Can Facebook Informational Use Foster Adolescent Civic Engagement?

  • Michela Lenzi
  • Alessio Vieno
  • Gianmarco Altoè
  • Luca Scacchi
  • Douglas D. Perkins
  • Rita Zukauskiene
  • Massimo Santinello
Original Article

Abstract

The findings on the association between Social Networking Sites and civic engagement are mixed. The present study aims to evaluate a theoretical model linking the informational use of Internet-based social media (specifically, Facebook) with civic competencies and intentions for future civic engagement, taking into account the mediating role of civic discussions with family and friends and sharing the news online. Participants were 114 Italian high school students aged 14–17 years (57 % boys). Path analysis was used to evaluate the proposed theoretical model. Results showed that Facebook informational use was associated with higher levels of adolescent perceived competence for civic action, both directly and through the mediation of civic discussion with parents and friends (offline). Higher levels of civic competencies, then, were associated with a stronger intention to participate in the civic domain in the future. Our findings suggest that Facebook may provide adolescents with additional tools through which they can learn civic activities or develop the skills necessary to participate in the future.

Keywords

Facebook Social media networks Civic engagement Adolescence Path analysis Positive youth development 

References

  1. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. The American Political Science Review, 89, 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buffardi, L. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Narcissism and social networking web sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1303–1314.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, D. E. (2006). Why we vote: How schools and communities shape our civic life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, D. E. (2008). Voice in the classroom: How an open classroom climate fosters political engagement among adolescents. Political Behavior, 30, 437–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan, M., & Guo, J. (2013). The role of political efficacy on the relationship between Facebook use and participatory behaviors: A comparative study of young American and Chinese adults. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(6), 460–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheung, C., Lee, T., Chan, W., Liu, S., & Leung, K. (2004). Developing civic consciousness through social engagement among Hong Kong youths. Social Science Journal, 41(4), 651–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Delli Carpini, M. X. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new information environment. Political Communication, 17, 341–349. doi:10.1080/10584600050178942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diez-Roux, A. V. (2007). Environnement résidentiel et santé: état de la question et perspectives pour le futur. Revue d’Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, 55(1), 13–21.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Etzioni, A., & Etzioni, O. (1999). Face to face and computer mediated communities, a comparative analysis. The Information Society, 15, 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eurispes. (2011). Telefono Azzurro: il sexting tra le nuove insidie delle tecnologie della comunicazione. http://www.west-info.eu/files/eurispes
  14. Facebook. (2012). http://newsroom.fb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId=22. Retrieved 30.09.13.
  15. Flanagan, C. A., Syvertsen, A. K., & Stout, M. D. (2007). Civic measurement models: Tapping adolescents’ civic engagement (CIRCLE working paper 55). College Park, MD: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.Google Scholar
  16. Gil de Zúñiga H., Jung, N., & Valenzuela, S. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 319–336.Google Scholar
  17. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jennings, M. K., Stoker, L., & Bowers, J. (2009). Politics across generations: Family transmission re-examined. The Journal of Politics, 71(3), 782–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  20. Kenski, K., & Stroud, N. J. (2006). Connections between Internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 50(2), 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim, J., & Kim, E. J. (2008). Theorizing dialogic deliberation: Everyday political talk as communica tive action and dialogue. Communication Theory, 18(1), 51–70. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00313.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kobayashi, T., Ikeda, K. I., & Miyata, K. (2006). Social capital online: Collective use of the Internet and reciprocity as lubricants of democracy. Information, Communication and Society, 9, 582–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays in moral development: The psychology of moral development (Vol. 2). New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  24. Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kraut, R. E., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53, 1017–1031.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kwak, N., Shah, D. V., & Holbert, R. L. (2004). Connecting, trusting, and participating: The direct and interactive effects of social associations. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 643–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lenzi, M., Vieno, A., Pastore, M., & Santinello, M. (2013). Neighborhood social connectedness and adolescent civic engagement: An integrative model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lenzi, M., Vieno, A., Perkins, D. D., Pastore, M., Santinello, M., & Mazzardis, S. (2012). Perceived neighborhood social resources as determinants of prosocial behavior in early adolescence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 37–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Livingstone, S., & Markham, T. (2008). The contribution of media consumption to civic participation. The British Journal of Sociology, 59(2), 351–371.