See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344376715

Traditional and “New Media” Forms and Political Socialization

Chapter · September 2020

DOI: 10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0167

CITATIONS READS

8 3,410

2 authors:

Jakob Ohme Claes de Vreese

Freie Universität Berlin University of Amsterdam
57 PUBLICATIONS   713 CITATIONS    303 PUBLICATIONS   17,298 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Focusing on Differences? Contextual Conditions and Anti-immigrant Attitudes' Effects on Support for Turkey's EU Membership View project

Media visibility and framing of the European Parliamentary Elections 2009: A media content analysis in 27 countries View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jakob Ohme on 25 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Traditional and “New Media” Forms and
Political Socialization
JAKOB OHME
CLAES DE VREESE
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Political socialization is widely studied in political science and psychology research. In

recent decades, the role of media in this process has become a focal point in the field of
political communication. Research addressing political socialization is concerned with
the human learning processes that determine the function of democratic principles and
institutions (Almond & Verba, 1963; Easton, 1965). It is defined as “the process by
which persons learn to adopt the norms, values, attitudes, and behaviors accepted and
practiced by the ongoing political system” (Sigel, 1965, p. 1). Sigel asserts that a
society that is organized through political rules has the function to maintain itself by
socializing every new citizen with its traditions, practices and conventions of a political
system. Ultimately, political socialization determines what kind of citizens people are
going to be. Since citizenship is not a static concept, changes in the social and media
environment are thought to affect the way new citizens become politically socialized
(Bennett, Freelon, & Wells, 2010).
Different agents are part of the political socialization process, among them family,
school, peers, and mass media (McLeod, 2000; Sears & Levy, 2003). These agents
help citizens to get and to stay in touch with the foundations of political life in a society
but differ in their function and relevance throughout a civic life cycle. The influence
of parents prevails in early stages of life, while peers become more important once
adolescents start challenging the views of their parents. Teachers and school have an
important influence, restricted to the time citizens remain in the educational system
(cf. de Vreese & Moeller, 2014). During childhood, the role of media for political
socialization is limited, although the presentation of political actors in newspapers and
television can be one of the first ways for children to get in touch with politics (Connell,
1971; Conway, Wyckoff, Feldbaum, & Ahern, 1981). From adolescence onward, media
increase in importance as a socializing agent for citizens (Shah, 2008). Hence, media
are not the only but one important pillar of citizens political socialization.
This importance lies in media’s special role in the socialization process: The influ-
ence of media endures throughout a lifetime for most citizens. They can decide more
autonomously about their media use than about their family, educational track and—to
some extent—their peers. Therefore, the impact of individual predispositions on one’s
own media use is considered to be stronger because citizens partly self-determine this
part of their political socialization. In addition, the media environment itself is

Cite as: Ohme, J., & De Vreese, C. H. (2020). Traditional and “New Media” Forms and Political
Socialization. In J. Bulck (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Psychology (1st ed.). Wiley.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0167
2 T ra di ti ona l a nd “ Ne w Me dia ” Form s a nd Poli ti c a l Soc i a li z at i on

constantly subject to massive changes, which makes it important to monitor closely

how an altered media environment changes the political socialization of citizens.
Citizens’ political media use can affect several outcomes of political socialization,
such as political knowledge, norms and values, attitudes, and political participation
(de Vreese & Moeller, 2014). Political knowledge touches upon different levels, such
as being informed about the function of democratic institutions or current political
affairs. Political norms describe the perception of “behavioral regularities,” for example
considering casting a vote as a civic duty or seeing volunteering as an important value
in society (Delli Carpini 2004; Halman, 2007). Political attitudes can encompass a
broad variety of topics, but are mostly connected to specific long-term developments,
such as people’s stance towards European integration or levels of partisanship (Sears &
Levy, 2003). Last, political participation constitutes voluntary acts conducted by
citizens to achieve political goals on various levels (i.e., local, national, global), driven
by a political motivation (van Deth, 2014).
Media can affect socialization outcomes through a number of political learning
mechanisms: Cultivation theory proposes that people adapt presentations about the
world mass media are conveying. It is mostly concerned with negative learning out-
comes, such as misperceptions about the political world due to a negative and hostile
display of politics, especially in entertainment media (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997;
Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1986; Shah, McLeod, & Yoon, 2001). Social
cognitive theory suggests a familiarization with (political) role models presented in the
media, through which especially young citizens learn about norms and functions of
the political system (see Bandura, 1976; Krampen, 2000). Moreover, political knowledge
gains through exposure to news can teach citizens about the political environment,
especially when previous levels of political knowledge are low. Media use, furthermore,
can mobilize citizens to become politically active in various domains of political life
(McLeod, Scheufele, & Moy, 1999).

New media logics and socialization

Changes in the media environment result in new pathways of political socialization that
most often become visible first in the generation that comes of age in that “new media”
era. The relationship between young citizens’ media use and socialization outcomes is
therefore under constant surveillance. The spread of television, the emergence of
commercial broadcasting, and the rise of online media were all developments
considered to introduce a “new media” era at their specific time and have subsequently
sparked research about how those emerging trends affect especially, but not only, young
citizens (e.g., Bakker & de Vreese, 2011; Jennings & Niemi, 1968; Mindich, 2005;
Prior, 2007).
More recently, the media changed towards a socially networked, algorithmic, and
highly personalized environment (Loader, Vromen, & Xenos, 2014). Social media
platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram contributed to expanding citizens’
social online networks, mostly through an increase in weak tie connections (Mislove,
Marcon, Gummadi, Druschel, & Bhattacharjee, 2007). Here, the personal relationship
between network contacts is lower or even absent compared to citizens’ personal offline
 T ra di t i ona l a nd “ Ne w Me dia ” Form s a nd Pol it i cal Soc i al i z at i on 3

networks. The composition of these online networks and users’ previous online behav-
ior, in turn, determine the selection of information citizens receive on social media
platforms. Subsequently, the social media newsfeed becomes the major hub for infor-
mation exposure, such as journalistic news, entertainment, and user-generated content.
The number of citizens who receive political information through online networks
is increasing worldwide. In countries like Denmark, Finland, and Spain, online access
to news outnumbers TV and print media by far. The number of people in the United
Kingdom receiving news via social media almost doubled over a 6-year period (going
from 20% to 39%), while the use of print media for political news shows the reverse
trend. Around half of the population of Italy (48%), Hungary (65%), and the United
States (45%) get their political information regularly via social media networks. Half or
more of the population in these countries receives news via their mobile phone, where
personal messaging apps like WhatsApp contribute to personalized communication
networks even further (cf. Levy, Newman, Fletcher, Kalogeropoulos, & Nielsen, 2018).
In comparison to traditional media, users receive information in these networks
through push mechanisms rather than having to actively seek for it (Klinger &
Svensson, 2015). This networked flow of information can result in exposure to like-
minded information but at the same time makes encounters with information users did
not expect more likely (Fletcher & Nielsen, 2017; Pariser, 2011; Valeriani & Vaccari,
2016). Beyond social media platforms, weblogs and personal messaging services, as
well as their accessibility through mobile devices, expand citizens’ communication
networks even further. The online communities that are formed through these networks
establish a networked communication logic, in which information is shared,
ubiquitously accessible, and aligned to personal interests. After an era where few so-
called legacy media outlets with a wide reach and high influence informed the major
share of a population and thereby were able to set the political agenda, nowadays
smaller fragments of society receive a diversified set of information through their
individual online network, making uniform media effects less likely (Bennett &
Iyengar, 2008; McCombs & Shaw, 1972; but see Shehata & Strömbäck, 2013). A
networked communication logic, hence, leads to more diversified ways of media
influence and has far-reaching implications for
media’s role in a political socialization process.
Compared to traditional media, streaming, mobile access, and shareability of infor-
mation clearly alter what constitutes political content, how it is linked to actions, and
the way information travel through peer networks. First, the top-down elite fashion of
communication is exchanged with coproduction and crowdsourcing of information in
online communities through connected pathways between citizens (cf. Bennett et al.,
2010). Rather than receiving their political news from a trusted and highly recognized
source, for many citizens their communication network nowadays cocreates and dis-
tributes the political information they receive. Second, the low threshold of using a great
number of (free) sources online makes it easy to accumulate knowledge about a specific
topic that receives less attention from legacy news media but is of special interest to
the individual citizen. Third, the smaller (timely) distance between information
reception and linked activities has changed opportunity structures for citizens, for
example through connecting with others or following a call for action (e.g., by signing a
petition, making a donation, or spreading the word).
4 T ra di t i ona l a nd “ Ne w Me dia ” Form s a nd Pol it i cal Soc i al i z at i on

In light of these changes, people who use networked media are likely to receive and
apply political information differently when they get in touch with political issues in
their everyday life (cf. Bennett et al., 2010). Take the example of a news item about a
rescue boat captain who took in refugees in the Mediterranean and was imprisoned for
entering a harbor without permission. Depending on the communication network, this
news will (i) receive greater attention from some citizens than others, whereas (ii)
certain people will find all possible information about the instance online while others
only notice the headline and, based on these different information levels, (iii) they take
some (e.g., online protest or donations) or no action.
A new, more networked-communication logic, hence, reshapes the mechanisms
through which media use can impact political socialization outcomes. With a less elite-
driven communication style, the impact of gatekeepers, such as journalists, is
complemented with “crowd-sourced information flows developed through information
aggregation technologies” (Bennett et al., 2010, p. 397). The cultivation of universal
perceptions in the population through mass media thereby becomes less likely. How-
ever, a personalized media diet that presents attitude consistent information can—in
some instances—shape perceptions about the political world (Bakshy, Messing, &
Adamic, 2015; Pariser, 2011).
Social media also offer a space where citizens can experiment and express them-
selves, especially during their formative years. Through the production of self-focused
content that is shared in extensive online networks, citizens increasingly receive
insights into the lives and behavior of others (Ekström, Olsson, & Shehata, 2014).
This can inspire them to adopt the political lifestyles and opinions of other people.
Encountering a “get out the vote” message from peers, for example, may shape
how important citizens think voting is and increase their own likelihood of voting
(Bond et al., 2012). Political role models, previously found mostly in mass media, can
now be met in citizens’ own online communities. Adapting styles of citizenship
through networked communication logics, hence, may be more effective when they
are exemplified by a person to which a personal tie exists.
Moreover, a personalized media diet can affect learning about political develop-
ments. Some research, however, did not find a strong relationship between political
social media use and political knowledge, compared to traditional media use (Ander-
sen et al., 2019; Boukes, 2019; Shehata & Strömbäck, 2018). More research is needed
that tests for the possibility of less broad learning outcomes, while at the same time
we need to investigate how networked communication flows can increase knowledge
about specific areas of political and civic life.
More evidence is found, however, for a strong and positive relationship between
social media use and political participation (see Boulianne, 2015). The impact of
digitally networked information exposure seems to affect political participation in
election times as well as routine political periods and is not tied to one specific form
of political participation (Dimitrova, Shehata, Strömbäck, & Nord, 2014; Moeller,
Kühne, & de Vreese, 2018; Ohme, 2018). Receiving political information through
social online networks hence seems to be connected to higher levels of political
activity. Research is still inconclusive about the mechanisms at play, but the nature of
content received, as
 T ra di t i ona l a nd “ Ne w Me dia ” Form s a nd Pol it i cal Soc i al i z at i on 5

well as the small distance between information reception and (digital) activities, may
be reasons for this prosperous relationship (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012).
Networked media use can furthermore result in an interplay of different socialization
outcomes. Research has started to model socialization outcomes as a process, rather
than treating them as simultaneous and equivalent results of media use. This follows
the idea of Bennett (2008), who suggests that certain norms of citizenship correspond to
different communication styles. In short, dutiful forms of citizenship norms are thought
to be connected to traditional forms of media use, whereas people who hold more self-
actualizing perceptions of citizenship rely more on digitally networked communi-
cation (Shehata, Ekström, & Olsson, 2016). Copeland and Feezell (2017) find that digital
media use increases nonelectoral participation for people with actualizing (compared to
dutiful) citizenship norms. In this vein, Ohme (2018) investigated how different ways
of understanding citizenship mediate the positive relationship between digital media
use and political participation. Findings show that the effect of social media use on
political participation is mediated through understanding citizenship as an optional
(but not dutiful) and individual (but not collective) endeavor. The interplay of
networked media use and certain socialization outcomes (such as norms) can hence
indirectly affect other socialization outcomes (such as political participation). While
most research has focused on so-called digital natives to test this new phenomenon, it
has to be seen how pervasive such media-related changes in the civic culture are in
older generations (Andersen et al., 2019).
In sum, media’s role in political socialization becomes potentially stronger in a
new media environment, since it combines informational usage with social network
elements into a personalized media diet. This personalized political media diet can con-
tribute to less uniform socialization outcomes, such as distinct political norms, specific
knowledge gains, and engagement in tailor-made political activities. New, emerging
forms of political participation, such as the support of crowdfunding campaigns, polit-
ical expression in social networks, or becoming part of a urban gardening community
are first indications of how political socialization through new media changes not
only the appearance but also the foundations of political life. Individual interest may
determine the political mindsets of people more strongly, yet being integrated in a
social media network can also strengthen collective political efforts (Xenos et al.,
2014). As a general shift, the algorithm-driven and networked media environment
allows for multiple routes of how citizens become socialized into civic life. Future
research therefore needs to take on the challenge of tying together citizens’ unique
media networks and the greater diversity of political standpoints in increasingly
individualized societies.
6 T ra di t i ona l a nd “ Ne w Me dia ” Form s a nd Pol it i cal Soc i al i z at i on

