Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 140, Issue 3, pp 999–1016 | Cite as

Media Use and Satisfaction with Democracy: Testing the Role of Political Interest

  • Wen-Chun Chang
Article

Abstract

In the process of political communication, media use has strong influences on citizens’ attitudes toward politics. However, the importance of political interest in shaping the relationship between media use and satisfaction with democracy has not been extensively studied. This study makes a contribution to identify the role of political interest in mediating the effects of media use on satisfaction with democracy. Consistent with the virtuous circle theory, the findings from this study show that there are significantly positive associations between reading a newspaper, listening to the radio, and using the Internet for political information and political interest. Citizens who are more interested in politics also tend to be more satisfied with democracy. By contrast, in accordance with the media malaise theory, our results also show that reading a newspaper, listening to the radio, and using the Internet for political information are negatively related to satisfaction with democracy. Distinct from existing literature, our findings indicate that the indirect positive effects of media use mediated by political interest are outweighed by the negative direct effects of media use on satisfaction with democracy. Hence, the relative magnitudes of direct and indirect effects are critical for the overall effects of media use on satisfaction with democracy.

Keywords

Media use Political interest Satisfaction with democracy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (MOST-106-2410-H-305-038).

References

  1. Aarts, K., & Semetko, H. (2003). The divided electorate: Media use and political involvement. Journal of Politics, 65, 759–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aarts, K., & Thomassen, J. (2008). Satisfaction with democracy: Do institutions matter? Electoral Studies, 27(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almond, G., & Verba, S. (1963). Civic culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armingeon, K., & Guthmann, K. (2014). Democracy in crisis? The declining support for national democracy in European countries, 2007–2011. European Journal of Political Research, 53(3), 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avery, J. M. (2009). Videomalaise or virtuous circle? The influence of the news media on political trust. International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(4), 410–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bailard, C. S. (2012). Testing the Internet’s effect on democratic satisfaction: A multi-methodological, cross-national approach. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9, 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benstead, L. J. (2015). Why do some Arab citizens see democracy as unsuitable for their country? Democratization, 22(7), 1183–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernauer, J., & Vatter, A. (2012). Can’t get no satisfaction with the Westminster model? Winners, losers and the effects of consensual and direct democratic institutions on satisfaction with democracy. European Journal of Political Research, 51(4), 435–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bimber, B., Cunill, M. C., Copeland, L., & Gibson, R. (2015). Digital media and political participation: The moderating role of political interest across acts and over time. Social Science Computer Review, 33(1), 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boulianne, S. (2009). Does Internet us affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication, 26(2), 249–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boulianne, S. (2011). Stimulating or reinforcing political interest: Using panel data to examine reciprocal effects between news media and political interest. Political Communication, 28(2), 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Karp, J. A. (2007). Enraged or engaged? Preferences for direct citizen participation in affluent democracies. Political Research Quarterly, 60(3), 351–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ceron, A. (2015). Internet, news, and political trust: The difference between social media and online media outlets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(5), 487–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ceron, A., & Memoli, V. (2015). Trust in government and media slant: A cross-sectional analysis of media effects in twenty-seven European countries. International Journal of Press/Politics, 20(3), 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen, S., Ping, S., & Chen, G. (2015). Far from reach but near at hand: The role of social media for cross-national mobilization. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 443–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cho, J., Shah, D., McLeod, J. M., McLeod, D. M., Scholl, R. M., & Gotlieb, M. R. (2009). Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects. Communication Theory, 19, 66–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ciftci, S. (2010). Modernization, Islam, or social capital: What explains attitudes toward democracy in the Muslim world? Comparative Political Studies, 43(11), 1442–1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coffé, H. (2017). Citizens’ media use and the accuracy of their perceptions of electoral integrity. International Political Science Review, 38(3), 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Conroy-Krutz, J., & Kerr, N. (2015). Dynamics of democratic satisfaction in transitional settings: Evidence from a panel study in Uganda. Political Research Quarterly, 68(3), 593–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Curran, J., Coen, S., Soroka, S., Aalberg, T., Hayashi, K., Hichy, Z., et al. (2014). Reconsidering “virtuous circle” and “media malaise” theories of the media: An 11-nation study. Journalism, 15(7), 815–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dahlberg, S., & Holmberg, S. (2014). Democracy and bureaucracy: How their quality matters for popular satisfaction. West European Politics, 37(3), 515–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dahlberg, S., Linde, J., & Holmberg, S. (2015). Democratic discontent in old and new democracies: Assessing the importance of democratic input and governmental output. Political Studies, 63(S1), 18–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dalton, R. J. (1999). Political support in advanced industrial democracies’. In P. Norris (Ed.), Critical citizens: Global support for democratic governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Dalton, R. J. (2008). Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Studies, 56, 76–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dalton, R., Shin, D., & Jou, W. (2007) Understanding democracy: Data from unlikely places. Journal of Democracy, 18, 142–156.Google Scholar
  27. De Vreese, C. H., & Semetko, H. (2002). Cynical and engaged: Strategic campaign coverage, public opinion, and mobilization in a referendum. Communication Research, 29(6), 615–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Drew, D., & Weaver, D. (2006). Voter learning in the 2004 presidential election: Did the media matter? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(1), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eveland, W. P. (2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation and elaboration. Political Communication, 21, 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Eveland, W. P., Hayes, A. F., Shah, D. V., & Kwak, N. (2005). Understanding the relationship between communication and political knowledge: A model comparison approach using panel data. Political Communication, 22, 423–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Eveland, W. P., & Scheufele, D. (2000). Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communication, 17, 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ezrow, L., & Xezonakis, G. (2011). Citizen satisfaction with democracy and parties’ policy offerings. Comparative Political Studies, 44(9), 1152–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gainous, J., Wagner, K. M., & Abbott, J. P. (2015). Civic disobedience: Does Internet use stimulate political unrest in East Asia? Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12, 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gainous, J., Wagner, K. M., & Gray, T. (2016). Internet freedom and social media effects: Democracy and citizen attitudes in Latin America. Online Information Review, 40(5), 712–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gil de Zúñiga, H., Copeland, L., & Bimber, B. (2014). Political consumerism: Civic engagement and the social media connection. New Media & Society, 16(3), 488–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS® system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  38. Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hayes, A. F., Preacher, K. J., & Myers, T. A. (2011). Mediation and the estimation of indirect effects in political communication research. In E. P. Bucy & R. L. Holbert (Eds.), The sourcebook for political communication research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Holland, P. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 945–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Holmberg, S., & Rothstein, B. (Eds.). (2012). Good government: The relevance of political science. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  42. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.Google Scholar
