study of young South Korean voters. Asian Journal of Communication, 12, 25-39.
28. Lupia, A., & Baird, Z. (2003). Can Web sites change citizens? Implications of Web white and blue 2000. PS: Political Science & Politics, 36, 77-82.
29. Lupia, A., & Philpot, T. S. (2005). Views from inside the Net: How Websites affect young adults' political interest. Journal of Politics, 67, 1122-1142.
30. McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., & Moy, P. (1999). Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication, 16, 315-336.
31. Mondak, J. J. (2001). Developing valid knowledge scales. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 224-238.
32. Mondak, J. J., & Anderson, M. R. (2004). The knowledge gap: A reexamination of gender-based differences in political knowledge. Journal of Politics, 66, 492-512.
33. Morrell, M. E. (2003). Survey and experimental evidence for a reliable and valid measure of internal political efficacy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 589-602.
34. Muhlberger, P. (2002, October). Political values and attitudes in Internet political discussion: Political transformation or politics as usual? Paper presented at Euricom Colloquium: Electronic Networks & Democracy, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Retrieved December 8, 2004, from http://oase.uci.kun. nl/~jankow/Euricom/papers/Muhlberger.pdf
35. Neuman, W. R. (1986). The paradox of mass politics: Knowledge and opinion in the American electorate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36. Nie, N. H., & Erbring, L. (2000). Internet and society: A preliminary report. Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society. Retrieved December 20, 2004, from http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/Press_Release/ Preliminary_Report.pdf
37. Nie, N. H., Junn, J., & Stehlik-Barry, K. (1996). Education and democratic citizenship in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38. Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991), Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85, 1407-1413.
39. Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet world-wide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40. Pinkleton, B. E., Austin, E. W., & Fortman, K. K. J. (1998). Relationships of media use and political disaffection to political efficacy and voting behavior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42, 34-49.
41. Prior, M. (2002). Liberated viewers, polarized voters - The implications of increased media choice for democratic politics. The Good Society, 11(3), 10-16.
42. Quan-Haase, A., Wellman, B., Witte, J. C., & Hampton, K. N. (2002). Capitalizing on the Net: Social contact, civic engagement, and sense of community. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life (pp. 291-324). Maiden, MA: Blackwell.
43. Rainie, L., Cornfield, M., & Horrigan, J. (2005). The Internet and campaign 2004. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved May 2, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_2004_Campaign.pdf
44. Romer, D., & Jamieson, K. H. (2000). Does local television news inform as well as local newspapers? In K. H. Jamieson (Ed.), Everything you think you know about politics ... and why you're wrong (pp. 149-153). New York: Basic Books.
45. Romer, D., Kenski, K., Waldman, P., Adasiewicz, C., & Jamieson, K. H. (Eds.). (2004). Capturing campaign dynamics: The National Annenberg Election Survey. New York: Oxford University Press.
46. Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.
47. Scheufele, D. A., & Nisbet, M. C. (2002). Being a citizen online: New opportunities and dead ends. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7(3), 55-75.
48. Shah, D. V., Kwak, N., & Holbert, R. L. (2001). " Connecting" and "disconnecting" with civic life: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18, 141-162.
49. Stromer-Galley, J. (2000). On-line interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 111-132.
50. Waldman, P. (2004). Survey procedures, content, and dataset overview. In D. Romer, K. Kenski, P. Waldman, C. Adasiewicz, & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), Capturing campaign dynamics: The National Annenberg Election Survey (pp. 12-33). New York: Oxford University Press.
51. Weber, L. M., Loumakis, A., & Bergman, J. (2003). Who participates and why? An analysis of citizens on the Internet and the mass public. Social Science Computer Review, 21, 26-42.
52. Wellman, B., & Hampton, K. (1999). Living networked on and offline. Contemporary Sociology, 28, 648-654.