Minor - Revision - Mediating Role of Knowledge and Efficacy

The mediating role of knowledge and efficacy
The mediating role of knowledge and efficacy in the effects of communication on

political participation
Abstract
This study explicates the indirect process through which news media use influences
political participation. Specifically, it investigates the role of political knowledge and
efficacy as mediators between communication and online/offline political participation
within the framework of an O-S-R-O-R (Orientation-Stimulus-Reasoning-Orientation-
Response) model of communication effects. Results from structural equation modeling
analysis support the idea that political knowledge and efficacy function as significant
mediators. In addition, results expound the increasing importance of the Internet in
facilitating political participation. Implications of findings, limitations of this study and
suggestions for future research are discussed.
Keywords: Communication effects, news media use, political knowledge, political

efficacy, political discussion, political participation, online political participation
political participation:
Introduction
Because citizen participation is considered a core element of a healthy
democracy (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1944; McLeod, Kosicki, & McLeod,
2002), what facilitates citizens’ political activities has long been a central interest for
scholars. In the field of communication, the theoretical development of political
participation has been centered on the influence of informational media use and
interpersonal discussion about politics. Although a sizable body of research has
demonstrated significant effects of those two types of political communication on
engagement in political activities, specific processes by which those effects take place
still remain relatively unexplored.
Recently, communication researchers turn to the indirect effects paradigm in
media effects studies, which suggests that media effects are strong but largely indirect
through their impact on many personal-psychological outcomes (Cho et al., 2009;
McLeod, Scheufele, & Moy, 1999; Shah et al., 2005; 2007). In this paradigm, Cho and
his colleagues (2009) proposed an O-S-R-O-R (Orientations-Stimulus-Reasoning-
Orientations-Response) model of communication effects in prediction of political
engagement. It posits that the effects of news media use (S) on political engagement
(second R) are mediated by reasoning behaviors (first R) and individuals’ psychological
variables (second O). Within this framework, research has attempted to identify what
specific variables work as reasoning and a set of second orientations. However, little
research explicates what mediates communication and political participation.
Identifying mediators is central to understanding how political communication
facilitates political participation. For this reason, Cho et al. (2009) called for future
2
research that explores “especially the second O” (p.81). Present research responds to
this request. Particularly, it concentrates on the role of political knowledge and efficacy
as second orientations that mediate communication and participation (McLeod et al.,
1999; Nisbet & Scheufele, 2004; Scheufele, Nisbet, & Brossard, 2003). By doing that,
this study will contribute and expand the understanding of the O-S-R-O-R model of
communication effects and how news exposure influences political participation.
In addition, the current study explores the role of the Internet in facilitating
political participation. The Internet not only allows for exchanging political opinions,
but also provides an avenue for political activities for significantly less time, money and
physical efforts than traditional ways of political participation (Best & Krueger, 2005).
As a result, it is likely that individuals’ intention to participate in politics, mediated
through news use and political discussion, may manifest more so in low-cost online
settings rather than high-cost offline settings. Noticing the potential of online activities,
this research includes online participation in parallel with offline participation as an
ultimate outcome of communication behaviors.
The theoretical development of O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects
In earlier research, media effects were examined in a basic “Stimulus-Response
(S-R)” framework. Then, the “Orientation-Stimulus-Orientation-Response (O-S-O-R)”
model substituted the overly direct and universal effect framework of S-R, as
researchers began to acknowledge the role of pre-existing orientations (first O) and
personal-psychological factors (second O) in conditioning media use (S) and ultimate
effects of media use (R). Within this framework, McLeod et al. (2001) and Sotirovic
and McLeod (2001) proposed a “communication mediation model,” which posits that
communication behaviors (i.e., media use and interpersonal communication) mostly
3
mediate the effects of structural-objective factors on cognitive and behavioral outcomes.
Later, Cho et al., (2009) developed an O-S-R-O-R model by introducing a new
additional mediating step, a “reasoning,” between stimulus (S) and second orientations
(second O). Derived from a “cognitive mediation model” (Eveland, 2001) idea, the
model suggests that the reasoning process, which refers to mental elaboration and
collective consideration of a topic, is a critical condition for news media use to produce
political outcomes (Eveland, 2004; Eveland & Thomson, 2006). It also theorizes that
interpersonal political discussion is a reasoning behavior because exchanging opinions
inherently entails mental elaboration (Cho et al., 2009; Shah et al., 2007).
The first orientations: Socio-demographic variables – income, education, age and
gender
Research following a sociological approach has focused on structural-objective
variables in explicating determinants of political participation. In this framework, socio-
economic status (SES) has been identified as the most important predictor of political
participation (Cohen, Vigoda, & Samorly, 2001; McLeod et al., 1996; Nowak et al.,
1982). Generally, those with high SES tend to be higher in the level of news media use,
political knowledge, efficacy, and political participation than those low on it.
Beside socio-economic status, gender and age have been found to be significant
factors in political variables. Gender differences in political involvement have been
shown to be persistent over time and across different countries (Delli Carpini & Keeter,
1996). Research has also shown a positive correlation between age and political
involvement (Han, 2008; Kaid, McKinney, & Tedesco, 2007; McLeod et al., 1996).
Because these demographic variables can affect all the political variables
treated in this model, they are residualized for all statistical tests of relationships. In this
4
way, the present article can focus on the process in which communication variables
produce their political outcomes without influence of demographic variables.
Indirect effects of news media use on political participation
Numerous empirical studies in mass communication and political science have
provided evidence that news media use is positively associated with individuals’
involvement in political activities (e.g., Kim & Han, 2005; Norris, 2000; Shah et al.,
2007; Wolfinger & Rosenstone, 1980). However, literature suggests that the influence of
news media use on political participation is rather indirect through its impact on
individuals’ psychological outcomes. For example, news media can facilitate political
participation by enhancing individuals’ levels of knowledge in politics (Chaffee &
Frank, 1996; Delli Carpini, & Keeter, 1996; Eveland, 2002; Junn, 1991; McLeod et al.,
1999) and perceived competence to understand and deal with politics (Hoffman &
Thomson, 2009), and these in turn exert substantial influence on political participation
(Cohen et al, 2001; Kenski & Stroud, 2006; Scheufele et al., 2003; Valentino,
Gregorowicz, & Groenendyk, 2009).
Research also suggests that mental elaboration is a critical mediator between
news exposure and cognitive, attitudinal and behavioral political outcomes (Cho et al.,
2009; Eveland, 2001; 2004; Shah et al., 2007). Research in social psychology has
documented that elaborative information processing on given information is a
prerequisite for strong and persistent psychological and behavioral outcomes (Petty,
Priester, & Briñol 2002; Todorov, Chaiken, & Henderson, 2002). Based on this idea,
Eveland (2001) proposed the “cognitive mediation model” (Eveland, 2001; 2004),
which holds that elaborative information processing mediates the effects of
communication on political outcomes. Supporting this logic, subsequent research found
5
that elaboration on news content exerted significant positive influence on political
knowledge, while simple amounts of exposure to television and newspaper news did not
(Eveland, 2004; Eveland and Hively, 2009).
