Walking the Talk, from Online to Offline? Analyzing Predictors of Political Engagements in the Case of Cebu City, Philippines

Noe John Joseph Endencio Sacramento* -  Political Science Program College of Social Sciences University of the Philippines Cebu, Philippines

DOI : 10.24269/ars.v9i2.2671

The political engagement of individuals has complexly evolved in a borderless world brought by various developments in technology. This study revisits how various predictors, including personality traits such as extraversion and openness to experience, political efficacy, and online (FB) engagement, influence offline political engagements. Using quantitative techniques, the data gathered from a survey with 120 respondents in Cebu City, Philippines, was analyzed using the R software to generate descriptive statistics, correlation, simple linear regression, and multiple regression. A salient finding shows that the respondents’ level of extraversion, openness to experience, and political efficacy is high, while the level of political engagement is low online and offline. While online (FB) political engagement alone highly predicts offline political engagement behavior, all other independent variables (extraversion, openness to experience, and political efficacy) modeled as one attributes a very low effect towards offline political engagement. The model that includes all predictors have produced significant result that strongly supports this study’s central claim. Further, the study discussed the non-engagement of Cebuanos and commenced with suggestions on how Facebook (FB) can further influence an individual’s political engagements as a social media platform. While the publics’ engagements on political issues are vital to democratic societies, the study stressed social media's crucial influence on safeguarding democracies, human rights, and social justice.
Keywords
Political engagement; Offline; Online ; Extraversion; Openness to experience; Political efficacy;
  1. Andersen, K. N., & Medaglia, R. (2009). The use of Facebook in national election campaigns: politics as usual?. In International Conference on Electronic Participation (pp. 101-111). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  2. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. London: W.H. Freeman.
  4. Bericat, E. (2016). The sociology of emotions: Four decades of progress. Current Sociology, 64(3), 491–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392115588355
  5. Bimber, B., Cunill, M. C., Copeland, L., & Gibson, R. (2015). Digital Media and Political Participation: The Moderating Role of Political Interest Across Acts and Over Time. Social Science Computer Review, 33(1), 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314526559
  6. Blackwood, L. M., & Louis, W. R. (2012). If it matters for the group then it matters to me: Collective action outcomes for seasoned activists. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02001.x
  7. Bouchet-Valat, M. (2020). SnowballC: Snowball Stemmers Based on the C 'libstemmer' UTF-8 Library. R package version 0.7.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=SnowballC
  8. Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Karp, J. A. (2007). Enraged or engaged? Preferences for direct citizen participation in affluent democracies. Political Research Quarterly, 60(3), 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907304108
  9. Cakal, H., Hewstone, M., Schwär, G., & Heath, A. (2011). An investigation of the social identity model of collective action and the “sedative” effect of intergroup contact among Black and White students in South Africa. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(4), 606–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02075.x
  10. Casteltrione, I. (2016). Facebook and political participation: Virtuous circle and participation intermediaries. Interactions: Studies in Communication and Culture, 7(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1386/iscc.7.2.177_1
  11. Cohen-Chen, S., Halperin, E., Porat, R., & Bar-Tal, D. (2014). The differential effects of hope and fear on information processing in intractable conflict. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 2(1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v2i1.230
  12. Conroy, M., Feezell, J. T., & Guerrero, M. (2012). Facebook and political engagement: A study of online political group membership and offline political engagement. Computers in Human behavior, 28(5), 1535-1546.
  13. Dalgaard, P. (2008). Introductory statistics with R. New York: Springer.
  14. David, C. C. (2013). ICTs in political engagement among youth in the Philippines. International Communication Gazette, 75(3), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048512472948
  15. de Zúñiga, H. G., Copeland, L., & Bimber, B. (2014). Political consumerism: Civic engagement and the social media connection. New Media and Society, 16(3), 488–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487960
  16. Del Vicario, M., Zollo, F., Caldarelli, G., Scala, A., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2017). Mapping social dynamics on Facebook: The Brexit debate. Social Networks, 50(March 2019), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.02.002
  17. Dressel, B. (2011). The Philippines: How much real democracy? International Political Science Review, 32(5), 529–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512111417912
  18. Feezell, J. T., Conroy, M., & Guerrero, M. (2009). Facebook is... fostering political engagement: A study of online social networking groups and offline participation. Fostering Political Engagement: A Study of Online Social Networking Groups and Offline Participation.
  19. Feinerer, I., Hornik, K., & Meyer, D. (2008). Text Mining Infrastructure in R. Journal of Statistical Software. 25(5): 1-54. URL: https://www.jstatsoft.org/v25/i05/.
