Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression

Computers in Human Behavior

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 1159-1168

  Halpern, Daniel ^a   Gibbs, Jennifer ^b  

^a PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

^b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer mediated communication; Facebook; Online deliberation; SIDE theory; Social media; YouTube

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION;

COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION; FACEBOOK; ONLINE DELIBERATION; SIDE THEORY; SOCIAL MEDIA; YOUTUBE;

SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE);

CATALYST; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CONVERSATION; DRAWING; HUMAN; MODEL; SOCIAL MEDIA;

EID: 84868674003     PISSN: 07475632     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.008     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Agichtein, E., Castillo, C., Donato, D., Gionis, A., & Mishne, G. (2008). Finding high-quality content in social media. In Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on web search and web data mining (pp. 183–194). Standford: ACM.
2. Benson, T.W., Rhetoric, civility, and community: Political debate on computer bulletin boards. Communication Quarterly 44:3 (1996), 359–378.
3. Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J., Kelshaw, T., The self-reinforcing model of public deliberation. Communication Theory 12 (2002), 398–422.
4. Carlson, J.R., Zmud, R.W., Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal 42:2 (1999), 153–170.
5. Carter, S.L., Civility: Manners, morals, and the etiquette of democracy. 1998, Basic Books, New York.
6. Chadwick, A., Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of E-Democracy in an era of informational exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 5:1 (2008), 9–41.
7. Coleman, S., Gotze, J., Bowling together: Online public engagement in policy deliberation. 2001, Hansard Society, London.
8. Dahlberg, L., Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(1), 2001.
9. Davis, R., The Web of politics: The Internet's impact on the American political system. 1999, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
10. Delli Carpini, M.X., Cook, F.L., Jacobs, L.R., Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science 7 (2004), 315–344.
11. Dutton, W.E., Information and communication technologies: Visions and realities. 1996, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
12. Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., Lampe, C., Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society 13:6 (2011), 873–892.
13. Eveland, W.P., Hively, M.H., Political discussion frequency, network size, and ‘heter-ogeneity’ of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication 59:2 (2009), 205–224.
14. Fishkin, J.S., Democracy and deliberation. 1991, Yale University Press, New Haven.
15. Galegher, J., Sproull, L., Kiesler, S., Legitimacy, authority, and community in electronic support groups. Written Communication 15 (1998), 493–530.
16. Gastil, J., Is face-to-face citizen deliberation a luxury or a necessity?. Political Communication 17 (2000), 357–361.
17. Gibson, J.J., The ecological approach to perception. 1986, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
18. Habermas, J., The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. 1989, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
19. Hampton, K.N., Lee, C.-j., Her, E.J., How new media affords network diversity: Direct and mediated access to social capital through participation in local social settings. New Media & Society 7 (2011), 1031–1049.
20. Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J.M., Osborn, T., Disagreement, ambivalence and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology 25 (2004), 65–95.
21. Janssen, D., Kies, R., Online forums and deliberative democracy. Acta Politica 40 (2005), 317–335.
22. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., McGuire, T.W., Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist 39 (1984), 1123–1134.
23. Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 52 (1992), 96–123.
24. Krippendorff, K., Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. 2nd ed., 2004, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
25. Lange, P., Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on youTube. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008), 361–380.
26. Lerman, K. (2007). User participation in social media: Digg study. In IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology (pp. 255–258).
27. Levine, J.M., Russo, E., Impact of anticipated interaction on information acquisition. Social Cognition 13 (1995), 293–317.
28. Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. In Proceedings of the 37th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences. Big Island, HI: Computer Society Press.
29. McLeod, J.M., Scheufele, D.A., Moy, P., Horowitz, E.M., Holbert, R.L., Zhang, W., et al. Understanding deliberation: The effects of discussion networks on participation in a public forum. Communication Research 26 (1999), 743–774.
30. Monge, P.R., Miller, K.I., Participatory processes in organizations. Goldhaber, G.M., Barnett, G.A., (eds.) Handbook of organizational communication, 1988, Ablex, Norwood.
31. Moy, P., Gastil, J., Predicting deliberative communication: The impact of discussion networks, media use, and political cognitions. Political Communication 23 (2006), 443–460.
32. Norton, H., Citron, D.K., Government speech 2.0. Denver University Law Review 87 (2010), 899–901.
33. Noveck, B.S., Wiki government: How technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. 2009, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.
34. Papacharissi, Z., Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society 6:2 (2004), 259–283.
35. Postmes, T., Spears, R., Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 123 (1998), 238–259.
36. Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lea, M., Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research 25 (1998), 689–715.
37. Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lea, M., Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated communication: Effects of depersonalization. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 6:1 (2002), 3–16.
38. Rafaeli, S., Sudweeks, F., Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(4), 1997.
39. Reicher S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of de individuation phenomena. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 161–198), Chichester: Wiley.
40. Scheufele, D.A., Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D., Nisbet, E.C., Social structure and citizenship: Examining the impacts of social setting, network heterogeneity, and informational variables on political participation. Political Communication 21 (2004), 315–338.
41. Scheufele, D., Nisbet, M., Being a citizen online: New opportunities and dead ends. H/I Journal of Press/Politics 7:3 (2002), 55–75.
42. Schmidt, J., Civility, enlightenment, and society: Conceptual confusions and kantian remedies. American Political Science Review 92 (1998), 419–448.
43. Schudson, M., Why conversation is not the soul of democracy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 14:4 (1997), 1–13.
44. Sherblom, J.C., Organizational involvement expressed through pronoun use in computer mediated communication. Communication Research Reports 7:1 (1990), 45–50.
45. Spears, R., Postmes, T., Lea, M., Wolbert, A., The power of influence and the influence of power in virtual groups: A SIDE look at CMC and the internet. Journal of Social Issues 58 (2002), 91–108.
46. Stromer-Galley, J., Measuring deliberation's content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation 3:1 (2007), 1–37.
47. Stromer-Galley, J., Wichowski, A., Political discussion online. Burnett, R.M., Consalvo, M., Ess, C., (eds.) The handbook of Internet studies, 2010, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 168–187.
48. Tajfel, H., The achievement of group differentiation. Tajfel, H., (eds.) Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations, 1978, Academic Press, London.
49. Utz, S., Show me your friends and I will tell you what type of person you are: How one's profile, number of friends, and type of friends influence impression formation on social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15 (2010), 314–335.
50. Walsh, K.C., Talking about politics: Informal groups and social identity in American life. 2004, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
51. Walther, J.B., DeAndrea, D., Kim, J., Anthony, J.C., The influence of online comments on perceptions of antimarijuana public service announcements on YouTube. Human Communication Research 36 (2010), 469–492.
52. Warren, M., What should and should not be said: Deliberating sensitive issues. Journal of Social Philosophy 37 (2006), 163–181.
53. Wilhelm, A.G., Virtual sounding boards: How deliberative is online political discussion?. Hague, B.N., Loader, B.D., (eds.) Digital Democracy: Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age, 1999, Routledge, London.
54. Wise, K., Hamman, B., Thorson, K., Moderation, response rate, and message interactivity: Features of online communities and their effects on intent to participate. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12 (2006), 24–41.
55. Yildiz, M., e-Government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly 24:3 (2007), 646–665.