Social Media and Democracy: Democratization or Fragmentation?

1. Social Media and Democracy:Democratization or Fragmentation? Matthew J. Kushin, Ph.D. Utah valley University | Orem, Utah | USA | April 25, 2012

2. About Me • Assistant Professor in Department of Communication at Utah Valley University • Research social media and political participation • Teach mass communication, social media, research methods • Website: profkushin.wordpress.com • Twitter: @mjkushin • Email: profkushin@gmail.com

3. Utah Valley University

4. Preview • We’ll cover: • Two competing perspectives of the role of Internet in Democracy • 3 studies I’ve done on social media and democratic participation • Outlook • Q&A

5. The Internet & Democracy

6. Internet & Democracy Creative commons photo credit: Steve Rhode • Two key perspectives about role of internet in democracy • Democratization – positive perspective • Fragmentation – negative perspective

7. For Citizens • Democratization • internet is good for democracy because it brings more people into political process by • Increasing information access, • Empowering citizens to voice their concerns • Increasing ability to participate with others Image creative commons by: david_shankbone

8. For Citizens • Fragmentation • internet is bad for democracy because internet media is many media to many different audiences. • It does not connect dispersed populations • It cannot unify large populations around a common cause • This leaves the individual to feel alienated from the democratic process Photo: creative commons credit Brian Auer

9. What role does social media play in American democracy?

10. My Research Focus

11. Research Interests • Information gathering on SM • Audience engagement using SM • Interaction • Content creation Image creative commons: by rhinman

12. Interest: Politics / Civic Life • Political dispositions & attitudes • Decision-making in politics • Election / campaign engagement • Civic engagement Image creative commons: kaiju_images

13. Recent Research

14. Methods: Social Media Research • Survey Research • Ask about usage & opinions • Political decision making • Disaffection • Social Media Audience Analysis • Examine usage • Dissertation • CSCA “Top Paper Panel” • Facebook study Image creative commons: top: kaiju_images Bottom: by rhinman

15. Study #1 • Kushin, M. J., & Yamamoto, M. (2010). Did social media really matter? College students’ use of online media and political decision making in the 2008 election. Mass Communication & Society, 13(5), 608-630. Image creative commons: kaiju_images

16. Impetus • Did this… Lead to • This.. ? Social Media

17. It is a popular notion! • That social media • empowered voters to participate in Obama’s campaign • Bringing more people into the campaign • Articles such as: • How Obama Tapped Into Social Network’s Power /Carr / New York Times, Nov 9 2008 • Barack Obama and the Facebook Election – Fraser and Dutta / US News & World Report • The Vote: A Victory for Social Media, Too – Hesseldahl, MacMillan and Kharif / Bloomberg Business Week

18. Example: The Vote: A Victory for Social Media, Too • “The 2008 contest for the White House may go down in history as the first social media election. How else to explain the unprecedented role the Web played in this year's Presidential contest, an influence scarcely imaginable just four years ago?” • “…the electorate could harness a panoply of social media tools…to broadcast to the world their thoughts about the candidates and their experiences of the electoral process.” Source: The Vote: A Victory for Social Media, Too The '08 election was a triumph for the likes of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Flickr as voters chronicled their experiences in words, photos, and video By ArikHesseldahl , Douglas MacMillan and Olga Kharif http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2008/tc2008115_988160.htm

19. Goal of Study • Explore role, if any, of social media and traditional Internet content in the political decision making of young adults in the 2008 election

20. Media Use • Social Media consumption • Online expression • Traditional Internet news media

21. Political Decision Making Variables • Political Efficacy Individual’s belief that through their efforts they can impact political processes • Political Involvement A point of entrance into political process via which an individual seeks info leading to decision making about politics

22. Method • Time: Weeks before 2008 election • Instrument: Online survey • Sample: 409 undergraduates at a large western public university in the United States • Analysis: Regression

23. Results

24. Conclusion • Social media consumption & online expression overshadowed by traditional internet sources • Social media not a tool that brought young adults into political process in ’08 • Mixed results for role of online expression

