communication efficacy and voting

8/6/2019 Communication Efficacy and Voting

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communication-efficacy-and-voting 1/29

Voting for development

Associations among communication, efficacy, and voting

Gerardo Mariano

10989560

Ph.D. Development Studies

De La Salle University

DVS104D GS1 – Directed Research 4

Dr. Rizal Buendia

13 December 2010



Mariano p. 2 of 29

Abstract

Abstract Previous studies suggest the predictive effects of communication

variables on civic literacy (political knowledge and inernal political efficacy) and political participation. This paper explores the relationships among newsexposure, media reliance, political efficacy and voting. Philippine data from the

Comparative Survey of Democratization and Value Change in East Asia Project

(a.k.a. East Asia Barometer) were subjected to nonparametric tests for association.

Media reliance was found to be significantly associated with simple voting andvoting for the Administration candidate. Significant albeit weak correlations were

also noted between news exposure and one type of internal efficacy and voting

regularly. Another form of efficacy correlated significantly with voting regularly.

Key words news exposure; media reliance; political efficacy, political

participation.

In 1964, Lerner found high statistical correlations among urbanization, literacy, media exposure,

and political participation. Putnam (1993) identify voting and newspaper reading as two of four

indicators of civic community. Milner (2002) emphasized the need of making an informed choice

in linking political knowledge and political participation. In 2005, Mindich noted the same

strong connections between news exposure and participation, but said the growth of the suburb

as an obstacle to both exposure and participation.

The literature has ample evidence to supports the logic that exposure contributes to

knowledge which in turn drives participation. But there were variations. One is that exposure and

knowledge mutually affect each other. Another is that news exposure produces other effects that

contribute to political knowledge and participation. In addition, there were other factors cited

that resulted in knowledge and participation.

Problem

This paper looks examines the role of communication in empowering the voter into



Mariano p. 3 of 29

making the “right” choice at the polls, as opposed to something that is uninformed, haphazard

and arbitrary. Another literacy concept is political efficacy, focusing on the internal variety. This

paper looks into the relationships among communication variables, internal efficacy and political

participation. These communication variables are news exposure and media reliance. It also

adopts a very specific form of political participation, voting. Hence the question, “Is

communication (news exposure and media reliance) associated with internal political efficacy

and voting?”

This paper also asserts the following hypotheses:

H1 = that media reliance is not associated with simple voting (V1)

H2 = that media reliance is not related to voting for the Administration candidate (V3)

H3 = that news news exposure does not correlate with either form of efficacy (E1 and E2)

H4 = that news exposure is not associated with voting over time (V2), and

H5 = that efficacy is not linked with V2 voting.

Definitions

News exposure – amount of newspaper article reading and TV news story viewing (Atkin

and Heald, 1976). Simple, or “flat,” exposure is complemented by n ews attention, the “mental

and perceptual focus on particular messages or stimuli to which one has been exposed” (Wei &

Lo, 2008). News exposure is behavioral while news attention is cognitive (Willnat & Aw, 2004).

Media reliance – primary source for political information from possible agencies and

interpersonal sources (Feldman & Kawakami, 2007)

Political knowledge – an individual’s ability to recall candidates’ names, personal

characteristics, and qualifications; to identify election issues and current campaigndevelopments; and to recognize connections between candidates and issue positions. (Atkin andHeald, 1976); knowledge about government and political institutions (Andersen et al ., 2002).

Related concepts were identified and described as follows:

Citizen competence – the ability to make informed choices between politicalcandidates (Popkin and Dimock, 1999)



Mariano p. 4 of 29

Civic competence – attitudes and skills required for effective governance (Soltan,

1999)

Citizen literacy – citizens’ knowledge of their political environment (Pattie &Johnston, 2003)

Political literacy – the potential for informed political participation; also known as

political expertise, political awareness, and civic competence (Cassel & Lo, 1997).

Political information efficacy – qualification to participate in politics, being

informed about politics, good understanding about politics (Kaid et al. 2007a)

Political socialization – a developmental process by which children and adolescentsacquire cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors relating to their political environment

(Atkin & Gantz, 1978)

Internal political efficacy – the ability to participate in politics (Hoffman &

Thomson, 2009) and an ordinary person’s ability to understand politics and

government (Kenski & Stroud, 2006; Kavanaugh et al ., 2008).

Political participation – voting, contacting, protesting, activism, board membership,

campaign work, campaign giving (Verba et al., 1993); Claggett (2006) adds communal activity,

particularized contact, political discussion, and passive cooperation as forms of political

participation. Blais (2000) describes turnout as either the percentage of citizens of eligible agewho vote or the the percentage of voters from the total number of registered voters.

Theory

The approach to this study draws from both journalism and political science. Kovach and

Rosenstiel (2001) believe that “the central purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with

accurate and reliable information they need to function in a free society.” Milner (2002) contends

that informed citizens can make optimal policy choices that in turn contribute toward sustainable

welfare-state outcomes (diagram below is from Milner, 2002, p. 4) . Milner views media use as a

potentially intervening variable. Kovach and Rosenstiel regard the press as more than that, as the

body that plays a key role in keeping citizens properly informed and therefore competent as they

exercise democracy when they go to vote.



Mariano p. 5 of 29

The literature describes the relationship among communication, literacy, and political

participation. Communication variables may be media-based, such as news exposure, media

reliance, and media attention. A commonly studied communication variable – political discussion

– need not involve media. Civic literacy takes on many forms like political knowledge and

efficacy, both of which have been substantially studied over the years. Political participation

covers electoral and non-electoral forms.

This study will focus on news exposure, media reliance, internal political efficacy, and

participation in elections. At one level it will look into the direct effects of communication on

efficacy and participation; at another, how efficacy moderates the effects of communication on

participation.