Explicating reasoning: Political discussion and online political messaging
The relationship between media use and interpersonal communication was first
brought up by the idea of “two-step flow” of media effects (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955).
Contemporary communication scholars also argue that interpersonal discussion is a
critical component of a wide range of media effects (Kim, Wyatt, & Katz, 1999; Lee,
2009). Despite the similar phenomenon, there are two significant differences between
old and new media effects paradigms. First, the “two-step flow” model, which only
focused on direct effects of media, advocated a minimal media effects paradigm, while
contemporary research trends advocate a powerful effects paradigm, taking into account
indirect effects through interpersonal discussion as well.
Second, scholars now focus on the deliberative nature of interpersonal
discussion. Such deliberation entails elaborative and collective consideration, while the
two-step flow paradigm emphasized the role of opinion leaders. Researchers suggest
that when engaged in discussion, individuals often exert significant efforts to
comprehending topics of discussion, organizing their thoughts into articulate
expressions and weighing the pros and cons of diverse arguments provided by diverse
discussion partners (Benhabib, 1996). As a sign of an elaboration, individuals who are
engaged in interpersonal discussion become able to use complex concepts, make deep
logical connections among them, and create consistent and reasoned argumentations
(Cappella, Price, & Nir, 2002; Kim et al., 1999). Elaborative and collective thinking
produces strong political orientations that subsequently lead to increased political
6
knowledge (Eveland et al., 2005), efficacy (Min, 2007) and political participation
(Eveland, 2004; McLeod et al., 1999). For this reason, researchers in communication
define interpersonal discussion as a reasoning behavior that is a critical condition in
producing outcomes of news exposure (Cho et al., 2009; Shah et al., 2007).
Recently, researchers began exploring the role of online political messaging as a
new type of political discussion (Shah et al., 2005; 2007; Price & Cappella, 2002).
Online messages can be widely distributed and shared without temporal or geographical
limitations. Further, as interactive features of the Internet were substantiated and
expanded by the development of Web 2.0 technology, new online methods of opinion
sharing emerged. For example, in addition to well established online interactive
methods such as email, discussion boards, or instant messaging, newer online methods
of opinion sharing such as multimedia blogs and podcasts are becoming popular (Evans,
2008; Mayfield, 2004).
The various modes of online political messaging can also result in important
political outcomes. In their piece proposing a “citizen communication mediation
model,” Shah et al. (2005) found that online political messaging through emails and
online forums exerted substantial influence on political participation. Online political
communication mediated some of the effects of news exposure on political
participation. Subsequent empirical tests supported the positive relationship among
them (Cho et al., 2009; Shah et al., 2007). The theory suggested that online political
messaging shared the deliberative nature of interpersonal discussion and defined online
political messaging as a reasoning process. Supporting this view, Cho et al. (2009) also
argued that online political messaging, which was largely text-based, could produce an
even stronger degree of elaboration due to the compositional effects. Other researchers
7
also supported this idea by suggesting that the reasoning process could occur without
face-to-face exchanges of opinions if individuals could actively express, justify, and
defend their opinions (Delli Carpini, 2004; Gundersen, 1995; Lindeman, 2002).
Accordingly, the model of this study embedded online political messaging in the
reasoning process along with interpersonal discussion.
Explicating the second orientations: Political Knowledge and Efficacy
The second set of orientations in O-S-R-O-R communication effect model is
comprised of any cognitive and attitudinal outcomes of news media use that lead to
political participation (McLeod et al., 2002). Reviewing the literature suggests political
knowledge and efficacy are potential mediating variables (McLeod et al., 1999; Nisbet
& Scheufele, 2004; Scheufele et al., 2003).
Political knowledge
Political knowledge has been hypothesized and tested in many studies as a
consequence of media use and political conversation. Literature has taken for granted
that news media are important sources of political information for the general public
(Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996). Eveland et al. (2005) stated, “in practice, knowledge of
politics is dependent on communication, and in particular mass communication through
news media” (p.425). Considerable empirical findings provide substantial evidence of a
positive relationship between the level of political knowledge and news media use (e.g.,
Chaffee, Zhao, & Leshner, 1994; Eveland & Scheufele, 2000; Weaver & Drew, 1995).
Much research has been devoted to the relationship between political
knowledge and participation. Numerous works in political science demonstrated
positive associations between levels of political knowledge and political engagement.
(Jennings, 1996; Kaid et al., 2007; Klingemann, 1979; Neuman, 1986; Rosenstone &
8
Hansen, 1993; Sotirovic & McLeod, 2001; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995). Political
knowledge can also spur political participation through feelings of efficacy. Kaid et al.
(2007) noted that college students largely attributed their lack of political participation
to a lack of political knowledge. A perceived level of knowledge directly influences
political efficacy, which in turn enhances political participation. In this sense, Semetko
and Valkenburg (1998) argued that political efficacy should be understood in a context
of political learning. Accordingly, the present study hypothesizes that political
knowledge directly influences political participation, and it also indirectly influences
political participation via the mediation of political efficacy.
Political efficacy
Political efficacy is defined as “the feeling that individual political action does
have, or can have, an impact upon the political process” (Campbell, Gurin, & Miller,
1954, p.187). Among the various factors influencing political behaviors, political
efficacy has been considered one of the most important psychological constructs closely
related to political participation (Delli Carpni, 2004; Cohen et al., 2001; Gans, 1967;
Kenski & Stroud, 2006).
Political efficacy is comprised of two dimensions: internal and external
efficacy. Internal political efficacy concerns feelings of self-competence to understand
and to participate effectively in politics. External efficacy refers to the perception of the
responsiveness of political officials to citizens’ demands (Craig, Niemi, & Silver, 1990;
Hoffman & Thompson, 2009; Morrell, 2003). Findings from empirical studies suggest
that political efficacy is closely related to various types of political participation, such as
political campaigning and contacting political officials and voting (Pollock, 1983).
The present study focused only on internal political efficacy in prediction of
9
political participation for two reasons. First, we assume that internal efficacy, a feeling
of confidence and self-qualification, is more likely to be an outcome of communication
than external efficacy (Scheufele et al., 2003). Second, because political participation in
this study was mostly measured with items regarding campaigning and contacting
political officials, internal political efficacy was more relevant than external efficacy to
the research context (see Pollock, 1983).
The perceived self-ability to influence politics (i.e., internal political efficacy)
can be obtained by various means of communication. Many empirical studies assert that
news media use stimulates individuals’ perception that they are cognizant of political
affairs, which encourages efficacious feeling about politics (Delli Carpini, 2004;
Hoffman & Thompson, 2009; Kenski & Stroud, 2006; McLeod et al., 1999). In a
longitudinal study, Semetko and Valkenburg (1998) demonstrated a causal relationship
from news use to a subsequent political efficacy.
Political discussion is also positively associated with political efficacy.
Research on deliberative democratic theories suggests that citizens’ discussion about
politics facilitates rational political decisions while forming orientations and attitudes
that are supportive of political participation (Gutmann & Thompson, 1996; Morrell,
2005). In addition, as noted earlier, elaboration that takes place during interpersonal
communication leads to strong political outcomes, such as political efficacy. Empirical