References

Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five
nations. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
Andersen, K., Ohme, J., Bjarnoe, C., Bordacconi, M. J., Albaek, E., & de Vreese, C. H. (2019).
We need to talk about the youth! Generational gaps in political information use and civic
engagement. Manuscript under review.
Bakker, T. P., & de Vreese, C. H. (2011). Good news for the future? Young people, Inter- net
use, and political participation. Communication Research, 38(4), 451–470. doi:10.1177/
0093650210381738
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and
opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132. doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160
Bandura, A. (1976). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bennett, W. L. (2008). Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bennett, W. L., Freelon, D., & Wells, C. (2010). Changing citizen identity and the rise of a
participatory media culture. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. A. Flanagan (Eds.),
Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 393–423). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
doi:10.1002/9780470767603.ch15
Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations
of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707–731.
Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action. Information,
Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661
Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D. I., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., & Fowler, J.
H. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization.
Nature, 489(7415), 295–298. doi:10.1038/nature11421
Boukes, M. (2019). Social network sites and acquiring current affairs knowledge: The impact of
Twitter and Facebook usage on learning about the news. Journal of Information Technology &
Politics, 16(1), 36–51. doi:10.1080/19331681.2019.1572568
Boulianne, S. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research.
Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 524–538. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542
Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Connell, R. (1971). The child’s construction of politics. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Conway, M. M., Wyckoff, M. L., Feldbaum, E., & Ahern, D. (1981). The news media in children’s
political socialization. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 45(2), 164–178.
Copeland, L., & Feezell, J. T. (2017). The influence of citizenship norms and media use
on different modes of political participation in the US. Political Studies, 65(4), 805–832.
doi:10.1177/0032321717720374
Delli Carpini, M. X. (2004). Mediating democratic engagement: The impact of communications
on citizens’ involvement in political and civic life. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political
communication research (pp. 395–343). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
de Vreese, C. H., & Moeller, J. (2014). Communication and political socialization. In C.
Reinemann (Ed.), Political communication (pp. 529–546). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Dimitrova, D. V., Shehata, A., Strömbäck, J., & Nord, L. W. (2014). The effects of digital media
on political knowledge and participation in election campaigns evidence from panel data.
Communication Research, 41(1), 95–118. doi:10.1177/0093650211426004
Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York, NY: Wiley.
Ekström, M., Olsson, T., & Shehata, A. (2014). Spaces for public orientation? Longitudinal
effects of Internet use in adolescence. Information, Communication & Society, 17(2), 168–183.
doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.862288
 T ra di t i ona l a nd “ Ne w Me dia ” Form s a nd Pol it i cal Soc i al i z at i on 7

Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2017). Are people incidentally exposed to news on social
media? A comparative analysis. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2450–2468. doi:10.1177/
1461444817724170
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1986). Living with television: The
dynamics of the cultivation process. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Perspectives on media
effects (pp. 17–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Halman, L. (2007). Political values. In R. J. Dalton & H. Klingemann (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of political behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/
9780199270125.003.0016
Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. (1968). Patterns of political learning. Harvard Educational Review,
38(3), 443–467. doi:10.17763/haer.38.3.91784021110jw387
Klinger, U., & Svensson, J. (2015). The emergence of network media logic in politi-
cal communication: A theoretical approach. New Media & Society, 17(8), 1241–1257.
doi:10.1177/1461444814522952
Krampen, G. (2000). Transition of adolescent political action orientations to voting behavior in
early adulthood in view of a social-cognitive action theory model of personality. Political
Psychology, 21(2), 277–297.
Levy, D., Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018). Digital news
report 2018. Retrieved from http://media.digitalnewsreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/
06/digital-news-report-2018.pdf?x89475
Loader, B. D., Vromen, A., & Xenos, M. A. (2014). The networked young citizen: Social media,
political participation and civic engagement. Information, Communication & Society, 17(2),
143–150. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.871571
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. The Public
Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.
McLeod, J. M. (2000). Media and civic socialization of youth. Journal of Adolescent Health,
27(2), 45–51. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(00)00131-2
McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., & Moy, P. (1999). Community, communication, and partici-
pation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation.
Political Communication, 16(3), 315–336. doi:10.1080/105846099198659
Mindich, D. T. Z. (2005). Tuned out: Why Americans under 40 don’t follow the news. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Mislove, A., Marcon, M., Gummadi, K. P., Druschel, P., & Bhattacharjee, B. (2007). Measurement
and analysis of online social networks. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM Conference
on Internet Measurement (pp. 29–42). New York, NY:ACM. doi:10.1145/1298306.1298311
Moeller, J., Kühne, R., & de Vreese, C. D. (2018). Mobilizing youth in the 21st century: How
digital media use fosters civic duty, information efficacy, and political participation. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 62(3), 445–460. doi:10.1080/08838151.2018.1451866
Ohme, J. (2018). Updating citizenship? The effects of digital media use on citizenship
understanding and political participation. Information, Communication & Society, 22(13),
1903–1928. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2018.1469657
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read
and how we think. New York, NY: Penguin.
Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in
political involvement and polarizes elections. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sears, D. O., & Levy, S. (2003). Childhood and adult political development. In D. O. Sears,
L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 60–109). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Shah, D. V. (2008). Political socialization through the media. In W. Donsbach (Ed.),
The international encyclopedia of communication. New York, NY: Wiley. doi:10.1002/
9781405186407.wbiecp068
 8 T ra di t i ona l a nd “ Ne w Me dia ” Form s a nd Pol it i cal Soc i al i z at i on

Shah, D. V., McLeod, D. M., & Yoon, S.-H. (2001). Communication, context, and community:
an exploration of print, broadcast, and Internet influences. Communication Research, 28(4),
464–506. doi:10.1177/009365001028004005
Shehata, A., Ekström, M., & Olsson, T. (2016). Developing self-actualizing and dutiful citizens:
testing the AC-DC Model using panel data among adolescents. Communication Research,
43(8), 1141–1169. doi:10.1177/0093650215619988
Shehata, A., & Strömbäck, J. (2013). Not (yet) a new era of minimal effects: A study of agenda
setting at the aggregate and individual levels. The International Journal of Press/Politics,
18(2), 234–255. doi:10.1177/1940161212473831
Shehata, A., & Strömbäck, J. (2018). Learning political news from social media: Network media
logic and current affairs news learning in a high-choice media environment. Communication
Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650217749354
Sigel, R.S. (1965). Political socialization: Its role in the political process. Washington, DC:
American Academy of Political and Social Science.
Valeriani, A., & Vaccari, C. (2016). Accidental exposure to politics on social media as online
participation equalizer in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. New Media & Society,
18(9), 1857–1874. doi:10.1177/1461444815616223
van Deth, J. W. (2014). A conceptual map of political participation. Acta Politica, 49(3), 349–367.
doi:10.1057/ap.2014.6
Xenos, M., Vromen, A., & Loader, B. D. (2014). The great equalizer? Patterns of social media
use and youth political engagement in three advanced democracies. Information,
Communication & Society, 17(2), 151–167. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.871318

Jakob Ohme is a postdoctoral researcher in the Digital Communication Methods Lab

at the Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of
Amsterdam. His research interests center around political communication effects, the
impact of digital media on political behavior and attitudes, and the development of new
methodological approaches in political communication research. As part of the Digital
Communication Methods Lab at ASCoR, he investigates effects of mobile media
exposure by employing mobile methods, such as experience sampling studies, mobile
eye tracking, and the use of specific survey apps.

Claes de Vreese is Professor of Political Communication and Faculty Professor of AI

and Democracy at the Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), Uni-
versity of Amsterdam. He directs the Digital Communication Methods Lab.

View publication stats