Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Political Behavior
Published in: Political Behavior 2/2019

24-03-2018 | Original Paper

Traditional Versus Internet Media in a Restricted Information Environment: How Trust in the Medium Matters

Authors: Jason Gainous, Jason P. Abbott, Kevin M. Wagner

Published in: Political Behavior | Issue 2/2019

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

We use original survey data from Malaysia to explore differences in how traditional and digital media shape the attitudes and behavior of citizens. In closed, and even semi-authoritarian, states such as Malaysia, the Internet, including social media, is often the only place for opposition-centered media to thrive. As a result, consumption of Internet media is related to dissident attitudes. We argue that this relationship, though, is mitigated by trust in the medium. Our results suggest: (1) trust in traditional and Internet media determines the frequency with which citizens use each corresponding medium to gather political information, (2) higher trust in traditional media is positively associated with attitudes about democratic conditions in Malaysia; the opposite is true for trust in Internet media, (3) trust in the traditional media is negatively related, and trust in Internet media is positively related to the inclination to protest, (4) the positive relationship between digital media consumption and this attitude is stronger for those who trust Internet media, and diminished among those who trust traditional media.
previous article The Curse of Knowledge? Education, Corruption, and Politics
next article Pigeonholing Partisans: Stereotypes of Party Supporters and Partisan Polarization

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
The data and replication code are available on the Political Behavior Dataverse page https://​dataverse.​harvard.​edu/​dataverse/​polbehavior.
 
2
While the rate of missingness across the variables used here was generally low (less than 2 percent for the majority of indicators), we decided to use multiple imputation to replace any missing values to prevent possible bias in our estimates. The imputation model was based on all of the variables utilized in the present study assuming a multivariate normal distribution. Five replicate datasets were created where the missing data in each replication are substituted with draws from the posterior distribution of the missing value conditional on observed values (Little and Rubin 2014). The models that follow are based on pooled results of the five replicate datasets.
 
3
We report the comparative L1 statistics in the notes of each of corresponding tables containing the model results. For a more complete description of the theory and our application of CEM see the Online Appendix and Blackwell et al. (2010) and Iacus et al. (2012).
 
4
These are all opposition outlets which helps our index pick up on trust aimed specifically at the news sources that run counter to the state-controlled media.
 