Internal political

efficacy

Political

participation

Newsexposure

Media

reliance



Mariano p. 6 of 29

Literature

News exposure as predictor of efficacy and participation. There is substantial evidence pointing

to the relationship between news exposure and political knowledge. Chaffee & Frank (1996) said

it was rare to find a study in which newspaper reading was not a significant predictor of

knowledge, noting that persons actively seeking political information consulted print media more

than television even if TV news offered more information about candidates. Johnson-Cartee

(2005) says that for most people knowledge is contructed through the mass media. Norris (2002)

noted the consistently positive relationship between attention to the news media and political

knowledge, trust, and participation. A number of studies found significant evidence saying

exposure resulted in knowledge. Johnson et al . (1995), Mondak (1995), Jennings (1998), Miller

& Krosnick (2000), Pattie & Johnston (2003), Kim (2008), and Lee & Wei (2008) said

newspaper reading contributed to knowledge. Other studies found that exposure to various media

likewise predicted knowledge (Atkin & Heald, 1976; Lucas & Schmitz, 1988; Eveland et al .,

2005; Drew & Weaver, 2006; Jerit et al ., 2006; Wei & Lo, 2008). Baum (2003) reported that

Internal political

efficacy

Political

participation

News

exposure

Media

reliance



Mariano p. 7 of 29

even “soft news” influenced knowledge, although Prior (2003) noted that the effect was very

little. The new media likewise had the ability to affect knowledge (Kenski & Stroud, 2006),

although Kim (2008) was more reserved. Conway et al. (1981) suggested that the relationship

was reciprocal.

Work on media exposure and efficacy is not as copious. Most of them pointed to the

positive impact of newspaper reading on internal efficacy (Norris, 2000; Aarts & Semetko, 2003;

McCluskey et al ., 2004; Lee, 2006; Tewksbury et al ., 2008. Kaid et al . (2007) noted the ability

of political Web content to raise efficacy, whike Kenski and Stroud (2006) found that political

discussion had the same effect. On the other hand, Baumgartner and Morris (2006) observed how

the popular “soft news” program The Daily Show had a negative impact on efficacy.

Media exposure was also found to affect voter turnout. Newspaper reading was cited by

Garramone & Atkin (1986), Pattie & Johnston (2003), Zhang & Chia (2006), Lee & Wei (2008),

and Martin (2008). Other media contributors to turnout were TV news (Elenbaas & De Vreese,

2006), news Web sites (Tolbert & McNeal, 2003; Hansen & Benoit, 2005), soft news (Baum &

Jamison, 2006), and text messaging (Dale & Strauss, 2007).

Other studies concluded that media influenced both knowledge and voting: newspapers

(Feldman & Kawakami, 1991; Milner, 2004); TV news (Garramone & Atkin, 1986); “new”

media (Prior, 2005); or combinations of various media (Sotirovic & McLeod, 2001; De Vreese &

Boomgarden, 2006; Nisbet, 2008).

Media were also found to affect significantly other forms of political participation like

campaigning (Kim et al ., 1991) and civic participation (Shah, 1988; Moy et al., 2005a; Hoffman

& Thomson, 2006; Nichols et al., 2006; Jeffres et al., 2007; Kim, 2007; Kavanaugh et al ., 2008;



Mariano p. 8 of 29

Livingstone & Markham, 2008; Salzman & Aloisi, 2009)

Media reliance as a predictor of efficacy and participation. Faber et al. (1985) said that news

exposure was not the only measure of media experience. Feldman and Kawakami (1991) termed

it as simple exposure. Along with media attention, one’s primary source of information (media

reliance) been studied. In 1980, Miller et al . found that that TV and newspaper exposured

related positively to efficacy and participation among TV-reliant respondents. In 1988, Walker

found evidence that newspaper reliance raised undifferentiated efficacy. The others concluded

that reliance had no positive association with knowledge (Culbertson & Stempel, 1986) or did

not predict knowledge (Li & Jeong, 2003). Bowen et al . (2000) found that TV reliance led to

higher political powerlessness (the opposite of efficacy) and cynicism.

Research by Moy et al. (2005) found that reliance, through increased knowledge and

trust, raised non-electoral forms of participation.

Efficacy as Predictor of Participation. A number of studies found positive effects of efficacy on

participation (Finkel, 1985; Zimmermann, 1989; Morrell, 2003; Scheufele et al ., 2003;

McCluskey et al ., 2004; Karp & Banducci, 2008). Jian and Jeffres (2008) learned that internal

efficacy mediated the effect of job autonomy on various types of participation. On the other

hand, Wang (2007) found that efficacy did not predict participation, while Zhong and Chen

(2002) found a reverse relationship between internal efficacy and participation.

Internal efficacy had a .40 correlation with knowledge (Niemi et al., 1991), the impact of

on political participation is also documented. Larcinese (2007) noted the sizeable influence, “in

causal fashion,” of knowledge on participation, citing the important role media played in

influencing participation. Popkin & Dimock (1999) reported a positive correlation between



Mariano p. 9 of 29

knowledge and turnout. Mindich (2005) and Wattenberg (2008) share the same sentiment,

although their books did not use causal statistics to link the two variables.

Causes and Other Effects of News Exposure. A Filipino scholar explains that psychological needs

– the need for cognition and need to evaluate – motivate people to follow general news (David,

2009b) and is proposing a theory of motivational effects (David, 2009a). On the other hand,

exposure also resulted in political discussion (Garramone and Atkin, 1986), political efficacy

(McCluskey et al ., 2004), political interest (Drew & Weaver, 2006; Livingstone & Markham,

2008), social capital (Shah, 1998; Jeffres et al ., 2007; Kim, 2007).

Lee (2005) noted how conservative news promoted trust and reduced cynicism, while on

the other hand, Elenbaas & De Vreese (2008) said that exposure resulted in political cynicism.

Lee conceded that political talk show on both radion and TV, and the Internet led to cynicism.

Kaid et al . (2007a) reported political advertising did not produce increased cynicism, but

significantly raised political efficacy.

Other Predictors of Participation

Also found to affect participation are age (Franklin, 2004), benefits of voting (Filer &

Kenny, 1980); its costs (Niemi, 1976), mobilization (Michelson, 2006), education (Burden,

2009), political efficacy (Kaid et al., 2007a; Ikeda et al ., 2008), family structure (Wolfinger &

Wolfinger, 2008), political interest (Esser & De Vreese, 2007; Klesner, 2009), political

discussion (Esser & De Vreese, 2007; Eveland & Hively, 2009); social structure (Scheufele et

al ., 2004), trust (Shah, 1998; Moy et al., 2005b, Grönlund & Setälä, 2007), and skepticism (Henn

et al ., 2007).

Franklin (2004) argued that lowering the US voting age to 18 was a mistake, although he

proposed lowering it further to 15, so that first-time voters would experience their first trip to the



Mariano p. 10 of 29

polls while they are still in school (p. 213).

Filer & Kenny (1980) presented evidence that turnout is up when the probability of

affecting the outcome rises, and goes down as the cost of voting increases.

