Social media and online political discussion: The effect of cues and informational cascades on participation in online political communities

New Media and Society

Volumn 14, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 1286-1303

  Velasquez, Alcides ^a  

^a PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD JAVERIANA   (Colombia)

Author keywords

content analysis; information cascades; online political communities; online political discussion; public spheres; status cues

Indexed keywords

EID: 84870000147     PISSN: 14614448     EISSN: 14617315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1461444812445877     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Agresti A,Finlay BStatistical Methods for the Social Sciences. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2009.
2. Bikhchandani S,Hirshleifer D,Welch I.A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades.Journal of Political Economy. 1992;100 (95): 992-1026.
3. Burke M,Marlow C,Lento T.Feed me: Motivating newcomer contribution in social network sites. Proceedings of the 27th International SICCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 2009New York: ACM; 2009. 945-954.
4. Cohen JStatistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1988:.
5. Cohen J.Statistical power analysis.Current Directions in Psychological Science. 1992;1 (3): 98-101.
6. Crossley N,Roberts JMAfter Habermas: New Perspectives on the Public Sphere. Crossley NRoberts JM, ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2004:1-27.
7. Dahlberg L.The internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere.Information, Communication and Society. 2001;4 (4): 615-633.
8. Dahlberg L.Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: From consensus to contestation.New Media & Society. 2007;9 (5): 827-847.
9. Dahlgren P.The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation.Political Communication. 2005;22 (2): 147-162.
10. Fiore A,LeeTeirnan S,Smith M.Observed behavior and perceived value of authors in Usenet newsgroups: bridging the gap. Proceedings of the 20th Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 2002New York: ACM; 2002. 323.
11. Fraser N.Transnationalizing the public sphere: On the legitimacy and efficacy of public opinion in a post-Westphalian world.Theory, Culture & Society. 2007;24 (4): 7-30.
12. Galegher J,Sproull L,Kiesler S.Legitimacy, authority, and community in electronic support groups.Written Communication. 1998;15 (4): 493-530.
13. Gelman A,Stern H.The difference between 'significant' and 'not significant' is not itself statistically significant.The American Statistician. 2006;60 (4): 328-331.
14. Goldberg G.Rethinking the public/virtual sphere: The problem with participation.New Media & Society. 2011;13 (5): 739-754.
15. Gripsrud J.Digitizing the public sphere: Two key issues.Javnost-The Public. 2009;16 (1): 5-16.
16. Habermas JThe Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 1989:.
17. Himelboim I.Reply distribution in online discussions: A comparative network analysis of political and health newsgroups.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2008;14 (1): 156-177.
18. Himelboim I,Gleave E,Smith M.Discussion catalysts in online political discussions: Content importers and conversation starters.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2009;14 (4): 771-789.
19. Ho SS,McLeod DM.Social-psychological influences on opinion expression in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication.Communication Research. 2008;35 (2): 190-207.
20. Kelly JW,Fisher D,Smith M.Friends, foes, and fringe: Norms and structure in political discussion networks. Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference on Digital Government Research; 2006New York: ACM; 2006. 412.
21. Kim JY.The impact of internet use patterns on political engagement: A focus on online deliberation and virtual social capital.Information Polity. 2006;11 (1): 35-49.
22. Koop R,Jansen HJ.Political blogs and blogrolls in Canada: Forums for democratic deliberation?.Social Science Computer Review. 2009;27 (2): 155-173.
23. Krantz DH.The null hypothesis testing controversy in psychology.Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1999;94 (448): 1372-1381.
24. Lampe C,Resnick P.Slash(dot) and burn: Distributed moderation in a large online conversation space. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 2004New York: ACM; 2004. 543.
25. Ng EWJ,Detenber BH.The impact of synchronicity and civility in online political discussions on perceptions and intentions to participate.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2005;10:.
26. Papacharissi Z.The virtual sphere.New Media & Society. 2002;4 (1): 9-27.
27. Papacharissi Z.Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups.New Media & Society. 2004;6 (2): 259-283.
28. Postmes T,Spears R,Lea M.The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication.Human Communication Research. 2000;26 (3): 341-371.
29. Price V,Nir L,Cappella JN.Normative and informational influences in online political discussions.Communication Theory. 2006;16 (1): 47-74.
30. Rojas H.Strategy versus understanding.Communication Research. 2008;35 (4): 452-480.
31. Rojas H,Puig-i-Abril E.Mobilizers mobilized: Information, expression, mobilization and participation in the digital age.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2009;14 (4): 902-927.
32. Rojas H,Shah DV,Friedland LA.A communicative approach to social capital.Journal of Communication. 2011;61 (4): 689-712.
33. Shah DV,Cho J,Eveland WP, et al.Information and expression in a digital age.Communication Research. 2005;32 (5): 531-565.
34. Tan KWP,Swee D,Lim C, et al.The impact of language variety and expertise on perceptions of online political discussions.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2008;13 (1): 1083-6101.
35. Tanis M,Postmes T.Social cues and impression formation in CMC.Journal of Communication. 2003;53 (4): 676-693.
36. Vergeer M,Hermans L.Analyzing online political discussions: Methodological considerations.Javnost-The Public. 2008;15 (2): 37-56.
37. Walther JB.Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective.Communication Research. 1992;19 (1): 52-90.
38. Walther JB.Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction.Communication Research. 1996;23 (1): 3-43.
39. 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. 2006;12 (1): 24-41.
40. Wright S,Street J.Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums.New Media & Society. 2007;9 (5): 849-869.