25. Study #2 • Yamamoto, M., & Kushin, M.J. (2011, August). Walled gardens? Social media and political disaffection among college students in the 2008 election. Paper presented at the annual conference for the Association for Education in Journalism & Mass Communication, St. Louis, MO. Image creative commons: kaiju_images

26. Impetus • Did this… Contribute to • This about politics? Social Media Photo credits Creative Commons: By Little Li

27. Young Adults are disengaged? • Downward trends in voter turnout among young adults in the U.S. • Many fear this disengagement is bad for democracy • Democracy is predicated on participation • No vote means no voice in democracy • Who or what is to blame?! Photo credits Creative Commons: By Little Li

28. Who is to blame? • Culprits? • television news reporting for focusing on controversy, and triviality • Attack advertisements and negative political campaigning • Untrustworthy politicians and scandal after scandal • Others? • Can social media undo this? • Or is social media enabling disengagement?

29. Goal • Explore role, if any, of social media and traditional Internet content in the political disaffection of young adults in the 2008 election

30. Political Disaffection • Cynicism a mistrustful disposition towards, and an absence of confidence in, the political system (Austin & Pinkleton, 1995; 1999) • Sees politics as personally irrelevant • Unlikely to consume public affairs media • Tends to abstain from voting

31. Political Disaffection • Apathy indifference towards, lack of interest in, or lack of attention to politics (Bennett, 1986). • Apathy and cynicism may feed each other • Negatively related to efficacy and involvement (discussed in previous study)

32. Political Disaffection • Skepticism a disbelief in the political process but not a rejection of it (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997) • Positive attribute leading to fact checking information received • Motivates information seeking • Positively related to involvement (discussed in last study) • May relate to increased likelihood of political participation

33. Media Use • Social Media consumption • Online expression • Traditional Internet news media

34. Reasoning? • Social media consumption • Social media may not lead to increases in political knowledge or interest • Social media may foster fragmentation • Social media empowers people to only interact with people who they agree with politically • Political news and information found on social media may be by accident • Those paying attention to social media for politics may do so because: • It takes very little effort to get political information, and the information they get tends to be incidental.

35. Online Expression? • If online expression experience is seen as gratifying, then it is more likely to be: • unrelated to negative disaffection • Related to skepticism • Motivated by self satisfaction and external rewards • Self awareness and identity expression • Related to increased involvement (last study)

36. Results Key: Good | Bad | Neutral

37. Conclusion • Social media consumption may be a tool of the “lazy,” those not interested but learning via incidental exposure from friends • Online expression are less apathetic or cynical and more engaged • Traditional WWW overshadows as tool used by most engaged

38. Study #3 • Kushin, M. J. & Kitchener, K. (2009). Getting political on social network sites: Exploring online political discourse on Facebook. First Monday, 14(11).

39. Impetus • Fragmentation v. Democratization • Concerns that social networks are places where • People hide behind anonymity • Attacks and “flaming” occurs instead of rational political discussion • People seek out likeminded people rather than engaging new ideas

40. Goal • Examine political discourse on Facebook “Groups” for democratization vs. fragmentation

41. Method: Data • Topic: • U.S. state-sanctioned torture • 2 Steps • Computer-assisted discourse analysis of FB discussion posts • Qualitative content analysis of posts

42. Results • Most discourse was with like-minded individuals • Most discourse was civil • the majority of posts were informative in nature or expressed arguments in a civil manner

43. Outlook & Thoughts

44. Fragmentation v. Democratization • Democratization • Traditional Internet overall positively related to democratic participation • Online Expression mixed support • Online discussion civil, informative, with constructive arguments • Fragmentation • Social media consumption may relate to some fragmentation • Discussion tended to be with likeminded individuals

45. Does this mean…. • Social media is not having a positive impact on democracy? Not necessarily!

46. Social Media & Democracy Photos credit creative commons: bottom left: iCrossing | rest: Interact Egypt - Play Innovation

47. Looking Forward • Countless examples of social media being used for democratic movements. • Perhaps those motivated politically use social media tools for positive means. • Social media has become an engrained force for information exchange in the US and increasingly around the world.

48. Questions?

49. Thanks! • Matthew J. Kushin, Ph.D. • Website: profkushin.wordpress.com • Twitter: @mjkushin • Email: profkushin@gmail.com