The 2008 Presidential Campaign: Political Cynicism in the Age of Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube

Abstract

Abstract Considerable research over the years has been devoted to ascertaining the impact of media use on political cynicism. The impact of the Internet has been difficult to assess because it is not a single monolithic medium. For example, the 2008 presidential campaign was the first presidential campaign in which popular social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube were widely available to voters. Therefore, the campaign offered the first opportunity to explore the influence of these social media on political cynicism. In this study, we examined whether the use of such social media influenced political cynicism. We also considered the influence of user background characteristics (e.g., self-efficacy, locus of control, political orientation, demographics, and influence of family and friends), motives for using social media for political information, and users' elaboration on political content. Several individual differences were stronger predictors of political cynicism than was social media use. In fact, social networking use was a negative predictor of political cynicism. Results supported uses and gratifications' notions that the influence of social media on political cynicism is more attributable to user background and media-use differences than to sheer use of these popular sites. Notes Note. This factor analysis was published earlier in Haridakis, P., & Hanson, G. (2010). Campaign Citation2008: Comparing YouTube, social networking and other media use among younger voters and older voters. In L. Kaid & J. Hendricks (Eds.), Techno-politics and presidential campaigning: New technologies, new voices, new voters. New York: Routledge. Note. R = .19, R 2 = .04, F(3, 453) = 5.83, p < .01 for Step 1; R = .25, R 2 = .06, ΔR 2 = .03, F(7, 449) = 4.35, p < .001 for Step 2; R = .31, R 2 = .09, ΔR 2 = .03, F(13, 443) = 3.50, p < .001 for Step 3; R = .33, R 2 = .11, ΔR 2 = .01, F(16, 440) = 3.25, p < .001 for Step 4; R = .36, R 2 = .13, ΔR 2 = .02, F(17, 439) = 3.81, p < .001 for Step 5. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Additional informationNotes on contributorsGary Hanson Gary Hanson (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1999) is Associate Professor in the School of Journalism & Mass Communication at Kent State University. His research interests include new media, politics and journalism ethics and accuracy. Paul Michael Haridakis Paul Michael Haridakis (Ph.D., Kent State University, 2000) is Professor in the School of Communication Studies at Kent State University. His research interests include media uses and effects, new communication technologies, freedom of expression and media history. Audrey Wagstaff Cunningham Audrey Wagstaff Cunningham (M.A., Kent State University) is Instructor in the Department of Communication at Hiram College and a Doctoral Candidate in the School of Communication Studies at Kent State University. Rekha Sharma Rekha Sharma (M.A., M.S., Kent State University, 2004) is a Doctoral Candidate in the School of Communication Studies at Kent State University. Her research interests include political communication in news and popular culture as well as the uses and effects of media related to government conspiracy theories. J. D. Ponder J. D. Ponder (M.A., Wichita State, 2007) is a Doctoral Candidate in the School of Communication Studies at Kent State University.