Literature
Abbott, J. P. (2015). Hype or hubris? the political impact of the Internet and social networking in Southeast Asia. In W. Case (Ed.), The routledge handbook of southeast asian democratization (pp. 201–222). London: Routledge.
Abbott, J. P., & Givens, J. W. (2015). Strategic censorship in a hybrid authoritarian regime? Differential bias in Malaysia’s online and print media. Journal of East Asian Studies, 15(3), 455–478.CrossRef
Bailard, C. S. (2014). Democracy’s double-edged sword: How internet use changes citizens’ views of their government. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Barber, B. R. (2001). The uncertainty of digital politics. Harvard International Review, 23(1), 42–47.
Bimber, B. (1994). Three faces of technological determinism. In R. Smith & L. Marx (Eds.), Does technology drive history? the dilemma of technological determinism (pp. 79–100). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Blackwell, M., Iacus, S., King, G., Porro, G., et al. (2010). CEM: coarsened exact matching in stata. Stata Journal, 9(4), 524–546.CrossRef
Bode, L. (2012). Facebooking it to the Polls: a study in online social networking and political behavior. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 9(4), 352–369.CrossRef
Boulianne, S. (2009). Does internet use affect engagement? a meta-analysis of research. Political Communication, 26(2), 193–211.CrossRef
Boulianne, S. (2015). Social media use and participation: a meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication and Society, 18(5), 524–538.CrossRef
Brynin, M., & Newton, K. (2003). The national press and voting turnout: british general elections of 1992 and 1997. Political Communication, 20(1), 59–77.CrossRef
Chadwick, A., & Howard, P. N. (2010). Routledge handbook of internet politics. London: Routledge.
Corrado, A., & Firestone, C. M. (Eds.). (1996). Elections in cyberspace: towards a new era in american politics. Washington DC: Aspen Institute.
Esarey, J. (2015). Causal inference with observational data. In J. Bachner, K. W. Hill, & B. Ginsberg (Eds.), Analytics, policy, and governance (pp. 40–66). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Feezell, J. T. (2016). Predicting online political participation. Political Research Quarterly, 3, 495–509.CrossRef
Gainous, J., & Wagner, K. M. (2011). Rebooting American politics: the internet revolution. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Gainous, J., & Wagner, K. M. (2014). Tweeting to power: The social media revolution in American politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gainous, J., Wagner, K. M., Abbott, J. P., et al. (2015). Civic disobedience: does internet use stimulate political unrest in East-Asia? Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 12(2), 219–236.CrossRef
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Jung, N., Valenzuela, S., et al. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 319–336.CrossRef
Gil de Zúñiga, H. G., & Valenzuela, S. (2011). The mediating path to a stronger citizenship: online and offline networks, weak ties, and civic engagement. Communication Research, 38(3), 397–421.CrossRef
Gomez, J. (2014). Social media impact on Malaysia’s 13th general election. Asia Pacific Media Educator, 24(1), 95–105.CrossRef
Hindman, M. (2008). The myth of digital democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hopmann, D. N. (2015). Contagious media effects: how media use and exposure to game-framed news influence media trust. Mass Communication and Society, 18(6), 776–798.CrossRef
Howard, P. N. (2011). The digital origins of dictatorship and democracy: Information technology and political Islam. New York: Oxford University Press.
Iacus, S., King, G., Porro, G., et al. (2012). Causal inference without balance checking: coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis, 20(1), 1–24.CrossRef
Ladd, J. M. (2011). Why Americans hate the media and how it matters. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef
Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: hybrid regimes after the cold war. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Liow, J. C. (2012). Malaysia’s March 2008 general election: understanding the new media factor. The Pacific Review, 25(3), 293–315.CrossRef
Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (2014). Statistical analysis with missing data. NY: John Wiley and Sons.
McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., Moy, P., et al. (1999). Community, communication, and participation: the role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political communication, 16(3), 315–336.CrossRef
Müller, J. (2013). Mechanisms of trust: News media in democratic and authoritarian regimes. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
Norris, P. (2001). The digital divide: civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Page, B. I., Shapiro, R. Y., Dempsey, G. R., et al. (1987). What moves public opinion? American Political Science Review, 81(1), 23–43.CrossRef
Pasek, J., More, E., Romer, D., et al. (2009). Realizing the social internet? online social networking meets offline civic engagement. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 6(3/4), 197–215.CrossRef
Pinkleton, B. E., Austin, E. W., Fortman, K. K., et al. (1998). Relationships of media use and political disaffection to political efficacy and voting behavior. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 42(1), 34–49.CrossRef
Prior, M. (2007). Post—broadcast democracy: how media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Schedler, A. (2006). Electoral authoritarianism: The dynamics of unfree competition. London: Lynne Reinner.
Tang, Jiliang, & Liu, H. (2015). Trust in social media. San Rafael: Morgan and Claypool.CrossRef
Tsfati, Y. (2010). Online news exposure and trust in the mainstream media: exploring possible associations. American Behavioral Scientist, 54(1), 22–42.CrossRef
Turcotte, J., York, C., Irving, J., Scholl, R. M., Pingree, R. J., et al. (2015). News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(5), 520–535.CrossRef
Valenzuela, S. (2013). Unpacking the use of social media for protest behavior the roles of information, opinion expression, and activism. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(7), 920–942.CrossRef
Valenzuela, S., Somma, N. M., Scherman, A., & Arriagada, A. (2016). Social media in Latin America: Deepening or bridging gaps in protest participation? Online Information Review, 40(5), 695–711.CrossRef
Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. New York: Harper and Row.
Wagner, K. M., & Gainous, J. (2013). Digital uprising: the Internet revolution in the Middle East. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 10(3), 261–275.CrossRef
Xenos, M., & Moy, P. (2007). Direct and differential effects of the internet on political and civic engagement. Journal of Communication, 57(4), 704–718.CrossRef
Xenos, M., Vromen, A., Loader, B. D., et al. (2014). The great equalizer? Patterns of social media use and youth political engagement in three advanced democracies. Information, Communication and Society, 17(2), 151–167.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Traditional Versus Internet Media in a Restricted Information Environment: How Trust in the Medium Matters
Authors
Jason Gainous
Jason P. Abbott
Kevin M. Wagner
Publication date
24-03-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Political Behavior / Issue 2/2019
Print ISSN: 0190-9320
Electronic ISSN: 1573-6687
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9456-6

Other articles of this Issue 2/2019

Political Behavior 2/2019 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Civic Duty and Voter Turnout

Original Paper

What I Like About You: Legislator Personality and Legislator Approval

Original Paper

Is Sexism for White People? Gender Stereotypes, Race, and the 2016 Presidential Election

Original Paper

Evaluating the News: (Mis)Perceptions of Objectivity and Credibility

Original Paper

Pigeonholing Partisans: Stereotypes of Party Supporters and Partisan Polarization

Original Paper

Issue Accountability in U.S. House Elections