Outside the Bubble: Social Media and Political Participation in Western Democracies

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q4 SOCIOLOGY
Deana A. Rohlinger
{"title":"Outside the Bubble: Social Media and Political Participation in Western Democracies","authors":"Deana A. Rohlinger","doi":"10.1177/00943061231172096ii","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There’s been a lot of hand-wringing the last several years over social media’s influence on information environments and democratic processes. This is true in the United States, where a former president and countless elected officials used social media, and other platforms, to falsely claim that Joesph Biden did not win the 2020 presidential election. Indeed, pundits, podcasters, and pollsters anxiously point to platforms such as Gab, Parler, and the ironically named Truth Social as havens for misand dis-information and as potential hubs for political radicalization. While Cristian Vaccari and Augusto Valeriani do not make any sweeping conclusions about the relative desirability of different kinds of citizen participation, particularly at the extremes, they do ask readers to pause, take a deep breath, and think more seriously about average social media users, their political experiences in digital spaces, and the implications of these experiences for political participation inside—and outside—the United States. The resulting book, Outside the Bubble: Social Media and Political Participation in Western Democracies, is a veritable treasure trove of empirical findings on social media and political participation in nine western liberal democracies. Recentering social science research on average social media users and their experiences in digital spaces is a key contribution of the book. The authors remind us that most social media users are not particularly interested in politics and that some users actively avoid exposure to political posts and messages. Consequently, by focusing on average social media users, Vaccari and Valeriani are in a position to underscore three shortcomings that haunt the existing research on digital technologies and political participation, which they call fallacies, and address these specters head on. In a nutshell, the current stock of knowledge tends to (1) overdetermine the importance of platform affordances on political engagement, (2) flatten the relationship between online political interactions and participation, and (3) neglect the effects of the national political context and the structure of its media system on social media use and political participation. The authors address these shortcomings in two ways. First, they draw on some 15,000 survey respondents to focus on the personal experiences of social media users with political information. Specifically, they consider the extent to which their respondents engage with messages they agree or disagree with, the frequency with which they encounter political messages accidently while on a platform for other purposes, and whether they receive messages urging them to vote for a candidate or party. Second, they assess whether these experiences are moderated by a state’s institutional characteristics, including patterns of electoral competition, whether the political system is focused on parties or candidates, and its mass media system (à la Hallin and Mancini). The bulk of this excellent book consists of robust analyses of individuals’ personal experiences with social media and the implications for political participation. The authors make three key findings related to the fallacies outlined above. First, they find that social media platforms do not completely determine how individuals interact online or the kinds of content to which they are exposed. In aggregate, their respondents reported that they were exposed to political content with which they agree and disagree in roughly equal measure. Moreover, about half of the respondents noted that they had accidently stumbled on political news, and about a third claimed they had received content asking them to vote for a party or candidate on a social media platform. Second, they find that social media differentially influences users’ political participation. Political content has limited influence on political junkies, or individuals who are already politically involved and turn to social media for more political content and opportunities for engagement, but boosts the participation of less politically involved 284 Reviews","PeriodicalId":46889,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Sociology-A Journal of Reviews","volume":"52 1","pages":"284 - 285"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Sociology-A Journal of Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00943061231172096ii","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There’s been a lot of hand-wringing the last several years over social media’s influence on information environments and democratic processes. This is true in the United States, where a former president and countless elected officials used social media, and other