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Matthews, T. L., Hempel, L. M., & Howell, F. M. (2010). Gender and the transmission of civic engagement: Assessing the influences on youth civic activity. Sociological Inquiry, 80(3), 448–474.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. McLeod, J. M. (2000). Media and civic socialization of youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 45–51. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(00)00131-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Nie, N. H. (2001). Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the Internet: Reconciling conflicting findings. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 420–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nuutinen, T., Roos, E., Ray, C., Villberg, J., Välimaa, R., Rasmussen, M., et al. (2014). Computer use, sleep duration and health symptoms: A cross-sectional study of 15-year olds in three countries. International Journal of Public Health, 9, 619–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. O’Neil, B. (2009). The media’s role in shaping Canadian civic and political engagement. The Canadian Political Science Review, 3(2), 105–127.Google Scholar
  35. Park, N., Kee, K. F., & Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 12(6), 729–733.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Touchstone Books/Simon and Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 11, 169–174.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. R Development Core Team (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/.
  40. Rojas, H. (2006). Orientations towards political conversation: Testing an asymmetrical reciprocal causation model of political engagement. Paper presented at the 56th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany.Google Scholar
  41. Romer, D., Jamieson, K. H., & Pasek, J. (2009). Building social capital in young people: The role of mass media and life outlook. Political Communication, 26, 65–83. doi:10.1080/10584600802622878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rosario, M., Hunten, J., Maguen, S., Gwadz, M., & Smith, R. (2005). The coming-out process and its adaptational and health-related associations among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths: Stipulation and exploration of a model. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 133–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.Google Scholar
  44. Rosseel, Y., With Contributions from Many People. (2012). Lavaan: Latent variable analysis. R package version 0.4-12. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lavaan
  45. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Mulle, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and goodness-of-fit models. MPR-Online, 8, 23–74.Google Scholar
  46. Scheufele, D. A. (2002). Examining differential gains from mass media and their implications for participatory behavior. Communication Research, 29(1), 46–65. doi:10.1177/009365020202900103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schmitt-Beck, R., & Mackenrodt, C. (2010). Social networks and mass media as mobilizers and demobilizers: A study of turnout at a German local election. Electoral Studies, 29(3), 392–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shah, D. V., Kwak, N., & Holbert, R. L. (2001). “Connecting” and “disconnecting” with civic life: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18, 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Torney-Purta, J., Amadeo, J., & Richardson, W. K. (2007). Civic service among youth in Chile, Denmark, England, and the United States: A psychological perspective. In M. Sherraden & A. McBride (Eds.), Civic service worldwide: Impacts and inquiries. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  50. Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network site? Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 875–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vitak, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., Carr, C. T., Ellison, N., & Lampe, C. (2010). It’s complicated: Facebook users’ political participation in the 2008 election. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(3), 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Watts, R., Williams, N., & Jagers, R. (2003). Sociopolitical development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 185–194.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Williams, D. (2006). On and off the’net: Scales for social capital in an online era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 593–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., Su, Y., & Yates, M. (1999). The role of community service in identity development: Normative, unconventional, and deviant orientations. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 248–261. doi:10.1177/0743558499142006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., & Yates, M. (1997). What we know about engendering civic identity. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 620–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zaff, J. F., Hart, D., Flanagan, C. A., Youniss, J., & Levine, P. (2010). Developing civic engagement within a civic context. In M. E. Lamb & A. M. Freund (Eds.), Social and emotional development. The handbook of life-span development (Vol. 2, pp. 590–630). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (Editor-in-chief: Richard M. Lerner).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Community Research and Action 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michela Lenzi
    • 1
  • Alessio Vieno
    • 1
  • Gianmarco Altoè
    • 1
  • Luca Scacchi
    • 2
  • Douglas D. Perkins
    • 3
  • Rita Zukauskiene
    • 4
  • Massimo Santinello
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Developmental and Social PsychologyUniversity of PadovaPaduaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Human and Social SciencesUniversity of Valle d’AostaAostaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Human and Organizational DevelopmentVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyMykolas Romeris UniversityVilniusLithuania

Personalised recommendations