support for the positive effects of political discussion and deliberation on increased
political efficacy is solid (Fishkin, 1999; Min, 2007).
Taken together, this study hypothesizes that political efficacy is a function of
news media use and political discussion, at least partially (both online and offline), and
it positively predicts political participation.
10
Online political participation
While researchers differentiate online and offline political discussion, few
studies consider online political activities an independent form of political participation.
However, online political participation should be examined separately from offline
participation because the Internet provides a unique avenue for citizens to engage in
political activities. On the Internet, people now can donate money, contact public
officials through emails and bulletin boards, and participate in online public hearings
held by government officials at municipal, state and federal levels; furthermore, these
online activities require less cost (i.e., time and physical inconvenience) than those in
offline settings. Online participation primarily requires only a small degree of technical
competency (Best & Krueger, 2005). As a result, people who otherwise may not
participate in politics due to cost barriers may engage in political activities over the
Internet (Mossberger, Tolbert, & McNeal, 2007). Research found that the Internet raised
the number of politically active people by encouraging those inactive or less active in
offline political activities (Gibson, Lusoli, & Ward, 2005). The reduced cost required for
political participation also means that citizens have more personal control over their
participatory actions. As a result, it is expected that an individuals’ participatory
orientation, particularly those arising from news exposure and political discussion,
better predicts political participation.
Modeling political participation
As noted above, the present piece focuses on (a) explicating mediators between
communication variables (news use and political discussion) and political participation,
and (b) differentiating online and offline political participation to better understand the
process of citizen political participation. Grounded in a recently proposed “Orientation-
11
Stimulus-Reasoning-Orientation-Response (O-S-R-O-R)” framework of communication
effects, the model in this study proposes structural relationships in which news exposure
serves as stimuli, interpersonal discussion and online political messaging as a reasoning
process, political knowledge and efficacy as a set of second orientations, political
participation as a response, and four demographic variables as the preexisting
orientations. In addition, those variables included in our model are examined in terms of
their relationships with both online and offline political participation (see figure 1).
Thus, this study poses the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1. News exposure will be positively associated with the level of
political knowledge and political efficacy.
Hypothesis 2. Interpersonal discussion will be positively associated with
Hypothesis 3. Online political messaging will be positively associated with
Hypothesis 4-1. Political knowledge will be positively associated with political
efficacy.
Hypothesis 4-2. Political knowledge will be positively associated with both
online and offline political participation.
Hypothesis 5. Political efficacy will be positively associated with both online
and offline political participation.
Hypothesis 6 taps into the role of political knowledge and efficacy as significant
mediators between communication and political participation. However, it is assumed
that there may be other personal-psychological orientations that connect communication
to participation. This possibility leaves a direct path from political discussion to
12
participation variables.
Hypothesis 6. Political knowledge and efficacy will significantly mediate the
relationship between communication and political participation.
Method
Procedure
To test the proposed model, an online survey was administered on
geographically diverse American adults shortly after the 2008 presidential election. The
data used in this investigation is based on an online panel provided by the Media
Research Lab at the University of Texas. Since the proposed model in the present study
incorporated online political messaging and participation as important endogenous
variables, a sample taken from the online population and the use of an online survey
were deemed appropriate. Study participants were randomly selected and received the
survey URL through an email invitation. This invitation provided respondents with a
time estimate to complete the survey, and also included an explanation of compensatory
money incentives (to learn more about the Media Research Lab panel data see
Daugherty et al, 2005; McMillan, Avery & Macias, 2008; Choi & Lee, 2007).
In order to assure a more accurate representation of the US population, the
Media Research Lab based this particular sample on two US census variables, gender
(50.2% for male, 49.8% for female) and age (30% for 18–34, 39% for 35–54, 31% for
55+). Based on the demographic characteristics, 10,000 participants listed in the panel
pool were randomly selected and the survey’s URL was provided to them. A first
invitation was sent December 15, 2008, and three reminders were submitted in the
following three weeks to improve response rates. A concluding reminder was sent
January 5, 2009. A sum of 1,432 addresses were invalid. Of the remaining 8,568
13
participants, 1,159 responded to all items and 205 had missing values for some of the
variables of interest in this analysis.
The Appendix 1 presents general characteristics of the respondents in
comparison to Pew and US Census data. Although our sample had more females and
was slightly better educated compared to US Census data, it seems that the general
characteristics of our sample are not significantly different from those of Pew and US
census. Most importantly, there was no evidence that our sample was skewed in regard
to political participation. Turnout levels were similar to those reported by the Pew 2008
post-election survey – the most comparable to our study because it was conducted at
roughly the same time.
Based on the American Association of Public Opinion Research’s (AAPOR)
RR3 calculation (AAPOR, 2008, pp. 34–35), the response rate for our study was 23.8%
(see Appendix 3). This response rate was within the acceptable range for panel web–
based survey (Göritz, Reinhold & Batinic, 2002; Sax, Gilmartin & Bryant, 2003) and
similar to those reported by the Pew Research Center and its Internet & American Life
Project (Pew) as well as by other organizations that employ random digit dialing (PIAL,
2009).
Measures
Socio-demographic variables. Age was measured with an open-ended question
asking “What was your age on your last birthday?” (M = 45.76, SD = 12.45). A survey
question that measured income asked “What was your family’s total household income
last year?” Answers ranged from 1 (under $20,000) to 15 (over $150,000) (M = 6.05,
SD = 4.03). Education was measured with a 7-point scale ranging from “less than high
school” to “doctoral degree” (M = 4.11, SD = 1.50). As for the gender variable, males
14
were assigned value “1” and females with “2” (Male = 33%, Female = 67%).
News media use. This variable was created by combining 9 items (α = .72, M =
3.51, SD = .99), including watching network, local, and cable TV news, listening to
radio news, reading traditional and online newspapers and magazines, and visiting a site
with news reports generated by regular people. Each item asked respondents “How
often do you watch network TV to get information about events, public issues and
politics?” with a 7-point scale ranging from “everyday” to “never.”
Offline Interpersonal discussion. This variable was created by adding scores of
11 items that tapped the frequency of individuals’ conversation with others: friends and
family; co-workers and acquaintances; strangers; people who agree with me; people
who disagree with me; people who are more knowledgeable about politics; people who
are less knowledgeable about politics; people outside my family who do not share my
ethnicity, socio-economic status, or gender; people who back up their arguments with
evidence; people who are unreasonable and illogical when stating their point of view;
people who propose alternatives or policies for problem solving (α = .92, M = 4.8, SD =
2.07).
Online political messaging. This variable was measured with three items such
as posting comments on political blogs, posting video about current events and public
affairs, and posting articles for my own blog about current events and public affairs (α =
.86, M = 5.23, SD = 5.09).
Political knowledge. This variable was created by adding the scores of four
open-ended questions regarding political facts. Those questions include “Who is the
British prime minister?” “Who is the Speaker of the US House of Representatives?”
“Who is the vice president of the United States?” and “Which state is Sarah Palin the
15
governor of?” For each correct answer, respondents received one point, with the number
of correct answers summed up to construct the variable of political knowledge (α = .46,
M = 3.05, SD = .98). To minimize the measurement error in these variables, we set up a
survey question that measured response time. We excluded outliers and normalized the
latency of the response with a baseline response (Mulligan et al, 2003).
As noted, the reliability among the four items of political knowledge
measurement is somewhat low. However, considering that each measurement item
varies in the degree of difficulty, this magnitude of reliability is quite understandable.
For example, while more than 95 percent of respondents answered correctly to the
question about Sarah Palin, less than half of them provided the correct name of British
prime minister. In fact, the Pearson’s correlation between the two items is fairly low (r =
.17, p<.001). For this reason, the political knowledge index was employed in the
analysis of this study in spite of the conventionally insufficient degree of reliability (see
Valentino et al., 2004).
Internal political efficacy. We measured political efficacy with a question: “I
think people like me can influence government” (M = 5.02, SD = 2.74). Political
efficacy was measured with only one item because there is still disagreement among
scholars on the valid measure of political efficacy. For example, researchers suggest that
some items used to measure internal efficacy, such as “sometimes politics is so
complicated that someone like me just cannot understand what’s going on” and “people
like me don’t have any say about what the government does” are problematic because
they measure both internal and external efficacy (see Morrell, 2003). In addition, there
are a fair number of published articles in which internal efficacy was measured with a
single item (Anderson & Tverdova, 2001; Bennett, 1997; Kenski & Stroud, 2006;
16
Michelson, 2000). For this reason, controversial items were dropped in favor of a single
relatively valid item, “people like me can influence government” which closely tapped
into Campbell’s (1954) original definition of political efficacy.
Offline political participation. This was made into a composite variable by
adding the scores of 10 items: whether respondents voted in the 2008 presidential
election; spoke with public officials in person; called or sent a letter to elected public
officials; participated in demonstrations or protests; attended a political meeting; rally or
speech; encouraged someone to vote; wore a campaign button or T-shirt; displayed a
campaign bumper sticker or yard sign; worked for a political party or candidate; was
involved in political action groups, party committees, or political clubs; participated in
any local actions (α = .81, M = 2.49, SD = 2.53).
Online political participation. It includes six items including sending e-mails to
politicians, visiting a campaign or political website, making contributions to a political
campaign online, subscribing to political listserv, and signing up to volunteer for the
activities of political parties (α = .88, M = 5.54, SD = 4.01). To create an index of each
construct, measures were standardized and averaged.
Results
Model specification and modification
A structural equation model was conducted using M-plus 5.0 to test proposed
relationships. Prior to testing the model, a residualized covariance matrix among the
main variables was created with a partial correlation matrix controlling for demographic
variables (i.e., age, gender, education and income). Using this procedure, all of the
relationships among variables can be free from the influence of the control variables. As
shown in the Appendix 4, control variables accounted for a significant amount of
17
variance (2.8%-12.8%). Using the partial correlation matrix, the validity of the proposed
model depicted in Figure 1 was tested. All the path coefficients are depicted in Figure 2.
Model fit and tests of hypotheses
Results show a very good fit for the proposed model (Chi-square = 5.652, p =
ns, df = 2, NFI = .997, RMSEA = .04, p = .522, CFI = .998, TLI = .976, SRMR = .01).
In general, non-significant chi-square indicates a good model fit. The RMSEA is also a
widely used criterion since it is a parsimony adjusted index (Kline, 1998). RMSEA’s
values of less than .05 represent good fits, values between .05 and .08 indicate a
reasonable error of approximation, and values greater than .10 represent poor fit (Brown
& Cudeck, 1993). As for the NFI, TLI and CFI, values higher than .90 represent
adequate fit of the model to the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Finally, SRMR index less
than .05 is considered as a good fit. The excellent model fit, combined with solid
theoretical basis in the model, support the idea that news media use leads to political
discussion and political knowledge and efficacy, which, in turn, stimulates political
participation.
As suggested in H1, the frequency of news exposure was positively associated
with political knowledge (β = .07, p<.05) and political efficacy (β = .11, p<.001) as well
as interpersonal political discussion (β = .40, p<.001) and online political messaging (β
= .30, p<.001). The results also show that as suggested in H2, interpersonal political
discussion about politics fosters political knowledge (β = .15, p<.001) and efficacy (β
= .21, p<.001) as well as political activities in both offline (β = .19, p<.001) and online
setting (β = .22, p<.001). Online political messaging was also positively related to
political efficacy (β = .11, p<.001), political participation offline (β = .27, p<.001) and
online (β = .50, p<.001) and offline (β = .27, p<.001) political participation. However,
18
online political messaging was not helpful in enhancing knowledge in politics, though
the experiences of online political messaging were highly predictive of both online and
offline political participation.
Results also supported Hypotheses 4 and 5, which predicted that political
knowledge and efficacy significantly foster both offline and online political
participation. Political knowledge was positively associated with political efficacy (β = .
12, p<.001), offline (β = .12, p<.001) and online political participation (β = .12, p<.001).
Political efficacy had positive correlations with offline (β = .14, p<.001) and online
participatory activities (β = .19, p<.001). To test Hypothesis 6, supposing the mediating
role of political knowledge and efficacy, the total indirect effect between
communication and political participation through the two orientation variables was
estimated (see Table 2). As predicted in Hypothesis 6, the indirect effects between news
exposure and both types of political participation through political knowledge (β = .03,
p<.001) and political efficacy (β = .073, p<.001) were positive and significant. The
indirect effects between reasoning behaviors and both types of political participation
through political knowledge (β = .042, p<.001) and political efficacy (β = .104, p<.001)
were also positive and significant. In sum, political knowledge (β = .072, p<.001) and
efficacy (β = .177, p<.001) produced significant mediating effects between
communication variables (i.e., news exposure, interpersonal discussion and online
political messaging) and online and offline political participation.
Model comparisons
Since the present study employed cross-sectional data, four alternative models
were tested and compared to the advocated model to demonstrate the appropriate nature
of the current model and to establish the validity of the causal directions among
19
variables specified in the model (see Table 1). The first alternative model hypothesized
that political knowledge and efficacy affected political participation via communication
variables. Results for the model yielded a poor fit to the data (Chi-square = 105.901, p <
.001, df = 4, RMSEA = .162, p < .001, CFI = .939, TLI = .695, SRMR = .06). Similarly,
the alternative model specifying that political participation functioned as antecedents to
communication variables fit poorly compared to the advocated model (Chi-square =
105.901, p < .001, df = 4, RMSEA = .162, p < .001, CFI = .916, TLI = .581, SRMR = .
06). The third alternative model tested the mediation effects of political participation on
knowledge and efficacy. This model also failed to reach an acceptable level of model fit,
specifically for Chi-square and RMSEA index (Chi-square = 9.095, p < .05, df = 2,
RMSEA = .06, p = ns, CFI = .996, TLI = .956, SRMR = .02). The final alternative
model was created by reversing the direction of all paths in the advocated model. The
goodness-of-fit index was the worst among those of all alternative models (Chi-square =
455.929, p < .001, df = 4, RMSEA = .341, p <.001, CFI = .628, TLI = .860, SRMR = .
