`
Conventional Posts: From Lawn Signs to Social Media
An examination of whether there is a digital divide in political
participation
By Amy Maciejowski
Graduate Candidate for Political Communication
April 21, 2015
Professor Elizabeth Suhay
1
Traditional political participation has always been defined as something that
encapsulates how an individual contributes to the larger society: be it by voting,
signing a petition or a handful of other activities. However, with new technological
advancements coming in and out like a revolving door, it has shifted the focus of
traditional political participation and opened up a vast number of new
opportunities. Therefore, political scientists have begun to classify a division in
types of political participation: “online” and “offline” participation. Scholars are split
as to whether or not online participation should be weighed at all; with critics
believing it should not be considered “participation.” However, as we will explore in
more depth below, many of these beliefs are dwindling because of the sheer
possibilities that online political participation has unlocked to advocates and
campaigners.
There are many sectors of the population who are not politically active, so
campaigners are constantly looking for different ways to motivate individuals to
participate in elections, especially the young voters. When the Internet came onto
the scene, campaigns focused more of their attention online to the younger
population, because they sensed the younger voters would be more likely to spend
their time online. Campaigners saw the Internet as an incredibly powerful tool to
persuade individuals to become more involved. As will be further explored, the
Internet and its companion social media sites have been both a benefit and
drawback to political participation (especially leading up to elections). The question
is though, will everyone be using it? Does every sector of the population use the
2
Internet, particularly to participate in politics? And if so, does the “digital divide”
transpire to online participation in politics?
A Pew study discovered that there are many reasons to believe why older
generations are not as prevalent and enthusiastic about using the Internet. The
older generation does not trust the Internet as easily as the younger generations,
and are very reticent about using the Internet for services like paying bills and
shopping, so it is not too far-fetched to think they would also frown upon acts like
contributing to a campaign online. The Pew study found that it was not only a trust
issue, but some older individuals just do not know how to use the Internet, how it
works and they find it too difficult/frustrating to learn (Rainie 2013). Therefore, it
would be helpful for campaigns to explore whether the “digital divide” is present in
political participation between individuals who did not grow up with the Internet at
all, individuals who were younger when the Internet came on the scene and
individuals who grew up alongside the growth of the Internet.
Political engagement and participation among generations
Democracies define their legitimization by rates of participation among their
citenzry. Voting is the most direct form of political participation, and for a country
that focuses on furthering democratic principles around the world, the United States
has one of the lowest rates of overall voting in presidential elections. With a little
over half of the voting age population taking part in elections, scholars wonder
whether this will harm the United States’ position as a superpower. Research
3
focusing on increasing political participation is always being done to combat these
low rates.
When discussing what it means to be a citizen, one of the first things that
comes to mind, is the right to vote. Indeed, this is one of the most obvious ways to
participate in politics, but it is not the only way. For the terms of this research,
political participation is considered acts that influence the overall political
environment and the political participation of others by taking a direct or indirect
role in the political process. A traditional, standard definition of political
participation is defined as the having done one or all of the following acts:
*voting;
*volunteering for a political organization or a candidate;
*trying to persuade someone how to vote (or to vote);
*displaying a button, bumper sticker, or sign on behalf of a candidate; and
*contributing money to a party or candidate (Zukin, Keeter, Andolina, Jenkins
and Carpini 2006, 64).
However, recently these acts of participation have also been altered by the
ways in which individuals can carry them out. Individuals have the rare opportunity
to take part in the political process both offline (like displaying a lawn sign on behalf
of a candidate) or online (like changing their Facebook profile picture to be of a
candidate they support). This broadened opportunity to carry out standard acts of
political participation in an online format should prompt campaigners to reevaluate
how they package and execute their outreach. If there is no difference in the groups
of individuals who participate online and offline, then it stands to reason that there
4
should be a broader definition of political participation to take into account for acts
of online participation.
Every year brings new advancements that signify a shift in how individuals
can become involved in politics. When the presidential debate between Senator John
F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon was televised in 1960, individuals who
watched the debate on the television thought that Kennedy won. Individuals who
listened to the debate on the radio claimed Nixon was triumphant (Webley 2010).
This shows that different modes of participation can have its benefits and
drawbacks. As the Internet positions itself as another mode of political participation
(just like television was during its time), it is valuable to examine the sectors of the
American population that will find the most benefit from online participation.
The digital divide among age groups remains an issue. According to the Pew
study, many of the top reasons why individuals do not use the Internet are because
they are “not interested,” “do not know how it works” and “are too old to learn”
(Rainie 2013). Therefore, this research will categorize age groups into three
commonly labeled generations to explore whether the digital divide among age
cohorts has affected online political participation.
Generations:
“Baby Boomers” are comprised of individuals born between 1946 and 1964, a
popular age cohort because of their generational view of being inspired by
prosperity. The reason there was such a “boom” in this age cohort (in 2006, there
were 71 million baby boomers) is because of the prosperous environment in which
they were born into. With men returning (victorious) from World War II, there was
5
more wholesome familial values in tact. Baby Boomers’ formative political
experiences were the civil rights movement, Vietnam and Watergate, as well as