According to Burden (2009), educational attainment helps predict turnout, but not

political knowledge: “Rather than the value added by college itself, perhaps it is simply the type

of person who attends and graduates from college that makes them more likely to vote.”

Concepts and theories advanced were the calculus of voting (Riker & Odershook, 1968),

the decision-theoretic analysis (Ferejohn & Fiorina, 1974), rational choice (Feddersen, 2004);

and the size, competition and underdog effects (Levine & Palfrey, 2007).

Riker & Odershook (1968) identified the positive satisfactions of voting:

the satisfaction from compliance with the ethic of voting. [A citizen socialized into

the democratic tradition will consider it positive when he votes and negative whenhe does not];

the satisfaction from affirming allegiance to the political system;the satisfaction from affirming a partisan preference. [The most important aspect

of voting for many voters].the satisfaction of deciding, going to the polls, etc.; andthe satisfaction of affirming one’s efficacy in the political system (28).

Ferejohn & Fiorina (1974) apply the concept of maximum utility in which a person

estimates the probabilities of events and utilities of outcomes: “Each action is viewed as a lottery

with choice dependent on the expected utility of each action-as-lottery... The person sees himself

in each possible future state of the world and looks at how much in error each of his available

actions could be, given that state. Then he chooses that action whose maximum error over the

states of nature is least.” On the other hand, the maximin person determines the worst possible

payoff and chooses the strategy with the worst payoff. Maximin decision makers, they say, do

not vote.



Mariano p. 11 of 29

To Niemi (1976) many voting costs are exaggerated, and the benefits downplayed. In

fact, he says, voting is relatively costless in the sense of opportunity costs.

Feddersen (2004) said that in a large election, the probability that an individual vote

might change the election outcome is vanishingly small. If each person only votes for the

purpose of influencing the election outcome, then even a small cost to vote-like a minor schedule

conflict or mildly bad weather-should dissuade anyone from voting (p. 99). He cited the weather,

registration requirements, time required to think about the voting decision, and distance to the

polling place as factors that could encourage or discourage a voter from going to the polls.

Levine & Palfrey (2007) make three predictions: the larger the electorate, the lower the

turnout; elections expected to be close will register higher turnouts, and citizens supporting the

less popular option are more likely to vote.

Measures. News exposure was generally measured by determining the frequency of use

of the various news media: TV news, newspapers, news magazines, (Conway et al., 1981;

Garramone & Atkin, 1986) and the Internet (Lee & Wei, 2008); the types of programs consumed:

network, local, public TV and radio, news interviews, (Lee, 2005). Atkin & Gantz (1978), whose

respondents were school children, limited their study to frequency of exposure to national news

programs and the Saturday children’s news segments.

“Flat” exposure was enriched by media attention, which was measured by self-reported

assessments ranging from no attention to a lot of attention (Drew & Weaver, 2006).

Media reliance was a forced choice of which news medium was most often used (Leshner

& Thorson, 2000; Feldman & Kawakami, 2007).

Atkin & Gantz’s (1978) questionnaire consisted of 10 items reflecting concrete elements



Mariano p. 12 of 29

of the basic themes, personalities, and long-term news developments featured in news programs.

Conway et al . (1981) asked children 17 questions about political institutions, political

parties, and the electoral process, while Mondak (1995) also asked 17 items on current events,

campaign news, and the candidates’ policy positions.

Garramone & Atkin (1986) created a fundamental [political] knowledge index by

summing together eight items concerning historical facts or trends relevant to more current

events. To make a current events knowledge index comparable to the fundamental knowledge

index, they selected eight current news items to match as closely as possible those measured in

the fundamental knowledge index.

Lucas & Schmitz (1988) asked about both “general” or “background” information

(political geography, recognition of names of world leaders, long-term environmental issues,

etc.) and time-specific news events. In the latter case, they drew questions from news reports

prominently featured by the media within a 60-hour period preceding the survey.

Delli Carpini & Keeter (1993) pruned a 1991 National Election Study questionnaire that

initially asked 13 items on people, and party and civic processes, to five (party control of the

House, veto override percent, party ideological location, judicial review, the Vice President).

They said these five items were sufficient to measure knowledge.

There were also attempts to improve the scale, especially when some respondents resort

to guessing. Mondak (2001) says that providing “Don’t Know Responses” encourages such

responses, thus infusing the PK scale with a systematic error. But Sturgis et al . (2007) dispute

this, saying there was no problem with encouraging DK responses.

Internal political efficacy was determined by asking questions like “Sometimes



Mariano p. 13 of 29

presidential elections seem so complicated that a person like me cannot really understand what is

going on” (Kenski & Stroud, 2006; Kavanaugh et al ., 2008) and “I consider myself well

qualified to participate in politics” (Hoffman & Thomson, 2009).

Methods Used. Secondary data were used in most of the studies, while a smaller number

obtained primary data from phoned and face-to-face interviews.

Most of the studies employed various forms of statistical regressions that allowed the

authors to claim causality: linear, multiple, logit, logistic, hierarchical, OLS, GLS, path analysis.

A few employed correlations and analysis of variance. Qualitative methods were used in just two

studies (Bufachi, 2001; Kiba, 2010).

Method

This paper used Philippine data collected by the Social Weather Stations (2005) from a

sample of 12,000 respondents, for a the East Asia Barometer, an eight-nation study of

democratization in East Asia. The survey had data on communication, political literacy and

political participation.

News exposure was measured using a five-point scale (from “practically never” to

“everyday”), while media reliance consisted of a forced choice (“the most important” source of

information) from various mass media.

Efficacy was measured by two questions using a four-point attitudinal scale (E1: “I have

the ability to participate in politics”; E2: “Sometimes politics and government seems so

complicated that a person like me can’t really understand what is going on”). The second

question was phrased in the negative and used reverse-scoring. A dummy variable was created to

reflect the actual direction of efficacy. E1 and E2 correlated (r=.06, n=1200, p=.05) but were



Mariano p. 14 of 29

retained because the coefficient was not that strong.

There were three types of voting data. One (V1) asked simply whether the respondent

voted in the last election. Another (V2) asked how regularly the respondent had voted since

becoming eligible to vote (from “hardly ever voted” to “voted in every election”). A third (V3)

asked whether the respondent voted for the Administration candidate.

Data on informal political discussion, trust in the national government, interest in politics,

educational attainment, and monthly household income were also included in the analysis. They

were all measured using ordinal scales.