platforms, to falsely claim that Joesph Biden did not win the 2020 presidential election. Indeed, pundits, podcasters, and pollsters anxiously point to platforms such as Gab, Parler, and the ironically named Truth Social as havens for misand dis-information and as potential hubs for political radicalization. While Cristian Vaccari and Augusto Valeriani do not make any sweeping conclusions about the relative desirability of different kinds of citizen participation, particularly at the extremes, they do ask readers to pause, take a deep breath, and think more seriously about average social media users, their political experiences in digital spaces, and the implications of these experiences for political participation inside—and outside—the United States. The resulting book, Outside the Bubble: Social Media and Political Participation in Western Democracies, is a veritable treasure trove of empirical findings on social media and political participation in nine western liberal democracies. Recentering social science research on average social media users and their experiences in digital spaces is a key contribution of the book. The authors remind us that most social media users are not particularly interested in politics and that some users actively avoid exposure to political posts and messages. Consequently, by focusing on average social media users, Vaccari and Valeriani are in a position to underscore three shortcomings that haunt the existing research on digital technologies and political participation, which they call fallacies, and address these specters head on. In a nutshell, the current stock of knowledge tends to (1) overdetermine the importance of platform affordances on political engagement, (2) flatten the relationship between online political interactions and participation, and (3) neglect the effects of the national political context and the structure of its media system on social media use and political participation. The authors address these shortcomings in two ways. First, they draw on some 15,000 survey respondents to focus on the personal experiences of social media users with political information. Specifically, they consider the extent to which their respondents engage with messages they agree or disagree with, the frequency with which they encounter political messages accidently while on a platform for other purposes, and whether they receive messages urging them to vote for a candidate or party. Second, they assess whether these experiences are moderated by a state’s institutional characteristics, including patterns of electoral competition, whether the political system is focused on parties or candidates, and its mass media system (à la Hallin and Mancini). The bulk of this excellent book consists of robust analyses of individuals’ personal experiences with social media and the implications for political participation. The authors make three key findings related to the fallacies outlined above. First, they find that social media platforms do not completely determine how individuals interact online or the kinds of content to which they are exposed. In aggregate, their respondents reported that they were exposed to political content with which they agree and disagree in roughly equal measure. Moreover, about half of the respondents noted that they had accidently stumbled on political news, and about a third claimed they had received content asking them to vote for a party or candidate on a social media platform. Second, they find that social media differentially influences users’ political participation. Political content has limited influence on political junkies, or individuals who are already politically involved and turn to social media for more political content and opportunities for engagement, but boosts the participation of less politically involved 284 Reviews
泡沫之外:西方民主国家的社交媒体与政治参与
在过去的几年里,人们对社交媒体对信息环境和民主进程的影响感到非常担忧。在美国也是如此,一位前总统和无数民选官员利用社交媒体和其他平台,谎称乔·拜登没有赢得2020年总统大选。事实上,专家、播客和民意调查人员焦急地指出,Gab、Parler和具有讽刺意味的Truth Social等平台是错误和虚假信息的庇护所,也是政治激进化的潜在中心。虽然Cristian Vaccari和Augusto Valeriani没有就不同类型的公民参与的相对可取性(尤其是在极端情况下)得出任何全面的结论,但他们确实要求读者停下来,深呼吸,更认真地思考普通社交媒体用户、他们在数字空间的政治经历、,以及这些经历对美国内外政治参与的影响。由此出版的《泡沫之外:西方民主国家的社交媒体和政治参与》一书,是一本关于九个西方自由民主国家社交媒体和政策参与的实证研究的宝库。对普通社交媒体用户及其在数字空间中的体验进行重新进入社会科学研究是本书的一个关键贡献。作者提醒我们,大多数社交媒体用户对政治不是特别感兴趣,一些用户积极避免接触政治帖子和信息。因此,通过关注普通社交媒体用户,瓦卡里和瓦莱里亚尼能够强调困扰现有数字技术和政治参与研究的三个缺点,他们称之为谬论,并直面这些幽灵。简言之,目前的知识存量倾向于(1)过度确定平台可供性对政治参与的重要性,(2)淡化在线政治互动和参与之间的关系,以及(3)忽视国家政治背景及其媒体系统结构对社交媒体使用和政治参与的影响。作者从两个方面解决了这些缺点。首先,他们吸引了大约15000名受访者,重点关注社交媒体用户对政治信息的个人体验。具体而言,他们会考虑受访者参与他们同意或不同意的信息的程度,他们在平台上出于其他目的意外遇到政治信息的频率,以及他们是否收到敦促他们投票给候选人或政党的信息。其次,他们评估这些经历是否受到一个州的制度特征的调节,包括选举竞争模式,政治制度是否专注于政党或候选人,以及其大众媒体系统(àla Hallin和Mancini)。这本优秀的书的大部分内容都是对个人在社交媒体上的个人经历以及对政治参与的影响的有力分析。作者提出了与上述谬论相关的三个关键发现。首先,他们发现社交媒体平台并不能完全决定个人如何在线互动,也不能完全决定他们接触到的内容种类。总的来说,他们的受访者报告说,他们接触到的政治内容与他们大致相同。此外,约一半的受访者指出,他们偶然发现了政治新闻,约三分之一的人声称,他们在社交媒体平台上收到了要求他们投票给政党或候选人的内容。其次,他们发现社交媒体对用户的政治参与有不同的影响。政治内容对政治迷或已经参与政治并转向社交媒体获取更多政治内容和参与机会的个人的影响有限,但会促进较少参与政治的人的参与284评论
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
202
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信