Age and Online Social Media Behavior in Prediction of Social Activism Orientation
Keywords:
social media, social movements, activism, age, onlineAbstract
The purpose of this study was to describe the largely unexplored relationship between chronological age, displays of activism on social networking sites, and differences in orientation toward engaging in future social activism. Participants completed a demographic questionnaire, the Activism Orientation Scale (A0S; Corning & Myers, 2002), and the Online Social Activism Scale (OSAS). Two regression models were used in the prediction of participants’ orientation toward conventional activism behavior and high-risk activism behavior by chronological age and displays of activism on social networking sites. Both models were statistically significant. The data revealed that increased displays of activism on social networking sites were associated with a decreased orientation toward future conventional and high-risk activism behaviors. Increased age was associated with a decreased orientation toward high-risk activism behavior. Findings from this study highlight important considerations related to the expansion of activism participation from social media based platforms.
References
Buechler, S. M. (2016). Understanding social movements: Theories from the classical era to the present (pp. 53-72). Boulder, CO: Routledge.
Beyer, J. L. (2014). The emergence of a freedom of information movement: Anonymous, WikiLeaks, the Pirate Party, and Iceland. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 19(2), 141-154. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12050
Bode, L. (2012). Facebooking it to the polls: A study in online social net working and political behavior. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(4), 352-369. doi: 0.1080/19331681.2012.709045.
Boulianne, S. (2009). Does internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication, 26(2), 193-211. doi: 10.1080/10584600902854363
Brunsting, S., & Postmes, T. (2002). Social movement participation in the digital age: Predicting offline and online collective action. Small Group Research, 33(5), 525-554. doi: 10.1177/104649602237169
Buechler, S. M. (1995). New social movement theories. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(3), 441-464. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1995.tb00447.x
Burns, S. (1990). Social movements of the 1960s: Searching for Democracy. Boston, MA: Twayne Pub.
Campbell, D. E. (2006, March). What is education’s impact on civic and social engagement. Paper presented at the Copenhagen symposium, Copenhagen, DK. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/innovation-education/37425694.pdf
Coffé, H., & Bolzendahl, C. (2010). Same game, different rules? Gender differences in political participation. Sex Roles, 62, 318–333. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9729-y.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Conroy, M., Feezell, J. T., & Guerrero, M. (2012). Facebook and political engagement: A study of online political group membership and offline political engagement. Computers in Human behavior, 28(5), 1535-1546. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.012
Corning, A. F., & Myers, D. J. (2002). Individual orientation toward engagement in social action. Political Psychology, 23(4), 703-729. doi: 10.1111/0162-895X.00304
Delice, A. (2010). The sampling issues in quantitative research. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 10(4), 2001-2018. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ919871.pdf
Della Porta, D., & Kriesi, H. (1999). Social movements in a globalizing world: An introduction. In Social Movements in a Globalizing World (pp. 3-22). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
DiGrazia, J. (2014). Individual protest participation in the United States: Conventional and unconventional activism. Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell), 95(1), 111-131. doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12048
Donguines, A. (2014, August 8). Ice bucket challenge rules explained: How challenge helps ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease charities? Retrieved from https://www.christianpost.com/news/ice-bucket-challenge-rules-explained-how-does-it-help-als-charities-125361
Edwards, B., & Gillham, P. F. (2013). Resource mobilization theory. In The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements.
