Can online communities be social capital? The effect of online communities on individuals’ political engagement
- 42 Downloads
This study used a political and social survey to examine the relationships among political efficacy, community activity, and political engagement in different generational cohorts in South Korea. A nationally representative sample of 777 Korean voters (age range: 20–59) was used for the analysis. We hypothesized that political efficacy is positively related to political engagement, both directly and indirectly, via mediating variables (i.e., both online and offline community activities). After we had controlled for gender, income, and educational level, the results revealed that the indirect effect of political efficacy on online political engagement via online community activities was significant for both the 20–30 age groups and the 30–40 age groups studied. For the 40–50 generation, offline community activities had a significant effect on offline political engagement. Political efficacy had a significant direct effect on online political engagement for both age groups.
KeywordsOnline community Offline community Social capital Political engagement Political efficacy
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2016S1A3A2924104).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee, as well as with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- Akamai (2016). State of the internet report. 9(4), 1–56. https://content.akamai.com/PG1183-StateoftheInternet.html
- Bachmann, I., Kaufhold, K., Lewis, S. C., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2010). News platform preference: Advancing the effects of age and media consumption on political participation. International Journal of Internet Science, 5(1), 34–47.Google Scholar
- Blais, A., & Dobrynska, A. (1998). Turnout in electoral democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 33(2), 239–261.Google Scholar
- Chadwick, A. (2006). Internet politics: States, citizens, and new communication technologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Cho, S., & Kwon, J. (2015). Do online and offline relationship-maintaining behaviors promote bridging and bonding social capital?: Longitudinal analysis for the examination of causal relationship. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 29(1), 107–125.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Coleman, J. (1990). The foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Diamond, L. (1999). Developing democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Ferri, P. (2012). Digital and inter-generational divide. In A. Cartelli (Ed.), Current trends and future practices for digital literacy and competence (pp. 1–18). London: Information Science Reference.Google Scholar
- Jeong, N. W. (2013). The influence of social media on political participation: Explicating the social media effect mechanism with normative, cognitive, attitudinal mediators. Journal of Institute for Social Sciences, 24(2), 273–294.Google Scholar
- Kim, Y. (2006). A study on the blog as a media: Focused on media functions and the problems of the blog. Korea Media & Communication Studies, 50(2), 59–89.Google Scholar
- Kim, B. (2010). Study on the social relationship and social capital effect caused by blog use. Journal of Communication Science, 10, 73–104.Google Scholar
- Korea Information Society Development Institute. (2017a). Analysis on digital divide of old ages and its alternative. KISI Issue Report, 7, 1–52.Google Scholar
- Korea Information Society Development Institute. (2017b). KISDI statistics report. Ministry of Science, ICT and future. Planning, 17, 1–9.Google Scholar
- LaRose, R., Eastin, M. S., & Gregg, J. (2001). Reformulating the internet paradox: Social cognitive explanations of internet use and depression. Journal of Online Behavior, 1 available at http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n1/paradox.html.
- Mosquera, M. (2000). More than half of U.S. households now have Internet access. TechWeb News ( http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB200011218S0011).
- Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (2010). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- Pew Research Center (2018). “Social Media Use in 2018” http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2018/03/01105133/PI_2018.03.01_Social-Media_FINAL.pdf
- Putnam, R. D. (1994). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon Schuster.Google Scholar
- Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Song, H. J. (2010). Internet engagement of 2030 generation and electronic government. Journal of Korean Association for Regional Information Society, 13(4), 97–120.Google Scholar
- Steiger, J. H. & Lind, J. M. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City.Google Scholar
- Tocqueville, A. D. (2002). Democracy in America. Washington: Regnery Publishing Inc..Google Scholar
- Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
- Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who votes? New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar