katherine ognyanova

7/27/2019 Katherine Ognyanova

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/katherine-ognyanova 1/15

Katherine Ognyanova (Katya)USC Annenberg School of Communication

[email protected], www.kateto.net

Political Efficacy on the Internet:A Media System Dependency Approach

(NCA 2012, Top Papers in Political Communication Panel)

http://www.kateto.net/






Definition: The feeling that individual political action does

have, or can have, an impact upon the political process, that

is, that it is worthwhile to perform one's civic duties(Campbell, Gurin, and Miller, 1954)

Internal Efficacy: Feelings of personal competence to

understand and to participate effectively in politics.

External Efficacy: The perceptions of the responsiveness of

political bodies and actors to citizens' demands.

P o

l i t i c a l E f f i c a c

y

Political Efficacy



Political Efficacy and Internet Use

Efficacy and Internet use/exposure:• Theoretically predicted positive relationship

• Inconsistent results: some studies find sizeableeffects, others – small or no effects.

Media, participation, and political efficacy:• Associated with news media use• Associated with media credibility• An important predictor of political participation



Internet and Efficacy: Resolving the Ambiguity

Use Internet-specific measures of political efficacy rather than

generic ones (i.e. efficacy with regard to the medium)

MSD approach: look at Internet dependency rather than binary

use/no use or measures looking at exposure (time spent online)

H1a: Internet dependency will predict Internet political efficacy.

H1b: Dependency (vs. exposure) is a better predictor of efficacy.



Dependency, Exposure, and Political Efficacy

Political

Efficacy

Internet

Dependency

InternetExposure



Internet Utility

Perceived utility of the medium

Information Utility:

News Scope


News Credibility

Social Utility:

Political Ties

Political

Efficacy

Internet

Dependency



Perceived utility of the medium

H2a: News scope→ Internet Efficacy

H2b: News scope→ Internet Dependency→ Internet Efficacy

H3a: Perceived Credibility→ Internet Efficacy

H3b: Perceived Credibility→ Internet Dependency→ Internet Efficacy

H4a: Political Homophily→ Internet Efficacy

H4b: Political Homophily→ Internet Dependency→ Internet Efficacy

Information Utility: News Scope

Information Utility: Perceived Credibility

Social Utility: Political Homophily



Dataset used in the analysis

Digital Future Study: Americans on the Internet

• Conducted April to August of 2010• National RDD telephone sample (50 states + DC)

Digital Future Survey 2010: Protocol & Participants

•A total of 1926 respondents, age 12 and over• Internet users (86%) age 16 and over (n=1254)


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/katherine-ognyanova 9/15 I n

t e r n e t E f f i c a c y & D e p e n d e n c y

Social Importance

Information Importance

Entertainment Importance

.47

.64

.75

ω = .75

InternetDependency

Gives political power

Gives a say in government work

Helps understand politics

Makes public officials accessible

.84

.84

.61

.72

α = .84

Internet

Efficacy


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/katherine-ognyanova 10/15 M

e a s u r i n g I n t e

r n e t I n f o r m a

t i o n U t i l i t y

Trustworthy, reliable sources

Intent for news is transparent

Watchdog for govt, business

High quality of news content

Fair and balanced coverage

.70

.75

.69

.75

.71

α = .86

Provides local news

Provides national news

Provides international news

Puts the news in context

News content is comprehensive

.81

.78

.74

.57

.79

α = .85

Information Utility:Online News Scope

Information Utility:Perceived Credibility



Political Ideology

Education

Age

Social Utility:

Political Similarity



Perceived Credibility

Political Efficacy

Online

Internet Dependency

Internet Exposure

(time online)

H3b

H2a

H1c

H2b

H3aH1a

H1b

H4b

H4a



Political Ideology

Education

Age

Social Utility:

Political Similarity



Perceived Credibility

Political Efficacy

Online

Internet Dependency

Internet Exposure

(time online)

.20

.20

.15

.14

.31

.01

.03

.10

.08

.12

-.25

.05

.06

.28

.17

-.15

.02

Model Fit: χ 2 = 13.5 ( p=.26 ) DF=11 RMSEA=0.01 GFI=1

.15

.14

.17

.01

.20

.31

.20

.28

.02



Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects

Direct effect

on Dependency

Direct Effect

on Efficacy

Indirect Effect

on Efficacy

Total Effect

on Efficacy

Social Utility .20 ** .15 ** .03 ** .18 **

Online News Scope .31 ** .14 ** .05 ** .19 **

Perceived Credibility .01 .20 ** .00 .21 **

Political Ideology .12 ** .08 ** .02 ** .10 **

Education .03 .10 * .01 .11 **

Age -.25 ** .06 -.04 ** .02

Internet Dependency --- .17 ** --- .17 **

* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01



Future Research

• Impact of Internet-specific political efficacyon online political engagement.1

• More specific utility & dependency measures.

• Measures based on production, not just consumption. 2

• More specific efficacy measures:split internal and external efficacy items.3

• Longitudinal Analysis: Dependency over time.

• Environmental factors: uncertainty/ambiguity.4• Add selective exposure to media content to the model

(registered preference for political info seekers).5



Contact Information:

Katherine OgnyanovaE-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.kateto.net

Thank you!




mailto:[email protected]








mailto:[email protected]


katherine ognyanova

Documents