drugs and the sexual revolution. The strength and overwhelming numbers of people
in this generation worked in the group’s favor. Any individuals who rebelled against
the norms of the prior generation, it forced the culture to adapt to them, instead of
fighting back (Zukin et al. 2006, 22).
Following the Baby Boomer cohort was “Generation X” (also known as
“GenXers” or “Xers”), born between 1965 and 1980. The experiences of this
generation were clouded by familial and financial insecurity, growing up amid rising
rates of divorce and recession (Zukin 1997). Because of the sexual revolution of
their predecessors, the expression and experimentation coupled with this time led
to fear and caution because of the threat of AIDS. During their early childhood,
GenXers were exposed to anti-political rhetoric in the wake of the Iran-Contra
scandal. They have well been known for their lack of participation, been the poster
child for poor citizenship and described as “slackers.” Research has described that
Xers were subjected to a political environment that “bashed government and
politics and a disjointed national agenda that failed to provide a focus for Xer
concerns” and the media reinforced this perspective (Zukin et al 2006, 24).
The last generation that will be examined are “Millennials,” born after 1980.
This age cohort also goes by DotNets, Generation NeXt and Generation Y. The
reason they are usually referred to as DotNets is because of their upbringing along
with the invention of the Internet. Their exposure to the Internet is one of the
defining characteristics of this generation and has led them to be able to obtain
6
information for very low costs. Additionally, Millennials were around during the
events of 9/11, which instilled patriotism and the Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal,
which instilled a renewed focus on the family (Zukin et al 2006, 22).
The political environment and monumental events that surrounded each
generation alters the way they react to politics and is why there is a difference in
their attitudes toward political participation. In their exploration, Tolbert and
McNeal (179) found that an individual’s likelihood to vote increases steadily from
age 18 to 65, and then levels off. This goes along with the normal pattern of
increases in voting. As individuals get older, they tend to settle down (stay in one
place where they will register to vote) and they go through more acts of political
socialization (such as the exposure during work of talking about politics). As
individuals get older, they also have to rely more on government assistance, get
taxes out of their paycheck, pay for health insurance, social security, retirement
plans, etc. While voting tends to increase as one gets older, the lackluster rates of
voting for the youngest age cohort (Millennials) has inspired many campaigners to
use the Internet to spice up politics.
Social capital and the move from offline to online participation
Prior to the outset of the Internet, campaigns have gone through many
changes in how politicians plan to win the party nomination for presidential office.
First, politicians had to rely on political parties for the nomination, as the political
parties were the main source of communication between the public and political
candidate. However, the inception of mass media and campaign finance reform has
7
led to a shift in power from party elites to a more candidate-centered campaign
season (Tolbert and McNeal 2003, 176). Politicians are now the sole focus of
campaigns and mass media advancements has enabled them to substitute political
parties with the media as the new vetter for the information that is released to the
public. With mass media being made available to the public at a greater rate than
politicians would be, there is an even greater need for constant connection between
the politician and the public. With the Internet, politicians can automatically connect
to the public without having to go through network news and reporters for
publications. Despite this increased opportunity for campaigns and politicians to be
able to automatically contact their constituents and persuade potential voters, it has
also made campaign communications more difficult.
Many researchers claim that the Internet has led to a negative or insignificant
relationship with political engagement (Putnam 2000; Best and Krueger 2005;
Bimber 2001, 2003; Johnson and Kaye 2003; Katz and Rice 2002; Nisbet and
Scheufele 2004; Shah et al. 2007; Xenos and Moy 2007). In his research, Sunstein,
(2007), declares that since the Internet has given all interested individuals easy
access to countless information, individuals are now able to self-select what they
see, read and hear. Since they are no longer relegated to sitting through the 5 o’clock
news in order to watch their favorite television drama, they do not need to watch
the news. In the world of Netflix and Hulu where individuals can go directly to their
show of choice, this takes out the chance of them viewing the news, unless they seek
out that type of information.
8
It is a well-researched and understood principle that offline participation is
fostered by the relationships that individuals make in the groups they belong to. It is
part of the political socialization process; so many researchers acknowledge the
connection between offline social networks (such as Elk’s, bowling leagues, Rotary,
etc.) and political engagement. Putnam made waves when writing “Bowling Alone,”
claiming that the reason individuals were coming out less and less to vote was
because of the lack of individuals taking part in social groups, as those listed
above. Initially Putnam blamed the onset of the media advancements, but later went
on to revisit some of the places that could be considered online social groups, such
as craigslist.com (Putnam 1993, 1995a, 2000). The basis behind this idea is that
traditional groups/offline social networks foster interpersonal trust and
cooperation between and among individuals, which potentially enables civic and
political engagement that serves the community and democracy at large. This leads
individuals to question if voters have caught up with the changing times. Do online
social networks form the same type of camaraderie as offline groups?
Putnam describes social capital as the result of a robust social life of
“networks, norms, and trusts- enabling participants to act together more effectively
to pursue shared objectives” (Putnam 1995b, 664-65). Carlisle and Patton (890)
found in their research that “friends” on social networking sites do not offer the
same benefits that real-life friends do in terms of developing the type of social
capital needed to nurture political engagement. Their results hint that social
networking sites are more likely to create “bridging capital” rather than the
“bonding capital” explanation in Putnam’s theory of social capital. Additionally,
9
individuals claim that the Internet does nothing to divide other disparities that are
already existent within groups known for their low turnout, such as socioeconomic
