Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:33:31.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social information and political participation on the internet: an experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2011

Helen Margetts ,
Peter John ,
Tobias Escher  and
Stéphane Reissfelder
Helen Margetts
Affiliation:
Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Peter John*
Affiliation:
Politics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Tobias Escher
Affiliation:
Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Stéphane Reissfelder
Affiliation:
Sociology, University of Oxford, UK
*
* E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper tests whether the social information provided by the internet affects the decision to participate in politics. In a field experiment, subjects could choose to sign petitions and donate money to support causes. Participants were randomized into treatment groups that received varying information about how many other people had participated and a control group receiving no social information. Results show that social information has a varying effect according to the numbers provided, which is strongest when there are more than a million other participants, supporting claims about critical mass, and tipping points in political participation.

Keywords

participationinternetpetitionscollective action
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , November 2011 , pp. 321 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andreoni, J. (2006), ‘Philanthropy’, in L.A. Gerar-Varet, S.-C. Kolm and J. Mercier Ythier (eds), The Handbook of Giving, Reciprocity and Altruism, Handbooks in Economics, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J. Scholz, J.K. (1998), ‘An econometric analysis of charitable giving with Interdependent preferences’, Economic Enquiry 36(3): 401–428.Google Scholar
Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G. Prelec, D. (2003), ‘ “Coherent arbitrariness”: stable demand curves without stable preferences’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(1): 73–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benkler, Y. (2006), The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bimber, B. (2001), ‘Information and political engagement in America: the search for effects of information technology at the individual level’, Political Research Quarterly 54: 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bimber, B. (2003), Information and American democracy: Technology in the Evolution of Political Power, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bimber, B., Flanagin, A. Stohl, C. (2005), ‘Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment’, Communication Theory 15: 365–388.Google Scholar
Brooks, A.C. (2004), ‘What do “don't know” responses really mean in giving surveys?’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 33(3): 423–434.Google Scholar
Cain, B. (1978), ‘Strategic voting in Britain’, American Journal of Political Science 22: 639–655.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R.B. Goldstein, N.J. (2004), ‘Social influence: compliance and conformity’, Annual Review of Psychology 42(2–3): 248–265.Google Scholar
Colomer, J. (1995), Game Theory and the Transition to Democracy: the Spanish Model, Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Colomer, J. (2010), The Science of Politics, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cotterill, S., John, P., Richardson, L. (2010), ‘Pledge campaigns to encourage charitable giving: a randomised controlled trial’. Paper to the Political Studies Association Annual Conference, 29 March–1 April.Google Scholar
Fischbacher, U., Gaechter, S. Fehr, E. (2001), ‘Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment’, Economics Letters 71(3): 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, B. Meier, S. (2004), ‘Social comparisons and pro-social behaviour: testing “conditional cooperation” in a field experiment’, The American Economic Review 94(5): 1717–1722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, A., Green, D. Larimer, C. (2008), ‘Social pressure and voter turnout: evidence from a large-scale field experiment’, American Political Science Review 102(1): 33–48.Google Scholar
Glynn, C., Hayes, A. Shanahan, J. (1997), ‘Perceived support for one's opinions and willingness to speak out: a meta-analysis of survey studies on the “spiral of silence” ’, The Public Opinion Quarterly 61(3): 452–463.Google Scholar
Goel, S., Muhamad, R., Watts, D. (2009), ‘Social search in “small world” experiments’. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on World Wide Web, Madrid.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, N., Cialdini, R. Griskevicius, V. (2008), ‘A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels’, Journal of Consumer Research 35: 472–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, R. (1993), ‘Collective action and network structure’, American Sociological Review 58: 182–196.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1978), ‘Threshold models of diffusion and collective behaviour’, Journal of Mathematical Sociology 9: 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, J. (2006), ‘The rise of crowdsourcing’, Wired 14(1): 75–90.Google Scholar