13). Taken together, results from this series of analyses support the validity of relational
directions among variables in the model theorized in this study.
Discussion
In an attempt to explicate the mechanisms behind the effects of news exposure
and political discussion on political participation, this study tested the mediating role of
political knowledge and efficacy in the relationship within the O-S-R-O-R framework.
As hypothesized, this study found that news exposure positively influences
political participation through its impact on political discussion, online political
messaging, political knowledge and efficacy. Consistent with previous research,
interpersonal discussion and online political messaging (second R) largely mediated the
20
effects of news media on political outcomes. However, as discussed later, no significant
relationship was found between online political messaging and political knowledge.
Also, a series of indirect effect analyses, combined with four alternative model tests,
confirmed that political knowledge and efficacy are important personal-psychological
variables that mediate news media use and political engagement. The present research
contributes to advancing the model of communication effects on political participation
by identifying important individual outcome orientations that connect communication
behaviors and political engagement.
Additionally, findings revealed the important role of the Internet in facilitating
political activities on and offline. As shown in the results section, online political
messaging was closely related to political participation. It is expected that citizens’
online messaging may become even more active as web technology advances further,
enabling new ways of online interaction. The potential of the Internet as a facilitator of
political participation can also be found in the fact that individuals can engage in
political participation online for significantly less cost than offline participation (Gil de
Zúñiga et al, 2009). Unlike other studies concerning only conventional political
participation (e.g. McLeod et al., 1999; 2001; Shah et al., 2007), the present study takes
into consideration online political activities as a distinct form of political participation.
Since the Internet widens the opportunities for political participation by significantly
reducing time and effort to do so, it is suggested that the Internet increases not only the
number of politically active citizens but also the frequency of participatory activities. It
can be argued, then, that the communication activities and orientation variables may
account for a greater portion of variance in online political participation than offline
participation due to the reduced total variance in online participation explained by
21
external suppressing factors. In other words, the antecedents in the model may generally
have a stronger influence on online political participation than offline participation due
to the fewer constraints involved in those relationships. As expected, no path
coefficients regarding offline participation were larger than those with online
participation. Also, the model explained nearly half of the variance in online
participation as opposed to 20 percent for offline participation. These findings support
that the Internet expands opportunities for political participation.
Although the data generally support our proposed model, the results bring up
several points to be discussed. First, why did news exposure have such a minimal direct
influence on political knowledge? On one hand, this is somewhat surprising because
news media use has long been believed to be a source of political information. On the
other hand, the result is understandable when considering the logic of the cognitive
mediation model (Eveland, 2001). According to the model, simple exposure to news
media may add a weak contribution or may not contribute at all to political learning
unless individuals involve elaborative information processing on media contents
(Eveland, 2004). The current study, similar to the idea of cognitive mediation model,
suggests that the direct influence of news media use on the acquisition of political
knowledge is somewhat weak.
Second, similar to a previous study (2004 model of Cho et al., 2009), online
political messaging was not significantly associated with political knowledge, while
interpersonal discussion produced significant acquisition of political knowledge. Based
on previous literature (Cho et al., 2009; Gundersen, 1995; Lindeman, 2002; Shah et al.,
2007), it was assumed that online political messaging is a reasoning process, which
entails mental elaboration and collective consideration. Thus, a positive influence of
22
online messaging was expected on political knowledge. However, the result indicated a
stark contrast to the notion that elaboration produces substantial learning effects. This
may indicate that some online political messaging activities did not engender sufficient
elaboration on relevant topics. Unlike interpersonal discussion, most forms of online
communication possess are asynchronous (except for instant messaging) and
anonymous. That is, it is likely that political talks online are targeted at unknown others
without their presence. It may be that face-to-face conversational settings place
individuals under some pressure to perform quality conversation, and thus the
likelihood of elaboration on issues increases. In online settings, however, individuals
may face less pressure and motivation to engage in systematic processing of the
discussion topics and thus exert less effort into satisfying the expectations to provide
reasoned arguments. Social presence theory (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976)
suggests similar phenomenon. According to the theory, emphasizing the role of
nonverbal cues in effective communication, the asynchronous and anonymous nature of
online political messaging may not produce significant amount of deliberation.
On the other hand, online political messaging did produce significant and
positive influence on political efficacy and political participation. Although online
expression may not entail a sufficient degree of elaboration, free opinion expression in a
completely open cyber space may increase a feeling of confidence to deal with politics.
It is also possible that the participation habit acquired in the course of online political
expression directly led to other participatory activities, such as political participation.
Future research should clarify the properties of online messaging that explain the
relationships between online political messaging and political knowledge, efficacy and
participation.
23
Third, although this study identified political knowledge and efficacy as
important personal-psychological variables that connect communication to political
participation, they only partially mediated those relationships. It suggests that there may
be other mechanisms underlying the impact of communication behaviors on political
participation beside knowledge and efficacy. Issue opinionation (Kim & Han, 2005) and
attitude strength (Kiousis & McDevitt, 2008) may be other precursors of political
engagement. Future research should identify other variables that mediate between
communication and political behaviors.
There are some limitations that this paper could not overcome. Analyses are
based on cross-sectional data. Although we inferred causal directions among the
variables treated in our model by basing our model on theories and comparing with
some alternative models, this cannot guarantee causalities. Future investigations,
perhaps by employing panel data, could shed more light on the causal premise with a
non-recursive model. Also, this study deals with only one aspect of political knowledge:
general political knowledge. Research suggests that there are other types and aspects of
political knowledge, such as knowledge about candidates’ issue stance, politicians’
ideology, and structural dimension of knowledge (Eveland & Hively, 2009). Candidates’
issue stance knowledge may be more relevant than general political knowledge in an
election context. Structural political knowledge taps into a broad comprehension of
interconnectedness among political information (Eveland et al., 2004). Future studies
should take into consideration the role of other dimensions of political knowledge in the
communication effect model.
In conclusion, the present research made theoretical advances upon the effects
of communication on political participation by (a) explicating underlying mechanisms
24
with political knowledge and efficacy and by (b) exploring the role of the Internet in
facilitating political participation. Based on the findings of this study, future studies
should identify other constructs, which subsequently expand our understanding of how
communication influences political participation.
<Figure 1> Proposed Hypothetical Model: O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects

with political knowledge and efficacy
25
Interpersonal pol. Offline political

discussion participation
.217***
Political
knowledge
News media
use
Political
efficacy
Online political Online political

messaging participation
<Figure 2> O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects with political knowledge and efficacy
.22***
Interpersonal pol. .19*** Offline political

discussion participation
.40*** .12***
.15***
.31*** .217***
Political
.21*** knowledge .14***
.47***
.12***
News media .07*
use
.11** .08*
.12***
.11*** Political
efficacy
.30*** .19***
Online political Online political

messaging .50*** participation
.27***
26
<Table 1> Model comparison

χ2/df CFI/TLI SRMR RMSEA
Communication  Knowledge & Efficacy  Participation 5.652/2 .998/.976 .01 .04
Knowledge & Efficacy  Communication  Participation 105.901/4*** .939/.695 .06 .162***
Participation  Communication  Knowledge & Efficacy 105.901/4*** .916/.581 .06 .162***
Communication  Participation  Knowledge & Efficacy 9.095/2* .996/.956 .02 .06
Participation  Knowledge & Efficacy  Communication 455.929/4*** .628/.860 .13 .341***
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
<Table 2> Indirect effects

Indirect Effects β
News use  Inter. Discussion  Knowledge  On. Participation .007**

News use  Inter. Discussion  Efficacy  On. Participation .015***
News use  Inter. Discussion  Efficacy  Off. Participation .012***
News use  On. Messaging  Efficacy  On. Participation .006**
News use  On. Messaging  Efficacy  Off. Participation .005*
News use  Inter. Discussion  On. Participation .087***
News use  Inter. Discussion  Off. Participation .076***
News use  On. Messaging  On. Participation .150***
News use  On. Messaging  Off. Participation .076***
News use  Knowledge  On. Participation .008*
News use  Knowledge  Off. Participation .014*
News use  Efficacy  On. Participation .020**
News use  Efficacy  Off. Participation .015*
Inter. Discussion  Knowledge  On. Participation .016**
Inter. Discussion  Knowledge  Off. Participation .026**
Inter. Discussion  Efficacy  On. Participation .039***
Inter. Discussion  Efficacy  Off. Participation .030***
On. Messaging  Efficacy  On. Participation .020**
On. Messaging  Efficacy  Off. Participation .015**
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
<Appendix 1> Demographic Profile of Study Survey and Other Comparable Surveys
Study Pew Internet & US Census
Survey American Life American
Dec. 2008 – Project Post- Community
Jan. 2009 Election Survey (adults
Survey Nov. – only) 2005 -
Dec. 2008 2007
Gender
Female 67% 52.8% 50%
Male 33% 47.2% 50%
Age
27
18-24 3.5% 6.0% 13.1%

25-34 18.9% 9.9% 17.8%
35-44 21.6% 13.5% 19.4%
45-64 50.5% 40.5% 33.2%
65+ 5.5% 30.2% 16.6%
Race
Caucasian 84.4% 79.8% 65.8%
Hispanic 4.5% 6.1% 15.0%
African American 5.0% 9.2% 12.1%
Asian 3.0% 1.3% 4.0%
Education
High school or 15.4% 38.4% 46.7%
equivalent
Some college 28.1% 27.7% 22.3%
College degree 37.2% 19.8% 22.4%
Graduate degree 19.2% 14.1% 8.6%
Income
Less than $49.999 41.1% 51.2% 50.1%
$50,000 to $99,999 37.9% 31.8% 30.9%
$100,000 or more 21.0% 17.1% 19.0%
Voting Turnout 2008 80.3% 85.2%
n = 1,159
<Appendix 2> Descriptive statistics

Minimum Maximum M SD
Age 18 84 45.76 12.45
Gender (1 = male) 1 2 1.67 .47
Education 1 8 4.15 1.57
Income 1 15 6.05 4.03
News media use .89 6.22 3.51 .99
Interpersonal political discussion 1 10 4.8 2.07
Online political messaging 1 10 1.74 1.69
Political knowledge 0 4 3.05 .98
Political efficacy 1 10 5.02 2.74
Offline political participation 0 10 2.49 2.53
Online political participation 2 20 5.54 4.01
<Appendix 3> AAPOR RR3 formula
I
(I + P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH +UO)
I = Complete survey (1,159)
P = Partial complete (205)
R = Refusal and break-off (0)
NC = Non-contact (0)
O = Other (0)
UH = Unknown (7,204)
UO = Unknown, other (0)
e = Estimated proportion of cases of unknown eligibility that are eligible (0.488)
28
<Appendix 4> Endogenous variables regressed on control variables

