Questionnaire variables

As described in Section 4.4.3, in the first quantitative stage of the present research online surveys explored citizens’ political participation across three channels of participation (i.e., Facebook, the Internet, and the offline world), and examined the relationships among these activities and other relevant variables. This section illustrates the various variables examined in the questionnaires.

Demographics: The demographic variables included gender (Male, Female), age (18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-65), level of education (Less than Upper Secondary Education, Upper Secondary Education, Post-Secondary Non-Tertiary Education, First Stage of Tertiary Education, Second Stage of Tertiary Education) and level of occupation (Unemployed, Student, Blue collar worker, White collar worker, Small employer and own account worker, Intermediate and lower supervisor, Large employer, manager and professional). Participants’

level of education was assessed through Eurostat’s (2007) International Standard

Classification of Education (ISCED), while participants’ occupational status was measured through the European Socio-economic Classification (ESeC) (Harrison and Rose 2006).

Both classifications have been developed by Eurostat for the purpose of cross-national comparison.

Media usage: Participants’ media usage was assessed through five survey items adapted from Kenski and Stroud (2006) and Moy et al.’s (2005) investigations on the connection between Internet use and political participation. Respondents were asked how much time they usually spend daily consuming TV, newspapers and/or magazines, the radio, and the Internet (excluding Facebook). The usage time for each of these media was recorded on a five-point scale (1= None at all, 2= Less than 1 hour, 3= 1 to 3 hours, 4= 3 to 5 hours, 5=

More than 5 hours).

Facebook activity: Facebook activity was assessed through three main measures: Facebook usage time, Facebook perceived relevance, and Facebook non-political activity. The composition and range of these measures are presented in Table 1, p. 96.

With regards to Facebook usage time, participants were asked how much time they usually spent daily on Facebook. This variable was measured on a four-point-scale (1= Less than 1 hour, 2= 1 to 3 hours, 3= 3 to 5 hours, 4= More than 5 hours).

Facebook perceived relevance is a summated rating scale of four items each bearing equal weight (Cronbach’s α = .765) drawn from the Facebook intensity scale developed by Ellison et al. (2007). Facebook perceived relevance aims to assess the relevance of Facebook in participants’ lives.

To assess the relevance of Facebook, respondents were asked to indicate their agreement on a five-point Likert-type scale (1= Strongly disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Neither agree nor disagree, 4= Agree, 5= Strongly Agree) to four statements:

a) Facebook is part of my everyday activity

b) I feel out of touch when I haven't logged onto Facebook for a while c) I feel I am part of the Facebook community

d) I would be sorry if Facebook closed down

Facebook non-political activity is a summated rating scale composed of nine items each bearing equal weight (Cronbach’s α = .866). The usage of summated rating scales is a common practice in political participation research (Calenda and Meijer 2009; Foot et al.

2009; Kenski and Stroud 2006; Kavanaugh et al. 2009; Moy et al. 2005; Verba et al. 1995;

Vitak et al. 2011; Wang 2007). To establish the levels of Facebook non-political activity, participants were asked how often during the last six months they had engaged through Facebook in various non-political activities (1= Never, 2= Rarely, 3= Sometimes, 4= Often, 5= Very often). These activities included:

a) Watching/listening/reading non-political news

b) Visiting profiles of non-political actors or organisations c) Searching for non-political initiatives

d) Contacting family and friends e) Non-political talk

f) Sharing information on non-political initiatives g) Posting/uploading non-political material h) Organising non-political initiatives i) Joining a non-political group

In order to assess whether the contributions of Facebook to political participation vary according to different usage practices, the Facebook non-political activity scale was split into three sub-scales, each dealing with a different usage dimension: the Facebook information dimension which incorporates the activities a, b, c; the Facebook interpersonal communication dimension encompassing the activities d, e, f; and the Facebook social recreation dimension including the activities g, h, i.