Nonparametric tools were used to test for associations among the variables. Chi squares

were obtained for the nominal data (media reliance and V1 and V3 voting). Spearman’s rank

order correlations were computed for news exposure, V2 voting, and both types of efficacy.

Discussion, trust, interest, education, and income were included in the correlation matrix.

Results

The sample was split evenly among the sexes, and average age was 43. Because the

youngest respondent was 17, and the first age category ranged from 17 to 24, it could be inferred

that at least 90 percent of the respondents were of voting age in regular elections (Table 1).

Nearly 90% had monthly household incomes belonging to the two lowest quintiles (Table 2). In

fact, two-thirds of the sample were from the lowest income group. In terms of education, more

than half of the sample had completed at least a vocational or technical high school, although

degree holders only represented 15 percent (Table 3a). More than two-thirds spent no more than

10 years in school (Table 3b).

Almost half said they followed political news on a daily basis and the mean (2.829 on a



Mariano p. 15 of 29

0-4 scale) reflects frequent exposure to news (Table 4). Reliance on TV for political information

was highest, at 84% (Table 5). Radio was cited by almost half of the respondents as their primary

source of news. The newspaper was third. The Internet was hardly a factor.

Internal efficacy scores were low (average: 1.087 on a 0-3 scale; Table 6). On the other

hand, voter turnout was a high 82% in the 2004 election, in which more than 80% of the vote

was nearly split between two candidates. The winning candidate, Gloria Arroyo (representing the

Administration), led Fernando Poe by a narrow 4%. Nearly two-thirds said they voted in every

election since they became eligible (mean 2.411, on a 0-3 scale; Table 7).

While 60% had little to no trust in the government (mean 1.273 on a 0-3 scale) and

interest in politics was moderate (mean 1.425 on a 0-3 scale) (Table 8), more than three-quarters

of respondents nonetheless discussed politics with their family and friends occasionally to

frequently (mean 0.868 on a 0-2 scale; Table 9).

The cross-tabulations (Tables 10 & 11) show that media reliance is associated with V1

and V2 voting. The chi square for reliance and V1 (χ 2[2, n=598]=5.32, p=.070) is greater than the

critical value of 5.02 at p=.025, although the actual probability is higher. Still, this is reasonable

ground to reject the null hypothesis (H1). The chi square for reliance and the Administration vote

is even higher (χ 2[2, n=460]=28.39, p<.0001), a compelling reason to reject H2.

The correlation matrix (Table 12) suggests a positive and significant correlation between

news exposure and E1 efficacy (r=.07) and voting over time (V2 r=.10). In turn, only one kind of

efficacy (E2) correlated significantly with V2 voting (r=.06). These suggest that the more people

follow the news, the more regularly they vote and that they have a higher sense of an ability to

participate in politics, although not in linear fashion. Also, respondents tended to vote regularly



Mariano p. 16 of 29

if they had a grasp of what was going on in government and politics.

News exposure likewise found to correlate positively with political interest (r=.23),

education (r=.16) and income (r=.12). On the other hand, it correlated negatively with discussion

(r=-.16) and trust in the national government (r=-.12). This means that the more people followed

the news, the less they discussed politics. This could also be viewed as people discussing politics

more as they followed the news less. In other words, they were compensating low exposure with

discussion. Similarly, lower efficacy (E1) brought about more discussion (r=-.06) although E1

went hand in hand with interest. Aside from news exposure, E2 efficacy was found to correlate

significantly with V2 voting (r=.06) and interest (r=.08).

Discussion returned a number of negative coefficients with exposure, E1 efficacy

(r=-.06), interest (r=-.25) and education (r=-.07). While this could be seen as people discussing

politics less with increased exposure, efficacy, interest, and education, this could also mean that

those with less exposure, efficacy (E1), interest, and education were discussing more. While

discussion did not correlate significantly (in fact, slightly negatively) with V2 voting, it can be

argued that by substitution, those with less exposure, efficacy, interest and education discussed

more, and because discussion correlated with V2 voting, therefore voted more regularly.

Conclusion

There is basis to reject H1 and H2 [details in the paper] and say that media reliance is

associated with V1 and V3 types of voting. Likewise , H3 and H4 can also be rejected based on

the significant correlations between news exposure and E1efficacy, as well as exposure and V2

voting. However, H5 can only be partially rejected as E1 efficacy did not correlate significantly

with voting, although E2 did.



Mariano p. 17 of 29

For the large part, communication is linked with both efficacy (E1) and all types of

voting, and efficacy (E1, but not E2) with V2 voting. While these conclusions are consistent with

the general literature, which in fact asserts causality among and between these variables, this

paper stops at associations. Because of the nonparametric nature of data, no further testing can be

performed beyond chi squares for nominal data and correlations for the ordinal.

[I need to firm up my last statement: how these associations connect with the idea of

voting for development.]



References

Aarts, K., & Semetko, H. A. (2003). The divided electorate: Media use and politicalinvolvement. The Journal of Politics, 65(3), 759-794.

Andersen, R., Heath, A., & Sinnott, R. (2002). Political knowledge and electoral choice. In L. G.Bennie, C. Rollings, J. Tonge, & P. Webb (Eds.), The 2001 General Election. London:

Taylor and Francis.

Atkin, C. K., & Gantz, W. (1978). Television news and political socialization. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 42(2), 183-198. doi:10.1086/268442.

Atkin, C. K., & Heald, G. (1976). Effects of political advertising. Public Opinion Quarterly,

40(2), 216-228. doi:10.1086/268289.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Baum, M. A. (2003). Soft news and political knowledge: Evidence of absence or absence of evidence? Political Communication, 20, 173–190. doi:10.1080/1058460039021118.

Baum, M. A., & Jamison, A. S. (2006). The Oprah effect: How soft news helps inattentive

citizens vote consistently. The Journal of Politics, 68(4), 946-959. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508. 2006.00482.x.

Baumgartner, J. C., & Morris, J. S. (2006). The Daily Show effect: Candidate evaluations,efficacy, and American youth. American Politics Research, 34(3), 341-367.

doi:10.1177/1532673X05280074.

Baumgartner, J. C., & Morris, J. S. (2010). MyFace Tube politics: Social networking sites and political engagement of young adults. Social Science Computer Review, 28(1), 24-44. doi:

10.1177/0894439309334325.

Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation

matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial

performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 488-506.

