Marked

Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Structural Antecedents to Knowledge and

Participation: Extending the Knowledge Gap
Concept to Participation
Jaeho Cho1 & Douglas M. McLeod2
1 Department of Communication, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
2 School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
This paper investigates relationships between community characteristics and levels of

knowledge and participation examined at both the individual and the community levels. This research extends the knowledge gap concept to a parallel phenomenon, the
participation gap. Results from the Social Capital Benchmark Survey 2000 showed that
community density, education, and cohesion were significant positive predictors of
knowledge but less consistent predictors of participation at the individual level. At the
community level, relationships were even stronger, though cohesion was associated with
higher mean levels of participation and reduced participation gaps, whereas population
density was associated with lower levels of participation and increased gaps.
doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00340.x
Political knowledge and citizen participation are central features of a highly functioning representative democracy. Knowledge helps citizens make choices and
develop preferences that reflect their needs and interests (Althaus, 2001; Delli
Carpini & Keeter, 1989). It has been argued that low levels of citizen participation
in political processes are indicative of a weak democracy (Verba & Nie, 1972).
In essence, political knowledge and active political engagement are prime mechanisms
through which democratic systems bring about the social good.
Numerous studies have investigated the antecedents and consequences of political knowledge and participation. However, most of this research focuses on the
individual level, ignoring the impact of community structure (see Bennett, 1980).
That is, past research has found that citizen knowledge and participation have been
accounted for by a variety of individual characteristics such as education, motivation, efficacy, news media use, and interpersonal discussion, though less is known
about the influence of structural characteristics.
Although past research largely ignores community context, communities differ
markedly in a variety of ways that influence news coverage of community issues
Corresponding author: Jaeho Cho; e-mail: cho.jaeho@ucdavis.edu.
Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 205228 2007 International Communication Association
205
Antecedents to Knowledge and Participation
J. Cho & D. M. McLeod
(Tichenor, Donohue, & Olien, 1973), news media use (Olien, Donohue, & Tichenor,
1978), individual political preferences (Huckfeldt & Sprague, 1995), and citizen
participation (Oliver, 2001). In essence, community structure shapes information
flows (Tichenor et al., 1973) and facilitates (or discourages) social interaction
(McPhee, Smith, & Ferguson, 1963), thereby regulating citizen knowledge and participation. Building on individual and structural perspectives, we conceptualize
political knowledge and participation as complex products of individual and community characteristics.
Knowledge gap theory provides a framework for examining knowledge antecedents (Tichenor, Donohue, & Olien, 1970). Motivated by a concern for the distribution of social power, knowledge gap researchers have focused on socioeconomic
status and community structure as key antecedents to knowledge. Participation also
has a strong connection to social power in that it reflects attempts by individuals to
influence the world around them. Moreover, knowledge and participation are closely
related, as those who possess context-relevant knowledge are more likely to participate (Conway, Wyckoff, Feldbaum, & Ahern, 1981; Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1989;
McLeod et al., 1996; Ragsdale & Rusk, 1995). Despite the relationship between
knowledge and participation, past research has not examined participation using
the knowledge gap framework. Though Garramone and Atkin (1986) point out that
the gap concept could also be applied to participation, they examined levels (rather
than gaps) of knowledge and participation. Subsequent research, with some exceptions (e.g., Eveland & Scheufele, 2000; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995), has failed
to conceptualize participation as a gap issue.
Tichenor et al. (1970) proposed the knowledge gap as a process model in which
differential growth in knowledge according to socioeconomic status could be observed
across time. However, this study, like most knowledge gap research, uses a crosssectional survey to examine disparities in both knowledge and participation. Moreover,
this study assesses structural antecedents to knowledge and participation (including
gaps). First, we test hypotheses related to individual-level knowledge and participation,
using trust, community ties, media use, and structural variables (community density,
mean education level, and cohesion) as predictors. Then, we aggregate individuals to
represent their respective communities for testing hypotheses about levels of community knowledge and participation, using community density, education level, and
cohesion as predictors. In addition, we take the standard deviations within communities as measures of knowledge and participation dispersion (i.e., gaps).
This study makes several important contributions to the literature. First, the
individual-level analyses include both individual and structural antecedents to both
knowledge and participation. Second, subsequent analyses go beyond the individual
level to examine results aggregated to the community level of analysis. Moreover, this
study extends the research of Tichenor et al. (1980) by using national data rather
than data from a single state. Finally, we extend the knowledge gap framework to
participation to explore differences between and within communities in terms of
knowledge and participation levels.
206
Knowledge and participation at the individual level of analysis

Conceptualizing political knowledge
Delli Carpini and Keeter (1989) define political knowledge as the range of factual
information about politics that is stored in long-term memory (p. 10). By emphasizing factual information, they distinguished knowledge from beliefs, attitudes, and
opinions. Following their lead, we define political knowledge as factual information
about the rules of the game, the substance of politics, and people and parties (p. 65).
Luskin (1990) groups knowledge antecedents into three categories: opportunity,
ability, and motivation. In order to be politically informed, he argues, we need to be
exposed to political information, be equipped with the ability to make sense of it, and
be motivated enough to seek and process information. We employ Luskins framework to understand various individual and structural knowledge antecedents. For
instance, we base our argument about educations effect on knowledge on its potential to increase cognitive skills and motivation.
Knowledge and individual-level antecedents
Demographics
Research has consistently revealed that education is a strong correlate of knowledge.
Tichenor et al. (1970) suggested that education leads to more sophisticated communication skills and abilities that help individuals process information more thoroughly and effectively. Well-educated individuals are also more likely to have greater
opportunity for communication, both mass and interpersonal. Finally, formal education can motivate the use of print media and televised public affairs programs.
Tichenor et al. (1970) suggest that education shapes knowledge by altering factors
such as communication skills, cognitive ability, motivation, and communication
opportunities (see also McLeod & Perse, 1994).
Age may influence knowledge through experience and, at least indirectly,
through motivation. As research on political socialization suggests, interest in politics increases with age (Glenn & Grimes, 1968). In addition, older adults may have
acquired more information about politics and have developed a more sophisticated
framework for processing new information. Thus, older people should be more
knowledgeable about political issues.
In the past, the systematic discrimination against women and minorities created
barriers to knowledge acquisition. Although Luskin (1990) suggests that these barriers may no longer be as steep as they were, empirical findings from recent research
have documented that gender and race gaps in knowledge still exist (Ebrahim,
Anderson, Weidle, & Purcell, 2003; Mondak & Anderson, 2004).
Community connectedness
Previous studies suggest that community ties are strongly related to interest in the
local community, which, in turn, encourages active participation in neighborhood
associations and local news media use (e.g., McLeod et al., 1996). Community ties
207
increase individual knowledge by motivating citizens to seek local information

