2014
DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2013.852641
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

What’s the Bandwidth for Democracy? Deconstructing Internet Penetration and Citizen Attitudes About Governance

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
22
0
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
3
22
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The wording of the selected question is the following: 'How important is it for you to live in a democratic country 0 = not important at all; 10 = very important' as an index of support for democracy. 8 Both variables have been extensively used in previous works as indicators of specific and diffuse support for democracy respectively (some examples are van Beek 2010; Dalton and Weldon 2010;Gu and Bomhoff 2012;Norris 2011;Stoycheff and Nisbet 2014). Alternative metrics -such as the more common use of dichotomous or categorical variables -usually reflect a remarkably low percentage of citizens critical of the regime (Inglehart 2003).…”
Section: Satisfaction and Support For Democracymentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The wording of the selected question is the following: 'How important is it for you to live in a democratic country 0 = not important at all; 10 = very important' as an index of support for democracy. 8 Both variables have been extensively used in previous works as indicators of specific and diffuse support for democracy respectively (some examples are van Beek 2010; Dalton and Weldon 2010;Gu and Bomhoff 2012;Norris 2011;Stoycheff and Nisbet 2014). Alternative metrics -such as the more common use of dichotomous or categorical variables -usually reflect a remarkably low percentage of citizens critical of the regime (Inglehart 2003).…”
Section: Satisfaction and Support For Democracymentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The higher negativity of political news reported by social media need not be a 'negative' outcome for the political system when we are dealing with dysfunctional and corrupt institutions or non democratic countries. In these contexts the consumption of news from social media can exert mirror-holding and window-opening effects (Bailard, 2012;Stoycheff & Nisbet, 2014), which decrease trust in unworthy institutions, prompt demands for democracy, encourage mobilization and urge reforms (Nisbet, Stoycheff & Pearce, 2012;Norris, 2011).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Internet revolution has opened the debate on the effects of new media, separating euphoric scholars (e.g., Benkler, 2006) from the more skeptic ones (e.g., Hilbert, 2009;Hindman, 2009). Some empirical analyses attest that Internet usage advances political knowledge, civic engagement and support for democratic values (Boulliane, 2009;Nisbet, Stoycheff & Pearce, 2012;Stoycheff & Nisbet, 2014;Valenzuela et al, 2009), while others report a negative or null effect of the Internet on political knowledge, awareness, and participation (Kaufhold, Valenzuela & De Zúñiga, 2010).…”
Section: News Websites Social Media and Democracymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our study moves beyond previous comparative work that portrays a technologically deterministic relationship between general Internet use and democracy (Bailard, 2012b;Lei, 2011;Nisbet et al, 2012;Groshek, 2010) through more refined measurement. Similar to Stoycheff and Nisbet (2014) who operationalized Internet penetration along varying dimensions (broadband, users, and hardware) at the macro level, this study differentiated between types of Internet use at the individual level. In doing, this data demonstrate an indirect and differential process of mirror holding and window opening through which Internet can-but does not necessarily-amplify demand for democracy.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%