status, gender, race and age (Bimber and Davis 2003; Davis 1999; Hill and Hughes
1998; Jennings and Zeitner 2003). Therefore, while this might show that individuals
who use the Internet for engagement are present, it is only reflecting individuals
who are already engaged, but just at a more obvious level.
Despite the research stating that Internet use has had little if any impact on
political engagement, there is no question that the Internet has the capability to aid
individuals in connecting and supporting collective civic and political actions at
local, national and global levels. One only has to examine recent social movements to
understand the impact it could have, such as #BlackLivesMatter and Occupy Wall
Street. In fact, in 2008, President Barack Obama’s use of the Internet enabled him to
surpass John McCain in individual contributions to his campaign (Miller 2008).
Therefore, it would be more beneficial to not think of the Internet in terms of access
of information, but look at the ability of social media sites to form a type of social
capital that Putnam described. By enabling individuals to come together online,
social networking sites form the type of environment that Putnam claimed was
lacking in the decline of participants in civic groups. Indeed, many view social media
as the “locus of online public life and therefore the organizing environment within
which political engagement is substantiated” (Carlisle and Patton 2013, 885). It is
also largely understood that the Internet actually reduces some barriers to political
participation, most notably by reducing social inequality that exists in public life
(Carlisle and Patton 2013, 885).
10
Carlisle and Patton’s (886) study suggest that the Internet does not only
foster offline political engagement, but could do the same for online political
engagement by reducing the cost to participate. While social networking sites alter
the amount of information available online, it does not change anything about the
effort it takes for offline participation. Even though an individual might be able to
learn more information about a candidate or an issue, it would still take the same
amount of effort to then take the next step and attend a rally or go to a phone bank,
or knock on doors. However, with the way campaigns have already embraced the
Internet, while a person is searching online for information, they (sometimes on the
same website) can sign an online petition, email a congressman and join a cause on
Facebook and forward that cause to a friend. The “cost” (to an individual) of online
participation remains much lower than offline participation. Other researchers
claim that the Internet not only offers the accessibility and convenience of accessing
the information, but it also provides the opportunity to foster relationships with
individuals with shared interests. Several research findings have found that the
Internet can indeed propel individuals into political life by allowing them to gather
political information, connect with others, mobilize and recruit individuals to causes
and actions because the Internet can significantly reduce the costs of participating
(Bonchek 1995, 1997; Johnson and Kaye 2003; Leizerov 2000; Norris 2000, 2004;
Resnick 2004; Shah, Kwak, and Holbert 2001; Tolbert and McNeal, 2003).
Do online sites trigger participation?
11
Internet usage does not necessarily mean individuals automatically have a
divine revelation and decide that they need to vote as soon as they see an
advertisement for a campaign. As Tolbert and McNeal describe, the Internet does
not necessarily transcend traditional motivators and indicators of voting turnout,
such as gender, race, education and socioeconomic status. In fact, research has
shown that certain communication technology advancements have not aided in
persuading individuals to vote. For example, Tolbert and McNeal point out that
individuals who get their news from readings newspapers are more likely to vote,
compared to those who access their news from the television (275). Instead of
focusing on which form of media fosters more participation, a handful of
researchers claim that overall media use (television and newspapers) is
instrumental in increasing political knowledge, efficacy and even voter turnout
(Tolbert and McNeal 2003, 176). Indeed, there are many researchers who claim that
the media has influenced voter turnout in many ways, such as access to information
and stimulating interest in elections. In fact, there is a substantial body of literature
that suggests that voters learn from a variety of media sources (Tolbert and McNeal
2013; Gainous, Marlowe, Wagner 2013). Additionally, scholars who have studied the
media over time generally conclude that the media reinforces political interest and
voting intentions because political interest, voting and learning from the media
reinforce each other, as well (Tolbert and McNeal 2003, 176). In their research,
Tolbert and McNeal (175) use the media system dependency theory to determine
that a variety of information sources on the Internet (about candidates, issues,
elections, etc.), combined with the speed and flexibility and overall ease of obtaining
12
information online, would stimulate increased participation (Tolbert and McNeal
2003, 175).
When exploring age cohorts (namely Generation X and Baby Boomers), there
is a strong relationship between interpersonal trust and civic engagement and using
the Internet for informative exchange. These age cohorts who used the Internet for
the procurement of information reported higher levels of interpersonal trust and
civic engagement (Tolbert and McNeal 2013, 177). A study by Weber and Bergman
(2001) found that those “individuals who engaged in Internet activities such as
using e-mail and chat-rooms were more likely to be engaged in a variety of political
activities.” Some reasons why groups of online individuals might not be open to
participate more is because of the size of those groups who actually participate
online. Research on offline social networks has suggested that network size can
increase the likelihood that an individual will come in contact with other politically
active individuals, thereby having a positive effect on that person’s likelihood to
participate (Kwak et al. 2005; Leighley 1990; Verba, Sclozman, and Brady 1995;
Gainous, Marlowe and Wagner, 2013). Therefore those who are older might not
participate online, not because they do not believe in it as a source of political
participation, but because there is not as large of a social group online that relates to
them.
Overall, the Internet and its growing opportunity as a means to access online
political information has a positive impact on voting behavior. In an overview of
Pew surveys between 1992 and 2000, evidence showed that the Internet is
becoming a widely used tool for gathering election information, even if individuals
13
still do not consider it their main source for election news (Tolbert and McNeal
2003, 178). Indeed, Internet news remained a strong predictor of political
participation in the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections (Tolbert and McNeal 2003,
180). Having Internet access increased the probability of voting by seven percent in
the 1996 presidential election and 12.5 percent in the 2000 presidential election
(Tolbert and McNeal 2003, 183). It was concluded that the Internet and online
election news have the potential to provide an important source of information, and
has the possibility to mobilize new voters to participate in elections (Tolbert and
McNeal 2003, 183). Despite the enthusiasm surrounding the Internet and the 2008
presidential election, there was limited overall engagement via Facebook during
that time. However, it did provide an outlet for individuals to discuss politics, post
political status updates, advertise one’s intention to vote or that they voted and
discuss their support for a particular candidate (Carlisle and Patton 2013, 192).
Generally, political activities during elections are not altogether remarkable
and the Internet cannot altogether combat low political interest. Since having access
to the Internet and using it for political news did not increase the rates of voting, the
Internet is not a sufficient enough tool to overcome low political interest (Carlisle
and Patton 2013, 889; Tolbert and McNeal 2003, 180). The lack of interest coupled
with the ability of the Internet to allow individuals to self-select the information
they receive, makes it difficult to award the Internet as a universal tool for political
participation. It has not shown to be an easy fix for lower rates of political
participation (Sunstein 2001).
14
Researchers are conflicted over the ability of the Internet to transcend
typical determinants of political participation. Some find that typical predictors of
offline political mobilization fail to signify online mobilization: “political interest and
Internet skills powerfully determine online mobilization. However, because
socioeconomic status, civic skills, and political interest directly predict online skills,
these factors indirectly influence the likelihood of online mobilization” (Bimber
2001). Carlisle and Patton (892) mainly found that Facebook has the potential to
level the playing field for the traditional predictors that create differentials in
political engagement, most notably parental income, sex and race/ethnicity.
However, their study did not include age as a factor. While youth voters have been
criticized for being disengaged from politics, young Americans are quicker to
embrace the advances in Internet technologies than any other age cohort.
Approximately 70 percent of eighteen- to twenty-five-year-olds perceive the
Internet as a “useful source of political and issue information” versus the 48 percent
of those over twenty-five (Delli Carpini 2000). However, this opinion does not mean
that the older cohorts are not using social networking sites for some type of political
participation.
Methods
Not much existing data exists for a comparison of age cohorts and their acts
of political participation (both online and offline) prior to an election. Therefore, the
below research is based off a newly designed Qualtrics survey that best aligned with
the questions presented above. The research design has received Institutional
15
Review Board (IRB) approval. Distribution of the survey began by posting the
survey link on the researcher’s personal social media sites (specifically, LinkedIn,
Twitter and Facebook). Then, the survey was crowd-sourced by sending it out to old
bosses and mentors who were gracious enough to send it around to their coworkers and friends. Midway through the data collection period, respondents were
below the target goal for the two older groups the researcher wanted to find
information on, so Facebook ads were developed and targeted to those group sets
and paid with personal funds. There were no benefits to taking the survey and
answers were kept confidential. The Qualtrics survey platform was altered so that it
did not collect IP addresses and geospatial data, ensuring no way to identify
individual answers.
In collecting the survey results, a handful of crosstabs were performed within
Qualtrics on the questions that focused the most on what needed to be answered.
Percentages were calculated by dividing the completed answers by the amount of
each individual group that answered that question, so I was able to find a more
accurate number of the popularity of some individual activities.
The questions on the Qualtrics survey centered on the various types of
activities individuals could take part in leading up to the presidential elections. It
also included various demographic questions including their education, gender and
their voting habits. The most important question, though, was age. After individual
respondents selected their age for one of the questions, they were grouped in one of
three categories: “Baby Boomers,” “Generation X,” and “Millennials.” Age was also
used as the dependent variable on all of the crosstabs that were developed.
16
Overall, the survey closed with 205 respondents across the United States.
Each age group remained uneven and were below the researcher’s target goal for
the Baby Boomers and Generation Xers: there wound up being 45 Baby Boomer
respondents, 41 Generation X respondents and 119 Millennials respondents.
Research Limitations
This research could have benefited from two of the hardest things to come
by: time and money. Since there was no funding provided from the school to
graduate students, limited personal funds were used to pay for Facebook ads, trying
to garner support and a larger sample for evaluation. Additionally, while
Qualtrics.com was the most ideal way to collect information and opinions in terms
of its low cost, it was not the most ideal way in terms of having a randomized
sample. The research is skewed towards the Millennial population with those
respondents representing more than half of overall survey respondents. The way
that the research was released was through online sites. Therefore, since the survey
was distributed on social media sites and through email, those individuals needed at
least a social media or email account to receive the survey. Needing the Internet to
fill out the survey most likely limited some individuals from taking it. This
stipulation most likely altered the survey results. Since there needed to be online
access in order to take the survey, the results are likely skewed towards individuals
who are more likely to participate online or know a lot of the capabilities of the
Internet since they are most likely to spend their time on it.
17
Data
The first few questions were designed to get a better understanding of the
overall relationship between the Internet and each age cohort: what they use it for
and how much they use it. When asked how respondents typically access their news,
the Baby Boomers were more likely to respond that they use Network News
(19.72%) followed by Local TV Stations (19.01%). However, Generation Xers and