Table 1 – Facebook Activity: Scales and Indexes

Items Range

Facebook Perceived Relevance

 Facebook is part of my everyday activity

 I feel out of touch when I haven't logged onto Facebook for a while

 I feel I am part of the Facebook community

 I would be sorry if Facebook closed down

From 4 (No relevance)

 Visiting profiles of non-political actors or organisations

 Contacting family and friends

 Visiting profiles of non-political actors or organisations

 Searching for non-political initiatives

Political engagement: The surveys also tapped into respondents’ political attitudes. A political engagement index was developed on the basis of Verba et al.’s (1995) conceptualisation of political engagement (see Section 2.1.2). This additive index is built on five items each bearing equal weight: political interest, political knowledge, partisanship, internal political efficacy, and external political efficacy.

In line with several political participation studies (Kenski and Stroud 2006; Kim 2006; Wang 2007), political interest was measured by asking respondents how often they follow what is going on in government and public affairs (1= Never, 2= Rarely, 3= Sometimes, 4= Often, 5= Very often).

A five-item index drawn from Delli Carpini and Keeter (1993) was developed in order to determine participants’ political knowledge. This index contains five survey-items testing participants’ knowledge about positions held by politicians, the leaderships of political parties, the results of the most recent general elections, the ideological positioning of political parties, and the working of the political systems of their countries. For each question participants were provided with five possible answers, with only one correct answer for each question. Wrong responses were coded as 0, right responses as 1. Delli Carpini and Keeter’s (1993) index was originally created for investigations based in the US. For the purpose of this research the questions have been modified to suit British and Italian political systems and scenarios.

To assess respondents’ partisan affiliation, BPs were asked if, generally speaking, they usually think of themselves as:

a) Conservative b) Labour

c) Liberal Democrat d) Other

e) No affiliation

Different options were presented to IPs:

a) Popolo della Libertà b) Partito Democratico c) Terzo Polo

d) Other

e) No affiliation

These political parties/coalitions were selected on the basis of the results of the 2010 British general election and the 2008 Italian general election – the top three parties/coalitions in terms of votes were chosen. In relation to their level of partisanship, participants were asked to reveal their level of support for the preferred political party/movement. This measure was recorded on a six-point scale (0= Not applicable, if they answered No affiliation in the previous question, 1= Not strong at all, 2= Not strong, 3= Neither strong nor weak, 4=

Strong, 5= Very strong).

As explained in Section 2.1.2, research distinguishes between internal and external political efficacy (Delli Carpini 2004; Kenski and Stroud 2006; Kavanaugh et al. 2008). Internal political efficacy was operationalised by asking respondents to indicate their agreement on a five-point Likert-type scale (1= Strongly disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Neither agree nor disagree, 4= Agree, 5= Strongly agree) with the statement: “Public officials don't care about people like me.” The same 5-point scale was used to measure external political efficacy and the statement participants had to agree with was: “Sometimes politics seems so complicated that a person like me can't really understand it.”

Table 2 – Political Engagement Index

Items Range

Political Engagement  Political Interest From 5 (No engagement)

 Partisanship to 25 (Very high engagement)

 Political Knowledge

 External Political Efficacy

 Internal Political Efficacy

Political participation: This study employed three general measures of political participation: Facebook political participation, Internet political participation, offline political participation, and a series of derivate measures (see Table 3). These measures are summated rating scales (Cronbach’s α = .948; .936; .927) assessing the samples’ levels of participation across ten political activities:

a) Organising/participating in a political initiative, meeting, rally and/or protest b) Forming/joining a group or an organisation developed around politics

c) Soliciting others to support or oppose a particular political party, candidate, and/or initiative

d) Contacting a political party, candidate, government department and/or local council e) Consumption of political news

f) Learning about a political initiative, meeting, rally and/or protest

g) Learning about a political initiative, meeting, rally and/or protest in which you took part

h) Learning about a group or an organisation developed around politics i) Engaging in formal and informal political discussions

j) Expressing a political opinion

The political activities examined in the present research were adapted from a number of political participation studies (Calenda and Meijer 2009; Foot et al. 2009; Kavanaugh et al.