Media Interpersonal Online Political Political Offline Online
use discussion messaging knowledge efficacy participation participation
Age .122*** -.056 -.145*** .093** .051 .148*** .022
Gender -.033 .057 -.041 -.041 .002 .038 .043
Education .031 .186*** .006 .219*** .170*** .266*** .218***
Income .048 -.029 -.074* .143*** -.055 .097** -.054
R² .03*** .038*** .027*** .122*** .028*** .128*** .044***
Note: Standardized regression coefficients are reported.
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
References
Anderson, C. J., & Tverdova, Y. V. (2001). Winners, losers, and attitudes about government in
contemporary democracies. International Political Science Review, 22, 321–338.
Benhabib, S. (1996). Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.),
Democracy and difference (pp. 67–94). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bennett, S. E. (1997). Knowledge of politics and sense of subjective political competence. American
Politics Quarterly, 25, 230–240.
Best, S. J., & Krueger, B. S. (2005). Analyzing the representativeness of Internet political
participation. Political Behavior, 27, 183–216.
Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J.
S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp.136–162). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Campbell, A, Gurin, G. & Miller, W. E. (1954). The Voter Decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Cappella, J. N., Price, V., & Nir, L. (2002). Argument repertoire as a reliable and valid measure of
opinion quality: Electronic dialogue during campaign 2000. Political Communication, 19,
73–93.
Chaffee, S. H., & Frank, S. (1996). How Americans get political information: Print versus broadcast
news, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 48–58.
Chaffee, S. H., Zhao, X., & Leshner, G. (1994). Political knowledge and the campaign media of
1992. Communication Research, 21, 305–324.
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.
Choi, S. M., & Lee, W.-N. (2007). The impact of direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical
advertising on patient-physician interactions: Adding the web to the mix. Journal of
Advertising, 36, 291–304.
Cohen, A., Vigoda, E., & Samorly. A. (2001). Analysis of the mediating effect of personal-
29
psychological variables on the relationship between socioeconomic status and political

participation: A structural equations framework. Political Psychology, 22, 727–757.
Craig, S. C., Niemi, R. G., & Silver, G. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES
pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12, 289–314.
Daugherty, T., Lee, W.-N., Gangadharbatla, H., Kim, K., & Outhavong, S. (2005). Organizational
virtual communities: Exploring motivations behind online panel participation. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 10
Delli Carpini, M. X. (2004). Mediating democratic engagement: The impact of communications on
citizens' involvement in political and civic life. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of Political
Communication Research (pp. 395–434). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Evans, C. (2008). The effectiveness of m-learning in the form of podcast revision lectures in higher
education. Computer & Education, 50, 491–498.
Eveland, W. P., Jr., (2001). The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: Evidence from
nonelection, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication Research,
28, 571–601.
Eveland, W. P., Jr., (2002). News information processing as mediator between motivations and
public affairs knowledge. Journalism& Mass Communication Quarterly, 79, 26–40.
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.
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.
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, 205–224.
Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge
and participation. Political Communication, 17, 215–237.
Eveland, W. P., jr., & Thomson, T. (2006). Is it talking, thinking, or both? A lagged dependent
variable model of discussion effects on political knowledge. Journal of Communication, 56,
523–542.
Fishkin, J. S. (1999). Toward a deliberative democracy: Experimenting with an ideal. In S. Elkin &
K. E. Soltan (Eds.), Citizen Competence and Democratic Institutions (pp. 279–290). State
College, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Gans, H. J. (1967). The Levittowners: Ways of life and politics in a new suburban community. New
30
York: Random House.

Gibson, R. K., Lusoli, W., & Ward, S. (2005). Online participation in the UK: Testing a
'contextualised' model of Internet effects. British Journal of Politics & International
Relations, 7, 561–583.
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Puig, E., & Rojas, H. (2009). Blogs, traditional media online and political
participation: An assessment of how the Internet is changing the political environment. New
Media & Society, 11, 553–573.
Göritz, A.S., Reinhold, N., & Batinic, B. (2002). Online panels. In B. Batinic, U. D. Reips, M.
Bosnjak, & A. Werner (Eds.), Online Social Sciences (pp. 27–47). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe.
Gundersen, A. A. (1995). The Environmental Promise of Democratic Deliberation. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Han, G. (2008). New media use, sociodemographics, and voter turnout in the 2000 presidential
election, Mass Communication & Society, 11, 62–81.
Hoffman, L. H., & Thompson, T. L. (2009). The effect of television viewing on adolescents’ civic
participation: Political efficacy as a mediating mechanism. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 53, 3–21.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Jennings, M. K. (1996). Political knowledge over time and across generations. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 60, 228–252.
Junn, J. (1991). Participation and political knowledge. In W. Cotty (Ed.), Political participation and
American democracy (pp. 193–212). New York: Greenwood Press.
Kaid, L. L., McKinney, M., & Tedesco, J. (2007). Introduction: political information efficacy and
young voters. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1093–1111.
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of
mass communication. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Kenski, K., & Stroud, N. J. (2006). Connections between internet use and political efficacy,
knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 173–192.
Kim, J., Wyatt, R. O., & Katz, E. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by
conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16, 361–385.
Kim, S. H., & Han, M. (2005). Media use and participatory democracy in South Korea. Mass
Communication & Society, 8, 133–153.
Kiousis, S., & McDevitt, M. (2008). Agenda setting in civic development: Effects of curricula and
issue importance on youth voter turnout. Communication Research, 35, 481–502.
31
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York and London:
Guilford Press.
Klingemann, H. D. (1979). The background of ideological conceptualization. In S. Barnes, & M.
Kaase (Eds.), Political action: Mass participation in five Western democracies (pp. 255–
277). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people's choice: How the voter makes up
his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lee, F. L. F. (2009). The impact of political discussion in a democratizing society: The moderating
role of disagreement and support for democracy. Communication Research, 36, 379–399.
Lindeman, M. (2002). Opinion quality and policy preferences in deliberative research. In M. X. Delli
Carpini, L. Huddy, & R. Shapiro (Eds.), Research in Micropolitics: Political
decisionmaking, deliberation and participation (pp.195–221). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
Mayfield, R. (2004). The political effects of blogging: Call for indications: Many 2 Many. Retrieved
from
http://many.corante.com/archives/2004/02/09/the_political_effects_of_blogging_call_for_in
dicators.php.
McLeod, J. M., Daily, K., Guo, Z., Eveland, W. P., Jr., Bayer, J., Yang, S., et al. (1996). Community
integration, local media use and democratic processes. Communication Research, 23, 179–
209.
McLeod, J. M., Kosicki, G. M., & McLeod, D. M. (2002). Resurveying the boundaries of political
communications effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in
theory and research (pp. 215–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., & Moy, P. (1999). Community, communication, and participation:
The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political
Communication, 16, 315–336.
McLeod, J. M., Zubric, J., Keum, H., Deshpande, S., Cho, J., Stein, S., et al. (2001, August).
Reflecting and connecting: Testing a communication mediation model of civic participation.
Paper presented to AEJMC annual convention, Washington, DC.
McMillan, S. J., Avery, E. J., & Macias, W. (2008). From have nots to watch dogs: Understanding
internet health communication behaviors of online senior citizens, Information
Communication and Society, 11, 652–674.
Michelson, M. E. (2000). Political efficacy and electoral participation of Chicago Latinos. Social
Science Quarterly, 81, 136–150.
Min, S.-J. (2007). Online vs. face-to-Face deliberation: Effects on civic engagement. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1369–1387.
Morrell, M. E. (2003). Survey and experimental evidence for a reliable and valid measure of internal
32
political efficacy, Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 589–602.

