A CAUSAL-COMPARATIVE

STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF

SOCIAL MEDIA ON MANDAUE
CITY CITIZENS' POLITICAL
DISCOURSE

Name: ANGELO JAROMOHOM

SECTION: ESCODA
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Rationale
Prior to the advent of social media, the media served as a watchdog, spectator, peace and
consensus builder, information tool, and state channel in a democratic society (Maghirang,
2020). Furthermore, it has already expanded its platform, such as the internet, by informing the
public about political events, engaging its users, and encouraging them to participate in offline
political activities, making it critical for political discourse and involvement (Ahmad et al.,
2019). Notably, there is a widespread belief that social media has significantly boosted the
amount of political engagement. Online political discourse is described as "public
communication on subjects and individuals relevant to either a specific policy domain or the
wider interests and values that are at stake" (Ferree et al., 2002, p. 9). It is the practice of
revealing people's political attitudes in everyday discourse. On a larger scale, however, the
importance of popular opinion in the reasoning of established liberal democracies creates a link
between the realms of formal and daily politics (Condor, 2016). Involving both official debates,
speeches, and hearings, as well as casual political discussion among family members about
topics such as public opinion, political knowledge, and political beliefs (Liebes & Ribak,
1991). Political discourse is a public communicative act in which people strive to assign certain
interpretations to reality in order to persuade or convince others. It is a calculated language
approach that supports certain (ideological) objectives.

In contrast, 49 percent of adults in the United States obtain their information from television,
while just 20 percent of individuals get their news from social media "frequently" (Shearer,
2018). In contrast, our country's internet penetration rate is less than 40%, although 50 million
Filipinos use social media, i.e. Facebook demonstrates that we are increasingly active on social
media. As a result, material from various media companies, as well as self-assessed political
expertise, have been intermingled in this platform (David, 2019). According to Reyes et al.
(2018), the constant growth in the use of social media and the internet in the Philippines is
attributable to a fear of missing out. One may engage in it more frequently in order to connect
with people, strengthen social bonds, and build social competence. In their research. FOMO
(Fear of Missing Out) is a strong predictor of social media usage. According to Whiting and
Williams (2013), consumers use social media for (1) social interaction, (2) information seeking,
(3) pass time, (4) entertainment, (5) relaxation, (6) communicatory utility, (7) convenience
utility, (9) expression of opinion, (10) information sharing, and (11) surveillance/knowledge
about others. Some of the findings are consistent with why individuals use social media in the
political sphere; they want to connect and communicate, express their opinions, share political
information, and learn about what others are doing. The importance of understanding political
discourse asserts that the specific life of our state operates on principles such as justifying our
faith in the people's good judgment, believing that once the public's views on public issues are
known and acted upon, our government will be improved rather than harmed (American
Historical Association, 2021). Public opinion is primarily a communication term that is impacted
by a variety of factors (Hoffman, 2009). As a result, the goal of public opinion is critical to the
evolution of society.

Different ramifications emerge when different issues in political discourse, such as political
awareness, involvement, ideology, and perceived self-efficacy, are examined, leaving social
media prone to disinformation in political interactions. Along with the widespread use of social
media, a variety of sources and behaviors have affected political debate. As a result, the
researcher chose to look at the impact of social media on political discourse among Mandaue
City residents. The researchers want to know how time spent on SNS and the amount of
rewarding Social Media influence political awareness, political involvement, political ideology,
and perceived self-efficacy, all of which are referred to as political discourse. Finally, a
determination will be made as to whether the amount of time spent on SNS and the level of
utilizing/enjoying social media may make a statistically significant change in the political
discourse of Mandaue City citizens. This study might be another criteria for Social Science
professors to understand how modern Filipinos engage in political debate.

Statement of the Problem

The study aims, in general, to identify how Social Media affects the online political discourse of
Mandaue City citizens. Specifically, this study will seek answers to the following:

1. To measure the level of political discourse of Mandaue City citizens that is divided into the
following:
a. Political Awareness
 b. Political Participation
c. Perceived Self-Efficacy
d. Political Ideology.