Eltantawy, N., & Wiest, J. B. (2011). The Arab spring social media in the Egyptian revolution: Reconsidering resource mobilization theory. International Journal of Communication, 5, 18. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.1197&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Faia, M. A. (1967). Alienation, structural strain, and political deviancy: A test of Merton's hypothesis. Social Problems, 14(4), 389-413. doi: 10.1525/sp.1967.14.4.03a00070
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fietzer, A. W., & Ponterotto, J. (2015). A psychometric review of instruments for social justice and advocacy attitudes. Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 7(1), 19-22. Retrieved from http://www.psysr.org/jsacp/fietzer-v7n1-2015_19-40.pdf
Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), 195-196. doi: 10.1037/h0023552
Gladwell, M. (2010, October 4). Small change. The New Yorker, 4(2010), 42-49. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/04/small-change-malcolm-gladwell
Goldstone, J. A. (2003). States, Parties, and Social Movements (pp. 1-4). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Greenwood, S., Perrin, A., & Duggan, M. (2016, November 11). Social media update 2016: Facebook usage and engagement is on the rise, while adoption of other platforms holds steady. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update-2016/
Gurney, J. N., & Tierney, K. J. (1982). Relative deprivation and social movements: A critical look at twenty years of theory and research. The Sociological Quarterly, 23(1), 36-47. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1982.tb02218.x
Jeong, H. J. & Lee, M. (2013). The effect of online media platforms on joining causes: The impression management perspective. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(4), 439-455. doi: 10.1080/08838151.2013.845824
Kiang, M. Y., Raghu, T. S., & Shang, K. H. M. (2000). Marketing on the internet—who can benefit from an online marketing approach? Decision Support Systems, 27(4), 383-393. doi: 10.1016/S0167-9236(99)00062-7
King, B. G., Cornwall, M., & Dahlin, E. C. (2005). Winning woman suffrage one step at a time: Social movements and the logic of the legislative process, Social Forces, 83(3), 1211-1234.
Klandermans, B. (2004). The demand and supply of participation: Social-psychological correlates of participation in social movements. In The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, (pp. 360-379). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470999103.ch16
Kristofferson, K., White, K., & Peloza, J. (2014). The nature of slacktivism: How the social observability of an initial act of token support affects subsequent prosocial action. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1149-1166. doi: 10.1086/674137
Lake, R., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Social capital, social networks, and political participation. Political Psychology, 19(3), 567-584. doi: 10.1111/0162-895X.00118
Lee, C. K., & Friedman, E. (2009). The labor movement. Journal of Democracy, 20(3), 21-24. doi: 10.1353/jod.0.0107
Lee, Y. H., & Hsieh, G. (2013, April). Does slacktivism hurt activism? The effects of moral balancing and consistency in online activism. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. (pp. 811–820). doi: 10.1145/2470654.2470770
Logan, J. R., Darrah, J., & Oh, S. (2012). The impact of race and ethnicity, immigration and political context on participation in American electoral politics. Social forces, 90(3), 993-1022. doi: 10.1093/sf/sor024
Marx, G. T., & Useem, M. (1971). Majority involvement in minority movements: Civil rights, abolition, untouchability. Journal of Social Issues, 27(1), 81-104. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1971.tb00637.x
McAdam, D. (1986). Recruitment to high-risk activism: The case of freedom summer. American Journal of Sociology, 92(1), 64-90. doi: 10.1086/228463
McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American journal of sociology, 82(6), 1212-1241. doi: 10.1086/226464
McCaughey, M., & Ayers, M. D. (Eds.). (2013). Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and practice. New York: Routledge.
Meikle, G. (2014). Social media, visibility, and activism: The kony2012 campaign. In M. Ratto & M. Boler (Eds.), DIY Citzenship: Critical Making and Social Media. London, England: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qf5jb
Neumayer, C., & Svensson, J. (2016). Activism and radical politics in the digital age. Convergence: The Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 22(2), 131-146. doi:10.1177/1354856514553395.
Norris, P. (2003). Young people & political activism: From the politics of loyalties to the politics of choice? Rapport voor het Council of Europe Symposium: “Young people and democratic institutions: From disillusionment to participation,” November. Straatsburg, Germany. Retrieved from https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/COE.pdf
Oser, J., Hooghe, M., & Marien, S. (2013). Is online participation distinct from offline participation? A latent class analysis of participation types and their stratification. Political Research Quarterly, 66(1), 91-101. doi: 10.1177/1065912912436695
Park, S.S., & Einwohner, R. L. (2015, August). Explaining the Acceptance of Protest. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
Paulin, M., Ferguson, R. J., Schattke, K., & Jost, N. (2014). Millennials, social media, prosocial emotions, and charitable causes: The paradox of gender differences. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 26(4), 335-353. doi: 10.1080/10495142.2014.965069
Pepper, S. (2009). Invisible children and the cyberactivist spectator. Nebula, 6(4), 41-55.