Millennials typically access their news from social media, 18.52% and 28.08%,
18
respectively. The Millennial’s secondary source of news is online news sites such as
vox.com, cnn.com and nytimes.com.
Not only do Millennials tend to use the Internet more to access their news,
but they also spend the most time on the Internet out of all of the age cohorts. When
asked “excluding Internet use at work, how much time, in any given day, do you
spend on the Internet?” the majority of Baby Boomers and Generation Xers
estimated that they spent 0-2 hours a day on the Internet, while most Millennials
spend 3-5 hours a day. There was also considerably more Millennial respondents
who spent 6-8 hours a day and 8+ hours a day than would Baby Boomers and
Generation Xers.
While Facebook remains by far the most popular social media site in the
United States, it also is the most popular social media sites across all age cohorts. All
three age cohorts overwhelmingly declared that they owned a Facebook account.
YouTube, Twitter and Instagram came in second for Baby Boomers, Generation Xers
and Millennials, respectively.
The next few questions were concentrated on the activities leading up to the
2012 election. In the “offline” question, respondents were asked, “prior to the 2012
election, did you do any of the following?” Answer options included: “talk to a
representative of a candidate's campaign,” “meet face-to-face with a candidate,”
“attend a political rally,” “attend a political fundraiser,” “receive a phone call from
one of the candidate's campaigns, “talk face-to-face with
friends/peers/acquaintances about politics/the presidential race,” “try to convince
19
a friend/peer about politics/their choice in candidates,” “discuss politics/campaign
with family members,” “receive campaign literature at your residence (flyer, door
hanger, etc.),” “have a lawn sign on your lawn supporting a candidate,” “display a
bumper sticker supporting a candidate,” “donate to a campaign” and “sign a paper
petition.” All three age cohorts were more likely to discuss politics/campaign with
family members then they were in relation to any other offline forms of political
participation. The Baby Boomers and Generation Xers were evenly distributed in
their forms of offline political participation and more likely to dabble in a lot of
different offline activities, whereas the Millennials were more concentrated on a few
select activities. Baby Boomers and Generation Xers were much more accustomed to
now only discussing politics with family members, but talking face-to-face with
friends/peers, receiving a phone call from a candidate’s campaign and receiving
campaign literature at their residence. In contrast, Millennials were more likely to
participate in the above offline activities, but participation in other activities such as
attending a political rally and trying to convince a friend/peer about their choice in
candidates, were popular among six to nine percent of Millennials.
20
Access to information is the biggest selling point for the Internet according to
many researchers, and this was solidified in the survey results, as well. When
respondents were asked to select that the online activities that they partake in, all of
the age cohorts overwhelmingly used the Internet to gain information regarding the
elections and the candidates. The most popular response to how individuals used
the Internet prior to the 2012 presidential election, was to “visit the website of a
presidential campaign.” The research also aligned with previous evidence on overall
rates of political participation. All three age cohorts were not likely at all to
participate online, with 29.49% of Baby Boomers, 24.05% of Generation Xers and
17.60% of Millennials not participating at all in online political activities. Therefore,
online participation- while common and useful- does not seem to transcend the lack
of political interest for some individuals. Among online political activities that
21
voters DID take part in prior to the 2012 presidential election, Baby Boomers were
more likely to visit a website (12.82%) and share their opinion about the campaign
and/or one of the candidates on a social media site (11.54%). Besides visiting a
website of a presidential campaign (21.52%), Generation Xers were more likely to
visit an advocacy organization’s website to look for information about the
presidential campaign (12.66%). Lastly, after visiting a website of a presidential
campaign (23.61%), Millennials were more likely to share their opinion about a
political issue on social media sites (11.59%).
The next question explored the different ways respondents could participate
on Election Day. When asked to identify what activities they took part in, Baby
Boomers were evenly spending their time wearing the “I voted” sticker, notifying an
22
individual that they voted (in person) and telling an individual that they should vote.
Generation Xers were more likely to wear the “I voted” sticker and tell a person that
they voted (in person). Millennials were more likely to tell people in person that
they voted and to tell an individual in person that they should vote. Both Generation
Xers and Millennials were equally likely to share that they voted on a social media
site (14.13% and 14.41%, respectively) as opposed to only 8.24% of Baby Boomers.
In order to ascertain whether social capital has the same type of influence for
online political participation as it does for offline participation, respondents were
asked what they would do if they saw friends of theirs on social media sites posting
about politics. The reasoning behind this question was to see if there was an
overwhelming desire to ignore political talk on social networking sites, or if it would
23
foster conversation like, in Putnam’s opinion, an organized offline social network
would. Respondents had the opportunity to choose from the following: “ignore what
they wrote,” “read what they wrote,” “contact them about what they wrote,” “look
for more information based on what they wrote,” “hide them,” “comment/repost
their information,” “un-friend them because you don't want to see anything about
politics” or “un-friend them because you don't agree with them.”
If you see other friends post about politics on social media
sites, what do you do?
Baby
Millennials
Boomers
Generation X (1981(1946-1964) (1965-1980) 1997)
Ignore what they
wrote
9.68%
13.89%
21.00%
Read what they
wrote
77.42%
66.67%
64.00%
Contact them
about what they
wrote
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Look for more
information
based on what
they wrote
0.00%
16.67%
9.00%
Hide them
3.23%
0.00%
5.00%
Comment/repost
their information
9.68%
2.78%
0.00%
Unfriend them
because you
don't want to see
anything about
politics
0.00%
0.00%
1.00%
Unfriend them
because you
don't agree with
them
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
24
An overwhelming majority of all three age cohorts stated that they would
“read what they wrote.” However, Generation Xers and Baby Boomers were more
likely to act based on what was posted by commenting or reposting their friend’s
