Who ‘likes’ populists? Characteristics of adolescents following right-wing populist actors on Facebook

Figures & data

Table 1. Percentage of adolescents in our sample following different political actors on Facebook.

Dependent variable	^aPolitical party	% Following (per party)	% Following (groups)
Right-Wing Populist Actors (RWPA)	FPÖ	25.96	^b29.72 (at least one RWPA)
	Team Stronach	10.84
Non-populist actors (NPA)	The Greens	21.05	^b20.56 (exclusively NPA)
	NEOS	18.47
	SPÖ	28.92
	ÖVP	26.67

^aRefers to the political party a followed political actor (candidate and/or party organization) belongs to.

^bNumbers refer to the groups we used as dependent variables in our regression analysis.

Table 2. Summary of PCA (oblique rotation) for political motivations to use SNS (factor loadings smaller than .1 suppressed).

Reasons for SNS use related to politics	Factor 1	Factor 1
Informational motivation
To get political information	.85
To follow current political events	.96
To learn about interesting political perspectives	.91
To see what people in my network think about political issues	.76
Participatory motivation
I use SNS to make a difference in politics		.77
Political SNS engagement allows me to make a difference		.91
Liking and sharing allow me to increase awareness about important political issues		.76
Eigenvalue	3.10	2.40
Cumulative variance	.44	.79
Reliability	α = .90	α = .87
Mean (SD)	3.36 (1.77)	2.62 (1.64)

Note: All items were measured on a 7-point scale.

Table 3. Intercorrelations (Pearson) among continuous independent variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1 Political trust	–
2 Facebook use	−.05	–
3 Extraversion	.03	.08	–
4 Openness	.09	.04	.29***	–
5 Conscientiousness	.08	.11	.26***	.33***	–
6 Agreeableness	.13*	−.08	−.16**	−.31***	−.21***	–
7 Neuroticism	−.05	.01	−.08	.35***	.04	−.31***	–
8 Informational motivation	.24***	.26***	.12*	.14*	−.06	.05	−.07	–
9 Participatory motivation	.34***	.17***	.18**	.12^+	.13*	.06	−.07	.63***	–

 *p < .05.

 **p < .01.

***p < .001.

 +p < .10.

Table 4. Multinomial logit regressions predicting following RWPA as opposed to following NPA and NF. Odds Ratios reported.

Demographics	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4		Model 5
	RWPA vs. NPA	RWPA vs.NF	RWPA vs. NPA	RWPA vs. NF	RWPA vs. NPA	RWPA vs.NF	RWPA vs. NPA	RWPA vs. NF	RWPA vs. NPA	RWPA vs. NF
Age	1.05	0.93	1.04	0.88	1.16	1.03	1.18	0.95	1.16	1.06
Male	1.22	2.37**	1.26	2.45**	1.03	1.96*	1.33	1.96*	1.33	1.79^+
^aVocational school	0.83	0.56	0.70	0.45	0.92	0.60	0.74	0.56	0.77	0.59
^aAcademic school	0.56	0.57	0.53	0.53^+	0.49	0.43*	0.50	0.59	0.35*	0.36*
Facebook use	0.99	1.15*	0.98	1.15*	0.98	1.17*	1.06	1.11	1.03	1.10
Political trust	0.66**	0.94	0.66**	0.95					0.61**	0.71*
^bAge * trust			0.81^+	0.80*
Personality
Extraversion					1.54**	1.39**			1.54**	1.31*
Openness					0.62**	0.92			0.66*	0.89
Conscientiousness					0.97	0.82			0.85	0.77^+
Agreeableness					0.97	1.33**			1.02	1.35**
Neuroticism					1.02	1.01			0.97	1.00
User motivations
Informational motivation							0.73*	1.08	0.74*	1.06
Participatory motivation							1.10	1.36**	1.26	1.54***
Log likelihood	−278.118		−275.68		−266.70		−264.97		−242.13
Observations	283		283		283		282		280

^aReference group = part-time vocational schools.

^bVariables are mean-centered. RWPA = right-wing populist actors, NPA = non-populist actors only, NF = not following any actor.

 *p < .05.

 **p < .01.

***p < .001.

 +p < .01.

Figure 1. Predicted probabilities to follow right-wing populist actors (RWPA), only non-populist actors (NPA) or no political actor at all (NF, non-followers) for different levels of political trust (x-axes) and for different levels of age. Graphs on the left side show results for age = 16, graphs in the middle for age = 18, and graphs on the right side for 20 age = 20. Probabilities are calculated based on Table 4 (Model 2). All other variables are set to their mean values. Dotted lines indicate 95% confidence intervals.