Petrie, M. (2004). A research note on the determinants of protest participation: Examining socialization and biographical availability. Sociological Spectrum, 24(5), 553-574. doi:10.1080/02732170490483523
Raudys, S. J., & Jain, A. K. (1991). Small sample size effects in statistical pattern recognition: Recommendations for practitioners. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 13(3), 252-264. doi: 10.1109/34.75512
Ritzer, G. (2007). Political Process Theory. In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. (Vol. 1479, pp. 1-5). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Rotman, D., Vieweg, S., Yardi, S., Chi, E., Preece, J., Shneiderman, B., ... & Glaisyer, T. (2011, May). From slacktivism to activism: Participatory culture in the age of social media. In CHI'11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 819-822). ACM. doi:10.1145/1979742.1979543
Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2014). Towards cyberactivism 2.0? Understanding the use of social media and other information technologies for political activism and social movements. Government Information Quarterly, 31(3), 365-378. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2013.10.016
Saravanakumar, M., & SuganthaLakshmi, T. (2012). Social media marketing. Life Science Journal, 9(4), 4444-4451. Retrieved from http://www.lifesciencesite.com/lsj/life0904/670_13061life0904_4444_4451.pdf
Schussman, A., & Soule, S. A. (2005). Process and protest: Accounting for individual protest participation. Social forces, 84(2), 1083-1108. doi: 10.1353/sof.2006.0034
Smith, A. (2013, April 25). Civic engagement in the digital age. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/04/25/civic-engagement-in-the-digital-age/.
Snow, D. A., & Rochford Jr, E. B. (1983, August). Structural availability, the alignment process and movement recruitment. In annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, Detroit, August.
Steger, M. A. E., & Witt, S. L. (1989). Gender differences in environmental orientations: A comparison of publics and activists in Canada and the US. Political Research Quarterly, 42(4), 627-649. doi: 10.2307/448646
Tarrow, S., & Tollefson, J. (1994). Power in movement: Social movements, collective action and politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tilly, C. & Wood, L. J. (2015). Social Movements 1768-2012. Boulder, CO: Routledge.
Thompson, W. E., Hickey, J. V., & Thompson, M. L. (2016). Society in focus: An introduction to sociology. Rowman & Littlefield.
Tufekci, Z., & Wilson, C. (2012). Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir square. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 363-379. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01629.
Vecchione, M., Schwartz, S. H., Caprara, G. V., Schoen, H., Cieciuch, J., Silvester, J., & Alessandri, G. (2015). Personal values and political activism: A cross-national study. British Journal of Psychology, 106(1), 84-106. doi:10.1111/bjop.12067
Velasquez, A., & LaRose, R. (2015). Social media for social change: Social media political efficacy and activism in student activist groups. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(3), 456-474. doi:10.1080/08838151.2015.1054998
Weakliem, D. L., & Biggert, R. (1999). Region and political opinion in the contemporary United States. Social Forces, 77(3), 863-886. doi: 10.1093/sf/77.3.863
Wellman, B., Quan‐Haase, A., Boase, J., Chen, W., Hampton, K., Díaz, I., & Miyata, K. (2003). The social affordances of the internet for networked individualism. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 8(3), 4-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2003.tb00216.x
Winterich, K. P., Mittal, V., & Aquino, K. (2013). When does recognition increase charitable behavior? Toward a moral identity-based model. Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 121-134. doi: 10.1509/jm.11.0477
Xenos, M. & Moy, P. (2007). Direct and differential effects of the internet on political and civic engagement. Journal of communication, 57(4), 704-718. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00364.x
Zhang, W., Johnson, T., Seltzer, T., & Bichard, S. (2010). The revolution will be networked: The influence of social networking sites on political attitudes and behavior. Social Science Computer Review, 28(1), 75-92. doi: 10.1177/0894439309335162
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).