  20. Fellows, I. (2018). Wordcloud: Word Clouds. R package version 2.6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=wordcloud
  21. Fenton, N., & Barassi, V. (2011). Alternative media and social networking sites: The politics of individuation and political participation. Communication Review, 14(3), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2011.597245
  22. Gallego, A., & Oberski, D. (2012). Personality and Political Participation: The Mediation Hypothesis. Political Behavior, 34(3), 425–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9168-7
  23. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., Raso, C., & Ha, S. E. (2011). Personality traits and participation in political processes. Journal of Politics, 73(3), 692–706. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381611000399
  24. Gil de Zúñiga, H., Veenstra, A., Vraga, E., & Shah, D. (2010). Digital democracy: Reimagining pathways to political participation. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 7(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331680903316742
  25. Gutierrez, S. (2014). Citizens in Fear: Political Participation and Voting Behavior in the Midst of Violence. Duke University.
  26. Hibbing, M. V., Ritchie, M., & Anderson, M. R. (2011). Personality and Political Discussion. Political Behavior, 33(4), 601–624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9147-4
  27. Hjorth, L., & Arnold, M. (2011). The personal and the political: Social networking in Manila. International Journal of Learning and Media, 3(1), 29-39.
  28. Inocian, R., De, E., Iii, V., & Rosaroso, R. (2017). Influence of Facebook to Voters’ Political Practices. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences, 4(1), 15–23. Retrieved from www.apjeas.apjmr.com
  29. Kahne, J., Lee, N. J., & Feezell, J. T. (2012). Digital media literacy education and online civic and political participation. International Journal of Communication, 6(1), 1–24.
  30. Karadag, R. (2011). Where Do Regimes Come From? Where Do they Go? The Philippines between Neopatrimonialism and Oligarchy. Bremen.
  31. Keating, A., & Melis, G. (2017). Social media and youth political engagement: Preaching to the converted or providing a new voice for youth? British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 19(4), 877–894. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117718461
  32. Klandermans, B. (2008). Embeddedness and Identity: How immigrants turn grievances into action. American Sociological Review, 73, 992-1012.
  33. Kushin, M. J., & Kitchener, K. (2009). Getting political on social network sites: Exploring online political discourse on Facebook. First Monday.
  34. Lande, C. H. (1973). Networks and groups in Southeast Asia: some observations on the group theory of politics. The American Political Science Review, 67(1), 103-127.
  35. Maboloc, C. R. B. (2020). The Predatory State and Radical Politics: The Case of the Philippines. JAS (Journal of ASEAN Studies), 7(2), 162–175. https://doi.org/10.21512/jas.v7i2.6163
  36. Macaspac, N. V. (2019). Insurgent Peace: Community-Led Peacebuilding of Indigenous Peoples in Sagada, Philippines. Geopolitics, 24(4), 839–877. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2018.1521803
  37. Macnamara, J. (2012). Democracy 2.0: Can social media engage youth and disengaged citizens in the public sphere? Australian Journal of Communication, 39(3), 65–86.
  38. Margetts, H. Z., John, P., Hale, S. A., & Reissfelder, S. (2015). Leadership without leaders? Starters and followers in online collective action. Political Studies, 63(2), 278–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12075
  39. Mayol, A., Matus, C., & Napallacan, J. (2016). Cebu delivers 1.4 M votes for Duterte. Retrieved from https://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/93327/cebu-delivers-1-4-m-votes-for-duterte
  40. Merkel, W. (2014). Is there a crisis of democracy? Democratic Theory, 1(2), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.3167/dt.2014.010202
  41. Milbrath, L.W. (1977). Political Participation. Chicago: Rand McNally.
  42. Mondak, J. J., Hibbing, M. V., Canache, D., Seligson, M. A., & Anderson, M. R. (2010). Personality and civic engagement: An integrative framework for the study of trait effects on political behavior. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055409990359
  43. Napoleon Cat. (2020). Facebook users in Philippines. Retrieved from https://napoleoncat.com/stats/facebook-users-in-philippines/2020/01
  44. Neuwirth, E. (2014). RColorBrewer: ColorBrewer Palettes. R package version 1.1-2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RColorBrewer
  45. Onstad, P. A., Danes, S. M., Hardman, A. M., Olson, P. D., Marczak, M. S., Heins, R. K., … Coffee, K. A. (2012). The road to recovery from a natural disaster: Voices from the community. Community Development, 43(5), 566–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2012.699081
  46. Pang, N., & Woo, Y. T. (2020). What about WhatsApp? A systematic review of WhatsApp and its role in civic and political engagement. First Monday.