Blais, A. (2000). When and where are people more likely to vote? In To vote or not to vote?: The

merits and limits of rational choice theory (pp. 17-44). Pittsburgh: University of Pitts-

burgh Press.

Bowen, L., Stamm, K., & Clark, F. (2000). Television reliance and political malaise: An

contingency analysis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(1), 1-15.

doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4401_1.

Bufacchi, V. (2001). Voting, rationality and reputation. Political Studies, 49, 714-729.

http://www.psych.uncc.edu/pagoolka/Jpsp1986p1173.pdf


http://books.google.com/books?id=KkZpz8oW5xYC&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=KkZpz8oW5xYC&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q&f=false





Mariano p. 19 of 29

doi:10.1111/1467-9248.00338.

Burden, B. C. (2009). The dynamic effects of education on turnout. Electoral Studies, 28, 540-

549. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2009.05.027.

Cassel, C. A., & Lo, C. C. (1997). Theories of political literacy. Political Behavior, 19(4), 317-335. doi:10.1023/A:1024895721905.

Chaffee, S., & Frank, S. (1996). How Americans get political information: Print versus broadcastnews. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546 , 48-58.

doi:10.1177/0002716296546001005.

Chen, X., & Shi, F. (2001). Media effects on political confidence and trust in the People’sRepublic of China in the post-Tiananmen period. East Asia, 19(3), 84-118.

Claggett, W., & Pollock, P. H. III. (2006). The modes of participation revisited. Political Research Quarterly, 59(4), 593-600. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4148061.

Coleman, S., Morrison, D. E., & Svennevig, M. (2008). New media and political efficacy. International Journal of Communication, 2, 771-791. Retrieved from www.ijoc.org .

Conway, M. M., Wyckoff, M. L., Feldbaum, E., & Ahern, D. (1981). The news media in chil-

dren’s political socialization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45(2), 164-178.doi:10.1086/268648.

Culbertson, H. M., & Stempel, G. H. III. (1986). How media use and reliance affect knowledge

level. Communication Research, 13(4)579-602. doi: 10.1177/009365086013004004.

Dale, A., & Strauss, A. (2007). Text messaging as a youth mobilization tool: An experiment with

a post-treatment survey. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest PoliticalScience Association, Chicago, April 12-15, 2007. Retrieved October 14, 2009, from http://

www.iop.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/youth_text.pdf.

David, C. C. (2009a). Learning from the news: Towards a comprehensive theory of motivationaleffects. Plaridel, 6 (2), 1-32.

David, C. C. (2009b). Learning political information from the news: A closer look at the role of

motivation. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 225-242. doi:10.1111/j.1460-

2466.2009.01413.x.

De Vreese, C. H., & Boomgaarden, H. (2006). News, political knowledge and participation: The

differential effects of news media exposure on political knowledge and participation. Acta

Politica, 41(4), 317-341. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500164.

Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1993). Measuring political knowledge: Putting first things

first. American Journal of Political Science, 37 (4), 1179-1206. Retrieved November 4,

http://www.ijoc.org/

http://www.ijoc.org/



Mariano p. 20 of 29

2009, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111549.

Drew, D., & Weaver, D. (2006). Voter learning in the 2004 presidential election: Did the media

matter? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(1), 25-42. Retrieved Novem- ber 5, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1060355501).

Elenbaas, M., & De Vreese, C. H. (2008). The effects of strategic news on political cynicism and

vote choice among young voters. Journal of Communication, 58, 550-567. doi:10.1111/

j.1460-2466.2008.00399.x.

Esser, F., & De Vreese, C. H. (2007). Comparing young voters’ political engagement in the

United States and Europe. The American Behavioral Scientist, 50(9), 1195-1213.doi:10.1177/ 0002764207299364.

Eveland, W. P. Jr., (2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The

roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication, 21, 177–193.doi:10. 1080/10584600490443877.

Eveland, W. P. Jr., & Hively, M. H. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and

“heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 205-224. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01412.x.

Eveland, W. P. Jr., 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. doi:10.1080/10584600500311345.

Faber, R. J., Reese, S. D., & Steeves, H. L. (1985). Spending time with the news media: Therelationship between reliance and use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,

29(4), 445-450. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Feddersen, T. J. (2004). Rational choice theory and the paradox of not voting. The Journal of

Economic Perspectives, 18(1), 99-112. doi:10.1257/089533004773563458.

Feldman, O., & Kawakami, K. (1991). Media use as predictors of political behavior: The case of Japan. Political Psychology, 12(1), 65-80. Retrieved January 18, 2010, from http://

www.jstor.org/stable/3791346.

Ferejohn, J. A., & Fiorina, M. P. (1974). The paradox of not voting: A decision theoretic analysis.The American Political Science Review, 68(2), 525-536. Retrieved October 14, 2009,

from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1959502.

Filer, J. E., & Kenny, L. W. (1980). Voter turnout and the benefits of voting. Public Choice,

35(5), 575-585. doi:10.1007/BF00140087.

Finkel, S. E. (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29(4), 891-913. Retrieved September 23, 2010,



Mariano p. 21 of 29

from JSTOR.

Franklin, M. N. (2004). Voter turnout and the dynamics of electoral competition in established

democracies since 1945. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gandy, O. H. Jr., Matabane, P. W., & Omachonu, J. O. (1987). Media use, reliance, and active participation: Exploring student awareness of the South African conflict. Communication

Research, 14 (6), 644-663. doi: 10.1177/009365087014006002.

Garramone, G. M., & Atkin, C. K. (1986). Mass communication and political socialization: Spe-

cifying the effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(1), 76-86. doi:10.1086/268960.

Grönlund, K., & Milner, H. (2006). The determinants of political knowledge in comparative per-spective. Scandinavian Political Studies, 29(4), 386-406. doi:10.138111/j.14679477.2006.

00157.

Grönlund, K., & Setälä, M. (2007). Political trust, satisfaction and voter turnout. Comparative

European Politics, 5(4), 400-422. doi:10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110113.

Hambrick, D. Z., Meinz, E. J., Pink, J. E, Pettibone, J. C., & Oswald, F. L. (2010). Learning out-side the laboratory: Ability and non-ability influences on acquiring political knowledge.

Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 40–45. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.013.

Hansen, G. J., & Benoit, W. L. (2005). Presidential campaigning on the Web: The influence of

candidate World Wide Web sites in the 2000 general election. The Southern Communica-tion Journal, 70(3), 219-229. doi:10.1080/10417940509373328.