  43. Karp, J. A., & Bowler, S. (2001). Coalition government and satisfaction with democracy: An analysis of New Zealand’s reaction to proportional representation. European Journal of Political Research, 40(1), 57–79.Google Scholar
  44. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2009). Governance Matters VIII: Governance Indicators for 1996–2008 (Washington. World Bank): DC.Google Scholar
  45. Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2002). Online and in the know: Uses and gratifications of the web for political information. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(1), 54–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kenski, K., & Stroud, N. J. (2006). Connections between Internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lupia, A., & Philpot, T. S. (2005). Views from inside the net: How websites affect young adults’ political interest. Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1122–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Magalhães, P. C. (2014). Government effectiveness and support for democracy. European Journal of Political Research, 53(1), 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Martini, S., & Quaranta, M. (2015) Finding out the hard way: Uncovering the structural foundations of political dissatisfaction in Italy, 1973–2013. West European Politics, 38(1), 28–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mattes, R., & Bratton, M. (2007). Learning about democracy in Africa: Awareness, performance and experience. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 192–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McLeod, J. M., Daily, K., Guo, Z., Eveland, W. P., Jr., Bayer, J., & Yang, S. (1996). Community integration, local media use and democratic processes. Communication Research, 23, 179–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moeller, J., & de Vreese, C. (2013). The differential role of the media as an agent of political socialization in Europe. European Journal of Communication, 28(3), 309–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Newton, K. (1999). Mass media effects: Mobilization or media malaise? British Journal of Political Science, 29, 577–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Newton, K. (2006). Political support: Social capital, civil society and political and economic performance. Political Studies, 54(4), 846–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nisbet, E. C., Stoycheff, E., & Pearce, K. E. (2012). Internet use and democratic demands: A multinational, multilevel model of Internet use and citizen attitudes about democracy. Journal of Communication, 62, 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Norris, P. (1999). Conclusions: The growth of critical citizens and its consequences. In P. Norris (Ed.), Critical citizens: Global support for democratic governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Norris, P. (2000). A virtuous circle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Norris, P. (2012). Making democratic governance work: How regimes shape prosperity, welfare and peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36(4), 717–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Quaranta, M., & Martini, S. (2016). Does the economy really matter for satisfaction with democracy? Longitudinal and cross-country evidence from the European Union. Electoral Studies, 42, 164–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rothstein, B. (2009). Creating political legitimacy: Electoral government versus quality of government. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(3), 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Seligson, M. A. (2002). The impact of corruption on regime legitimacy: A comparative study of four Latin American countries. Journal of Politics, 62(2), 408–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age: Modeling internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32, 531–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Nah, S., Gotlieb, M. R., Hwang, H., Lee, N., et al. (2007). Campaign ads, online messaging, and participation: Extending the communication mediation model. Journal of Communication, 57, 676–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shah, D. V., McLeod, J. M., & Lee, N. J. (2009). Communication competence as a foundation for civic competence: Processes of socialization into citizenship. Political Communication, 26(1), 102–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Steiger, J. H. (1999). EzPATH: Causal modeling. Evanston, IL: SYSTAT Inc.Google Scholar
  70. Strömbäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(3), 228–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Strömbäck, J., Djerf-Pierre, M., & Shehata, A. (2013). The dynamics of political interest and news media consumption: A longitudinal perspective. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(4), 414–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Strömbäck, J., Djerf-Pierre, M., & Shehata, A. (2016). A question of time? A longitudinal analysis of the relationship between news media consumption and political trust. International Journal of Press/Politics, 21(1), 88–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Strömbäck, J., & Shehata, A. (2010). Media malaise or a virtuous circle? Exploring the causal relationships between news media exposure, political news attention and political interest. European Journal of Political Research, 49, 575–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tufekci, Z., & Wilson, C. (2012). Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication, 62, 363–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wagner, K. M., & Gainous, J. (2013). Digital uprising: The Internet revolution in the Middle East. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10(3), 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wagner, A. F., Schneider, F., & Halla, M. (2009). The quality of institutions and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe—A panel analysis. European Journal of Political Economy, 25, 30–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Xenos, M., & Moy, P. (2007). Direct and differential effects of the Internet on political and civic engagement. Journal of Communication, 57, 704–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yamamoto, M., & Kushin, M. J. (2014). More harm than good? Online media use and political disaffection among college students in the 2008 Election. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 430–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yamamoto, M., Kushin, M. J., & Dalisay, F. (2017). Social media and political disengagement among young adults: A moderated mediation model of cynicism, efficacy, and social media use on apathy. Mass Communication and Society, 20, 149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zhao, X., & Chaffee, S. H. (1995). Campaign advertisements versus television news as sources of political issue information. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59(1), 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public FinanceNational Taipei UniversityNew Taipei CityTaiwan

Personalised recommendations