through both interpersonal and mass communication channels. In addition, Putnam
(2000) suggests that trust in generalized others, thin trust in his term, is strongly
associated with active engagement in social and civic life. Trust is also conducive to
frequent interpersonal discussion, which, in turn, results in more opportunities to
learn about public affairs. Thus, trust may enhance knowledge indirectly by encouraging interpersonal interaction.
Media variables
As mass media are a primary source of political information, news media use tends to
increase knowledge. However, the relationship between news media use and knowledge is complicated by other mediating and moderating factors. For instance, education moderates news media effects on knowledge such that highly educated people
gain knowledge at a faster rate than the lower educated (Tichenor et al., 1970). As
Evelands (2001) cognitive mediation model suggests, media effects on knowledge
are mediated by such cognitive variables as attention and elaboration. Thus, many
empirical studies in political communication have tried to estimate unique influence
of news media use by controlling for the effects of other factors on knowledge (e.g.,
Chaffee, Zhao, & Leshner, 1994). Findings suggest that news media use increases
political knowledge, all other factors being equal.
Knowledge and community-level antecedents
Research by Tichenor, Donohue, and Olien (1973, 1980) has articulated a structural
model that provides a theoretical rationale behind relationships between community characteristics, knowledge, and participation. They identify structural pluralism as an important community characteristic. High-pluralism (heterogeneous)
communities are characterized by high population density, education levels, and
per capita incomes. They also have highly differentiated economic infrastructures
and exhibit more conflicts among diverse groups contending for power. Conflict
tends to increase knowledge and participation levels. Moreover, individuals in these
communities tend to have greater access to a wider variety of news and information,
further elevating knowledge and participation levels. By contrast, homogeneous
communities have low population density, education levels, and per capita incomes,
with less differentiated economies. These consensus-oriented communities tend to
be less accepting of social conflict. When combined with lower levels of information
flows, these factors tend to lead to lower levels of knowledge and participation.
Following the structural model of Tichenor et al. (1973, 1980), we treated structural pluralism as a latent variable with three distinct indicators, namely density,
education level, and cohesion (an inverse indicator of pluralism) in our individualand community-level analyses. Because each of these factors may have a unique relationship to knowledge and participation, we kept them separate in our data analyses.
Population density is one indicator of community pluralism. Large, densely populated communities have more diverse, heterogeneous structures. As such, these
208
communities accommodate greater social, economic, and racial diversity and generate more conflicts. This heterogeneity also prompts media to cover more community issues and to report different perspectives and ideas. Thus, high-density
communities are expected to provide an information-rich environment that, in turn,
encourages citizens to be more attentive to community issues.
The notion of the strength of weak ties (Granovetter, 1973) also explains
contextual effects on knowledge. The value of weak ties, Granovetter points out, is
in their role as a bridge between densely knit clumps of social structure characterized
by strong ties. Thus, individuals with few weak ties, he argues, will be deprived of
information from distant parts of the social system and will be confined to the
provincial news and views of their close friends (Granovetter, 1983, p. 202). From
a macrosocial perspective, new ideas and information will spread slowly in a community lacking in weak ties. Assuming that weak ties in a community increase with
population density, it can be expected that citizens in a population-dense community are more likely to be politically knowledgeable.
Level of education is also a community-level knowledge antecedent. Higher education levels produce a more knowledgeable populace and create greater utility for
being informed. Moreover, the information flows are richer and more saturated with
discussion, further increasing knowledge levels.
In addition, community cohesion is a positive predictor of individual knowledge.
The citizens of cohesive communities experience greater feelings of interconnectedness and community spirit. The closer bonds in cohesive communities encourage
social interaction and accelerate the flow of information and knowledge transfer
(Huckfeldt, Beck, Dalton, & Levine, 1995; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). As a result,
it is expected that community cohesion will be associated with higher levels of
citizen knowledge.
Conceptualizing participation
Political participation can be defined as activity that has the intent or effect of
influencing government actioneither directly by affecting the making or implementation of public policy or indirectly by influencing the selection of people who
make those policies (Verba et al., 1995, p. 38). Thus, political participation is viewed
as a mechanism by which citizens can make known to government and politicians
their interests and needs and, further, can generate pressure on various elements of
the social system to respond.
By this definition, social gatherings are not necessarily political because they
are not intended to exert a direct influence on the governing process. Indeed, as
Verba et al. (1995) suggest, motives for nonpolitical engagement, such as solving
community problems, social interactions with others, or taking advantage of recreational opportunities, are different from political participation. However, citizens
social and civic life has a close linkage with their political participation because
nonpolitical participation can provide opportunities for the acquisition of politically relevant resources and the enhancement of a sense of psychological engagement
209
with politics (Verba et al., 1995, p. 4). Given the possible intersection between
political and nonpolitical engagement, our operationalization of participation
includes multiple types of social and political engagement, ranging from casting
votes to engaging in social gatherings.
Participation and individual-level antecedents
Demographics
Initial attempts to explain political participation focused on factors such as education, income, occupation, age, and gender, which predicted voting and other political activities (Bennett & Bennett, 1986; Milbrath & Goel, 1982). According to this
research, high-status individuals are more likely to participate in politics. The
resource model of Verba et al. (1995) specifies three types of resources that account
for political participation: time to take part in political activity, money to make
contributions, and civic skills (i.e., the communications and organizational skills that
facilitate effective participation) (p. 271). This model is successful in accounting for
the association between socioeconomic status and political activities by demonstrating that resources are distributed differently among different socioeconomic groups
and are related to different political activities.
Community connectedness
Literature in political science has demonstrated that social trust is strongly associated
with many forms of civic and political participation (Brehm & Rahn, 1997; Putnam,
2000). That is, people who trust others volunteer more often, contribute more to
charity, participate more often in politics and community organizations, are more
tolerant of minority views, and display many other forms of civic virtue (Putnam,
2000, pp. 136137). Similarly, community receptivity, feeling comfortable in ones
surroundings, can be a positive predictor of participation because a positive community atmosphere can reduce psychological barriers to participation in social and
civic life. Community ties are also associated with participation. Individuals with
more community ties are likely to feel greater investment in their local community
and more motivated to participate. Community ties may also provide opportunities
to participate and more contacts for civic and political engagement and recruiting.
Media variables
News media use has been linked to participation. Literature in political communication has suggested that news media facilitate participation by increasing political
knowledge and awareness of civic opportunities and objectives (Norris, 1996) and by
providing the basis for political discussion and deliberation that can lead to civic
and political action (Shah, Cho, Eveland, & Kwak, 2005). News media also play
a symbolic role, helping to organize individuals thoughts about their community
(Tocqueville, 1835/1969). Similarly, McLeod et al. (2001) found that news media
use produces procivic consequences; newspaper readers, especially those who pay
close attention to local news content, were more politically sophisticated and
210
participatory than nonreaders. Through news consumption people develop more

complex conceptions of community issues and acquire psychological resources that
promote civic engagement.
Knowledge
Delli Carpini and Keeter (1989) found that knowledge was a principal correlate of
several forms of electoral political activities: More than 70% of the most knowledgeable decile of citizens reported campaign participation, whereas only 16%
of the least knowledgeable decile did so. Knowledge of public affairs was also
associated with nonpolitical participation. McLeod et al. (1996) demonstrated
that local public affairs knowledge was a strong predictor of civic participation at
the local level. Knowledge promotes a number of civic attitudes, such as efficacy,
tolerance, and political interest, which, in turn, lead to engagement in civic and
political life. In addition, factual knowledge makes citizens aware of where and
how to participate in civic and political events (Lemert, Mitzman, Seither, Cook, &
Hacket, 1977).
Participation and community-level antecedents

Empirical research on the effects of population density on civic and political life is still
inconclusive and even contradictory. On the one hand, larger cities are more likely to
have compelling issues and political competition for public resources (Dahl & Tufte,
1973), both of which stimulate citizens motivation to engage in civic and political
activities. This also occurs indirectly by attracting greater media attention, which, in
turn, leads citizens to participate (Milbrath & Goel, 1982). On the other hand, mass
society theory suggests that participation is lower in larger communities because high
density and heterogeneity in larger communities dissolve citizens psychological ties
to the community, which breaks down participation (Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974;
Tonnies, 1898/1988). Thus, in a large community, citizens lacking in psychological
ties are more likely to be bystanders or spectators. In addition, strong ties among
neighbors in smaller communities lower psychological barriers to collective action in
public settings (Lofland, 1973) and encourage political mobilization (Huckfeldt &
Sprague, 1995).
Participation in civic and political life may be facilitated in communities with
higher mean levels of education. Because higher education levels reflect a more knowledgeable, politically interested, and civically resourceful populace, community
norms would encourage participation and cooperative efforts to solve community
problems (Huckfeldt, 1984; Verba et al., 1995). Thus, community education level can
increase participation.
Community cohesion is also likely to be a positive predictor of participation.
Cohesive communities provide a procivic social milieu with a plentitude of close
ties that encourage various forms of civic and political activities. That is, cohesive communities tend to have a low threshold of participation and a strong sense
211
of community, which facilitate citizen participation. The association between

community cohesion and citizen participation (Irwin, Tolbert, & Lyson, 1997;
Ravanera, Rajulton, & Turcotte, 2003) leads us to predict that individuals in cohesive communities are more likely to participate in social and political events.
Based on past research discussed above, this study tests several hypotheses
regarding the relationship between community structure variables and individual
knowledge and participation. These hypotheses are as follows:
Individual-level analysis of knowledge
H1a: Community density will be positively related to individual political knowledge.
H1b: Community education will be positively related to individual political knowledge.
H1c: Community cohesion will be positively related to individual political knowledge.
Individual-level analysis of participation

H2a: Community density will be negatively related to individual political participation.
H2b: Community education level will be positively related to individual political
participation.
H2c: Community cohesion will be positively related to individual political
participation.
Knowledge and participation at the community level of analysis
Not only did Tichenor et al. propose a model that predicts the knowledge and participation levels of individuals based on their residence in high- and low-pluralism
communities but they have also proposed a theory that predicts gaps in knowledge
between individuals, which can be extended to predict gaps in participation as well. The
knowledge gap hypothesis (Tichenor et al., 1970) predicts that high-socioeconomic
status (SES) individuals will possess higher levels of political and scientific knowledge
than low-SES individuals. Moreover, as information is brought into the system, the
advantage of high-SES individuals will increase, widening of the knowledge gap. Several
mechanisms account for gaps, including differences in cognitive abilities, access to
information, social contacts, and perceived information utility (McLeod & Perse, 1994).
The knowledge gap phenomenon and its attendant factors can easily be extended
to participation. High-SES individuals tend to have access to more information about
opportunities for participation and more social connections to facilitate participation.
In addition, the fact that high-SES individuals have higher levels of knowledge may
encourage greater participation. The correlations between SES and knowledge and
participation are likely to lead to knowledge and participation gaps that parallel the
dispersion of SES. When these gaps are examined at the community level of analysis,
one might expect that high-pluralism communities, with greater differentiation of
education levels, would exhibit greater gaps in knowledge. In turn, these greater
knowledge gaps would partner with the greater differentiation of education levels to
produce wider participation gaps than those exhibited in low-pluralism communities.
212
There is one additional characteristic identified by the structural model of

Tichenor, Donohue, and Olien that may be especially important for participation
the communitys level of cohesion. As previously indicated, low-pluralism communities tend to be more cohesive than larger metropolitan communities. Cohesive communities tend to produce stronger ties between individuals and their communities.
These strong ties, in turn, produce higher levels of participation, shrinking participation gaps. Thus low-pluralism communities, with lower levels of population density,
may exhibit higher levels of participation but smaller participation gaps.
This paper also addresses influences on knowledge and participation at the
community level of analysis. In this vein, we examine how community characteristics
such as community density, education level, and cohesion affect levels of knowledge
and participation on a community-by-community basis. Not only does this illuminate issues of why some communities exhibit higher levels of citizen knowledge and
participation than others but it also permits the analysis of the phenomena of
knowledge and participation gaps.
Knowledge gaps are more than just the product of factors affecting individual
differences in knowledge. A knowledge gap may also be seen as the dispersion of
knowledge across an entire community. In this sense, a knowledge gap should be
seen as a characteristic of a community. As such, an appropriate measure of the
knowledge gap within a community requires a measure that takes into account the
dispersion of all individuals on a given knowledge measure. We introduce the standard deviation as a measure of dispersion. Toward this end, we use the standard
deviation of the individual knowledge measures within each community to represent
the size of the knowledge gap for each community. Similarly, we measure a communitys participation gap by using standard deviation of individual participation
within each community.
Our use of standard deviation is consistent with knowledge gap theory when
differential rates of knowledge are viewed from the structural perspective rather than
from the individual level of analysis. Viewed from the structural perspective, the
knowledge gap should be seen as a dispersion rather than as a gap. The term gap
suggests a bimodal distribution of haves and have-nots separated by a divide (gap)
when it comes to knowledge. Because the distribution of knowledge is better characterized as a continuum, rather than as a divide, the theory might be more accurately stated as predicting an increasing dispersion of knowledge over time associated
with SES and community structure. As such, we feel that standard deviation, as
a measure of the width of knowledge and participation dispersions, is an appropriate
way to measure gaps.
At the community level of analysis, we test three antecedents to community
knowledge and participation levels, as well as to gaps in knowledge and participation:
community density, community education levels, and community cohesion. The
argument behind the influence of each of these factors on levels of community
knowledge and participation is very similar to the arguments articulated above at
the individual level of analysis.
213
Greater community density is associated with higher levels of community heterogeneity and pluralism. Density results in more groups contending for power and
resources, which brings about more opportunities for interaction and participation
recruiting. This leads us to predict that community density will be a positive factor for
community knowledge and participation. However, just as community pluralism
stemming from high density is associated with greater income disparities, it is also
likely to be characterized by greater dispersion of knowledge and participation. Community density accelerates the rate of information flow in a social system (raising the
overall knowledge level in a community); however, information flows within a system
are asymmetrical. Some individuals are exposed to more information than others.
Greater information flow in a dense community will exacerbate the asymmetrical
distribution of information leading to greater knowledge gaps. Similarly, as Verba et al.
(1995) point out, the social opportunities for political mobilization and recruitment,
stimulated by community heterogeneity, are not evenly distributed in a community.
In a denser community, the dispersion of structural opportunities for participation is
likely to be greater. Thus, it is likely that community density leads to knowledge and
participation gaps while raising the average knowledge and participation levels.
Given that education and cohesion are expected to be positive predictors of knowledge and participation at the individual level, it is reasonable to predict that the
community level of education and cohesion will increase the level of knowledge and
participation in a given community and reduce gaps in knowledge and participation.
Based on the past research discussed above, this study tests several hypotheses
regarding structural predictors of community knowledge and participation levels as
well as of intracommunity gaps in knowledge and participation. These hypotheses
are as follows:
Community-level analysis of political knowledge
H3a: Community density will be positively related to community political knowledge.
H3b: Community education level will be positively related to community political
knowledge.
H3c: Community cohesion will be positively related to community political knowledge.
Community-level analysis of political knowledge gap

H4a: Community density will be positively related to community political knowledge
gap.
H4b: Community education level will be negatively related to community political
knowledge gap.
H4c: Community cohesion will be negatively related to community political knowledge
gap.
Community-level analysis of political participation

H5a: Community density will be negatively related to community political
participation.
214
H5b: Community education level will be positively related to community political

participation.
H5c: Community cohesion will be positively related to community political
participation.
Community-level analysis of political participation gap

H6a: Community density will be positively related to community political
participation gap.
H6b: Community education level will be negatively related to community political
participation gap.
H6c: Community cohesion will be negatively related to community political
participation gap.
Methods
Data
The data for this study were collected as a part of the Social Capital Benchmark
Survey conducted during JulyNovember 2000. Telephone interviews using random-digit dialing of a national sample and samples from 40 selected U.S. communities yielded a total of 29,233 respondents. As one goal of the study was to examine
the influence of community characteristics on knowledge and participation, we used
the community samples to provide data on individual demographic characteristics,
knowledge, various sociopolitical attitudes, and participatory behaviors. The average
response rate for the 40 communities was 41.6% after adjusting for incidence of
eligibility.
Measures
Control variables
In order to control for potential confounds, we included three sets of variables in our
analyses: (a) demographic variables, (b) trust and community ties, and (c) media
use. The demographic variables included are the respondents age (M = 44.69, SD =
17.32, range = 1896), income (Mdn = 3050,000), education (Mdn = some college),
gender (female = 52%), and race (White = 72%, Black = 12%, Hispanic = 8%,
other = 9%). For race, three dichotomous dummy variables, White, Black, and
Hispanic, were entered in the analyses.
This study also included three trust variables as controls: social trust, racial trust,
and governmental trust. Social trust consisted of six items measuring general interpersonal trust, trust in neighbors, trust in coworkers, trust in fellow congregants,
trust in store employees, and trust in local police. An index of social trust was created
by taking the mean score of these six items (M = .01, SD = .70, a = .79). An index
of racial trust was constructed using a composite mean score (M = 2.06, SD = .68,
range = 03, a = .93) of three of the following four groupsHispanics, Asians,
215
non-Hispanic Blacks, and non-Hispanic Whites (excluding the respondents own

group). Governmental trust was an additive index (M = 4.56, SD = 1.34, range =
28, a = .75) constructed from two items tapping how much the respondents trust
national and local government to do what is right.
Our analyses also controlled for four community attachment measures (i.e., home
ownership, residential length, community satisfaction, and community receptivity) as
research has suggested that community ties influence local media use, interpersonal
discussion, and civic engagement (Kang & Kwak, 2001; Stamm, 1988). Home ownership is a dichotomous variable based on whether the respondent was a homeowner
(homeowner = 71%). Residential length was assessed by asking respondents how long
they have lived in their current community (Mdn = 1120 years). Satisfaction with
their community was measured by asking the respondents to rate their community as
a place to live (M = 2.23, SD = .75, range = 03). In addition, community receptivity
was measured by combining two questions measuring the respondents feeling unwelcome and concerns about their safety. The two items were reversed and summed to
create community receptivity (M = 1.59, SD = 2.00, range = 06, a = .90).
Last, various types of media use, a strong correlate of knowledge and participation (McLeod et al., 1996, 2001; Norris, 2000; Shah, McLeod, & Yoon, 2001), were
represented by three variables: newspaper, television, and Internet use. Newspaper
use was measured by asking how many days in the past week the respondent read
a daily newspaper (M = 3.51, SD = 2.89). Television use was measured as the total
hours of television watching on average weekdays (M = 3.08, SD = 2.71, range = 0
12). Internet use was measured as the total hours spent using the Internet in a typical
week (M = 2.65, SD = 4.89, range = 025).
Individual-level dependent variables
For individual-level analyses, we used nine criterion variables for political knowledge
and participation. Political knowledge was measured by a single item asking
respondents to identify the two senators from their state. Based on their answer,
a 5-point scale of political knowledge was constructed with 1 being failure to name
either, 2 being one is close, 3 being one is correct or both are close, 4 being one
is correct and the other is close, and 5 being both are correct (M = 2.44, SD =
1.65). Political knowledge was an independent variable as well in the subsequent
analyses for participation.
Eight indexes were created for a variety of forms of participation including
(a) electoral participation, (b) civic participation, (c) formal group involvement,
(d) informal social interaction, (e) religious engagement, (f) protest participation,
(g) giving/volunteering, and (h) associational diversity. The index of electoral participation used three questions measuring whether the respondents voted in the last
election, were registered to vote, and self-reported political interest. All three items
were recoded to range from 0 to 1 prior to averaging (M = .71, SD = .31, a = .71).
Civic participation consisted of four items tapping engagement in such activities as attending public meetings, club meetings, and community events and
216
participating in community projects. The four measures were recoded to run from
0 to 1 and averaged to form an index of civic participation (M = .16, SD = .18, a = .57).
Formal group involvement was constructed from items measuring whether
respondents were involved with the following 17 groups or organizations in the past
year: adult sports clubs, youth sports leagues, parents associations, veterans groups,
neighborhood associations, senior citizen clubs, charity or social welfare organizations, labor unions, business associations, service clubs or fraternal organizations,
ethnic or civil rights organizations, political action groups, art clubs, hobby groups,
self-help programs, groups met over the Internet, and other groups and organizations. All scores of these questions were summed up to construct formal group
involvement index (M = 2.98, SD = 2.70, range = 018, a = .71).
An index of informal social interaction was created from five items assessing how
often respondents engaged in having friends at home, visiting relatives, socializing
with coworkers, hanging out with friends, and playing cards or games. All these items
were recoded to range from 0 to 1 and averaged to construct a single index (M = .31,
SD = .23, a = .70).
Religious engagement consisted of four items measuring church membership,
frequency of church service attendance, participation in church activities besides
services, and involvement in organizations affiliated with religion. These four items
were recoded to run from 0 to 1 and then averaged to construct this index (M = .37,
SD = .32, a = .76).
Protest participation was constructed from measures of whether respondents had
signed a petition, attended political meetings and rallies, joined in any demonstrations, protests, boycotts, or marches, and been involved in local reform efforts during
the past 12-month period. Responses were averaged to create an index raging from
0 to 1 (M = .20, SD = .25, a = .57).
The giving/volunteering index combined eight items tapping volunteering for
arts, health-related, neighborhood, religious, youth, elderly, and charitable organizations and contributing to secular charities and religious causes. Responses were
averaged into an index ranging from 0 to 1 (M = .62, SD = .53, a = .79).
Last, an index of associational diversity was created by counting how many
different kinds of personal friends the respondent had in terms of their race, socioeconomic status, religion, and sexual orientation (M = 6.13, SD = 2.67, range = 011,
a = .74).
Community-level dependent variables
For the community-level analyses, we used four criterion variables: political knowledge, political knowledge gap, participation, and participation gap. Communitylevel political knowledge was created by calculating the mean individual knowledge
value across each individual for each of the 40 communities. Community-level
participation was assessed similarly; participation indexes were standardized across
individuals and then averaged. Then, the individual means were averaged within
each community.
217
At the community level, the standard deviations of knowledge and participation