Henn, M., Weinstein, M., & Hodgkinson, S. (2007). Social capital and political participation:

Understanding the dynamics of young people’s political disengagement in contemporary

Britain. Social Policy and Society, 6 (4), 467-479. doi:10.1017/S1474746407003818

Hoffman, L. H., & Thomson, T. L. (2009). The effect of television viewing on adolescents’ civic

participation: Political efficacy as a mediating mechanism. Journal of Broadcasting &

Electronic Media, 53(1), 3-21. doi:10.1080/08838150802643415.

Holbert, R. L., Lambe, J. L., Dudo, A. D., & Carlton, K. A. (2007). Primacy effects of The DailyShow and national TV news viewing: Young viewers, political gratifications, and internal

political self-efficacy. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51(1), 20-38.Retreived from EBSCOhost.

Ikeda, K., Kobayashi, K., & Hoshimoto, M. (2007). Does political participation make a differ-ence? The relationship between political choice, civic engagement and political efficacy.

Electoral Studies, 27 (1), 77-78. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2007.11.004.

Jeffres, L. W., Lee, J., Neuendorf, K., & Atkin, D. (2007). Newspaper reading supportscommunity involvement. Newspaper Research Journal, 28(1), 6-23. Retrieved October 6,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2748971

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2748971



Mariano p. 22 of 29

2009, from ProQuest Social Science Journals. (Document ID: 1223552951).

Jennings, M. K. (1996). Political knowledge over time and across generations. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 60, 228-252. doi:10.1086/297749.

Jennings, M. K., & Zeitner, V. (2003). Internet use and civic engagement: A longitudinalanalysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67 (3), 311-334. Retrieved from JSTOR.

Jerit, J., Barabas, J., & Bolsen, T. (2006). Citizens, knowledge, and the information environment. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 266-282. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.

2006.00183.x.

Jian, G., & Jeffres, L. (2008). Spanning the boundaries of work: Workplace participation, political efficacy, and political involvement. Communication Studies, 59(1), 35-50.

doi:10.1080/10510970701849370.

Johnson-Cartee, K. S. (2005). News narratives and news framing: Constructing political reality.

Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Johnson, M., Stamm, K., Lisosky, J., & James, J. (1995). Differences among newspapers in con-tributions to knowledge of national public affairs. Newspaper Research Journal, 16 (3),

82-95. Retrieved November 5, 2009, from Academic Research Library. (Document ID:

1046715201).

Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2003). A bust or boom for democracy: How the Web influenced

political attitudes and behaviors in the 1996 and 2006 presidential elections.

International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(3), 9-34. doi: 10.1177/1081180X03008003002.

Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2004). Wag the blog: How reliance on traditional media and the

Internet influence credibility perceptions of Weblogs among blog users. Journalism &

Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(3), 622-642.

Kaid, L. L., McKinney, M. S., & Tedesco, J. C. (2007a). Political information efficacy and young

voters. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(9), 1093-1111. doi:10.1177/0002764207300040.

Kaid, L. L., Postelnicu, M., Landreville, K., Yun, H. J., & LeGrange, A. G. (2007b). The effects

of political advertising on young voters. American Behavioral Scientist , 50(9), 1137-1151.doi:10.1177/0002764207300039.

Karp, J. A., & Banducci, S. A. (2008). Political efficacy and participation in twenty-sevendemocracies: How electoral systems shape political behaviour. British Journal of

Political Science, 38, 311-334. doi:10.1017/S0007123408000161.

Kavanaugh, A., Kim, B. J., Perez-Quinonez, M. A., Schmitz, J., & Isenhour, P. (2008). Net gainsin political participation: Secondary effects of Internet on community. Information,



Mariano p. 23 of 29

Communication, & Society, 11(7), 933-963. doi:10.1080/13691180802108990.

Kenski, K., & Stroud, N J. (2006). Connections between Internet use, political efficacy,

knowledge and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 173-192. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem5002_1.

Kiba, S. (2010, June 17). How do you choose?: Elections and social movements from the

perspective of the urban poor in the Philippines, Thailand, and Japan. Paper presentation

in International Guest Lecture Series, De La Salle University, Manila.

Kim, D., & Johnson, T. J. (2006). A victory of the Internet over mass media? Examining the

effects of online media on political attitudes in South Korea. Asian Journal of

Communication, 16 (1), 1-18. doi:10.1080/01292980500467251.

Kim, S. H. (2007). Media use, social capital, and civic participation in South Korea. Journalism

and Mass Communication Quarterly, 8(4), 477-494. Retrieved November 5, 2009, fromABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1408976381).

Kim, S. H. (2008). Testing the knowledge gap hypothesis in South Korea: Traditional news me-

dia, the Internet, and political learning. International Journal of Public Opinion, 20(2),193-210. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edn019.

Klesner, J. K. (2009). Who participates? Determinants of political action in Mexico. American

Politics and Society, 51(2), 59-90. doi:10.1111/j.1548-2456.2009.00048.x.

Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (2001). The elements of journalism: What newspeople should know

and the public should expect. New York: Three Rivers.

Larcinese, V. (2007). Does political knowledge increase turnout? Evidence from the 1997 British

general election. Public Choice, 131(3-4), 387-411. doi:10.1007/s11127-006-9122-0.

Lasorsa, D. L. (2003). Question-order effects in surveys: The case of political interest, news at-

tention, and knowledge. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(3), 499-512.

Lee, K. M. (2006) Effects of Internet use on college students’ political efficacy.

CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(4), 415-422. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9.415.

Lee, T. T. (2005). Media effects on political disengagement revisited: A multiple-media ap-

proach. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(2), 416-433. Retrieved Octo- ber 6, 2009, from ProQuest Social Science Journals. (Document ID: 887925301).

Lee, T. T., & Chen, Y. C. (2004). Media usage and political alienation revisited. Conference paper. International Communication Association annual meeting.

Lee, T. T., & Wei, L. (2008). How newspaper readership affects political participation. Newspa-

per Research Journal, 29(3), 8-23. Retrieved October 6, 2009, from ProQuest Social Sci-



Mariano p. 24 of 29

ence Journals. (Document ID: 1560763371).

Lerner, D. (1964). The passing of traditional society. Modernizing the Middle East. New York:

Free Press.

Leshner, G. E., & Thorson, E. (2000). Overreporting voting: Campaign media, public mood, andthe vote. Political Communication, 17 , 263-278.