Morrell, M. E. (2005). Deliberation, democratic decision making and internal political efficacy.
Political behavior, 27, 49–69.
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2007). Digital citizenship: The Internet, society,
and participation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Mulligan, K., Grant, J. T., Mockabee, S. T., & Monson, J. Q. (2003). Response latency methodology
for survey research: measurement and modeling strategies. Political Analysis, 11, 289-301.
Neuman, W. R. (1986). The paradox of mass politics: Knowledge and opinion in the American
electorate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2004). Political talk as a catalyst for online citizenship.
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 877–896.
Norris, P. (2000). A virtuous circle: Political communications in postindustrial societies. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nowak, P. J., Rickson, R. E., Ramsey, C. E., & Goudy, W. J. (1982). Community conflict and models
of political participation. Rural Sociology, 47, 333–348.
Petty, R. E., Priester, J. R., & Briñol, P. (2002). Mass media attitude change: Implications of the
elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In J. Bryant, & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media
effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd edition) (pp.155-198). Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Pew Internet & American Life Project (2009). About our survey methodology in detail. Retrieved
July 10, 2009, from http://people-press.org/methodology/about/.
Pollock, P. H. (1983). The participatory consequences of internal and external political efficacy: a
research note. The Western Political Quarterly, 36, 400–409.
Price, V., & Cappella, J. N. (2002). Online deliberation and its influence: The electronic dialogue
project in campaign 2000. IT & Society, 1, 303–329.
Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America.
New York: Macmillan.
Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K., & Bryant, A. N. (2003). Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias
in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44, 409–432.
Scheufele, D. A., Nisbet, M., & Brossard, D. (2003). Pathways to political participation? Religion,
communication contexts, and mass media. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 15, 300–324.
Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M., (1998). The impact of attentiveness on political efficacy:
Evidence from a three-year German panel study, International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 10, 195–210.
Shah, D., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital
33
age: Modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32, 531–
565.
Shah, D., Cho, J., Nah, S., Gotlieb, M. R., Hwang, H., Lee, N.-J., et al. (2007). Campaign ads, online
messaging, and participation: Extending the communication mediation model. Journal of
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications.
London: John Wiley.
Sotirovic, M., & McLeod, J. M. (2001). Values, communication behavior, and political participation.
Political Communication, 18, 273–300.
Todorov, A., Chaiken, S., & Henderson, M. D. (2002). The heuristic-Systematic model of social
information processing. In J. P. Dillard, & M. Pfau (Eds.), The Persuasion Handbook:
Developments in theory and practice (pp.195–212), Sage Publications.
Valentino, N. A., Gregorowicz, K., & Groenendyk, E. W. (2009). Efficacy, emotions and the habit of
participation. Political Behavior, 31, 307–330.
Valentino, N. A., Hutchings, V. L., & Williams, D. (2004). The impact of political advertising on
knowledge, Internet information seeking, and candidate preference. Journal of
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American
politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weaver, D., & Drew, D. (1995). Voter learning in the 1992 presidential election: Did the
“nontraditional” media and debates matter? Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly, 72, 7–17.
Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
34

Minor - Revision - Mediating Role of Knowledge and Efficacy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Minor - Revision - Mediating Role of Knowledge and Efficacy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The mediating role of knowledge and efficacy

The mediating role of knowledge and efficacy in the effects of communication on

Keywords: Communication effects, news media use, political knowledge, political

Because citizen participation is considered a core element of a healthy

scholars. In the field of communication, the theoretical development of political

interpersonal discussion about politics. Although a sizable body of research has

demonstrated significant effects of those two types of political communication on

still remain relatively unexplored.

Recently, communication researchers turn to the indirect effects paradigm in

through their impact on many personal-psychological outcomes (Cho et al., 2009;

his colleagues (2009) proposed an O-S-R-O-R (Orientations-Stimulus-Reasoning-

Orientations-Response) model of communication effects in prediction of political

(second R) are mediated by reasoning behaviors (first R) and individuals’ psychological

research explicates what mediates communication and political participation.

Identifying mediators is central to understanding how political communication

as second orientations that mediate communication and participation (McLeod et al.,

communication effects and how news exposure influences political participation.

As a result, it is likely that individuals’ intention to participate in politics, mediated

this research includes online participation in parallel with offline participation as an

ultimate outcome of communication behaviors.

The theoretical development of O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects

In earlier research, media effects were examined in a basic “Stimulus-Response

(S-R)” framework. Then, the “Orientation-Stimulus-Orientation-Response (O-S-O-R)”

researchers began to acknowledge the role of pre-existing orientations (first O) and

personal-psychological factors (second O) in conditioning media use (S) and ultimate

communication behaviors (i.e., media use and interpersonal communication) mostly

mediate the effects of structural-objective factors on cognitive and behavioral outcomes.

Later, Cho et al., (2009) developed an O-S-R-O-R model by introducing a new

interpersonal political discussion is a reasoning behavior because exchanging opinions

The first orientations: Socio-demographic variables – income, education, age and

Research following a sociological approach has focused on structural-objective

variables in explicating determinants of political participation. In this framework, socio-

factors in political variables. Gender differences in political involvement have been

produce their political outcomes without influence of demographic variables.

Indirect effects of news media use on political participation

Numerous empirical studies in mass communication and political science have

participation by enhancing individuals’ levels of knowledge in politics (Chaffee &

Gregorowicz, & Groenendyk, 2009).

Research also suggests that mental elaboration is a critical mediator between

documented that elaborative information processing on given information is a

which holds that elaborative information processing mediates the effects of

communication on political outcomes. Supporting this logic, subsequent research found

that elaboration on news content exerted significant positive influence on political

(Eveland, 2004; Eveland and Hively, 2009).

Explicating reasoning: Political discussion and online political messaging

Contemporary communication scholars also argue that interpersonal discussion is a

indirect effects through interpersonal discussion as well.

Second, scholars now focus on the deliberative nature of interpersonal

that when engaged in discussion, individuals often exert significant efforts to

comprehending topics of discussion, organizing their thoughts into articulate

discussion partners (Benhabib, 1996). As a sign of an elaboration, individuals who are

produces strong political orientations that subsequently lead to increased political

define interpersonal discussion as a reasoning behavior that is a critical condition in

Recently, researchers began exploring the role of online political messaging as a

limitations. Further, as interactive features of the Internet were substantiated and

sharing emerged. For example, in addition to well established online interactive

2008; Mayfield, 2004).

political outcomes. In their piece proposing a “citizen communication mediation

online forums exerted substantial influence on political participation. Online political

communication mediated some of the effects of news exposure on political

participation. Subsequent empirical tests supported the positive relationship among

face-to-face exchanges of opinions if individuals could actively express, justify, and