information. Seeing a friend post about politics would prompt 16.67% of Generation
Xers and 9% of Millennials to look for more information based on what their friend
wrote on their social media site.
Discussion
The survey results relating to Internet behaviors were aligned with common
knowledge. Facebook was the most frequent social media site among all age groups,
and the two older generations spent less time on the Internet than did the
Millennials.
However, while Baby Boomers do not spend as much time on the Internet as
do Millennials, it seems they are more like their Millennial counterparts in how they
access the news. While they may visit an online news site, Baby Boomers do not
access their news from social media sites. Boomers still rely heavily on Network
News, Local TV Stations and online news sites. Both Generation Xers and Millennials
accessed a majority of their news on online news sites and social media sites.
In offline activities leading up to the 2012 election, all three age cohorts were
most likely to discuss politics and/or the campaign with family members. All other
offline activities were pretty evenly distributed among the participants, except for
receiving campaign literature at their residence (such as flyer, door hanger, etc.),
where Millennials did not experience this as much as the older two generations. This
25
could mostly be because of the lack of a permanent residence for Millennials and
their willingness to travel frequently.
A majority of Baby Boomers did not partake in any online activities prior to
the 2012 election (around 30 percent claimed no activities). However, Generation
Xers and Millennials were not as far behind with about 24 and 18 percent,
respectively not participating in online political activities. With only 12 percentage
points separating the younger and older cohorts, it does not seem a matter of mode
of participation (online vs. offline), but rather an interest in participation that has
divided the generations.
The ways in which the three age cohorts participated online is also telling
about their generation in general and how their birth year could have affected the
ways in which they participate online. Baby Boomers, living in the golden age of
politics and prosperity were more likely to share their opinion about the campaign
because they grew up in a time period where they were well-versed in politics.
Generation Xers were more likely to visit an advocacy organization’s website to look
for information about the presidential campaign. With their background being in the
“slacker” arena and being around anti-political rhetoric, they focused their
information search on third parties since they were never totally immersed and
trusted the acts of politicians and campaigns. Lastly, Millennials were more likely to
share their opinion about a political issue on their social media sites. While Baby
Boomers were more likely to share their opinion about a candidate or a campaign,
Millennials are more inclined to discuss issues, rather than individuals. This
coincides with the onslaught of single-issue voters. It also more or less speaks to the
26
idea that Baby Boomers are more used to having less information, that the sheer
amount of information available may be overwhelming. Therefore, when they share
their opinion, they think in terms of the race and would most likely not seek out
further information.
The acts of participation on the day of the election are also telling because
they show that the act of voting is a communal act. While all of the age cohorts used
various forms of online participation prior to the election, when Election Day came,
it was more of a social event. All three generations were more likely to tell an
individual (in person) that they voted. Even acts of persuasion (telling an individual
that they should vote) were evenly distributed among the groups. However, the
young cohorts still surpassed the other two generations in their lack of
participating. When nearly double the Millennials than Baby Boomers did nothing
on Election Day, this solidifies the idea that while online political participation can
be useful for all generations, it does not combat lack of political interest.
Conclusion
The research has shown that the digital divide is not that present among age
cohorts as it could be during elections. The main benefit of the Internet still remains
the ability to access information. While this particular capability is crucial since
individuals are no longer relegated to watch the news networks in order to get to
their programs, it is not the active political activity that springs to mind when
researchers pinpoint social media as a way to incite political participation. Baby
Boomers have taken handle on the Internet and use it for various forms of political
27
participation, as do Generation Xers and Millennials. Therefore, political
campaigners can be confident that they can reach a large sector of the population by
enhancing their online strategy. This research shows important differences, though,
in the ways that each generation prefers to engage online. Each generation comes
with their own caveat as to what works best for them. Further research can be
useful, with more time and an adequate budget, to explore overall views on political
participation according to age cohorts and what stops individuals from participating
more online.
Since there is no explicit evidence that there is a digital divide among
generations in their online participation activities, it goes to show that there are
parts of social capital that are present online, as there is offline. Among all three
generations, there are similar numbers in the activities they take part in online and
offline. There is little difference in how they participate politically between the two
outlets. Therefore, social networking sites and the Internet seem to be beneficial in
inciting some type of interpersonal trust among the groups.
The use of social networking sites for social movements (such as that of
#BlackLivesMatter and Occupy Wall Street, as indicated above) hints that social
networking sites do indeed provide adequate abilities to engage online, in similar
ways in which one would engage offline. The barriers that are typically present for
offline engagement do not seem to hold as much impact the ability of an individual
to participate politically online. Additionally, the data analyzed above shows
evidence that age is not a barrier for online political engagement prior to the
election.
28
The social capital of online social media sites introduced Millennials to the
type of groups that the two older generations were used to experiencing. However,
just as previous research has stated, it depends on how willing an individual is to
participate. Social media sites might offer ways to politically participate online, as
did offline groups such as the Elks and bowling leagues, but it does not require
someone to take the next step and vote.
29
APPENDIX
What year were you born?
(Select Year)
What do you identify as?