Levine, D. K., & Palfrey, T. R. (2007). The paradox of voter participation? A laboratory study.The American Political Science Review, 101(1), 143-158.

doi:10.1017.She0003055407070013.

Li, Z., & Jeong, I. (2003). Problems with mixed usage of media use and reliance. ConferencePapers International Communication Association Annual Meeting.

Livingstone, S., & Markham, T. (2008). The contribution of media consumption to civic particip-ation. British Journal of Sociology, 59(2), 351-371. doi:10.1111/j.14684446.2008.001

97.x.

Livingstone, S., Couldry, N., & Markharm. T. (2007). Youthful steps toward civic participation.Does the Internet help? In B. Loader (Ed.), Young citizens in the digital age. New York:

Routledge.

Loewen, P. J., Milner, H., & Hicks, B. M. (2008). Does compulsory voting lead to more in-

formed and engaged citizens? An experimental test. Canadian Journal of Political Sci-ence, 41(3), 655-672. doi:10.10170S000842390808075X.

Lucas, C. J., & Schmitz, C. D. (1988). Communications media and current-events knowledge

among college students. Higher Education, 17 (2), 139-149. doi:10.1007/BF00137968.

Luskin, R. C. (1987). Measuring political sophistication. American Journal of Political Science,

31(4),856-899. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111227.

Luskin, R. C. (1990). Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior, 12(4), 331-361.doi:10.1007/BF00992793.

Martin, P. M. (2008). The media as sentinel: Why bad news about issues is good news for parti-

cipation. Political Communication, 25(2), 180-193. doi:10.1080/10584600801985706.

McCluskey, M. R., Deshpande, S., Shah, D. V., & McLeod, D. M. (2004). The efficacy gap and

political participation: When political influence fails to meet expectations. International

Journal of Public Opinion Research, 16 (4), 437-455. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh038.

McDonald, D. G., Sietman, R. B., & Li, Z. (2004, May). The law of news consumption and news

media effects. Paper prepared for the International Communication Association for presentation at the 54th Annual Conference, New Orleans.



Mariano p. 25 of 29

McFarland,D. A., & Thomas, R. J. (2006). Bowling young: How youth voluntary associations in-

fluence adult political participation. American Sociological Review, 71(3), 401-425.doi:10.117 7/000312240607100303.

McLeod, J. M., & McDonald, D. G. (1985). Beyond simple exposure: Media orientations andtheir impact on political processes. Communication Research, 12(1)3-33. doi:

10.1177/009365085012001001.

McLeod, J. M., Glynn, C. J., & McDonald, D. G. (1983). The influence of media reliance in vot-ing decisions. Communication Research, 10(1), 37-58.

doi:10.1177/009365083010001002.

McLeod, J. M., Glynn, C. J., & McDonald, D. G. (1983). The influence of media reliance in

voting decisions. Communication Research, 10(1)37-58 doi:

10.1177/009365083010001002.

Mendelsohn, M., and Cutler, F. (2000). The effect of referendums on democratic citizens: In-

formation, politicization, efficacy and tolerance. British Journal of Political Science,30(4), 685-698. http://www.jstor.org/stable/194291.

Michelson, M. R. (2000). Political efficacy and electrocal participation of Chicago Latinos.

Social Science Quarterly, 81(1), 136-150.

Michelson, M. R. (2006). Mobilizing the Latino youth vote: Some experimental results. Social

Science Quarterly, 87 (5), 1188-1206. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00423.x.

Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidentialevaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American

Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 301-315. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2669312.

Miller, M. M., & Reese, S. D. (1980, August 9-13). Media depen dency as interaction: Theeffects of exposure and reliance on political efficacy and activity. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism. Retrieved from ERIC.

Milner, H. (2002). Civic literacy: How informed citizens make democracy work . Hanover, NH:

University Press of New England.

Milner, H. (2004). Reading more newspapers and voting less? A rejoinder to Pattie and Johnston.Canadian Journal of Political Science, 37 (1), 185-194.

doi:10.1017/S0008423904040090.

Mindich, D. T. Z. (2005). Tuned out: Why Americans under 40 don’t follow the news. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Miron, D., & Bryant, J. (2007). Mass media and voter turnout. In R. W. Preiss, B. M. Gayle, N.Burrell, M. Allen, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Mass media effects research: Advances through



Mariano p. 26 of 29

meta-analysis (pp. 391-413). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mondak, J. J. (1995). Newspapers and political awareness. American Journal of Political Sci-

ence, 39(2), 513-527. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111623.

Mondak, J. J. (2001). Developing valid knowledge scales. American Journal of Political Sci-

ence, 45(1), 224-239. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2669369.

Morrell, M. E. (2005). Deliberation, democratic decision-making and internal political efficacy. Political Behavior, 27 (1), 49-69. doi:10.1007/s11109-005-3076-7.

Moy, P., Manosevitch, W., Stamm, K., & Dunsmore, K. (2005a). Linking dimensions of Internet

use and civic engagement. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(3), 571-586. Retrieved November 5, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID:

951872601).

Moy, P., Torres, M., Tanaka, K., & McCluskey, M. R. (2005b). Knowledge or trust? Investigating

linkages between media reliance and participation. Communication Research, 32(1), 59-

86. doi:10.1177/0093650204271399.

Moy, P., Xenos, M. A., & Hess, V. K. (2005): Communication and citizenship: Mapping the

political effects of infotainment. Mass Communication and Society, 8(2), 111-131.

doi:10.1207/s15327825mcs0802_3.

Newhagen, J. E. (1994). Media use and political efficacy: The suburbanization of race and class. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6)386. Retrieved September

24, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global,

Nichols, S. L., Friedland, L. A., Rojas, H., Cho, J., & Shah, D. V. (2006). Examining the effects

of public journalism on civil society from 1994 to 2002: Organizational factors, project

features, story frames, and citizen engagement. Journalism and Mass Communication

Quarterly, 83(1), 77-100. Retrieved January 19, 2010, from http://www.aejmc.org/_schol-

arship/research_use/ jmcq/06spring/nichols.pdf.

Niemi, R. G. (1976). Costs of voting and non-voting. Public Choice, 27 (1), 115-119. doi:10.100

7/BF01718955.

Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1407-1413. Retrieved

from JSTOR.

Nisbet, E. C. (2008). Media use, democratic citizenship, and communication gaps in a develop-

ing democracy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(4), 454-482. doi:

10.1093/ijpor/edn043.