2008; Kenski and Stroud 2006; Moy et al. 2005; Verba et al. 1995; Wang 2007). The idea was to focus on political activities that could be carried out on each of the considered political participation channels, in order to compare the samples’ levels of political participation across Facebook, the Internet (excluding Facebook), and the offline world. For this reason, activities relating exclusively to the Facebook and online dimensions, such as posting a link about politics, becoming a ‘‘fan’’ of a political candidate or group, etc., which were considered, for instance, in Vitak et al.’ (2011) study, were not examined in the present research.

Participants were asked how often (1= Never, 2= Rarely, 3= Sometimes, 4= Often, 5= Very often) in the last six months they engaged in each of the considered activities across three different channels of participation: Facebook, the Internet, and the offline world. With regards to the consumption of political news (i.e., activity e), consumption of political news offline is an average measure generated by combining three questionnaire items respectively measuring TV, radio and press consumption of political news.

In order to understand whether the impact of Facebook on political participation varies according to the typology of political activity in question, Facebook, Internet and offline political participation have been split into two sub-scales each dealing with a different dimension of political participation: the mobilisation dimension which incorporates the activities a, b, c, d, and g; and the communication dimension encompassing the activities e, f, h, i, and j. Through this operation, six further measures of political participation were created:Facebook, Internet and offline political communication, and Facebook, Internet and offline political mobilisation.

Finally, respondents’ participation in information related political activities (i.e. activities e, f, h) was examined using three measures: Facebook, Internet and offline political information.

Using twelve different measures of political participation (see Table 3) may confuse the reader and complicate the understanding of the quantitative data. However, this is a necessary outcome for ensuring a thorough examination of a complex phenomenon such as that of political participation, and the implementation of that particularised approach crucial for the development of the field (see Section 4.1).

Table 3 – Political Participation Scales

Items Range

Facebook/Internet/

Offline Political Participation

 Organising/participating in a political initiative, meeting, rally and/or protest on Facebook/ the Internet/ offline

From 10 (Never) to 50 (Very often)

 Forming/joining a group or an organisation developed around politics on Facebook/ the Internet/ offline

 Soliciting others to support or oppose a particular political party, candidate, and/or initiative on Facebook/

the Internet/ offline

 Contacting a political party, candidate, government department and/or local council on Facebook/ the Internet/ offline

 Consumption of political news on Facebook/ the Internet/

offline

 Learning about a political initiative, meeting, rally and/or protest on Facebook/ the Internet/ offline

 Learning about a political initiative, meeting, rally and/or protest on Facebook/ the Internet/ offline in which you took part

 Learning about a group or an organisation developed around politics on Facebook/ the Internet/ offline

 Engaging in formal and informal political discussions on Facebook/ the Internet/ offline

 Expressing a political opinion on Facebook/ the Internet/

offline

Table 3 – Political Participation Scales (continued from previous page)

Facebook/Internet/

Offline Political Communication

 Consumption of political news on Facebook/ the Internet/

offline

 Learning about a political initiative, meeting, rally and/or protest on Facebook/ the Internet/ offline

 Learning about a group or an organisation developed around politics on Facebook/ the Internet/ offline

 Engaging in formal and informal political discussions on Facebook/ the Internet/ offline

 Expressing a political opinion on Facebook/ the Internet/

offline

 Learning about a political initiative, meeting, rally and/or protest on Facebook/ the Internet/ offline

 Learning about a group or an organisation developed around politics on Facebook/ the Internet/ offline

 Organising/participating in a political initiative, meeting, rally and/or protest on Facebook/ the Internet/ offline

 Forming/joining a group or an organisation developed around politics on Facebook/ the Internet/ offline

 Soliciting others to support or oppose a particular political party, candidate, and/or initiative on Facebook/

the Internet/ offline

 Contacting a political party, candidate, government department and/or local council on Facebook/ the Internet/ offline

 Learning about a political initiative, meeting, rally and/or protest on Facebook/ the Internet/ offline in which you took part

From 5 (Never) to 25 (Very often)

In document “It’s Complicated”: Facebook and Political Participation in Italy and the UK (Page 107-116)