Male
Female
Prefer not to answer
Other:
Are you registered to vote?


Yes
No
What state are you registered to vote in?
(Write in answer)
Do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat, or
Independent?




Republican
Democrat
Independent
Other:
In talking to people about elections, we often find that a
lot of people were not able to vote because they weren't
eligible, they weren't registered, they were sick, or they
just didn't have the time. Which of the following
statements best describes you during the 2008
presidential election between John McCain and Barack
Obama?
30






I did not vote in the 2008 presidential election
I thought about voting this time, but didn't
I usually vote, but didn't this time
I am sure I voted
I was not eligible
Other:
If you did vote in the 2008 presidential election, did you
vote at a voting booth, or through absentee ballot?




Voting Booth
Absentee Ballet
I did not vote
Other:
In talking to people about elections, we often find that a
lot of people were not able to vote because they weren't
eligible, they weren't registered, they were sick, or they
just didn't have the time. Which of the following
statements best describes you during the 2012
presidential election between Mitt Romney and Barack
Obama?






I did not vote in the 2012 presidential election
I thought about voting this time, but didn't
I usually vote, but didn't this time
I am sure I voted
I was not eligible
Other:
If you did vote in the 2012 presidential election, did you
vote at a voting booth, or through absentee ballot?




Voting Booth
Absentee Ballot
I did not vote
Other:
31
Do you have Internet access? (Please check all that
apply)





Yes, I have it at home
Yes, I have it at work
Yes, I have it on my phone
No, but I use the Internet at the library or similar location
No, I do not have any Internet access
Please identify if you are on any of the below social
media sites. (Check all that apply)










Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Instagram
Pinterest
Flickr
Google+
Tumblr
None
Other
How interested are you in what is going on in the local
government? (Your state, town, city, etc.)




Very interested
Somewhat interested
Not interested at all
I don't know
How interested are you in what is going on in the
federal government (in Washington, DC)?




Very interested
Somewhat interested
Not interested at all
I don't know
32
On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being very knowledge and 1
being not knowledgeable at all, how knowledgeable
about politics do you consider yourself?
(Select number on scale)
Excluding Internet use at work, how much time, in any
given day, do you spend on the Internet (browsing,
reading news, on social media sites, streaming video,
etc.)




0-2 hours a day
3-5 hours a day
6-8 hours a day
Longer than 8 hours a day
How often do you talk about politics with your
family/friends?







Never
Less than Once a Month
Once a Month
2-3 Times a Month
Once a Week
2-3 Times a Week
Daily
How do you typically access your news? (Check all that
apply)








Network news
Print newspapers
Radio stations
Local TV stations
Social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.)
Online news sites (vox.com, cnn.com, nytimes.com, etc.)
Blogs
Other:
33
Prior to the 2012 election, did you do any of the
following? (Check all that apply)













Talk to a representative of a candidate's campaign
Meet face-to-face with a candidate
Attend a political rally
Attend a political fundraiser
Receive a phone call from one of the candidate's campaigns
Talk face-to-face with friends/peers/acquaintances about politics/the presidential
race
Try to convince a friend/peer about politics/their choice in candidates
Discuss politics/campaign with family members
Receive campaign literature at your residence (flyer, door hanger, etc.)
Have a lawn sign on your lawn supporting a candidate
Display a bumper sticker supporting a candidate
Donate to a campaign
Sign a paper petition
Prior to the 2012 election, did you do any of the
following? (Please check all that apply)









Visit a website of a presidential campaign
Visit an advocacy organization's website to look for information about the
presidential campaign
Share your opinion about the campaign and/or one of the candidates on a social
media site
Share something from one of the campaigns on your social media sites
Sign an online petition
Share your opinion about a political issue on social media sites
Post an infographic and/or picture from one of the campaigns or an advocacy
organization
Post links to political stories
I did none of the above
On Election Day 2012, did you do any of the following?
(Please check all that apply)




Wore the "I voted" sticker
Share that you voted on a social media site
Tell people in person that you voted
Told an individual in person that they should vote
34




Told an individual online that they should vote
Participate in a sign wave
Volunteer at a phone bank for get-out-the-vote activities
I did none of the above
Do you ever see friends within your social media
networks post about political issues/campaigns?



Yes
No
I don't know
If you see other friends post about politics on social
media sites, what do you do?








Ignore what they wrote
Read what they wrote
Contact them about what they wrote
Look for more information based on what they wrote
Hide them
Comment/repost their information
Unfriend them because you don't want to see anything about politics
Unfriend them because you don't agree with them
Would you rather talk about politics on the
Internet/social media sites or to your friends and peers
in person?