Norris, P. (2000). A virtuous circle: Political communications in postindustrial societies.



Mariano p. 27 of 29

Cambridge: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

Norris, P. (2002). Democratic phoenix: Reinventing political activism. Cambridge: The Press

Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

Pattie, C. J., & Johnston, R. J. (2003). Civic literacy and falling electoral turnout: The UnitedKingdom 1992-1997. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579-599.

doi:10.1017/S0008 423903778779.

Pinkleton, B. E., & Austin, E. W. (2002). Exploring relationships among media use frequency,

perceived media importance and media satisfaction in political disaffection and efficacy.Mass Communication & Society, 5(2), 141-163. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0502_3.

Pinkleton, B. E., Austin, E. W., & Fortman, K. K. J. (1998). Relationships of media use and

political disaffection to political efficacy and voting behavior. Journal of Broadcasting &

Electronic Media, 42(1), 34-49. doi:10.1080/08838159809364433.

Polat, R. K. (2005). The Internet and political participation: Exploring the explanatory links. European Journal of Communication, 20(4), 435–459. doi:10.1177/0267323105058251.

Popkin, S. L., & Dimock, M. A. (1999). Political knowledge and citizen competence. In S. L.

Elkin & K. E. Soltan (Eds.), Citizen competence and democratic institutions. University

Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Prior, M. (2003). Any good news in soft news? The impact of soft news preference on political

knowledge. Political Communication, 20, 149–171. doi: 10.1080/10584600390211172.

Prior, M. (2005). News vs. entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political

knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 557-592.

doi:10.1111/j. 1540-5907.2005.00143.x.

Riker, W. H., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1968). A theory of the calculus of voting. The American Polit-ical Science Review, 62(1), 25-42. Retrieved October 14, 2009, from http://www.jstor.org/

stable/pdfplus/1953324.pdf.

Rosenberg, W. L., & Elliott, W. R. (1989). Media reliance, political campaign knowledge and

activity.

Rudolph, T. J., Gangle, A., & Stevens, D. (2003). The effects of efficacy and emotions oncampaign involvement. Journal of Politics, 62(4), 1189-1197.doi:10.1111/0022-

3816.00053.

Salzman, R., & Aloisi, R. (2009). News media consumption and political participation in Central

America: Causation and explanation. Journal of Spanish Language Media, 2, 46-75. Re-

trieved November 5, 2009, from the University of North Texas at http://spanishmedia.un-t.edu/ english/downloads/journal/vol-22009.pdf#page=46.



Mariano p. 28 of 29

Scheufele, D. A., Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Nisbet, E. C. (2004). Social structure and cit-

izenship: Examining the impacts of social setting, network heterogeneity, and informa-tional variables on political participation. Political Communication, 21(3), 315-338.

doi:10.1080/10584600490481389.

Shah, D. V. (1998). Civic engagement, interpersonal trust, and television use: An individual-level

assessment of social capital. Political Psychology, 19( 3), 469-496. doi:10.1111/0162-

895X. 00114.

Shen, F. and Eveland, W. P. (2010), Testing the Intramedia Interaction Hypothesis: The

Contingent Effects of News. Journal of Communication, 60(2), 364–387. doi:

10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01486.x.

Sotirovic, M., & McLeod, J. M. (2001). Values, communication behavior, and political participa-

tion. Political Communication, 18, 273-300. doi:10.1080/10584600152400347.

Sturgis, P., Allum, N., & Smith, P. (2007). An experiment on the measurement of political know-

ledge in surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(1), 90-102. doi:10.1093/poq/nfm032.

Teehankee, J. C. (2010). Image, issue, and machinery: Presidential campaigns in post-1986 Phil-ippines. In Y. Kasuya, & N. G. Quimpo (Eds.), The politics of change in the Philippines

(pp. 114-161). Pasig: Anvil.

Tewskbury, D., Hals, M. L., & Bibart, A. (2008). The efficacy of news browsing: Therelationship of news consumption style to social and political efficacy. Journalism &Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(2), 257-272. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Toka, G. (2008). Citizen information, election outcomes, and good governance. Electoral Stud-

ies, 27 (1), 31-44. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2007.11.006.

Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2003). Unraveling the effects of the Internet on political participation? Political Research Quarterly, 56 (2), 175-185.

doi:10.1177/106591290305600206.

Verba, S., Nie, N., Barbic, A., Irwin, G., Molleman, M., & Shabad, G. (1973). The modes of par-

ticipation: Continuities in research. Comparative Political Studies, 6 (2), 235-250.

doi:10.117 7/001041407300600205.

Walker, J. R. (1988). How media reliance affects political efficacy in the South. Journalism

Quarterly, 65(3), 746-750. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Wang, S. (2007). Political use of the Internet, political attitudes and political participation. Asian

Journal of Communication, 17 (4), 381-395. doi:10.1080/01292980701636993.

Wattenberg, M. P. (2008). Is voting for young people? With a postscript on citizen engagement.

New York: Pearson Longman.



Mariano p. 29 of 29

Wei, R., & Lo, V. (2008). News media use and knowledge about the 2006 U.S. midterm elec-

tions: Why exposure matters in voter learning. International Journal of Public Opinion

Research, 20(3), 347-362. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edn032.

Willnat, L., & Aw, A. J. (2004). Political communication in Asia: Challenges and opportunities.In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research (p. 490). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wolfinger, N. H., & Wolfinger, R. E. (2008). Family structure and voter turnout. Social Forces,

86 (4), 1513-1528. doi:10.1353/sof.0.0031.

Yamamoto, M. (2010). Examining differential gains from mass media. Keio Communication

Review, 32, 85-104. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from

http://www.mediacom.keio.ac.jp/english/publication.html

Zhang, W., & Chia, S. C. (2006). The effects of mass media use and social capital on civic and political participation. Communication Studies, 57 (3), 277-297. doi:10.1080/

10510970600666 974.

Zhang, W., Johnson, T. J., Seltzer, T., & Bichard, S. L. (2010). The revolution will be networked:The influence of social networking sites on political attitudes and behavior. Social Science Computer Review, 28(1), 75-92. doi: 10.1177/0894439309335162.

Zimmerman, M. A. (1989). The relationship between political efficacy and citizen participation:Construct validation studies. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53(3), 554-566. Re-

trieved from EBSCOhost.

communication efficacy and voting

Documents