2. To measure the level of social media gratification of Mandaue City citizens.

3. To determine if there is statistically significant effect between the time spent on SNS and the
level of utilizing/gratifying social media on the political discourse of Mandaue City citizens

Research Hypothesis
The following hypotheses were formulated to guide this study:

H0 = There is no statistically significant effect between time spent on SNS and level of
utilizing/gratifying social media on the political discourse of Mandaue City Citizens.

H1 = There is a statistically significant effect between time spent on SNS and level of
utilizing/gratifying social media on the political discourse of Mandaue City Citizens.

Significance of the Study

The findings of this research will prove useful to the following entities:
1.Teacher of Social Sciences It will provide more insights on how Filipinos now engage in
political debate, particularly about current Philippine politics and other societal issues.

2.Officials from local governments. It will provide them with a new perspective on the
contemporary political discourse of the Filipino people, which they may utilize as a possible
entry point or guide in supervising distinctive changes or shifts in public interest in their
performance as a public servant.

3.Future scientist. They might expand, extend, and use this work for future research purposes.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of social media on the political
discourse of Mandaue City residents. The primary emphasis of this research is on how the
collectively discussed political discourse is impacted by the time spent on SNS and the
participants' social media utilization/gratification. The respondents will be divided into three
groups: those who spent more time on social media for their political discourse, those who spent
equal time on social media and other media (e.g., television), and those who spent less time on
social media for their political discourse. Each group will also be split based on their social
motivations (Factor 1 is deepening social relationships, Factor 2 is Expanding current
interpersonal network, and Factor 3 is Information sharing and exchange).
The research will be carried out over the 2020-2021 academic year. Researchers will collect and
extract data by measuring citizens' political awareness, participation, perceived self-efficacy, and
ideology, which are collectively discussed as part of a public discourse, as well as determining
the amount of time spent on SNS and the level of utilization/gratification of social media. This
study attempted to determine if social media had an impact on Mandaue City citizens' political
debate.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter defines the related literature and studies that assist the present study. The
document embraces in here where taken from books, articles, journals and studies that were
produced.

Political Discourse
Crystal (2006) defines discourse as a larger stretch of language (particularly spoken
language) than a sentence. It is a collection of utterances that constitutes any known speech
occurrence (p. 148). Discourse is a socially defined entity and particular principles of a speech
system by which reality is ordered, categorised, and represented at different points in time.
According to Van djik (2002), the first remark regarding political discourse is that it is not a
genre, but a class of genres defined on a social domain, such as politics (Van Dijk, 1998b).
Furthermore, scientific, educational, and legal discourse indicate the discourse genre classes
associated with the fields of science, education, and law, respectively. Politics includes genres
such as government discussions, legislative debates, party programs, and speeches by politicians.

Amaglobeli (2018) arrived at three conclusions about political discourse: (1) Each ideology has a
corresponding discourse (and vice versa), and ideologies are explicitly conveyed, obtained, and
reproduced by a discourse; (2) Political discourses are processed and utilized within specific
ideological frames. Thus, the discourses reflect specific ideological frameworks using specific
linguistic strategies; and (3) political discourse can be identified as an intentional act that in each
individual case is meant to achieve specific goals, and those goals, on average, are of a material
nature; thus, producing specific (political) discourse serves a purpose of articulating, preserving,
and deconstructing specific interests. As a result, each discourse is intended to achieve a certain
goal that is connected with their philosophy or ideology.

It is critical to comprehend and analyze political speech. Dunmire (2012) concluded in her study
"Political Discourse Analysis: Exploring the Language of Politics and the Politics of Language"
that analyzing political discourse has made significant contributions to this discursive turn by
elucidating the role discourse plays in a variety of political contexts and practices, as well as the
intrinsically political nature of the discursive practice. The process of analysis itself has
explicated the structure and function of political discourse, the connections between political
cognition, behavior, and discourse, and how properties of text and talk underpin political
operations, structure, and vice versa. According to her, political discourse analysis has also
participated in the politicization of social life extensively, in which, outside of the domain of
politics. Public Opinion is a tentative deliberative adjustment of the public to a situation, a
logical view of things (Radhika, 2018). Because of the diverse political material on the digital
platform, and because the present platform has a fundamentally different structure than prior
media platforms, contents are relayed with little third-party screening, fact-checking, or editorial
judgment. Individuals with no past journalism experience or reputation can reach a large number
of users in a couple of minutes. Messages spread as they are shared on news outlets and through
personal social networking profiles (Allcott and Gentzkow, 2017).

Individuals' levels of awareness in a community, according to Althubetat and Jarrar (2013),

influence state development. They went on to say that man is both the means and the end goal of
development; the more individuals in a society are aware of their powers and potentials, the more
contribution is exhibited in the sphere of development. As a result, political and governance
awareness is a critical determinant for societal growth and prosperity. There is a significant
corpus of study on the case and causes of (primarily face-to-face) political dialogue that spans
both political science and communication. Following normative concerns about deliberative
democracy, much of this research focuses on the nature and effects of such debates: Is political
discourse civil? Do individuals participate constructively? Is it true that political debate leads to
greater tolerance? Does political discourse promote civic engagement and political participation
(Mutz 2006), or does it only enhance levels of knowledge?

Online and Offline Political Talk

Political discourse is viewed as a vital civic obligation, with the goal of persuading
others, resolving conflicts, refining one's own point of view, and, eventually, conferring
legitimacy on democratic decisions. It is hardly surprising that one of the key foci of studies on
the subject is the extent to which people meet political conflicts in talks. However, due to the
three core operational concerns, this is a difficult topic to answer. To begin, what constitutes
"political"? Second, what is "disagreement?" Third, what constitutes a dialogue in the first place?
Scholars' responses to these topics are so disparate that they lack coherence. As a result, the
conclusions of the literature are in some ways contradictory (Eveland et al. 2011). Online
political debates take place in an atmosphere that is vastly different from a regular face-to-face
conversation (Ho & McLeod 2008). To be more specific, there are less contextual cues
concerning the reactions of discussion participants (see Walther 2011). Some contexts provide
anonymity, which has major consequences for the quality of debate (Papacharissi 2004), because
they are frequently public or semi-public, visible to many people (Wyatt et al. 2000). The
amount to which certain channel characteristics are accentuated by online platforms varies.
Twitter and Reddit, for example, allow for anonymity, but Facebook provides more information
about people that might serve as contextual indications. Researchers used standard survey-based
methodologies and social network analysis to conduct research on online political discourse
(e.g., Kushin & Kitchener 2009).

What is the standard of political discourse on the internet? It is an essential question about the
quality of dialogue and political polarization that determines the breadth of civil internet
interactions (Papacharissi 2004). While this is cause for concern, it is unclear how much of the
internet dialogue is uncivil (even though visible interactions may not always be). According to a
recent analysis of climate change talks on Twitter, there are surprisingly few instances of
incivility and sarcasm (Anderson & Huntington 2017). Meanwhile, Reddit's complete
study discovered a greater spike in incivility on Republican subreddits than on Democratic ones
since 2016. (Nithyanand et al. 2017). They claim that Donald Trump's ascension has contributed
to the spike. According to a study based on New York Times comment threads, incivility can
increase comment popularity regardless of the moderator's preference (Muddiman & Stroud
2017). A related subject of recent study sought to assess the efficacy of measures designed to
minimize incivility and other normatively objectionable characteristics of online political
discourse (Munger N.d.). The efficacy of anonymity and social identification is emphasized in
one possible technique for such interference. Although there are exceptions, research findings
concerning online and offline political conversations exist largely in isolation from one another.
Stromer-Galley (2002) uses an analysis of data on monthly electronic discussions of political
issues to argue that the internet "may provide a brand new context for political conversation for
people who wouldn't normally engage in face-to-face political conversations, thus bringing
new voices into the general public sphere."