Internet
Friends/peers in person
It doesn't matter to me
It depends on the topic
Please explain your choice:
(Text box)
35
Select your highest level of education







Some high school
High school graduate
Some of college or technical school
College graduate
Some of an advanced level degree
Master's degree
PhD/Doctorate degree
Please select your current employment status:







Unemployed, not looking for work
Unemployed, looking for work
Disabled, unable to work
Student
Employed, Part-time
Employed, Full-time
Unable to work
Please indicate your household income: (If student is
supported by parents, use parents' income)












Under $10,000
$10-19,000
$20-29,000
$30-39,000
$40-49,000
$50-59,000
$60-69,000
$70-79,000
$80-89,000
$90-99,000
$100,000 or more
Refused
Are you:






Married
Divorced
Widowed
Separated
Never been married
A member of an unmarried couple
36
Survey Powered By Qualtrics
37
Bibliography
1. Best, Samuel J., and Brian S. Krueger. "Analyzing the Representativeness of
Internet Political Participation." Political Behavior 27, no. 2 (2005): 183-216.
2. Bimber, B. "Information and Political Engagement in America: The Search for
Effects of Information Technology at the Individual Level." Political Research
Quarterly 54, no. 1 (2001): 53-67.
3. Bimber, Bruce. Information and American Democracy: Technology in the
Evolution of Political Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
4. Bonchek, Mark. 1997. From Broadcast to Netcast: The Internet and the Flow of
Political Participation, PhD diss., Harvard University.
5. Carlisle, Juliet E., and Robert C. Patton. "Is Social Media Changing How We
Understand Political Engagement? An Analysis of Facebook and the 2008
Presidential Election." Political Research Quarterly 66, no. 4 (2013): 883-95.
6. Davis, Richard. The Web of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
7. Gainous, Jason, Adam David Marlow, and Kevin M. Wagner. "Traditional
Cleavages or a New World: Does Online Social Networking Bridge the
Political Participation Divide." International Journal of Politics, Culture, and
Society 26, no. 2 (2013): 145-58.
8. Hill, Kevin, and John Hughes. Cyberpolitics: Citizen Activism in the Age of the
Internet. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998.
38
9. Jennings, M. Kent, and Vicki Zeitner. "Internet Use and Civic Engagement: A
Longitudinal Analysis." Public Opinion Quarterly 67, no. 3 (2003): 311-34.
10. Johnson, Thomas J., and Barbara K. Kaye. "A Boost or a Bust for Democracy?
How the Web Influenced Political Attitudes and Behaviors in the 1996 and
2000 Presidential Elections." Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics
8, no. 3 (2003): 9-34.
11. Katz, James E., and Ronald Rice. Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access,
Involvement and Interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002.
12. Kwak, Nojin, Anne E. Williams, Xiarou Wang, and Hoon Lee. "Talking Politics
and Engaging Politics: An Examination of the Interactive Relationships
between Structural Features of Political Talk and Discussion Engagement."
Communication Research 32, no. 1 (2005): 88-111.
13. Leizerov, Sagi. "Privacy Advocacy Groups Versus Intel: A Case Study of How
Social Movements Are Tactically Using the Internet to Fight Corporations."
Social Science Computer Review 18, no. 4 (2000): 461-83.
14. Miller, Claire Cain. "How Obama's Internet Campaign Changed Politics." The
New York Times, November 7, 2008. Accessed April 1, 2015.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/how-obamas-internetcampaign-changed-politics/?_r=1.
15. Nisbet, Matthew C., and Dietram A. Scheufele. "Political Talk as a Catalyst for
Online Citizenship." Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 81, no. 4
(2004): 877-96.
39
16. Norris, Pippa. A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial
Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
17. Norris, Pippa. "The Bridging and Bonding Role of Online Communities." In
Society Online: The Internet in Context. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 2004.
18. Putnam, Robert. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
19. Putnam, Robert. "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital." Journal
of Democracy 6, no. 1 (1995a): 65-78.
20. Putnam, Robert. "Turning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of
Social Capital in America." Political Science and Politics 28, no. 4 (1995b):
664-83.
21. Putnam, Robert. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 2000.
22. Rainie, Lee. "The State of Digital Divides." Pew Research Center. November 5,
2013. Accessed February 1, 2015.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/11/05/the-state-of-digital-dividesvideo-slides/.
23. Resnick, Paul. "Impersonal Sociotechnical Capital, ICTs and Collective Action
among Strangers." In Transforming Enterprise, 486-99. Boston: MIT Press,
2004.
24. Shah, D., N. Kwak, and R. Holbert. "'Connecting' and 'Disconnecting' with
Civic Life: Patterns of Internet Use and the Production of Social Capital."
Political Communication 18 (2001): 141-62.
40
25. Sunstein, Cass R. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
2007.
26. Tolbert, Caroline J., and Ramona S. McNeal. "Unraveling the Effects of the
Internet on Political Participation?" Political Research Quarterly 56, no. 2
(2003): 175-85.
27. Verba, Sidney, and Norman Nie. Participation in America: Political Democracy
and Social Equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
28. Weber, L.M.. "Who Participates and How? A Comparison of Citizens 'Online'
and the Mass Public." Lecture, Annual Meeting of the Western Political
Science Association, Las Vegas, March 15, 2001.
29. Webley, Kayla. "How the Nixon-Kennedy Debate Changed the World." TIME,
September 23, 2010.
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2021078,00.html
30. Xenos, Micahel, and Patricia Moy. "Direct and Differential Effects of the
Internet on Political and Civic Engagement." Journal of Communication 57, no.
4 (2007): 704-18.
31. Zukin, Cliff, Scott Keeter, Molly Andolina, Krista Jenkins, and Michael X. Dellli
Carpini. A New Engagement: Political Participation, Civic Life, and the
Changing American Citizen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2006.
32. Zukin, Cliff. “Generation X and the News.” Washington, D.C., Radio and
Television News Directors Foundation. 1997. Accessed February 1, 2015.
http://www.rtnda.org/resources/genx/.
41
42