University of the Philippines Diliman

College of Social Sciences and Philosophy

Political Science Department

Stuck in a Web of Politics: Social Media and Youth Political Socialization

Identifying the Development Process of Youth Political Engagement Through Social Media

In Compliance with the Requirements for

Political Science 111 - Qualitative Research Methods in Political Science

First Semester AY 2016-2017

Prof. Perlita Frago-Marasigan

Arthel D. Caronongan Jr.

2011 40531

November 25, 2016

1
Abstract

The study focuses on youth political socialization done through social media and seeks to
answer the general question How does social media form youth political engagement? Specifically,
we look at the effects exposure to political news content has on the development process of youth
political engagement. Does being exposed to political news stir interest among the youth? Can their
views be changed when opposing views are presented? As technology continues to develop alongside
our generation, the youth is given more avenues to not only be consumers of information but also to be
producers. In this case, the avenues available to us are the different social media platforms. For this
study, information gathered from interviews as well as focus group discussions will be used to see if it
reflects what the literature says about the study. Exposure to political news content through social
media will result, at the very least, in the stimulation of political interest among the youth.

Introduction

The internet has been growing ever since its inception in the 1960s. What was initially used as a

fail-safe communication tool for military purposes, it has evolved to serve different functions .

Traditional media and communications are being redefined and reshaped by the rise of the internet, and

access to it has become easier through the years. Ever since being launched to the general public in

1995, the number of internet users has grown to an estimated 46% of the worlds population (roughly 3

billion) in 2016 (International Telecommunication Union). Among the popular uses of the internet

include e-commerce or online shopping, research (whether academic or otherwise), and social media

and networking. It is this last activity which will be the focus of this study. As the internet continues to

grow, greater amounts of information and knowledge continues to be spread and be easily accessible

among peers. As a global network, there is no central governing body over what is being shared over

the internet. This causes the free and rapid exchange of information. In a world where people are

becoming engaged politically, information is essential. As such, the internet has been used as the tool

for politics, whether in mobilizing demonstrations, asking for support, or disseminating information.

2
 There is an importance in the study of the effects social media have on youth political

engagement, especially at this point in time where the internet is becoming a huge part of human

development. The media have often been considered to be secondary agents in political socialization,

with the family, school, and peers considered as primary agents (Paletz, Owen, Cook). We can not

discount the fact that the family, as the basic unit in society, will always play a huge role in a childs

development. However, as technology continues to improve, how does this affect the formation of

attitudes, values, and beliefs of the youth, especially when we get exposed to technology at younger

ages? As part of the youth (ages 15-24 years old, per UNESCO), we are, what I would consider,

growing up alongside technology. Revolutionary devices like the iPhone 4 (2010), Macbook Air

(2008), and many other gadgets were introduced at a time when we are able to make use of them and

treat them as essential items in our daily lives. The internet has also been an important factor for human

interaction and engagement the past few years. Since its arrival in Philippine shores in 1995, internet

access has exponentially increased. According to a 2011 survey by AGB Nielsen Philippines, 65% of

those in the 15-19 age range have constant internet access, while 48% for those from ages 20-25.

Additionally, 74% of those in the 15-19 age range identify internet cafes as their main point of access.

Along with that is the boom of different social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

ComScore, a company in charge of digital marketing intelligence, cited the Philippines (which has been

dubbed as the Social Networking Capital of the World) as having the highest social network usage in

Southeast Asia. IPG Mediabrands, another digital marketing company, noted that Filipinos spend 53

hours a week on social media, 11 more hours than the global average. Their survey further notes that

the internet is indispensable to Filipinos as it addresses core human needs: relationships, diversions,

3
progression, recognition, and learnings. The last core human need is what this study will revolve

around, as this ease of access to the internet and to social media expose the youth to many things, from

celebrities, to sports, and even politics. We are at an age where we may have already formed an attitude

towards certain viewpoints, but are still capable of changing our minds and being more open to others

opinions. Our ability to use the internet not only easily, consistently, and efficiently makes it easy for

us to not only be consumers of certain kinds of information, but also be producers. This study will

contribute to the stream of knowledge within and beyond the field by providing additional insights on

the role media, specifically social media, plays in the political socialization of the Philippine youth in

todays time. The youth have been key players in the rise of the internet, as they are growing up

alongside it.

A short list of variables to be studied include political news content from two social networking

websites (Facebook and Twitter), and the development process of youth political engagement which

will be grounded on the mobilization theory of Charles Tilly and Doug McAdam and reinforcement

theory of Joseph Klapper. On one hand, the reinforcement theory states that the primary influence of

media is to reinforce (not change) existing attitudes and behaviors. On the other hand, the mobilization

theory refers to involving citizens into politics. These variables will be further discussed in the

Conceptualization section of this paper.

For this study, I hypothesize that exposure to political news content through social media will

result, at the very least, in the stimulation of political interest among the youth. This could well be in

line with the mobilization theory. Furthermore, it could lead to the reinforcement of current beliefs,

values, and attitudes. Humans have a natural inclination towards ideas which resonate with what we

4
want to believe in. However, we cannot discount the possibility that new information can be picked up

through social media, which will then be the basis of the development of beliefs, values, and attitudes.

Literature Review

Looking at the literature at hand, it seems that overall there is discussion, although not as

extensive, on the specific effects on the youth but on populations as a whole. This is probably because

of the continuous rise of technology alongside the youth. As technology constantly changes and is

becoming more accessible to the younger generations, this leaves the door open for more youth to be

part of studies, or even be the sole focus altogether. Also, there has not been that many studies

published about the subject matter, maybe because of the relative newness of the topic. Of studies

already published, however, there is no clear consensus regarding which between the reinforcement

and mobilization theories are prevalent.

Theme 1: Social Media as a Mobilization Tool

Joseph Kahne and Ellen Middaughs 2012 article tackles digital media and its role as to how it

shapes youth participation in politics. An example given is the group known as School Girls Unite,

which is comprised of 12-year-old girls in Maryland who used social media to connect with like-

minded women in the US, Canada, and Africa. These girls mobilized more than 70 girls organizations

throughout the United States to support a United Nations initiative to set aside one day a year to

recognize the need for girls to be educated around the world. Another example is 18-year-old Michelle

5
Ryan Lautos campaign to protest school funding cuts in New Jersey. What started as a Facebook

message to 600 of her friends turned into a 18,000-strong supporter base, which is considered as one of

the largest grassroots protests in New Jerseys history. One last example was the shared Facebook

video of Ugandan warlord Joseph Konys abuses, which sparked the hashtag #KONY2012 . This video

was viewed more than 76 million times, and what was discovered was that almost 60% of those shared

and viewed it were the youth, using Facebook, Twitter, and other forms as social media as their

platforms for their protest. Although forms of youth political participation and activism arent new,

what makes these different is the fact that these campaigns were peer-created and directed, relying on

the internet and social media to forward these campaigns. By using technology, the youth has been able

to help shape the flow of political information, often using their creativity. Political speeches can now

be revived endlessly through tweets, posted on YouTube and Facebook, and shared everywhere else .

The fact that there is nearly no cost to using social media makes it a lucrative platform for the youth to

participate not only in politics, but in social engagement in general. However, a concern raised by the

researchers was the fact that the practice of using social media would distract the youth, making them

focus on peer-to-peer communication rather than on those in power. A study on the effect of media on

youth participation in politics proved otherwise, echoing earlier findings of Cohen and Kahne (2012)

that those who engaged in at least one act of participatory politics were actually twice as likely to report

voting. The onset of new media, the internet, and social media should be embraced by educators as

tools for political and civic engagement. Media literacy is needed to be able to utilize the internets

capacity as the next greatest political tool, proving that the virtual world can be food for the real world.

6
 Delli Carpinis 2000 study focused on the youth, civic engagement, and the new information

environment. The survey he held noted that there was a form of disengagement of young Americans

from the public life. However, due to the continuous rise of technology and the internet. some argue

that it is these factors which may be used to improve this state of affairs. Delli Carpini theorizes that

todays young adults were the following: less interested in politics or public affairs, less knowledgeable

about the substance or processes of politics, less likely to read a newspaper or watch the news, less

likely to register or vote, less likely to participate in politics beyond voting, less likely to participate in

community organizations designed to address public problems, and many others. Possible reasons why

such a disengagement exists include the belief that the Social Security system will cease to exist by the

time they are old enough to need it. Other reasons include the lack of interest in pursuing a career in the

public sector, as well as general apathy when it comes to politics. The inception of the internet has

revived interest in the public sector not only in the youth, but in the population as a whole. This new

communication environment has rapidly changed the economic, social, and political landscape,

offering more opportunities for the youth to engage themselves in political processes. True enough, a

key factor as to why the youth seem disengaged is the fact that there are not enough opportunities given

to them to participate in politics. The existence of the internet gives different opportunities to different

sets of people. For example, for the political elites (candidates, officeholders, organized interests, etc),

the internet offers them the opportunities to create new networks and reach new audiences . For the

citizens, the internet provides lower costs for them to engage in politics, at the same time improve the

quality of their engagement, and even increase the type of activities they can engage in.

7
 Best and Kruegers 2005 article focuses on analyzing the representativeness of internet political

participation. Despite the internet seen as mainstream avenue for political participation, current

assessments cannot sufficiently evaluate its representativeness in political participation patterns. The

method used in this study is a two-stage ordered-logit model of online and offline political participation,

with results suggesting that the factors predicting online participation often differ from the factors that

predict offline participation. Factors like socioeconomic status also play a role, as they do not

proportionally posses the distinct online determinants. Online political participation was measured

using political questions asked to over 1000 participants thru telephone interviews, such as asking if the

internet was used to contact an elected representative, government official, or candidate for office. The

signing of petitions online as well as the facilitating of political discussions over the internet were also

used as a measure. Offline political participation was measured by asking the following questions:

Have you personally gone to see, made a phone call to, or sent a postal letter to an elected

representative, government official, or candidate for office? Have you signed a written petition or

facilitated a political discussion through telephone, mail, or in person with someone in an effort to

persuade that person about your view on political issues? These questions were notably a reflection of

each other, with the vehicle used (whether through the internet or in person) being the key difference.

A key discovery in the analysis of results showed that those with increased internet skills increased the

likelihood of online political activities. Given the strong evidence that suggests online participation

may help activate the younger members of the adult population, the efficacy of the internet must be

considered compared to traditional media.

Samuels 2011 study focuses on social media shaping not only new social movements but also

the media as a whole. A case study used in the research was the 2009 University of California protest

8
movement, which was against tuition increases, furloughs, state budget cuts, and mass layoffs of school

faculty. What was interesting with the mobilization was that it was formed by a coalition of students

and adults alike, formed both online and offline. The protests were marked as a success, as it led to a

$500 million increase in funding for the University of California, which was initially facing a $800

million budget cut. The study looks at other similar prodemocracy protests and the role youth played in

them, like the mobilizations done in Egypt, which relied on social media sites like Twitter, Facebook,

and YouTube to bring their messages to wider audiences. These websites promoted a decentralized

social structure, allowing people with different backgrounds and interests to link together over a shared

set of demands. The fact that these movements had no set agenda or organizational hierarchy signaled a

new way of interacting with the world, one combining technology with spontaneity. In the case of the

2009 UC protests, it is the online action of signing petitions by students and faculty alike which

sparked major offline action. Professors refused to teach classes, and student protestors utilized text

brigades to attract attention in leading a massive march along busy thoroughfares in Los Angeles. This

attracted great media attention, which consequently led to the restoration of the budget by then-

governer Arnold Schwarzenegger. The use of the internet and social media made it hard to control and

predict these protests, and these factors led to its surprising success. It can be attributed to the fact that

since the generation of students grew up in a media-saturated culture, they were able to manipulate

media and create a culture of media decentralization and personal empowerment. An example given in

the study was how a large public forum organized by students was used to voice particular calls for

action, signifying a strong democratic and participatory ethos of the youth in organizing collective

9
action. Similarly, new media technologies like Facebook allow such interactions to happen in the

digital world. People are able to voice diverse opinions in an open forum, creating a constant dialogue.

Carlisle and Pattons 2013 article analyzes Facebook using the context of the 2008 United

States presidential elections. They aim to see how social media changes the way we understand

political engagement, examining political activity of Facebook users during both the primaries and the

general elections. Social networking sites have also been cited as instrumental in political activities

outside of elections, notably the 2009 Iranian protests against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Arab Spring

as a whole, and the summer 2011 London youth riots. These mobilizations, often instigated and

participated by the youth, illustrate the ability of social media to mobilize users for political activity.

However, little empirical work in the academy has measured the nature of actual political engagement

occurring. The 2008 elections is often regarded as the first Facebook elections, as social networking

sites played a prominent role in the campaigns. Facebook was notably a cosponsor of a presidential

debate, which allowed users to become actively involved before, during, and after the debate. Live

feedback was made possible, and discussion between and among members took place. It is these kinds

of phenomena which change the nature of political participation, and the research aims to consider

whether the same factors behind offline participation also play a role in online participation. Data from

student questionnaires, school records, and Facebook profiles of college undergraduates and recent

graduates were used to assess the level of political participation demonstrated as well as discover the

factors that influence those kinds of participation. Studies show that the accessibility of political

information made it more likely that people are willing and able to invest themselves in political issues

and processes. These engagements mainly reinforced those who were already engaged, but findings

10
have suggested that the internet can propel individuals into political life especially since political

information could be easily gathered and discussed, and the cost of participating has been dramatically

reduced. Other results showed that specific political activities undertaken by students included

participation in political discussions, political status updates, their intention to vote (or otherwise), and

vocal support of a candidate. As the study took place over the duration of the whole election campaign,

it was noted that several types of political activities increased over the course of the election, most

notably during the general elections themselves (possibly due to its symbolic importance as well as the

attention given to it).

Theme 2: Social Media as a Reinforcement Tool

Cohen and Kahnes 2012 study on new media and politics among people was deemed the

largest nationally representative study at that time. They used a survey to question more than 3000

young people on their internet and social media usage, as well as their engagement in politics. What is

interesting with this study is that it encompasses youth from different races and socio-economic

background, making the results as comprehensive as possible. This also supports their claim that

participatory politics are equitably distributed across different racial and ethnic groups. The

participatory politics these groups joined included starting political groups online, writing blogs

about political issues, or sharing political videos among peers. It was noted that, defying conventional

expectations, black and Asian-American youth are the most avid users of media, and participate in

online forms of participatory politics at rates equal to or slightly higher than whites, Latinos, and

Asian-Americans. The study shares that participatory politics add to an individuals political

11
engagement, rather than serve as an alternative to other political activities. They found out that among

those who were of voting age, participating in at least one act of participatory politics will likely

increase their probability of voting during the 2010 elections compared to those who did not participate

in politics. When it comes to the consumption of news, Cohen and Kahne noted that 45% of the youth

reported getting news from social media feeds like Twitter and Facebook . Interestingly, they believed

that getting their news from these sources benefited them by learning how to judge the credibility of

what they find online.

Bimbers 1999 study supports the notion that media is a reinforcement tool. He proposes a

reinforcement profile, namely males who are educated, older, and has more political connections .

These subjects were those who engaged in politics actively through engagement with government

services like making telephone calls or communicating online through emails. Interestingly, the

younger citizens were more likely to use emails in contacting the government compared to the older

citizens, but it is the older citizens who would use it consistently as a constant form of communication.

This was attributed to the fact that the internet was still fairly new when the study was conducted (1996

and 1997), thus making it harder for the older citizens to acclimate to the changes . Bimber conducted a

later study in 2003 which provides more evidence that the internet is used as a reinforcement tool . He

posits that the internet is successful in providing people political information during the campaign

season, and thus not able to produce mobilization but provide reinforcement. It was later mentioned

that the internet attracted very few new and marginalized participants to campaigns, probably because

as the internet became more diffused, its effects will lessen. This will lead to its messages becoming

less interesting, as the audience is directed from being purposive to that of a mass audience.

12
 Jennings and Zeitner showed that the internet had a positive impact in terms of an increase in

political engagements. Their evidence suggested that online political participation mirrored offline

political participation. Their study included an analysis of panel data which examined an individuals

level of participation over a period of time, and they were able to conclude that the more politically

involved an internet user was, the more likely that they used the internet to gather and obtain political

information. Additionally, they added that this scenario was more likely to happen to the younger

citizens compared to the older citizens.

Theme 3: Social Media as Both a Mobilization and Reinforcement Tool

Cornfield, Rainie, and Horrigans 2003 study focuses on the usage of media as an outlet for

campaigners to reach voters for elections. The internet is seen as a great two-way conduit for them and

for the citizens, with room for third parties (like those outside of the initial conversation) to provide

context and commentary. The report examines online politics from three perspectives: the campaigners,

the online citizens, and the portals of web traffic (AOL, MSN, and Yahoo). Americans were surveyed,

ranging from the youth to adolescents to the campaign managers themselves and content analysis of

candidates web sites were also monitored. From the campaigners perspective, they were deemed

successful in using the internet to conduct political research and communicate with the press. However,

they lacked coordination with the public, missing an opportunity to build public confidence. The

number of online citizens swelled from 33 million to 46 million between 2000 and November 2002,

meaning that the audience the campaigners had dramatically increased at a time when public internet

access started to boom. However, the lack of coordination with the campaigners led to them not finding

13
the information they needed, information which would reinforce their voting inclinations. Most

engagements between online citizens revolved around participating in online polls or swapping jokes

about the campaigns and elections thru email. For the web portals, they served as the gatekeepers of

political information and facilitators of political research, often playing matchmakers to those with

similar political interests and views. This connected audiences to one another, developing extensive

directories for campaigners to use but did not promote election activity as much. An analysis of these

perspectives led to the following conclusions: the importance of grassroots support, open coordination

between parties and groups, and the use of humor to attract attention about and to a campaign . The

survey also highlighted the importance of the email as a tool of communication, where nearly 67% of

those who were active online during the election cycle sent or received emails related to political

campaigns. Apart from emails, web sites containing agenda of interest groups received a lot of

attention, being used by internet users as tools for education and information to help them make voting

decisions.

Effing, van Hillegersberg, and Huibers 2011 study focused on social media as a tool in

democratizing our political systems. Using field results of the 2010 and 2011 elections in the

Netherlands, they try to understand the meaning and impact of social media on elections. Current

findings in literature dictate that using the internet as a tool to shape public participation in politics did

not meet expectations, but social media could become the game-changer. While social media platforms

did not significantly influence voting behavior during the 2010 and 2011 local elections in the

Netherlands, it did however play a role in the 2010 national elections. Politicians with higher social

media engagements got relatively more votes within most political parties, showing that these can be an

avenue for greater exposure not only to the voting public, but also to party members and volunteers .

14
The rise of social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Myspace has made the internet

more social and participatory. As a political tool, however, political parties have not been able to

effectively capitalize on the phenomenon. The case is not true for the Obama campaign in 2008, which

was systematically based on social media. Running nearly 20 social media websites, his team was able

to complement their offline work with online publicity, and even bridging the two avenues thru

activities like fundraising. Likewise, the campaign of Segolene Royal during the 2007 French elections

connected a massive crowd, increasing her party membership from 120,000 to 200,000 members with

majority not being part of political parties before. Both politicians were able to effectively expose

themselves to the public, using the internet as a tool to communicate to a wider audience. The internet

and social media have been cited as empowering citizens in participating in politics, with no age range

defined. Their accessibility to even the youth make it a lucrative platform in spreading political

awareness. Crowdsourcing has been a vital tool, changing the perspective of the people to not only

become consumers of political information but also as producers. Mass mobilizations in Iran and other

Middle-Eastern countries are just one of the many proofs that social media has been changing the game

of politics.

Norris 2004 study considers the consequences of the internet for civic engagement. In

particular, whether technological change will widen the pool of activists or if it will reinforce the

participation gap between the engaged and the apathetic. The power of technology to transform

democracy has become evident with the rise of new social movements. Again, this study looks at the

reinforcement and mobilization theories of internet activism. Scholars have forwarded the notion that

virtual democracy promises a cornucopia of empowerment. The utilization of bulletin board systems as

15
democratizing technologies, used to exchange ideas, facilitate political discussions, and mobilize the

public. With the new technologies in communication, these opportunities shrink the distance between

the government and the people, helping facilitate direct democracy with the use of the web and the

internet. However, the strongest claim of the mobilization theory is that online activism represents a

new type of political participation. It reduces the barriers to civic engagement like financial costs, and

widens the opportunities for political debates and dissemination of political information. In contrast,

the reinforcement theory suggests that the internet will only strengthen, and not transform, the existing

patterns of political participation. The socioeconomic biases which exist in the conventional forms of

political participation seem unlikely to disappear even with the dawn of the internet, stating that the

internet does not change people but allows them to do the same things in a different way.

Hirzalla, van Zoonen, and de Ridders 2011 study on internet use and political participation

focuses on the mobilization/normalization dichotomy. They say that web-based and theoretical studies

often claim that the internet can mobilize political participation, while survey-based studies say that the

internet will normalize participation. Using the 2006 Dutch parliamentary elections as a case study,

they studied the use of two online vote advice applications (VAAs) of the youth in assessing the nature

of internet use when it comes to politics. These VAAs are highly popular in the Netherlands during the

election campaigns as it aids voters by comparing different parties on a number of policy issues. This

tool is widely used by a group that is often considered as apathetic: the youth. Using structural equation

modeling as a method, they found out that the use of VAAs reinforces the mobilization thesis among

the youth, while the normalization thesis best applies to the older people.

16
 Nams 2010 study focuses on the effects of the internet on political participation. An empirical

study was done comparing the reinforcement vs the mobilization effect, as well as comparing offline

and online political participants and their respective predictors. The study presents three implications:

people who do online political activities are different from those who do offline political activities,

patterns of cross-group difference (demographic differences like race and age) in activeness of political

participation make distinctions between offline and online activity, and that the internet plays a dual

role in mobilizing new participation by offline inactivists as well as to reinforce continuous

participation by offline activists. The reinforcement thesis refers to how the internet would inform,

organize, and engage those who are currently inactive in and marginalized from the existing political

system, while the mobilization effect refers to online resources used by those who are already active

and well-connected via traditional channels for reinforcement of beliefs. Testing these two hypotheses

show that the reinforcement thesis as more pronounced, as online political involvement imitate the

established patterns of participation, the internet does not act a pivotal role in transforming it . When it

comes to the demographic differences, it was discovered that those who are affluent and better-

educated were more active both online and offline compared to their counterparts. When it comes to

race, in the American context, whites are more likely to participate actively in offline activity compared

to non-whites. When it comes to age, it was observed that young people tend to participate in online

activity more compared to the older people. This reflects a generational gap in online political activities.

Theme 4 : Social Media as Neither a Mobilization nor Reinforcement Tool

17
 Bouliannes 2009 article aims to answer the question: Does internet use affect engagement? She

notes that many scholars are in conflict regarding the impact of the internet on civic and political

engagement. Some say that internet use leads to civic decline, while others argue that the internet is

responsible for reinvigorating civic life. Scholars say that by surfing the internet, people do not get to

participate in civic and political activities. Others, however, claim that internet use will activate those

who are already interested in politics as it reduces costs in accessing political information and generally

presents more opportunities to become politically engaged. This improved access to information

reduces the differences in knowledge between those of differing socioeconomic status and

demographies, notably the youth and other age groups. Her research aims to assess the hypothesis that

internet use does lead to a decline in civic life, as well as if the internet has any significant effect on

engagement. An analysis of 38 studies with 166 effects was examined for the study, with the results

showing that the internet does have a negative effect on engagement. However, it does not say if it has

a substantial impact on engagement.

To conclude, much of my literature revolves around the concepts of the mobilization and

reinforcement theories regarding internet use as agents for civic and political engagement . A clear gap

is that there is no clear prevailing theory as many scholars argue that each theory have their benefits. I

find this as both a good thing and a bad thing, as it gives 2 very different perspectives in studying social

media. For future research, I see that the dominant theory may depend on the type of social media

platform used. For example, Facebook, as a very comprehensive form of social media platform, may be

able to attract supporters of both theories as the platforms flexibility may serve whatever function they

18
deem necessary in the nature of civic and political engagement. Other platforms which may need more

levels of tech-savviness or cater to a specific skillset like Snapchat, Instagram, and Vine may be

more beneficial to the younger ones, meaning that the mobilization theory could be more dominant.

However, we cannot discount the opportunities any social media platform may present to its users. The

internet and technology in general continues to evolve, so it is not surprising to see an overwhelming

amount of political content across all kinds of social media platforms.

Conceptualization

Social media is defined as computer-mediated technologies that allow the creating and sharing

of information, ideas, career interests and other forms of expression via virtual communities and

networks (Obar and Wildman)

This study will take into account political activity from two social media websites: Facebook

and Twitter. Facebook is an American for-profit corporation and online social media and social

networking service based in California, United States. It was founded on February 4, 2004 by Mark

Zuckerberg. On Facebook, you can share status messages, photos, videos, or create pages that cater to

your interests. Discussions can be made through personal messages or through the comments section of

posts. As of 2016, Facebook claims to have more than 1.65 billion users in its network, making it the

most popular social networking site in the world (Facebook). Twitter is an online news and social

networking service based in California, United States. It was launched in March 2006 by Jack Dorsey,

Noah Glass, Biz Stone, and Evan Williams. On Twitter, users post messages within a 140-character

19
limit and may include photos, videos, or links to other media. Twitter analytics include 313 million

monthly active users, 1 billion unique monthly visits, and an average of 1.6 billion search queries per

day, all as of 2016 (Twitter).

Political socialization is a broad term used to describe the lifelong process by which people

form their attitudes, beliefs, and values of and on politics. As mentioned earlier, there are so-called

agents of socialization which aid in the formation of these things . The family is seen as the primary

agent for socialization, while all other agents (school, peers, media) are considered secondary (Paletz,

Owen, Cook).

Political engagement is defined into three components: political information, political

participation, and political trust (Norris). Meaning that a person who is politically engaged is updated

with political information, participates in political activities (like voting), and trusts the political system

in solving problems. Other definitions may include contributing money to candidates or political

groups or volunteering to take part in political campaigns.

A key assertion in Joseph Klappers reinforcement theory is that the primary influence of media

is to reinforce existing attitudes and behaviors. Klapper argued that there are simply too many barriers

to media influence for drastic changes to occur except under very unusual circumstances. Criticism

against this theory include the time frame when it was developed. Compared to its inception in the

1960s, exposure to media has considerably increased and at the same time, media has become more

pervasive in nature. These factors, compounded by the decreased importance of other factors (such as

the family, school, and church) have increased the impact of media in the socialization of people

(Bartels).

20
 Mobilization theory comes from the concept of resource mobilization, which is the process of

getting resources from resource providers, using different mechanisms to implement the organizations

work for achieving their pre-determined organizational goals. It can also be referred to the selective

process to involve citizens in politics, which is what social scientists like Charles Tilly and Doug

McAdam proposed. This is often mistaken as recruitment, but both terms have been used

interchangebly to refer to the same concept (Verba, Schlozman, Brady, Nie). A reason why the internet

is considered as a tool for mobilization is because of its ability to be open, decentralized, and

interactive in nature will enfranchise marginalized sectors of the electorate by making political

information more easily accessible and more germane to their concerns and improve the openness of

government by equalizing access to information (Weare).

Development of Propositional Statement/s or Main Hypothesis/Hypotheses

1. Exposure to political news content will stimulate youth political engagement

2. The fact that social media is considered either a reinforcement or mobilization tool proves that a

relationship exists.