Social Media Facilitating Political Movements

In their study titled "Internet use and political engagement: The role of e-campaigning as
a pathway to online political participation," Cantijoch et al. (2012) stated that the use of the
internet and all e-activities increases net users' knowledge about politics, which stimulates
political engagement and participation. They must investigate online usage, political
participation, and, as a result, the influence of e-discussion, e-information, and e-political
campaigns. They asserted and showed that before and after elections, e-campaigning directly
connects and engages Internet users (Cantijoch, Cutts, & Gibson, 2012). Abdulrauf (2016)
performed research among Nigerian and Malaysian youth to examine their cognitive engagement
and online political activity on Facebook and Twitter. His research revealed that political
knowledge and desire boosted adolescent political engagement and trust. The more the
participation of kids in politics, the greater their political awareness and ambitions. 

Meanwhile, Abdu et al. (2017) assessed the role of Facebook in terms of use, interaction, quality
information, and political interest among young people. According to the study, political interest
and Facebook usage are positively related to online political participation (Abdu, Mohamad,
& Muda, 2017, p. 1). In their study, Ahmad et al. (2019) determined that internet media has
a substantial impact on university students. It instills political efficacy in all responses.
Papagiannidis and Manika (2016), on the other hand, investigated political involvement and
engagement through different online and offline media. Their findings revealed that new media
and other internet platforms enable political participants to become interested in politics and
publicly voice their opinions. Individual opinions about digital media use and real political
involvement fluctuate. As a result, each study finds that new media has a considerable impact on
the political effectiveness of participants when they are participating in politics. Individual
perspectives, however, differ according to their political involvement in the world and their
usage of digital media.

Research findings on online political participation suggest and support the evidence that social
media positively correlates within any political frames and concepts: political efficacy (Ahmad et
al., 2019), political participation and engagement (Papagiannidis & Manika, 2016; Abdu et al.,
2017), and political knowledge and wishes (Papagiannidis & Manika, 2016; Abdu et al., 2017).
(Abdulrauf, 2016; Canrijoch et al., 2012),

Social Media
According to Boyd and Ellison (2007), "social network sites'' are "web-based services that allow
users to (1) create a public profile within a confined system, (2) set an inventory of other users
with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and
people made by others within the system" (p. 211). According to Fred Cavazza (2012), social
media is divided into five categories: publishing, sharing, playing, networking, purchasing, and
localization. Publishing networks, such as Wikipedia, allow people to create and modify content;
sharing platforms allow members to distribute and share videos, pictures, products, links, music,
or documents; playing pages for online games; networking is for meeting and acquainting new
people or staying connected, as well as professional networks; buying pages allow for e-
commerce and are intended for sharing customers' opinions about products; and localization is
primarily used. Nonetheless, Cavazza reiterated the functions of social media in our lives,
clarifying how it creates an in-depth dimension for convenience in our lives, such as networking.

According to Griffith Asia Institute (2020), social media in the democratic setting creates a huge
dilemma for various democracies throughout the world. Negative propaganda, false news, and
other forms of deception on the internet prevent people from having an honest-to-goodness
debate about pressing issues that must affect everyone. This lack of open word then allows
purveyors of those kind of unethical practices to post even more bogus notions on the internet.
Poisoning the well-being of regular Filipino social media users to the point of serious
deterioration.

According to De-Wit et al. (2019), we live in a filter bubble on the digital platform. They added
that many people say that we are becoming trapped in internet filter bubbles that only expose us
to views we already believe in — which is far more consistent with the psychological literature
on confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998). According to them, we want to seek out and accept as
real perspectives that match with our pre-existing beliefs. We choose our favorite news sources
and curate our social media profiles, which may make it easier to focus on organizations or
individuals that support our own worldviews, leading to political division. This term is defined as
the difference of political views toward ideological extremes (DiMaggio et al., 1996; Baldassarri
& Gelman, 2008; Fiona & Abrams, 2008). All in all, talks and research that has
polarized within the area of politics, its operational notion functions within the framework of
political parties and democratic presidential systems. Political polarization personifies the
friction between political views and partisan identities in traditional two-party systems
(Abramowitz & Saunders, 2008; Bafumi & Shapiro, 2009).

According to Lee et al. (2018), social media has a special function in promoting political
division. They observed that social media encourages political interests and involvement,
influencing users' policymaking indirectly. As a result, they will confirm that social media-
induced political activity (e.g., sharing political news online) is one mechanism that leads to
polarization. Their findings also show that they cannot address social media use consistently. It is
likely that just particular types of social media use, such as political conversation and news
consumption, are linked to higher levels of political involvement (e.g., Lee & Myer, 2016).

A study found that partisan impulses in political news coverage lead to polarization by enhancing
the relevance of partisan beliefs. In this context, partisan media has received a great deal of
attention. According to Levendusky (2013), political media makes audiences' partisan identities
more prominent by portraying politics as a fight between irreconcilably opposing parties, thereby
leading to both cognitive and emotional polarization (see also Stroud 2011). Similarly, Garrett et
al. (2016) demonstrate that exposure to ideologically-leaning websites is positively related with
retaining incorrect ideas on politically significant matters, even when individuals are aware of
the right facts refuting such beliefs. Negative views against groups are an important component
of polarization, both cognitively and affectively. Negative opinions of certain groups may also
lead to an increase in believing in misleading information about such groups. According to
Kosloff and colleagues (2010), when a person is regarded to be idiosyncratic, negative labeling
may be used appropriately since there is no damage in assigning any kinds of negative attributes
to 'them' (p. 384). Essentially, reminding people of the groups to which they belong may increase
their propensity of accepting incorrect information about out-group members, even if the
identification of such out-group is not stated explicitly.

From a macro and comparative standpoint, the Philippines has carved itself a niche in which
great social diversity and skewed inequality coexist with low political division. Social cleavages
are not filtered in the political domain because they are cross-cutting; they are simply not the
basis for democratic competition. The insight is that democratic revolutions are not required to
polarize a population defined by socioeconomic cleavages, even when the social raw material for
such polarization looks obvious and democratic competition is thoroughly ingrained. However,
this is not to imply that the Philippines has never had harmful divisiveness (Arugay &
Slater, 2018).

Political Ideology
In their study, Jost et al. (2009) are inclined to describe political ideology as a "collection
of views about the right order of society and how it is attained" (p. 64; cf. Adorno et al. 1950,
Campbell et al. 1960/1965, Kerlinger 1984). Denzau and North (1994/2000) make a similar
suggestion, but they also emphasize the role of social groups or collectivities (Parsons 1951):
"ideologies are the shared framework of mental models that groups of people possess that
provide both an interpretation of the environment and a prescription on how that environment
should be structured" (p. 24). If one accepts that ideology is shared in the sense that it aids in the
interpretation of the social world and normatively specifies good and proper ways of dealing
with life's problems, then it is simple to see how ideology reflects and reinforces what
psychologists might refer to as relational, epistemic, and existential needs or motives ( Jost et al.
2008a).

Various attempts have been made to categorize and link political concepts and ideologies. The
left–right political spectrum is the most well-known and well-established technique of achieving
this. This is a linear spectrum that situates political viewpoints somewhere between two
extremes, the far left and the far right. To sum up an individual's dogma or viewpoint, terms like
'left wing' or 'right wing' are often employed, and groups of individuals are viewed collectively
as 'the left', 'the right', and indeed the' middle'. There is also considerable agreement on where
certain concepts and ideologies fall in this range. Although common, determining precisely what
the spectrum implies and how useful it is in identifying and characterizing political beliefs is far
more complex. in agreement with Andrews (2019),
The French Civil War began in the summer of 1789, when members of the French National
Assembly assembled to begin writing a constitution. The delegates were deeply split on what
proportional authority King Louis XVI should have, and while the argument raged, the two main
groups staked out territory within the audience. The anti-royalist rebels sat to the left of the
presiding officer, while the monarchy's more traditional, aristocratic adherents sat to the right.
Late in the nineteenth century. "Left" and "Right" have become the French vernacular for
opposing political ideas; parties that begin to identify as "center-left," "center-right," "extreme
left," and "extreme right." The linear spectrum is widely believed to reflect diverse political
ideals or opposing viewpoints on economic policy in Andre Heywood's book "Political
Ideologies: An Introduction." In terms of values, the spectrum displays different perspectives on
equality. Left-wingers are committed to equality and confident about its attainment. Right-
wingers typically believe that equality is either undesirable or impossible to attain. This has
something to do with the various attitudes on the economy, particularly wealth ownership.
Communists advocated for a state-planned economy; socialists and contemporary liberals
advocated for a mixed economy with government control; and right-wingers advocated for free-
market capitalism and private property.
All of these views, however, have discrepancies. Despite being on the far right of the political
spectrum, fascist governments practice economic management and governmental control. It is
not always apparent where anarchism should be positioned in the linear spectrum. Anarchists are
fiercely dedicated to the concept of equality, which puts them on the extreme left of the
spectrum, but their resistance to all forms of economic control and government may lead them to
the far right. According to his book, the linear spectrum's problem is that it attempts to reduce
politics to a single dimension, implying that political ideas can be defined based on just one
criterion, and that one's attitude can only change.

To summarize what has been said and examined in this paper, the dynamistic tone of political
discourse provides a favorable channel for social media to impact it; a class of genres
characterized by social domain, namely politics (Van Dijk, 1998b). As a result, this domain
includes political ideology, political involvement, awareness, and perceived self-efficacy, all of
which positively link with social media usage (Abdulrauf, 2016; Abdu et al. 2017; Ahmad et al.
2019; Papagiannidis and Manika 2016; Abdu et al., 2017; Canrijoch et al., 2012). However,
social media has produced a dilemma for democracy (Griffith Asia Institute, 2020), as people
have created their own filter bubbles that expose them to content that they only agree with (De-
wit et al., 2019), leading to a divergence of political opinions to ideological extremes (DiMaggio
et al., 1996; Baldassarri & Gelman, 2008; Fiona & Abrams, 2008). Thus, the
researchers will apply the Use and Gratification theory as part of the study framework to assess
the differences in the degree of political discourse of people who use/gratify social media more,
moderately/equally with other media, and less. As a sampling approach, simple random sampling
will be employed, with participants separated into three (3) groups: citizens who spend more
time (a), moderate/equal time with other media, and less time (c) on social media. Each group
will be separated into three sections based on their social motivations: developing social
relationships (Factor 1), expanding present interpersonal networks (Factor 2), and information
sharing and exchange (Factor 3). (Factor 3). In this study, it is critical to divide the samples into
groups in order to assess the statistically significant influence of time spent on SNS and the level
of utilizing/gratifying social media on political discourse among the groups.
Theoretical Framework – Theory on Use and Gratification
The purpose of this study is to identify the extent of difference between citizens who use
or rely on social media in their political discourse and those who do not. The use and satisfaction
hypothesis, sometimes known as "need seeking," is a communication paradigm that emphasizes
social communication. This idea is based on a functionalist view of communication and media. It
asserts that the most important purpose of the media is to fulfill the needs and motivations of the
audience. As a result, the more these requirements are satisfied, the greater the enjoyment
(Windahl, Signitzer, and Olson, 2008). The concept of happiness and gratification is founded on
two fundamental questions: 1) why are individuals drawn to specific media? and (2) what kind of
fulfillment does the media create for people? This theory focuses on the audience motif
(Ruggiero, 2000 in Seekhiew, 2009) and examines the social structure and message (Sarkisian,
Nikoo, Saeedian, 1997). As a result, this theory focuses on how a person seeks social media and
how satisfied they are with its kind, substance, and style of usage (Amiri, Noori, Basatian, 2012).
Hence, the positive and negative outcomes of using specific media are ultimately determined
(Balakrishnan and bathroom, 2012). Katz, Gurevitch, & Hass (1973) asserted that their
motivations to ingest media derived from five certain needs: (a) Cognitive needs which is framed
into “strengthening understanding, knowledge, and information” (p. 167); (b) Affective needs
that are associated with “strengthening aesthetic, pleasurable and emotional experience” (p. 167);
(c) Integrative needs which are to “strengthening credibility, confidence, stability, and status” (p.
167); (d) Social integrative needs which relate to “strengthening contact with family, friends, and
therefore the world” (p. 167); and (e) Escape or tension release needs which help to flee or
release tension from society and self.

Figure 1. Use and Gratification Theory – The simplified uses and gratification model
based on Rosengren’s conceptual framework.

Given the focus it takes on the context of communications and media, as well as political
discourse, this theory is crucial and relevant to the goal of this study. This idea proposes that a
human is compelled to utilize media in order to obtain enjoyment. This assumption is consistent
with and necessary for the study's goals and foundation, which are to determine the statistically
significant effect of time spent on SNS and level of utilization/gratification of social media on
the level of political discourse (political awareness, participation, perceived political efficacy,
and ideology of citizens).
 CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design
This study will be using a causal-comparative research design, which is otherwise known
as an ex post facto design. This design will discover possible causes and effects of a behavior
pattern or personal characteristics by comparing individuals displaying the behavior pattern with
other individuals who do not display the behavior pattern (Borg & Gall, 1989). The causal-
comparative method is regularly used in education studies when experimentation is not possible.
It identifies an effect for a particular behavior after some treatment has been administered, as is
the case for this study. Thus, the methodology of positivist research asserts that the researcher is
an objective analyst and, based on it, dissociates himself from personal values and works
independently (Žukauskas, P., Vveinhardt, J. & Andriukaitienė, R., 2018).

Research Sample
The sample chosen for this study will be three hundred (300) Mandaue City Residents
who are at least eighteen years of age, who shall have resided in Mandaue City, for at least one
year. The participants will be divided into three (3) groups; The first group are residents who
spent more time on social media on their political discourse, the second group is residents who
are spent equal time on social media and other media (e.g. Television) on their political
discourse, and the third group is residents who spent less time on social media on their political
discourse. Each group will be categorized in their social motives: deepening social relationship
(Factor 1), Expanding current interpersonal network (Factor 2), and Information sharing and
exchange (Factor 3).

Data Collection
This study will be based on an online survey based in Mandaue City with an informed
assent. Participants will be informed that their participation is completely voluntary, anonymous
and that they could abandon the survey at any time even after it has been started.

The survey contains 6 standardized instruments that we adapted from previous studies that can
help us extract appropriate data such as Demographic Feature and Time Spent on SNS (Social
Networking Sites) or SMS (Social Media Sites) question from Yuan (2011), Social Media Use
and Gratification (SMUG) Scale from Xu & Takai (2018), Multidimensional Political
Ideology (MPI) Scale from Laméris (2015), Perceived Political Self-Efficacy (P-PSE) Scale
from Caprara et al. (2009), and Political Awareness (PA) and Participation (PP) Scale from
Dioso & Mendaña (2019), Demographic features are measured by age, education level,
occupation, and gender. Age will be measured by a fill-in-blank question: “How old will you be
by the end of 2021.” Education level will be measured by the following items: (a)high school
degree or less, (b) undergraduate college student, (c)undergraduate college degree, (d)graduate
student, (e) graduate degree. The occupation will be measured by the following items: (a) full-
time student, (b) government unit employee, (c) state-owned company employee, (d) foreign
company employee, (e) domestic private company employee, (f) unemployed, and (g) others.
Time Spent on SNS questions aims to explore patterns in spending time on SNS. The question
whether time spent on SNS and time spent on other media such as TV, mobile phone, etc. It asks
if users spend (a) more time on SNS, (b) about the same time, (c) or less time. SMUGS is a 14-
item 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = “disagree”, 2 = “somewhat disagree”, 3 = “no
comment”, 4 = “somewhat agree”, and 5 = “agree”. It is designed to measure online social
motives (Yuan, 2011). In this scale, the researcher can measure and identify the gratification or
the social motives of the respondents in using social media.

The following standardized tests are scales that will help our study to quantify different
parameters of political discourse, due to its extensive nature. MPI Scale is a 46-item 5-point
Likert-type scale indicating agree or disagree. It quantifies ideology via statements on
contemporary political, economic and social issues by using the subject’s opinion on these issues
(Laméris, 2015). P-PSE Scale is a 10-item 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not all) to
5(completely). It aims to assess individual’s beliefs in their capabilities to engage actively in
political activities (Caprara et al., 2009). PA scale is a 25-item 4-point Likert-type scale ranging
from “very high (4) to very low (1)”. It is designed to measure the level of political awareness of
the respondents with the following parameters: public policies, political figures, political
institutions, political processes, and political issues. PP scale is a 15-item 4-point Likert-type
scale designed to measure the level of political participation of the respondents in terms of
voting, engagement in public forums and discussions, and activism.

Data Analysis
Data analysis is the process that most differentiates quantitative from qualitative research
(Donald et al,2006). The data will be divided into two independent variables having every three
groups: In the first independent variable which is the Time spent on Social media, it will be
divided into participants who utilize/gratify more time (a), moderate/equal time with other media
(b), and less time(c) on social media. In the second independent variable which is the level of
utilizing/gratifying social Media, participants from already 3 groups will be categorized into
participants who use social media for deepening social relationships (Factor 1), Expanding
current interpersonal networks (Factor 2), and Information sharing and exchange (Factor 3).
Two-way Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) will be used as a statistical data
analysis method in determining whether there is any significant interaction effect between time
spent on SNS and level of utilizing/gratifying social media on the political discourse of the three
groups.

Ethical Consideration
The participants will be concerted with informed assent whereas anonymity and
confidentiality were assured. The participants will be informed about the nature of this study.
This study aims to identify how Social Media affects the online political discourse of Mandaue
City citizens. The involvement of the participants in this study is voluntary and they were given
an option to exclude any question without a negative by-product. If they agree to be part of this
study, they will undergo an online google survey that will last for 15-30 minutes. The
participants’ responses in this research will be anonymous. Every effort will be made to preserve
 and ensure confidentiality like assigning codes/pseudonyms and keeping notes, and any other
personal identifiers that only the researchers will have access to.

REFERENCES

Ahmad, K., Sheikh, K. S. (2013). Social media and youth participatory politics: A study of university students.
Journal of South Asian Studies, 28, 353-360.

(Abdulrauf, 2016; Abdu et al. 2017; Ahmad et al. 2019; Papagiannidis and Manika 2016; Abdu et al., 2017;
Canrijoch et al., 2012).

(DiMaggio et al., 1996; Baldassarri & Gelman, 2008; Fiona & Abrams, 2008). (Abramowitz &
Saunders, 2008; Bafumi & Shapiro, 2009).

(De-wit et al., 2019), leading to a divergence of political opinions to ideological extremes (DiMaggio et al.,
1996; Baldassarri & Gelman, 2008; Fiona & Abrams, 2008)
Griffith Asia Institute (2020), social media in the democratic setting

 Katz, Gurevitch, & Hass (1973) asserted that their motivations to ingest media derived from five certain
needs

(Papagiannidis & Manika, 2016; Abdu et al., 2017), and political knowledge and wishes (Papagiannidis &
Manika, 2016; Abdu et al., 2017). (Abdulrauf, 2016; Canrijoch et al., 2012),

(Ruggiero, 2000 in Seekhiew, 2009) and examines the social structure and message (Sarkisian, Nikoo,
Saeedian, 1997)