Keser, C. van Winden, F. (2000), ‘Conditional cooperation in voluntary contribution to public goods’, Scandinavian Journal of Economics 102(1): 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinnick, K., Krugman, D. Cameron, G. (1996), ‘Compassion fatigue: communication and burnout toward social problems’, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 73: 687–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klotz, R. (2004), The Politics of Internet Communication, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Krueger, B. (2002), ‘Assessing the potential of the internet: political participation in the United States: a resource approach’, American Politics Research 30: 476–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lev-On, A. Hardin, R. (2007), ‘Internet-based collaboration and their political significance’, Journal of Information Technology and Politics 4(2): 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, A. Sin, G. (2003), ‘Which public goods are endangered?: How evolving communication technologies affect the logic of collective action’, Public Choice 117: 315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margetts, H. Stoker, G. (2010), ‘The experimental method: prospects for laboratory and field studies’, in D. Marsh and G. Stoker (eds), Theory and Methods in Political Science, 3rd edn., Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Margetts, H., Reissfelder, S., Escher, T. (2010), ‘Information effects on citizens’ propensity to seek redress in public services: an experimental analysis’. Paper to the 60th Political Studies Association Annual Conference, 29 March–1 April 2010, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Marsh, C. (1985), ‘Back on the bandwagon: the effects of opinion polls on public opinion’, British Journal of Political Science 15: 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marwell, G. Oliver, P. (1993), The Critical Mass in Collective Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marwell, G., Oliver, P. Prahl, R. (1988), ‘Social networks and collective action: a theory of the critical mass III’, American Journal of Sociology 94: 502–534.Google Scholar
Nadeau, R., Cloutier, E. Guay, J.-H. (1993), ‘New evidence about the existence of a bandwagon effect in the opinion formation process’, International Political Science Review 14: 203–213.Google Scholar
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974), ‘The spiral of silence: a theory of public opinion’, Journal of Communication 24: 43–51.Google Scholar
Nosek, B., Banaji, M. Greenwald, A. (2002), ‘E-research: ethics, security, design and control in psychological research on the Internet’, Journal of Social Issues 58(1): 161–176.Google Scholar
Oliver, P. Marwell, G. (1988), ‘The paradox of group size in collective action: a theory of the critical mass. II.’, American Sociological Review 53: 1–8.Google Scholar
Olson, M. (1965), The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salancik, G. Pfeffer, J. (1977), ‘An examination of need-satisfaction models of job attitudes’, Administrative Science Quarterly 22: 427–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salancik, G. Pfeffer, J. (1978), ‘A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design’, Administrative Science Quarterly 23: 224–253.Google Scholar
Salganik, M. Watts, D. (2009), ‘Web-based experiments for the study of collective social dynamics in cultural markets’, Topics in Cognitive Science 1: 439–468.Google Scholar
Salganik, M., Dodds, P. Watts, D. (2006), ‘Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market’, Science 311(5762): 854–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelling, T. (2006, first published in 1978), Micromotives and Macrobehaviour, New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Schultz, P.W. (1999), ‘Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: a field experiment of curbside recycling’, Basic and Applied Social Psychology 21: 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shang, J. Croson, R. (2006), ‘The impact of social comparisons on nonprofit fundraising’, Research in Experimental Economics Series 11: 143–156.Google Scholar
Shang, J. Croson, R. (2009), ‘A field experiment in charitable contribution: the impact of social information on the voluntary provision of public goods’, The Economic Journal 119(540): 1422–1439.Google Scholar
Shirky, C. (2008), Here Comes Everybody. The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, New York: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Shirky, C. (2010), Cognitive Surplus, New York: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Siegel, D. (2009), ‘Social networks and collective action’, American Journal of Political Science 53(1): 122–138.Google Scholar
Skitka, L. Sargis, E. (2006), ‘The internet as psychological laboratory’, Annual Review of Psychology 57: 529–555.Google Scholar
Smith, J., John, P., Sturgis, P., Nomura, H. (2009), ‘Deliberation and internet engagement: initial findings from a randomised controlled trial evaluating the impact of facilitated internet forums’. Paper to the ECPR Conference Potsdam, Germany, 10–12 September 2009.Google Scholar
Thaler, M. Sunstein, C. (2008), Nudge, London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Valente, T. (1996), ‘Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations’, Social Networks 18: 69–89.Google Scholar