Differential Effects of Capital-Enhancing and Recreational Internet Use on Citizens’ Demand for Democracy

Stoycheff, Elizabeth; Nisbet, Erik C.; Epstein, Dmitry

doi:10.1177/0093650216644645

Cited by 33 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 84 publications

(121 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gainous et al (this volume) find correlations of social media use with criticisms of the state of democracy and political conditions for respondents in Latin American countries ( Table 3). The findings are replicated in cross-national studies in eastern and western europe (Ceron and Memoli, 2016;Stoycheff et al, 2016). Valenzuela (2013) also finds a correlation between social media use and economic dissatisfaction.…”

Section: Political Tweetsmentioning

confidence: 84%

Campaigns and conflict on social media: a literature snapshot

Boulianne

2016

OIR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This literature review discusses the themes identified in the submissions to this volume. The findings are contextualized in recent scholarship on these themes.Design, Methodology, Approach: The discussion is organized around predicting social media use among candidates, organizations, and citizens, then exploring differences in the content of social media postings among candidates, organizations, and citizens, and finally exploring the impact of social media use on mobilization and participatory inequality defined by gender, age, and socio-economic status.Findings: This volume addresses whether social media use is more common among liberal or conservative citizens, candidates and organizations; the level of negativity in social media discourse and the impact on attitudes; the existence of echo chambers of like-minded individuals and groups; the extent and nature of interactivity in social media; and whether social media will reinforce participation inequalities. In sum, the studies suggest that negativity and interactivity on social media are limited and mixed support for echo-chambers. While social media mobilizes citizens, these citizens are those who already pre-disposed to engage in civic and political life. Originality: This paper explores key topics in social media research drawing upon 60 recently published studies. Most of the studies are published in 2015 and 2016, providing a contemporary analysis of these topics. The studies in this volume address some of the most contentious issues in social media research. How are social media tools used differently by females and males, candidates and citizens, and will social media ameliorate or exacerbate participation inequalities (Bode et al., this volume; Evans, this volume; Gainous et al., this volume; Straus et al., this volume; Vraga, this volume; Valenzuela et al., this volume)? To what degree is social media discourse negative and does social media use produce critical attitudes (Bode et al., this volume, David et al., this volume, Gainous et al., this volume; Merry, this volume; Valenzuela et al., this volume)? Do social media build echo chambers of like-minded individuals and groups (Merry, this volume; Vraga, this volume) and to what degree is social media use interactive (Merry, this volume; Straus et al., this volume; Kruikemeier et al., this volume)? These issues are addressed at the political elite level (political candidates), the organizational level (political parties, interest groups), and at the citizen level. The discussion is organized around predicting social media use, then exploring differences in the content of social media postings, and finally examining the impact of social media use on mobilization and participatory inequality. Social Media Use Partisanship and IdeologyIdeology and partisanship have been widely studied as predictors of social media adoption in campaigns and among citizens. At the aggregate level, the research offers stronger

show abstract

Section: Political Tweetsmentioning

confidence: 84%

Campaigns and conflict on social media: a literature snapshot

Boulianne

2016

OIR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the Alliance for Peacebuilding (2015, 3) stating that 'Technology is making certain aspects of peacebuilding that seemed idealistic thirty years ago, like mobilizing social movements from the ground up, suddenly possible and tangible,' such advances have often been less democratizing than promisedespecially in rapidly advancing countries like China (Shen 2016). Indeed, digital mobilization can be supportive of authoritarianism, as recently seen in the emerging democracies of Turkey, India, Egypt, Russia and other states that have curtailed digital access in the name of security (Stoycheff, Nisbet, and Epstein 2016). To wit, decisions by large tech firms including Apple, Cisco, Google and Facebook to approve government censorship in order to enter new markets such as in Myanmar show that profit motivations cannot be ignored in the hopes that businesses will reflexively do the 'right' thing as concerns peace in such settings (Miklian 2017b;Miklian 2017c;Miklian 2017d).…”

Section: Intersections Of Innovation and Peacementioning

confidence: 99%

A new research approach for Peace Innovation

Miklian

Hoelscher

2017

Innovation and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How can we foster more socially responsible pro-peace innovations that also have deeper impact? In arguing that incorporating contextual, area-specific and conflict-sensitive guidance enhances the quality and depth of innovation, this article calls for a new research approach on Peace Innovation (PI). This approach could help overcome four existing challenges: expanding the scholarentrepreneur-policy triad of PI; prioritizing ethical, culturally sensitive engagement; designing innovation to more clearly deliver positive impacts in conflict environments; and glocalizing the PI playing field. We then explore five thematic areas where PI can be impactful: forecasting political economies of conflict; business and virtual peacebuilding; climate and environmentalism; migration and identity; and urbanization. Finally, we discuss how to operationalize such partnerships, moving the theoretical discussion on PI forward for both the peacebuilding and innovation communities. Pushing research frontiers forward will also help innovators develop better tools that prevent violence and promote peace in crisis and conflict environments.

show abstract

“…The relatively more open, pluralistic, Internet environment in nondemocratic states as compared to their more tightly controlled mass media leads to “window opening” and “mirror holding” among Internet users in autocratic regimes (Bailard, ; Nisbet, Stoycheff, and Pearce, ; Stoycheff and Nisbet, ; Stoycheff, Nisbet, and Epstein, ). Window opening is citizen learning from the Internet about democratic practices and norms in other countries not readily available in their own mainstream press.…”

Section: How the Internet Threatens Autocracymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Psychological Firewall? Risk Perceptions and Public Support for Online Censorship in Russia*

Nisbet

Kamenchuk

Dal

2017

Social Science Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Authoritarian regimes commonly justify Internet censorship by framing the Internet as a threat to their citizens that must be tightly controlled for their own protection. This threat rhetoric underpins government censorship and creates a “psychological firewall” driving public support for a censored Internet. Methods Based on risk and decision‐making scholarship, we evaluate how mass media and partisan regime support promulgate these threat perceptions, and in turn how they influence citizen attitudes about censorship. Employing Russia as a case study, we tested our hypotheses with a national survey (N = 1,600) conducted in May 2014. Results We found that reliance on Russian national TV news predicted greater Internet threat perceptions, and in turn these threat perceptions significantly increased support for online political censorship. Conclusion Approval of the Putin government further amplified the impact of these threat perceptions on support for censorship. Implications for understanding psychological foundations for support for censorship in authoritarian contexts are discussed.

show abstract

Differential Effects of Capital-Enhancing and Recreational Internet Use on Citizens’ Demand for Democracy

Cited by 33 publications

References 84 publications

Campaigns and conflict on social media: a literature snapshot

Campaigns and conflict on social media: a literature snapshot

A new research approach for Peace Innovation

A Psychological Firewall? Risk Perceptions and Public Support for Online Censorship in Russia*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About