within each community were used to represent the size of the gaps (or disparities) for
each community. The community-level knowledge gap was represented by the standard deviation of individual knowledge scores for each of the 40 communities. Thus,
a larger standard deviation within a community indicates wider gaps in knowledge
within the community. The community-level participation gap was created in the
same wayby calculating the standard deviation of the individual standardized
participation means for each of the 40 communities. The standard deviation method
is appropriate in that it reflects the dispersions of knowledge and participation
within each community; after all, what the literature refers to as a gap is technically
not a gap per se but a distribution that is linked to differences in SES among other
things.
Community-level independent variables
All hypothesized predictor variables were community characteristics. We created
three community contextual variables, level of education, population density, and
community cohesion, which were used as predictors of knowledge and participation
at both the individual and the community levels. Community-level education and
population density were available in the Social Capital Benchmark Survey 2000.
Community cohesion was created by calculating the mean values of individual scores
of trust, community ties, community satisfaction, and community receptivity within
each of the 40 communities.
Results
Analytical framework
We tested a series of hypotheses where political knowledge and various forms of
participation were predicted by community characteristics. At the individual
level, the unit of analysis was the respondent; individual scores of political knowledge and participation were regressed onto control variables and community
characteristics. For these individual-level tests, we set up a series of hierarchical
regression analyses where blocks of controls were entered prior to the block of
community variables. This hierarchical ordering of variable blocks allowed us to
examine the unique variance explained by hypothesized variables (i.e., community variables) above and beyond other individual-level variable blocks. For the
community-level analyses, the community was the unit of analysis. That is,
knowledge and participation scores assigned to each of the 40 communities were
regressed on community characteristic variables. Because contextual measures
constructed by aggregating individuals scores were used for both individualand community-level analyses, a series of weighted least squares regression analyses was performed to induce homoskedasticity of error variances (Sampson,
1988).
218
Individual-level analyses
Political knowledge
Results of individual-level analysis show that individual demographic characteristics
were the strongest predictors among the variables included in the analysis (see
Table 1). Demographic variables accounted for 17.5% of the 21% of variance in
political knowledge accounted for by the whole model. Education (b = .19, p ,
.001) was the strongest predictor of political knowledge, followed by age (b = .16,
p , .001). Income (b = .06, p , .001) was also positively related to political
knowledge, and female respondents (b = 2.11, p , .001) were less knowledgeable
than male respondents. Race was not associated with political knowledge.
Social trust (b = .06, p , .001) was a significant positive predictor of political
knowledge, whereas racial trust and governmental trust were not. Notably, community ties, including length of residence (b = .06, p , .001) and home ownership
Table 1 Weighted Least Squares Regression Analysis for Political Knowledge at the Individual Level of Analysis
Predictor Variables
Block 1
Block 1: Demographics
Incremental r2 (%)
Block 2: Trust and community ties
Social trust
(.08***)
Racial trust
(.05***)
Length of community residence
(.08***)
Home ownership
(.06***)
Community satisfaction
(.03**)
Community receptivity
(2.00)
Governmental trust
(.05***)
Incremental r2 (%)
Block 3: Media use
Newspaper reading
(.13***)
Television viewing
(2.03**)
Internet use
(.02*)
Incremental r2 (%)
Block 4: Community structure variables
Community density
(.07***)
Community education level
(.06***)
Community cohesion
(.01)
Incremental r2 (%)
Total r2 (%)
Block 2
Block 3
Block 4
17.5***
.07***
.01
.08***
.04***
2.00
2.01
.03**
.06***
.00
.06***
.04***
2.00
2.01
.02
.06***
.00
.06***
.05***
2.00
2.01
.02
1.3***
(.12***)
(2.02*)
(.02*)
.12***
2.02*
.02*
.12***
2.02*
.02*
1.3***
(.08***)
(.06***)
(2.00)
(.08***)
(.06***)
(2.00)
.12***
.03*
.08***
1.0***
21.0***
Note: Cell entries are standardized regression coefficients. Entries in parentheses () are preentry betas (i.e., partial correlation coefficients controlling for all variables entered into the
equation in previous blocks).
*p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001.
219
(b = .05, p , .001), were significant positive predictors of political knowledge. However, community satisfaction and perception of community receptivity were not related.
Consistent with findings from previous studies, newspaper use (b = .12, p ,
.001) was a strong positive predictor of political knowledge, whereas television use
(b = 2.02, p , .05) was a negative predictor of political knowledge. Worth noting is
that the measure of television use employed in this analysis was the total time of
television watching. If watching time for television news or other types of television
program were used instead, the results might be different. On the other hand,
Internet use (b = .02, p , .05) was positively related to political knowledge. To
summarize, the more people use newspaper and the Internet, the more they become
politically knowledgeable after controlling for demographics and other social factors.
Community characteristics were entered in the last block of the hierarchical
regression analysis to test the hypothesized contextual effects. Results support our
first hypothesis in that all structural variables (community density, b = .12, p , .001;
community educational level, b = .03, p , .05; and community cohesion, b = .08,
p , .001) were positively associated with political knowledge, even after individuallevel controls.
Participation
Eight types (Table 2) of participation were regressed onto individual and community characteristics. We report findings by independent variable blocks across the
eight criterion variables. As for political knowledge, the demographic variable block
was the strongest predictor of political participation. The data suggest that highly
educated, affluent, male respondents were more likely to engage in social and political life. Black respondents were active in most of the participation measures except
civic participation and personal association.
Similar to results reported by Putnam (2000), social trust was positively related
to most participation measures. Relationships were particularly strong for religious
participation (b = .14, p , .001), giving/volunteering (b = .13, p , .001), and
electoral participation (b = .11, p , .001). Racial trust was also positively associated
with four measures of participation: electoral participation (b = .04, p , .001), civic
participation (b = .04, p , .01), informal social interaction (b = .05, p , .001), and
associational diversity (b = .09, p , .001). By contrast, governmental trust was
positively related to electoral participation (b = .05, p , .001) and religious participation (b = .02, p , .05) but negatively related to informal social interaction (b =
2.02, p , .05), protest participation (b = 2.05, p , .001), and associational diversity (b = 2.03, p , .05).
Residential length was positively related to all types of participation. Community
satisfaction was a positive predictor of participation except for electoral participation, protest participation, and associational diversity. Community receptivity was
positively related to all participation types except informal social interaction. Home
ownership was positively related to electoral participation (b = .03, p , .01), formal
group involvement (b = .02, p , .05), religious participation (b = .06, p , .001), and
220
Electoral
participation
Group
involvement
Informal
social
8.5***
11.7***
10.5***
5.8***
8.3***
17.3***
8.4***
2.2***
1.8***
1.5***
4.0***
.8***
3.8***
2.2***
1.3***
1.5***
.9***
.3***
1.3***
1.2***
.5***
2.06***
.3***
.03**
.0
.13***
1.5***
.07***
.3***
.04**
2.02
.06***
.2***
13.4***
2.14***
2.06***
2.10***
1.8***
12.0***
.12***
2.00
.04**
.8***
12.6***
2.08***
2.05***
2.06***
.8***
23.3***
.05***
.1***
2.02
2.01
.00
.1*
12.2***
Note: Cell entries are standardized regression coefficients.

*p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001.
.04***
.1***
2.01
2.03*
2.02
.1**
15.3***
Religious
participation
Protest
participation
Giving/
volunteering
Associational
diversity
.04***
.1***
.01
.03*
2.03*
.3***
11.5***
221
B1: Demographics
Incremental r2 (%)
20.9***
B2: Trust and community ties
3.2***
Incremental r2 (%)
B3: Media use
.9***
Incremental r2 (%)
B4: Knowledge
Political knowledge
.18***
2.6***
Incremental r2 (%)
B5: Community structure
Community density
2.00
Community education
.01
Community cohesion
2.03*
.1*
Incremental r2 (%)
27.7***
Total r2 (%)
Civic
participation
Table 2 Weighted Least Squares Regression Analysis for Participation Scales at the Individual Level of Analysis
giving/volunteering (b = .04, p , .001) and negatively related to informal social

interaction (b = 2.05, p , .001) and associational diversity (b = 2.03, p , .01).
Newspaper reading was positively associated with all types of participation except
religious participation. A similar pattern was found for Internet use such that Internet use was a positive predictor of participation except religious participation. By
contrast, television use was negatively related to all types of participation, except
informal social interaction, consistent with what Putnam (2000) found.
As previous research suggests, political knowledge was positively related to most
types of participation, particularly to electoral participation (b = .18, p , .001) and
protest (b = .13, p , .001). However, political knowledge was a negative predictor of
informal social interaction (b = 2.06, p , .001).
As for community characteristics, community density was positively associated
with informal social interaction (b = .04, p , .01) and protest participation (b = .12,
p , .001) but negatively related to religious participation (b = 2.14, p , .001) and
giving/volunteering (b = 2.08, p , .001). Similarly, community cohesion was a positive predictor of informal social interaction (b = .06, p , .001) and protest (b = .04,
p , .01), whereas it was negatively related to electoral participation (b = 2.03, p ,
.05), religious participation (b = 2.10, p , .001), giving/volunteering (b = 2.06,
p , .001), and associational diversity (b = 2.03, p , .05). Surprisingly, community education level was negatively related to formal group involvement (b = 2.03,
p , .05), religious participation (b = 2.06, p , .001), and giving/volunteering
(b = 2.05, p , .001) and positively related only to associational diversity (b = .03,
p , .05). Overall, community characteristic variables as a block explained variances
in religious participation (1.8%, p , .001), protest participation (0.8%, p , .001),
and giving/volunteering (0.8%, p , .001). Thus, the second set of hypotheses was
partially supported.
Community-level analyses
Political knowledge
Results of community-level analyses indicate unique contributions of structural
variables to community-level knowledge, ultimately accounting for 19.6% of variance (see Table 3). Community density (b = .47, p , .05) and community cohesion
(b = .59, p , .01) were positively related to political knowledge, but community
education level was not. These results provide support for Hypotheses 3a and
3b but not for Hypothesis 3c. By contrast, we found no contextual effects of
community characteristic variables on community-level knowledge gaps. Thus,
our fourth set of hypotheses was not supported.
Participation
Both community-level education (b = .51, p , .001) and community cohesion (b = .50,
p , .01) were positively related to community-level participation, but community
density was not related. Overall, the three community characteristics explained
48.4% of variance in community-level participation. However, after controlling for
222
Table 3 Weighted Least Squares Regression Analysis for Community Knowledge and Participation at the Community Level of Analysis
Model 1: Community- Model 2: Community- Model 3: Communitylevel knowledge
level participation
level participation
Predictor variables
M (Level)
Political knowledge
Community density
.47*
Community education .00
level
Community cohesion
.59**
Total r2 (%)
19.6*
SD (62p)
M (Level)
SD (62p)
M (Level) SD (62p)
.27
.19
2.14
.51***
.15
2.13
.29*
(2.31**)
(.34**)
.23
10.0
.50**
48.4***
2.45*
30.3**
(.47***) (2.59****)
50.3**** 34.2***
.05
(.41***)
(.01)
Note: Cell entries are standardized regression coefficients. Entries in parentheses () are preentry betas (i.e., partial correlation coefficients controlling for political knowledge).
*p , .10. **p , .05. ***p , .01. ****p , .001.
community-level knowledge, community density (b = 2.31, p , .01) became a

significant negative predictor. Findings give empirical support for our fifth set
of hypotheses.
Whereas community cohesion (b = 2.45, p , .05) was negatively related to
participation gaps, community density and education level were not. When political
knowledge was controlled, community density (b = .41, p , .001) was positively
related to the participation gap. In sum, data suggest that higher community cohesion leads to narrower gaps in participation, whereas higher community density
results in wider gaps in participation, supporting Hypotheses 6a and 6c.
Discussion
This study investigated the relationships between community characteristics and