Operationalization

21
My study aims to see how political content exposure through social media affect youth political interest.

Thus, my unit of analysis for this study would be the individual. The first diagram (Diagram 1) below

presents my hypothesis: a direct positive relationship between the two main variables: how an increase

in political content exposure through social media (the independent variable) would lead to an increase

in youth political interest (the dependent variable). Furthermore, exposure to political content will, at

the very least, reinforce current political beliefs, assumptions, values, and attitudes. People will believe

in what they want to believe in, especially if it resonates with their current beliefs and opinions. But

there is a possibility that new information picked up through discussions can help change these beliefs,

as these will be the basis of the development of new values and attitudes. Additionally, a table below

(Table 1) will operationalize the variables.

All information and data gathered will be done through surveys and focus group discussions

involving the unit of analysis

Diagram 1

Political News Content Exposure Development of

(Through Social Media) Youth Political Interest

Table 1

Variable Type Indicators

22
Social Media Independent Two websites: Facebook and Twitter

Political Content Independent Posts/Tweets created/shared on Facebook/Twitter

Exposure

Youth Dependent - UP, Ateneo, DLSU college students

- between ages 18-24

Development of Dependent - act of liking/sharing/retweeting political posts

Political Interest - uploading pictures political in nature

- organizing/facilitating political discussions through comment

threads/group messages/personal messages

Design and Methods

For this study, my unit of analysis is the individual, specifically those from ages 18-24 and

college students attending classes at University of the Philippines, Ateneo de Manila University, and

De La Salle University with access to the internet and social media. I am choosing this specific unit of

analysis because of the following: for the age, I believe that they were able to experience a lot of major

national political events which could influence their political interactions and participation (namely,

2010, 2013, and 2016 Philippine national and general elections, Mamasapano massacre, among other

issues). Also, they must be preferably college students to see how other agents of political socialization

may affect them (namely, family, school, peers, other forms of media) especially at an age where they

are starting to have convictions over their own political values, attitudes, and beliefs. The schools in

23
which they are currently enrolled in is to see if their schools general sentiments on political issues

(Marcos burial, SAF 44, etc) play a role in their own interest in politics. Finally, access to the internet

and social media is important, as it is one of the variables of the study. Furthermore, some students

may have access to them but choose not to participate in political matters, which would be an

interesting perspective for the study.

For the studys time dimension, the particular time frame would be the present, utilizing a cross-

sectional study. I believe that this is appropriate to take into account of the number of political events

that have happened nationally (and in some cases, we can include important global events like the 2012

and 2016 US Presidential elections). Also, because social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and

Snapchat have considerably grown at this time. More people from the targeted units of analysis and

observation must have joined these networks, followed accounts, or gained information from these

social media platforms currently.

My preferred research design is descriptive in nature, utilizing interviews and focus group

discussions to collect data. My rationale behind this is that I believe that a descriptive interview would

be the most suitable way for me to gather data where answers are open-ended and vary from person to

person. The focus group discussions will be crucial, as I hope to observe discussions between my

subjects about the topic in its raw form.

My intended population is the youth, specifically for the interview I will be selecting 2

individuals representing UP, Ateneo, and La Salle. It is crucial that all have easy access to the internet

and social media. For the focus group discussions, I will be creating 4 groups: 1 group consisting of

students from the same university, and the 4th group involving 2 students per university (not necessarily

24
the same 2 individuals interviewed). The population will be selected through my current network. For

the interviews, the current degree programs of the students involved should be political or

communications in nature, as I want to see if they can apply any significant political or

communications theories in their responses. For the FGDs, 1 of the 2 representatives per university in

the 4th group will come from a Political Science background while the other will come from a

Communications background to see how their thoughts complement one another, if such exists.

For the study, I will be using an interview sheet and FGD questionnaire, both with similar

questions. Questions will range from general (ex. Have you participated in political discussions

through chat/personal messages/forums) to specific (ex. Briefly describe your stand on *specific

political issue*, if any). Additionally, there will be generic responses (ex. Happy, Sad, Angry, etc) as

well as an option to give their own answer. This is to simplify the analysis of data, when necessary, as

there may be varying degrees of responses per question.

In terms of data collection procedures, I will be conducting the interviews at secure places in the

college campus of the subject, preferably their libraries. This is to ensure that we are free from external

disturbances so that the interview will be conducted hassle-free. The representatives will be contacted

by myself through my personal network, with communications done either through Facebook or

through text messaging, whichever my contact finds convenient. Initial conversation will include an

introduction of myself, the background of the study, and an explanation as to why they were chosen to

take part in it. Consent forms, confidentiality agreements, and waivers will be sent online so that the

contact persons can read and understand them before a physical form can be signed and secured on the

day of the interview, which will be set on a day which is most convenient to the interviewee. For the

25
interview proper, audio and video will be recorded by phone so that a transcript can be made. This will

be stated in the consent form. After the interview, the transcript will be delivered to the interviewee

within 1-3 days for final approval before being used as data in the study. Similarly, individuals selected

for the focus group discussions will undergo the same process.

For data processing, the transcript of both interview and focus group discussions will be

analyzed to see if key words or phrases are repeated. It will also be noted if specific political science or

communications theories are cited in the responses, but in the absence of such, I will apply the

necessary theories which I have presented and will be presenting. In this case, either the mobilization

or reinforcement theories.

26
Bibliography

ABSCBN News. Filipino internet users most engaged in social media: survey. Last modified April

08, 2010. http://news.abs-cbn.com/lifestyle/04/08/10/filipino-internet-users-most-engaged-

social-media-survey

AGB Nielsen Philippines. One in three Filipinos accessing the internet. Social networking playing an

increasing role in consumer purchasing decisions: Nielsen. Southeast Asia Digital Consumer

Report, 2011.

Aydin, Selami. A review of research on Facebook as an educational environment Educational

Technology Research and Development 60 (6): 1093-1106, 2012.

Bartels, Larry M. Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media Exposure. The American

Political Science Review 87 (2): 267-285, 1993

Best, Samuel J. and Brian S. Krueger. Analyzing the Representativeness of Internet Political

Participation. Political Behavior 27 (2): 183-216, 2005

Bimber, Bruce. The Internet and citizen communication with government: Does the medium matter?

Political Communication 16: 409-428, 1999

Bimber, Bruce and Richard Davis. Campaigning Online: The Internet and US Elections. Oxford

University Press, 2003.

Boulianne, Shelley. Does Internet Use Affect Engagement? A Meta-Analysis of Research. Political

Communication 26 (2): 193-211, 2009.

27
Buchner, Anna and Katarzyna Zaniewska. Facebook as a Catalyst for Beneficial Participation in

Culture. Polish Sociological Review 177: 107-116, 2012.

Carlisle, Juliet E. and Robert C. Patton. Is Social Media Changing How We Understand Political

Engagement? An Analysis of Facebook and the 2008 Presidential Election . Political Research

Quarterly 66 (4): 883-895, 2013.

Cohen, Cathy, and Joseph Kahne. Social media power youth political participation. MacArthur

Research Network on Youth and Participatory Politics at University of Chicago, 2012.

comScore. Social Networking Habits Vary Considerably Across Asia-Pacific Markets. Last modified

April 07, 2010. https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press-Releases/2010/4/Social-Networking-

Across-Asia-Pacific-Markets

Conge, Patrick J. The Concept of Political Participation: Toward a Definition. Comparative Politics

20 (2): 241-249, 1988

Cornfield, Michael, Lee Rainie and John B. Horrigan. Untuned Keyboards: Online Campaigners,

Citizens, and Portals in the 2002 Elections. Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet,

2003.

Dahlgren, Peter. Media and Political Engagement: Citizens: Communication, and Democracy.

Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Delli Carpini, Michael X. Gen.com: Youth, Civic Engagement, and the New Information

Environment Political Communication 17 (4): 341-349, 2000.

28
Effing, Robin, Jos van Hillegersberg, and Theo Huibers. Social Media and Political Participation: Are

Facebook, Twitter and Youtube Democratizing our Political Systems? In Electronic

Participation, edited by Efthimios Tamouris, Anna Macintosh, and Hans de Brujin, 25-35.

Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011.

Facebook. About. Accessed November 25, 2016.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/facebook/about/?ref=page_internal

GMA News Online. Pinoys lead the world in social media engagement study. Last modified June

30, 2014. http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/367983/scitech/technology/pinoys-lead-the-

world-in-social-media-engagement-study

GMA News Online. PHL Internet users now 38 million, two-thirds under 30 IMMAP. Last

modified September 25, 2014.

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/380893/scitech/technology/phl-internet-users-now-

38-million-two-thirds-under-30-immap

Hirzalla, Fadi, Liesbet van Zoonen, and Jan de Ridder. Internet Use and Political Participation:

Reflections on the Mobilization/Normalization Controversy. The Information Society: An

International Journal 27 (1): 1-15, 2010

International Telecommunications Union. Core ICT Indicators. Accessed November 24, 2016.

http://www.itu.int/pub/D-IND-ICT_CORE-2010/en

Jenkins, Henry. Youth Voice, Media, and Political Engagement: Introducing the Core Concepts. in

By Any Media Necessary: The New Youth Activism, 1-60. NYU Press, 2016

29
Jennings, M. Kent and Vicki Zeitner. Internet use and civic engagement: A longitudinal analysis.

Public Opinion Quarterly 67: 311-334, 2003.

Kahne, Joseph, and Ellen Middaugh. Digital media shapes youth participation in politics. The

Phi Delta Kappan 94 (November): 52-56, 2012.

Klapper, Joseph T. The effects of Mass Communication. Free Press, 1960.

Nam, Taewoo. Internet Effects on Political Participation: An Empirical Study on the Reinforcement

vs Mobilization Effect. 2010

Norris, Pippa. Who Surfs? New Technology, Old Voters and Virtual Democracy in US Elections

1992- 2000. Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, 2004.

Obar, Jonathan A, and Steven S. Wildman. Social Media Definition and the Governance Challenge:

An Introduction to the Special Issue. Telecommunications Policy 39 (9): 745-750, 2015

Paletz, David, Diana Owen, and Timothy E. Cook. Political Culture and Socialization. In 21st

Century American Government and Politics, edited by David Paletz, Diana Owen, and Timothy

E. Cook, 227-273. Creative Commons, 2012.

Perez, Francisco Seoane. The Internet and political engagement: Making a difference. Presented at

Broadcast News and the Active Citizen Conference, University of Leeds, United Kingdom,

2008.

Presidential Communications Operations Office. YouTube Philippines Launch. Last modified

October 13, 2011. http://pcoo.gov.ph/speeches2011/speech2011_oct13.htm

30
Rainie, Lee, Aaron Smith, Kay Lehman Schlozman, Henry Brady, Sidney Verba . Social Media and

Political Engagement. Per Research Centers Internet & American Life Project, 2012.

Samuels, Bob. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Democracy. Academe 97 (4): 32-34, 2011.

Serra, Paulo, Eduardo J.M. Camilo, and Gisela Goncalves. Political Participation and Web 2.0.

Universidade da Beira Interior Portugal, 2014

Smith, Tom. Power to the People Social Media Tracker Wave 3. Universal McCann Next Thing Now,

2008.

Twitter. About. Accessed November 25, 2016. https://about.twitter.com/company

Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, Henry Brady and Norman H . Nie. Race, Ethnicity and

Political Resources: Participation in the United States. British Journal of Political Science 23

(4): 453-497, 1993

Weare, Christopher. The Internet and democracy: The causal links between technology and politics.

International Journal of Public Administration 25 (5): 659-691, 2002.

Winneg, Kenneth M. Online Political Participation and Voting in the 2008 US Presidential Election:

Mobilizing, Reinforcing, or Both? Presented at the Internet and Voting Conference, European

University Institute, Fiesole, Italy, 2010.

31
Appendices

32
1. Sample Letter of Invitation

Good morning/afternoon/evening!

I am Arthel D. Caronongan Jr, a graduating student from the College of Social Sciences and

Philosophy - Political Science Department from the University of the Philippines Diliman. I am

currently conducting a study on the effects the internet and social media have on the political

engagement of the youth. I propose that with the current upward trends of increased social media

activity, exposure to political news content will lead to greater political engagement.

I am cordially inviting you to be part of this study because you meet the following criteria:

- 18-24 years of age

- currently studying in either the University of the Philippines, Ateneo de Manila University, or De La

Salle University

- currently pursuing a degree program related to Political Science or Communications

You will be asked questions to establish your political profile, your social media profile, as well

as to describe the development process of your political engagement, if applicable. Rest assured that all

information provided will be handled with utmost confidentiality and professionalism.

Please let me know if you are willing to take part of this study. I will be sending the following

documents for your perusal should you accept my invitation: consent form; confidentiality agreement;

other necessary waivers.

Thank you and have a nice day!

Arthel D. Caronongan Jr

College of Social Science and Philosophy

University of the Philippines Diliman

33
2. Sample Consent Form/Confidentiality Agreement

I. I, _______________________, hereby allow ARTHEL D. CARONONGAN JR. to use all

information I will be providing in this interview/focus group discussion for his study entitled:

Stuck in a Web of Politics: Social Media and Youth Political Socialization

Identifying the Development Process of Youth Political Engagement Through Social Media

II. By agreeing to take part of this study, I am allowing the interviewer the following:

1. audio recording of the interview/focus group discussion

2. video recording of the interview/focus group discussion

III. Provided that:

1. a copy of the transcript of the interview be sent to me NO LATER THAN 3 days after the

conclusion of the interview/focus group discussions

2. contents of the transcript must be approved before being published in the study

3. information provided will only be used in the study mentioned

Understood and approved by all parties:

_________________________________ _________________________________

Arthel D. Caronongan Jr (Person)

34
3. Sample Interview Guide Questions

Hello! Thank you for agreeing to be a part of my study entitled Stuck in a Web of Politics:

Social Media and Youth Political Socialization - Identifying the Development Process of Youth

Political Engagement Through Social Media

You will be asked questions to establish your political profile, your social media profile, as well

as to describe the development process of your political engagement, if applicable. If you find any

questions offensive or refuse to answer it, please do not hesitate to raise it. Rest assured that all

information provided will be handled with utmost confidentiality and professionalism.

I. Personal Profile

1. Name

2. Age

3. School/University

4. Do you have regular access to the internet/social media?

5. What social media websites do you use?

II.. Political Profile

1. Are you a registered voter?

2. If yes, in what elections did you exercise your right to vote in?

3. Are you affiliated with any national political organizations? If yes, indicate.

35
 III. Social Media Profile Part 1 - Facebook

1. Do you have a Facebook account? If yes, when did you create it?

2. Which of the following political activities have you done on Facebook?

- liked/shared a political post/picture

- discussed a political issue through the comments section/group chat/personal messages

- changed your profile picture to something politically-themed (eg. No to Marcos Burial)

- Others:

3. If yes, what were the factors which led you to do these actions?

4. Have you encountered opposition with regards to your political opinions? Have they affected your

opinions in any way?

5. Do you believe that Facebook has contributed to your political socialization (eg. made you more

politically active/participate in more political activities)? Elaborate.

Social Media Profile Part 2 Twitter

1. Do you have a Twitter account? If yes, when did you create it?

2. Which of the following political activities have you done on Twitter?

- liked/retweeted a political post/picture

- discussed a political issue through replies/direct messages

- changed your profile picture to something politically-themed (eg. No to Marcos Burial)

- Others:

3. If yes, what were the factors which led you to do these actions?

4. Have you encountered opposition with regards to your political opinions? Have they affected your

opinions in any way?

5. Do you believe that Twitter has contributed to your political socialization (eg. made you more politically

active/participate in more political activities)? Elaborate.

36
4. Sample GANTT Chart

Week 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15- 17-18 19-20

1-2 16

Sending out of interview

and FGD invitations

Sending out of consent

forms

Finalizing interview and

FGD schedules

Interview/FGD proper

Sending out of transcripts

Transcript approvals

Transcript analysis

Paper writing

Submission

37
5. Proposed Budget

Item Description Cost

Gas Expenses Gas allowance to/from the 3 500 x 3 = 1500
universities for
interviews/meetings
Printing Expenses Printing allowance for the 3 1.50 x 7 x 10 = 105
interviews + 4 FGDs (7 total), 10
sheets
Food Expenses Food allowance for the 24 x 60 = 1440
participants (6 interviews + 4
participants each for the first 3
FGDs + 6 participants for the 4th
FGD)
Miscellaneous Expenses Allowance for other expenses 500
TOTAL P3545

38