Political use and perceived effects of the internet: A case study of the 2004 election

Communication Research Reports

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 129-137

  Tian, Yan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI ST LOUIS   (United States)

Author keywords

Internet; Political Deliberation; Political Information; Political Participation; Structural Equation Modeling; Uses and Gratifications

Indexed keywords

EID: 69449083436     PISSN: 08824096     EISSN: 17464099     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08824090600669103     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Abedi, J., (2002). A latent-variable modeling approach to assessing reliability and validity of a creativity instrument. Creativity Research Journal, 14 (2), 267–276. [CSA]
2. Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W., (1999). Amos 4.0 user's guide. Chicago, IL: SmallWaters Corporation.
3. Bryan, C., Tsagarousianou, R., & Tambini, D., (1998). Electronic democracy and the civic networking movement in context. In R., Tsagarousianou, D., Tambini, & C., Bryan (Eds.), Cyberdemocracy: Technology, cities and civic networks (pp. 1–17). London: Routledge.
4. Carmines, G. C., & McIver, J. P., (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In G. W., Bohrnstedt & E. F., Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues (pp. 65–110). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
5. Carpini, M. S. D., (1996). Voters, candidates, and campaigns in the new information age: An overview and assessment. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 1, 36–56. [CSA]
6. Fishkin, J., Iyengar, S., & Luskin, R. C., (2003). Facilitating informed public opinion: Evidence from face to face and online deliberative polls. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, August 31–September 3.
7. Hacker, K. L., & Van Dijk, J., (2000). Digital democracy: Issues of theory and practice. London: Sage.
8. Jackman, S., (2003). Moderating the news: Political information, media effects and the role of political institutions. Paper presented at the general conference of European Consortium for Political Research, Marberg, Germany.
9. Jankowski, N., & Van Selm, M., (2000). The promise and practice of public debate in cyberspace. In K. L., Hacker & J., van Dijk (Eds.), Digital democracy: Issues of theory and practice (pp. 149–165). London: Sage.
10. Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J., (2002). Online and in the know: Uses and gratifications of the web for political information. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 54–71. [CSA][CROSSREF]
11. Kline, R. B., (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
12. McQuail, D., (1987). Mass communication theory: An introduction. London: Sage.
13. Nie, N. H., & Erbring, L., (2000). Study offers early look at how Internet is changing daily life. Stanford, CA: Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society. Retrieved January 9, 2005, from http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/Press_Release/press_release.html [CSA]
14. Norris, P., & Jones, P., (1998). Virtual democracy. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 3(2), 1–4. [CSA]
15. Oates, B. J., (2003). The potential contribution of ICTs to the political process. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 3 (1). Retrieved May 9, 2005, from http://www.ejeg.com/volume-1/volume1-issue-1/issue1-art3.htm [CSA]
16. Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2004). November 2004 post-election tracking survey. Retrieved May 1, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org/dataset_display.asp?r=45. [CSA]
17. Putnam, R. D., (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community, New York: Simon & Schuster.
18. Rash, W., (1997). Politics on the nets: Wiring the political process. New York: Freeman
19. Rice, R. E., & Katz, J. E., (2004). The Internet and political involvement in 1996 and 2000. In P. N., Howard & S., Jones (Eds.), Society online: The Internet in context (pp. 103–120). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
20. Robson, T., (2000). The state and community action. London: Pluto Press.
21. 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. [CSA][CROSSREF]
22. Shah, D. V., McLeod, J. M., & Yoon S. H., (2001). Communication, context, and community. Communication Research, 28, 464–506. [CSA]
23. Shah, D. V., Schmierbach, M., Hawkins, J., Espino, R., & Donavan, J., (2002). Nonrecursive models of Internet use and community engagement: Questioning whether time spent online erodes social capital. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79, 964–987. [CSA]
24. Straus, M. A., & Kantor, G. K., (2005). Definition and measurement of neglectful behavior: Some principles and guidelines. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 19–29. [CSA][CROSSREF]
25. Tsagarousianou, R., (1999). Electronic democracy: Rhetoric and reality. Communications; The European Journal of Communication Research, 24 (2), 189–208. [CSA]
26. Turner, R. J., & Wheaton, B., (1995). Checklist measurement of stressful life events. In L., Gordon (Ed.), Measuring stress: A guide for health and social scientists (pp. 29–58). New York: Oxford University Press.
27. USC Annenberg School Center for the Digital Future. (2004). The digital future report: Surveying the digital future (year four). Retrieved May 1, 2005, from http://www.digitalcenter.org/pages/current_report.asp?intGlobalId=19. [CSA]
28. Van Dijk, J., (1999). The network society: Social aspects of new media, L. Spoorenberg, Trans. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Van Dijk, J., & Hacker, K. L., (2000). Summary. In K. L., Hacker & J., van Dijk (Eds.), Digital democracy: Issues of theory and practice (pp. 209–223). London: Sage.