knowledge and participation examined at both the individual and the community
levels, with individual-level variables treated as controls. Three community traits
(community density, education level, and cohesion) exerted significant influence
on political knowledge.
For the individual-level analyses, citizens in denser, cohesive, and more educated communities were more knowledgeable, even after controlling for individuallevel variables. Community characteristics also influenced citizen participation,
though these relationships differed by participation type. For instance, community
density encourages protest participation and discourages religious and voluntary
participation. The heterogeneous environment of densely populated communities
fosters conflict among diverse groups contending for power, producing more
opportunities for protest participation. By contrast, religious and voluntary participation may find a more hospitable environment in less dense communities where
ties between individuals are much closer. Although the findings for community
223
density were largely consistent with the literature, results for cohesion were often
opposite of expectations. Though cohesions positive relationship to informal social
gatherings was expected, its negative relationships to religious and voluntary participation, as well as its positive relationship to protest participation, contradict
community pluralism theory. This suggests that the population density dimension
of structural pluralism may be more central than cohesion to understanding past
findings regarding the influence of community structure. Findings for community
education were also consistent with expectations. For example, community education was also negatively associated with religious and voluntary participation, as
highly educated communities may have weaker norms regarding church attendance
and civic volunteering.
At the individual level, knowledge was a significant positive predictor of seven of
the nine participation scales. For example, individuals who scored higher on the
knowledge scale were more likely to engage in electoral, civic, and protest participation. Such participation requires knowledge of and may be enhanced by
knowledge about. That is, before one votes, attends community meetings, or
engages in social protest, one must be aware that these events are happening. Moreover, one may be more comfortable voting, attending a community meeting, or
protesting if one feels grounded in contextual knowledge. The two exceptions to
this pattern were knowledges negative relationship to informal social interaction
and personal association. This is not surprising given the fact that activities such as
visiting with friends, socializing with coworkers, and interacting with neighbors do
not privilege politically knowledgeable individuals. In fact, political know-it-alls
may be a turnoff for many personal interactions.
For the community-level analysis, the aggregation of data for macrolevel variables yielded a sample size of only 40 cases, which did not afford much statistical
power, making our analyses susceptible to Type II error. As such, many relationships
were not significant even though the betas were large (e.g., the nonsignificant beta
between density and knowledge gap was .27). This limitation is a problem shared by
many studies using macrolevel units of analysis (e.g., much of the community
pluralism research by Tichenor, Donohue, and Olien was based on a sample of 87
counties). Nonetheless, it is worth noting that our community-level analyses
accounted for a considerable amount of variance in knowledge and participation
levels and gaps (ranging from 10% to 50.3%). Moreover, despite our small sample
size (N = 40), some of the tested relationships were significant in the hypothesized
direction. For instance, community-level density and cohesion were positive predictors of community knowledge. Both factors tend to accelerate information flows
within a community, thereby increasing knowledge. Further, cohesive communities
tend to be more participatory with smaller participation gaps. In a cohesive community, individuals are more likely to have ties to other community members, who
draw them into participation networks. More educated communities may provide
an environment that values participation, though community density may discourage participation by fostering depersonalized relationships.
224
One of the benefits of community-level analysis is that it allows us to conceptualize knowledge, participation, and their respective gaps as community characteristics. Most of the knowledge gap research has viewed and tested knowledge gaps at
the individual level, even though the notion of knowledge gap is essentially a community-level phenomenon. This is partly because previous research on the knowledge gap has focused on antecedents to knowledge gaps in the form of individual
characteristics such as education and motivation. In contrast, we view the knowledge
gap as a macrolevel characteristic representing the dispersion of knowledge across
a community. Given this point of departure, we were able to test relationships
between community characteristics and dispersions (gaps) of knowledge.
Moreover, we expand the knowledge gap framework to understand citizen participation. Most comparative studies of political and civic participation use only
mean participation for each community (Inglehart, 1990; Putnam, 1993). However,
we contend that the participation gap is another important concept for understanding community-level participation. Promoting participation is an essential goal for
democracy, but reducing participation gaps (indicative of equality in opportunities
and power) is also important.
One of the difficulties in conceptualizing the macromicro relationship (e.g., the
effects of community density on citizen knowledge) is that the two different-level
factors are conceptually remote. Thus, it is somewhat difficult to make theoretically
valid cross-level propositions. Our hypotheses were mostly grounded in the welldocumented structural pluralism literature. However, future research in this area
should consider how to conceptualize cross-level relationships and derive more testable propositions. One additional limitation of this study is the single-item knowledge measure asking respondents to name their two senators, which only scratches
the surface of political knowledge. Future studies should seek more extensive knowledge measures to avoid the limitation imposed by our use of secondary data.
To summarize, our analyses expand past research by examining processes at both
the individual and the community levels of analysis and by extending knowledge gap
analysis to examine participation gaps. At the community level, we introduce measurements of knowledge and participation gaps that are based on standard deviations
within communities. We also differentiate participation into nine different forms. In
the process, we contribute to new ways to look at evidence on knowledge gaps and
civic participation. We also revealed that the influence of structural variables on both
individuals and communities is significant. This is especially important given that
our analyses were conservative in two ways. First, at the individual level, we controlled for 17 individual-level variables and found significant relationships between
structural variables and knowledge and participation. Second, the sample size for the
community-level analyses was very small, yet we found strong significant relationships, accounting for as much as 50% of the variance.
Considerable research has examined antecedents to knowledge and participation.
Knowledge gap researchers assert that knowledge is a fundamental resource in society, noting that knowledge equals power to underscore concerns about power
225
inequity. They argue that a polarized class structure replicates itself through differential access to and possession of knowledge. Similarly, those who study participation view it as fundamental to democratic functioning and social mobility. Those
who have knowledge, and those who participate, may be more likely to reap the
benefits provided by the social system and may be more likely to be successful in
asserting their interests. Essentially, it is this concern about power and inequality that
may unite the knowledge gap and participation research.
References
Althaus, S. (2001). Whos voted in when the people turn out?: Information effects in
Congressional elections. In P. Hart & D. Shaw (Eds.), Communication and U.S. elections:
New agendas (pp. 3354). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Bennett, S. E., & Bennett, L. M. (1986). Political participation: Meaning and measurement.
In S. Long (Ed.), Annual review of political science (Vol. 1, pp. 85103). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Bennett, W. L. (1980). Public opinion in American politics. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of
social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 9991023.
Chaffee, S. H., Zhao, X., & Leshner, G. (1994). Political knowledge and the campaign media of
1992. Communication Research, 21, 305324.
Conway, M. M., Wyckoff, M. L., Feldbaum, E., & Ahern, D. (1981). The news media in
childrens political socialization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 164178.
Dahl, R., & Tufte, E. (1973). Size and democracy. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1989). What Americans know about politics and why it
matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Ebrahim, S. H., Anderson, J., Weidle, P., & Purcell, D. W. (2003, July). Race-related
knowledge-gap about treatment for HIV/AIDS, United States, 2001. Paper presented to the
National HIV Prevention Conference, Atlanta, GA.
Eveland, W. P. (2001). The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: Evidence
from non-election, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication
Research, 28, 571601.
Eveland, W. P., & Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge
and participation. Political Communication, 17, 215237.
Garramone, G., & Atkin, C. K. (1986). Mass communication and political socialization:
Specifying the effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 7686.
Glenn, N. D., & Grimes, M. (1968). Aging, voting, and political interest. American Sociological
Review, 33, 563575.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78,
13601380.
Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological
Theory, 1, 201233.
Huckfeldt, R. (1984). Politics in context: Assimilation and conflict in urban neighborhoods.
New York: Agathon Press.
226
Huckfeldt, R., Beck, P. A., Dalton, R. J., & Levine, J. (1995). Political environments, cohesive
social groups, and the communication of public opinion. American Journal of Political
Science, 39, 10251054.
Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication:
Information and influence in an election campaign. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Irwin, M., Tolbert, C., & Lyson, T. (1997). How to build strong hometowns. American
Demographics, 19, 4247.
Kang, N., & Kwak, N. (2001). A multilevel approach to civic participation: Individual length
of residence, neighborhood residential stability, and their interactive effects with media
use. Communication Research, 30, 80106.
Kasarda, J. D., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American
Sociological Review, 39, 328339.
Lemert, J. B., Mitzman, B. N., Seither, M. A., Cook, R. J., & Hacket, R. (1977). Journalists and
mobilizing information. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 721726.
Lofland, L. (1973). A world of strangers: Order and action in urban public space. New York:
Basic Books.
Luskin, R. C. (1990). Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior, 12, 331361.
McLeod, D. M., & Perse, E. M. (1994). Direct and indirect effects of socioeconomic status on
public affairs knowledge. Journalism Quarterly, 71, 433442.
McLeod, J. M., Daily, K., Guo, Z., Eveland, W. P., Bayer, J., Yang, S, et al. (1996). Community
integration, local media use, and democratic processes. Communication Research, 23,
179209.
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 the annual conference of the Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication, Washington DC.
McPhee, W. N., Smith, R. B., & Ferguson, J. (1963). A theory of informal social influence. In
W. N. McPhee (Ed.), Formal theories of mass behavior (pp. 74103). New York: Free Press.
Milbrath, L. W., & Goel, M. L. (1982). Political participation: How and why do people get
involved in politics? Chicago: Rand McNally.
Mondak, J. J., & Anderson, M. R. (2004). The knowledge gap: A reexamination of
gender-based differences in political knowledge. Journal of Politics, 66, 492512.
Norris, P. (1996). Does television erode social capital?: A reply to Putnam. PS: Political Science
& Politics, 293, 474480.
Norris, P. (2000). A virtuous circle: Political communications in postindustrial societies.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Olien, C. N., Donohue, G. A., & Tichenor, P. J. (1978). Community structure and media use.
Journalism Quarterly, 55, 445455.
Oliver, J. E. (2001). Democracy in suburbia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
227
Ragsdale, L., & Rusk, J. G. (1995). Candidates, issues and participation in Senate elections.
Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20, 305327.
Ravanera, Z. R., Rajulton, F., & Turcotte, P. (2003). Youth integration and social capital:
An analysis of the Canadian General Social Surveys on time use. Youth and Society, 35,
158182.
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of
cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240267.
Sampson, R. J. (1988). Local friendship ties and community attachment in mass society:
A multilevel systemic model. American Sociological Review, 53, 766779.
Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in
a digital age: Modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research,
32, 531565.
Shah, D. V., McLeod, J. M., & Yoon, S. (2001). Communication, context, and community:
An exploration of print, broadcast, and Internet influences. Communication Research,
28, 464506.
Stamm, K. (1988). Community ties and media use. Critical Studies in Mass Communication,
5, 357361.
Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G. A., & Olien, C. N. (1970). Mass media flow and differential
growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 159170.
Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G. A., & Olien, C. N. (1973). Mass communication research:
The evolution of a structural model. Journalism Quarterly, 50, 419425.
Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G. A., & Olien, C. N. (1980). Communication conflict and the press.
Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.
Tocqueville, A. (1969). Democracy in America. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. (Original
work published 1835)
Tonnies, F. (1988). Community and society. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. (Original
work published 1898)
Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social
equality. New York: Harper & Row.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic volunteerism in
American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
228

Marked

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Marked

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916

Structural Antecedents to Knowledge and

This paper investigates relationships between community characteristics and levels of

Antecedents to Knowledge and Participation

J. Cho & D. M. McLeod

Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 205228 2007 International Communication Association

J. Cho & D. M. McLeod

Antecedents to Knowledge and Participation

Knowledge and participation at the individual level of analysis

Antecedents to Knowledge and Participation

J. Cho & D. M. McLeod

increase individual knowledge by motivating citizens to seek local information

Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 205228 2007 International Communication Association

J. Cho & D. M. McLeod

Antecedents to Knowledge and Participation

Antecedents to Knowledge and Participation

J. Cho & D. M. McLeod

Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 205228 2007 International Communication Association

J. Cho & D. M. McLeod

Antecedents to Knowledge and Participation

participatory than nonreaders. Through news consumption people develop more

Participation and community-level antecedents

Antecedents to Knowledge and Participation

J. Cho & D. M. McLeod

of community, which facilitate citizen participation. The association between

Individual-level analysis of participation

Knowledge and participation at the community level of analysis

Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 205228 2007 International Communication Association

J. Cho & D. M. McLeod

Antecedents to Knowledge and Participation

There is one additional characteristic identified by the structural model of

Antecedents to Knowledge and Participation

J. Cho & D. M. McLeod

Community-level analysis of political knowledge gap

Community-level analysis of political participation

Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 205228 2007 International Communication Association

J. Cho & D. M. McLeod

Antecedents to Knowledge and Participation

H5b: Community education level will be positively related to community political

Community-level analysis of political participation gap

Antecedents to Knowledge and Participation

J. Cho & D. M. McLeod

non-Hispanic Blacks, and non-Hispanic Whites (excluding the respondents own

Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 205228 2007 International Communication Association

J. Cho & D. M. McLeod

Antecedents to Knowledge and Participation

Antecedents to Knowledge and Participation

J. Cho & D. M. McLeod

At the community level, the standard deviations of knowledge and participation

Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 205228 2007 International Communication Association

J. Cho & D. M. McLeod

Antecedents to Knowledge and Participation

Antecedents to Knowledge and Participation

J. Cho & D. M. McLeod

Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 205228 2007 International Communication Association

Note: Cell entries are standardized regression coefficients.

Antecedents to Knowledge and Participation

J. Cho & D. M. McLeod

Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 205228 2007 International Communication Association

Antecedents to Knowledge and Participation

J. Cho & D. M. McLeod

giving/volunteering (b = .04, p , .001) and negatively related to informal social

Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 205228 2007 International Communication Association

J. Cho & D. M. McLeod