  47. Quah, J. (2011). Curbing Corruption in Asian Countries: An Impossible Dream? (June 2007), i. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0732-1317(2011)0000020023
  48. Querubin, P. (2016). Family and politics: Dynastic persistence in the philippines. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 11(2), 151–181. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00014182
  49. Quintelier, E., & Theocharis, Y. (2013). Online Political Engagement, Facebook, and Personality Traits. Social Science Computer Review, 31(3), 280–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439312462802
  50. R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/.
  51. Revelle, W. (2020). Psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psychVersion = 2.0.8,.
  52. Reyes, R. S. M. (2014). A deleuzian reading of the EDSA revolutions and the possibility of becoming-revolutionary today. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 14(1), 59–74.
  53. San Juan, E. (2011). Contemporary global capitalism and the challenge of the filipino diaspora. Global Society, 25(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2010.522983
  54. Sanchez, P. Z. M. (2017). Cebu’s Subnational Politics: A Survey of Philippine Political Structure and Culture. Journal of Law and Social Sciences, 6(1), 0–22. https://doi.org/10.5176/2251-2403
  55. Sarieva, I. R. (2018). How to measure perceived political efficacy? A three-component scale. Psychology, Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 15(3), 477–490. https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2018-3-477-490
  56. Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. E. (2010). Weapon of the strong? Participatory inequality and the internet. Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), 487–509. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710001210
  57. Shrestha, M. K. (2013). Internal versus External Social Capital and the Success of Community Initiatives: A Case of Self-Organizing Collaborative Governance in Nepal. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02622.x
  58. Soto, C., & John, O. (2017). The Next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and Assessing a Hierarchical Model With 15 Facets to Enhance Bandwidth, Fidelity, and Predictive Power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
  59. Sreekumar, T. T., & Vadrevu, S. (2013). Online political memes and youth political engagement in Singapore. Selected Papers of Internet Research, 3(Turkle 2008), 1–4. Retrieved from http://spir.aoir.org/index.php/spir/article/view/837/418
  60. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics: International edition. Pearson2012.
  61. Tausch, N., & Becker, J. C. (2013). Emotional reactions to success and failure of collective action as predictors of future action intentions: A longitudinal investigation in the context of student protests in Germany. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(3), 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2012.02109.x
  62. Theocharis, Y. (2015). The Conceptualization of Digitally Networked Participation. Social Media and Society, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115610140
  63. Towner, T. L. (2013). All Political Participation Is Socially Networked?: New Media and the 2012 Election. Social Science Computer Review, 31(5), 527–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313489656
  64. Vaccari, C., Valeriani, A., Barberá, P., Bonneau, R., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. (2013). Social media and political communication: A survey of twitter users during the 2013 Italian general election. Italian Political Science Review, 43(3), 381–410. https://doi.org/10.1426/75245
  65. Vaccari, C., Valeriani, A., Barberá, P., Bonneau, R., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. A. (2015). Political expression and action on social media: Exploring the relationship between lower- and higher-threshold political activities among twitter users in Italy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12108
  66. Vadrevu, S., & Lim, S. S. (2012). Youth, politics and social media in Southeast Asia: Trends, events and implications. Panorama: Insights into Asian and European Affairs is a series of occasional papers published by the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung’s “Regional Programme Political Dialogue Asia/Singapore, 8.
  67. Valenzuela, S., Halpern, D., Katz, J. E., & Miranda, J. P. (2019). The Paradox of Participation Versus Misinformation: Social Media, Political Engagement, and the Spread of Misinformation. Digital Journalism, 7(6), 802–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1623701
  68. Valenzuela, S., Kim, Y., & Gil De Zúñiga, H. (2012). Social networks that matter: Exploring the role of political discussion for online political participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edr037
  69. Van Deth, J. W. (2014). A conceptual map of political participation. Acta Politica, 49(3), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2014.6
  70. Van Stekelenburg, J., & Klandermans, B. (2010). The social psychology of protest. Retrieved from http://www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/research/researchareasofstaff/isppsummeracademy/instructors/ Social%20Psychology%20of%20Protest,%20Van%20Stekelenburg%20and%20Klandermans.Pdf
  71. Vitak, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., Carr, C. T., Ellison, N., & Lampe, C. (2011). It’s complicated: Facebook users’ political participation in the 2008 election. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(3), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0226
  72. We Are Social. (2018). Digital in 2018: World’s internet users pass the 4 billion mark - We Are Social. Retrieved from https://wearesocial.com/blog/2018/01/global-digital-report-2018
  73. We Are Social. (2019). Digital 2019. https://wearesocial.com/blog/2019/10/the-global-state-of-digital-in-october-2019
  74. Zhang, W., & Lallana, E. C. (2013). Youth, ICTs, and civic engagement in Asia. The International Communication Gazette.

Full Text:
Article Info
Submitted: 2020-05-21
Published: 2020-12-31
Section: Artikel
Article Statistics: