Can online participation on issues of asylum seeking lead to action? Understanding the intent to act

Abstract

Objective

Issues of refuge and asylum are often controversial in Australia, with misinformation, fear, and emotion often used to sway public opinion. The objective of this study was to understand individuals’ willingness to advocate on asylum seeker issues.

Method

Using an online survey, this study investigated the attitudes, opinions, and activities of those who had signed up to a Facebook page or newsletter of an asylum seeker support organisation.

Results

In total, 3,978 surveys were completed; 1,688 from people who were signed up to a regular newsletter, and 2,416 people who ‘liked’ the Facebook site. Most respondents were women, from Victoria, and were educated to at least the university level.

Conclusions

The findings of this study indicate that the engagement of those who had ‘liked’ the Facebook page were more Internet based, suggesting that when the cost of engaging action is low, people do little more than engage in token support, a number of interpretations for this finding are presented. Organisations need to consider how to engage this group in more ‘meaningful support’.

Key words:

• activism
• asylum seeker
• quantitative
• social media
• survey

Conflict of Interest: None to declare.

What is already known about this topic

• Social media can be a great way for NGOs to communicate with their members and supporters.

• The ease of social media use can mean many such organisations have a disparate group of supporters.

• There is some evidence to suggest that social media leads to meaningful engagement in activism, however, a larger body of research disputes this.

What this study adds

• Responding to increased community concern relating to asylum seekers, successive Australian governments have implemented harsh policies that seek to deter asylum seekers arriving by boat. This study investigated the attitudes, opinions, and actions of supporters of a large asylum seeker and refugee supporter organisation.

• Findings indicate that many of those who had liked the Facebook page were not engaged in actions or activism around issues of asylum seeking beyond liking the Facebook page. Those who had signed up to the newsletter were more likely to be engaged in more direct action towards issues of asylum.

• Given the past literature suggesting that people are more likely to engage in action if the cost is low, these findings will allow such organisations to more effectively and directly harness the power of their support base by promoting low cost actions.

INTRODUCTION

The ease of information sharing via the Internet means that the public are increasingly able to receive, share, and be involved in individualised acts of political expression and participate in activism suited to their Interest and lifestyle (Stanyer, 2005). Individualised forms of political expression can include letter writing and donating money or goods, as well as petition signing, boycotts, and (micro)blogging, all activities that have become easier to engage with since their integration into the online space, while collective acts may include pickets, marches, and the creation of political parties (Stanyer, 2005). Political action, or activism, has been defined as any activity by a group or individual that seeks to change the status quo (Harlow, 2012). While traditional media have played an important role in communicating political activities, including the delivery of ideas and the sharing of information between government and the community, emerging forms of new media, including social media, are playing an increasingly important role in the creation and exchange of information to the community. The Internet has allowed for more open and convenient access to traditional activism, and at the same time has allowed for the creation of new expressions of activism and individualised political protest, including liking, sharing, or commenting on content that has been posted by others on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

The flexibility inherent in social media allows for a two way conversation between the activist and the cause. Organisations are able to use this dialogue to their advantage; information can be provided vertically, from the organisation to the community, but also horizontally between members of the organisation or from member to member through the use of social media (Kavada, 2009). This increased control allows individuals to decide how engaged they wish to be, and how much information they then share with their own personal network. While the personal networks of activists have long been recognised as important for information sharing during social movements (Diani & McAdam, 2003), evidence from recent social movements, such as the Occupy Wall Street protests (DeLuca, Lawson, & Sun, 2012), suggests that individuals who have multiple online affiliations, identities, and network connections are important for the success of these movements (Lance Bennett, Breunig, & Givens, 2008; Van Laer & Van Aelst, 2010).

Engaging with a cause on social media has been highlighted as an example of ‘token support’ as individuals are not required to invest significant amounts of time, energy, or money into a cause to be involved. This low cost engagement may have the benefit of reinforcing a created public image, while requiring very little of the individual (Schumann & Klein, 2015). Other examples of token support may include signing an Internet petition or wearing a bracelet or pin. This contrasts with contributions that require more effort, which have been referred to as ‘meaningful support’, and might include actions such as donating money or volunteering time or skill (Kristofferson, White, & Peloza, 2014). Other research has investigated the relationship between the personal cost of an action and the likelihood of an individual engaging in that action. In a small study of Facebook users, Schumann and Klein (2015) showed token behaviours reduce the willingness of an individual to engage in ‘offline’ activity, such as engaging in demonstrations or signing petitions. This study found individuals may be satisfied by their level of engagement, feel that this reinforces their position within their chosen group, and therefore have little motivation to engage further. While according to Gneezy, Imas, Brown, Nelson, & Norton (2012), the cost of a prosocial act can affect one's self‐concept and the chance that they will engage in the action being promoted in the future. This research suggests that prosocial behaviours that are costly are reflective of prosocial identity. Following such a display, people then behave in line with this image. This contrasts with less costly prosocial acts that provide limited opportunities for a prosocial image creation, these actions are therefore less likely to be translated into behaviour (Gneezy et al., 2012).

Previous research has investigated the role of online campaigning in the mobilisation of community action, and has found some evidence to suggest that online campaigns can contribute to policy change, particularly when the message is individualised or personalised, or when storytelling is used in a way that allows for the creation of meaningful connection between the issue and the public (Vromen & Coleman, 2011). Facebook supports this function by allowing users to curate their online social life by combining political and social interests as they post links or ‘like’ specific pages or causes; these actions allow their network of ‘friends’ to see these life artefacts (Petray, 2011). Organisations that use social media for the promotion of a specific cause are also able to use this function of Facebook to tailor their message and target specific groups (Guo & Saxton, 2014; Harlow, 2012). This allows individuals causes to fulfil an increasing community demand for a more personalised relationship with the cause (Segerberg & Bennett, 2011; Vromen, Xenos, & Loader, 2015). These tactics, when used effectively, can create a community that, while geographically diverse, is ideologically alike. However, while there are many seemingly successful social media campaigns, particularly those that garner the support from many thousands of social media profiles (Skoric & Poor, 2013), the level of engagement and knowledge of those who are involved in these campaigns is unclear.

Many not for profit organisations are reliant on the Internet to share information and gather support, especially social media sites that are free and easy to create. Social media can be an inexpensive way for grass roots organisations to attract and maintain volunteers, build relationships with supporters, and share the organisation's vision with the public (Briones, Kuch, Liu, & Jin, 2011; Waters, Burnett, Lamm, & Lucas, 2009). This is especially important for organisations that are involved in fast moving causes, or are politically contentious, such as issues of asylum seeking in Australia.

Asylum seeking has received much attention and scrutiny in Australia, and has been a point of activism over several years (Gosden, 2006). Over the past two decades, Australia has seen an increase in the number of people seeking protection, and while the numbers represent historic highs for Australia, in global terms, these numbers are low, with Australia housing approximately 0.2% of the global total of asylum seekers (UNHCR, 2015). Despite the small numbers, asylum seekers are frequently portrayed in a negative way by the Australian media and by many politicians (Kenny, Silove, & Steel, 2004; Silove, 2002), with several studies finding negative community attitudes towards asylum seekers (Betts, 2001; McKay, Thomas, & Kneebone, 2012). The response of many Australians to issues of asylum seeking is conservative, most Australians are comfortable with the current policy of turning back boats that make it to Australian shores, as they are with the current policy of mandatory detention (Lewis, 2015; Monash University, 2016). These attitudes are said to be influenced by a public discourse, and political and media commentary that portray asylum seekers as ‘illegals’ who take the place of individuals seen to be more deserving of resettlement (Klocker & Dunn, 2003; Markus, 2010; McKay et al., 2012; Pedersen, Watt, & Hansen, 2006). The increased media attention has combined with public concerns about conditions in detention centres, resulting in the proliferation of online spaces for those with dissenting views to meet, share resources, discuss news, and plan activism.

While some suggest that the connection facilitated through social media is creating a more informed and more engaged society, others argue that citizen engagement through the Internet is more about showcasing in front of others or about allowing the user to feel good about themselves (Hindman, 2008; Shulman, 2004). There is also some suggestion while evidence points to cases where online activism has successfully moved offline (Earl, Kimport, Prieto, Rush, & Reynoso, 2010), these cases are few and far between (Gaby & Caren, 2012; Lim, 2013). This research seeks to investigate one community organisation who advocate for asylum seekers and refugees. This organisation operates both online and offline; their online communication with supporters includes an email newsletter and a Facebook page, they also have a number of physical locations with a variety of actions that assist asylum seekers. In this research, we seek to identify whether those engaged only with Facebook are showing a superficial level of support when compared to a group who are initially engaged in a more private way. This research investigates the opinions of supporters and followers around specific issues, and their general engagement in activism and other activities promoted by the organisation.

METHOD

An online mixed methods approach was used to explore the attitudes, opinions, and actions of those supporters receiving the newsletter and those who were Facebook followers. Supporters who received the newsletter did so because they had signed up via the organisation's website. The survey consisted of 23 questions including demographic characteristics (age, sex, education, country of birth, employment status, religion, and political views); participants’ use of traditional and social media; respondents’ level of engagement with the organisation in the preceding 12-months and plans for future engagement; opinions regarding method arrival of asylum seekers; and a qualitative section which probed more deeply for attitudes and opinions towards asylum seekers using open‐ended questions which asked how asylum seekers should be treated upon arrival, and what respondents thought had most influenced their opinion on asylum seekers and why.

Procedure

A link to the online survey (Survey Monkey) was sent to the email addresses of those who had signed up to the newsletter (approximately 12,000 email addresses). A reminder was sent after 6-days. A link was also posted on the organisations Facebook site, which had 152,450 ‘likes’ at the time. The link was re‐posted after 4-days. The survey was open between 23 February and 2 March 2015. The link contained information about the survey and contact the information of the researcher. Ethical approval to conduct the research had been obtained from the Deakin University Human Ethics Committee.

Data analysis

Percentages are presented for categorical variables and means or medians presented for continuous variables. Categorical variables were analysed using chi‐square tests, with odds ratios (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) presented. All analyses were conducted using SPSS for Windows, Version 22.0. Alpha levels were set at p < .001. To determine socio‐economic status (SES), the Australian Bureau of Statistics SEIFA deciles (Index of Relative Socio‐Economic Disadvantage) were used. Areas with a high index value (8–10) have few families on low incomes, or people who have little training or who work in unskilled occupations. Areas with low values (1–3) have many low‐income families, people with little formal training and people who work in unskilled occupations. The distributions of index scores are generally similar across the states, although the Northern Territory has a higher proportion of disadvantaged areas, and the Australian Capital Territory has a lower proportion than Australia as a whole (ABS, 2006). In this study, the distribution of index values is summarised into low (1–3), medium (4–7), and high (8–10).

RESULTS

In total, 4,108 surveys were completed (1,692 via the newsletter survey and 2,416 via the Facebook survey). Four cases were removed from the newsletter survey as the respondents were under 18-years, leaving 1,688. Ten cases were removed from the Facebook survey as they were under 18-years. A further 360 people indicated that they had received the newsletter, and of those 32 had already completed the survey and were prevented from completing it again. There were also 84 respondents who had opened the survey but did not complete any questions and were thus removed, leaving 2,290 completed surveys collected via the Facebook recruitment strategy. In total, 3,978 valid responses were gathered (1,688 via the newsletter and 2,290 via the Facebook recruitment strategy) and have been used in this analysis.

Demographic characteristics of the sample

The characteristics of the entire sample are presented in Table 1. Four fifths (81.7%; n = 3,249) of the sample were female with a mean age of 48.1-years (median 48 years; SD = 15.9-years; range 18–95-years). Over half (55.6%; n = 2,211) of the sample resided in Victoria, the next largest group were those living in NSW (18%; n = 716), and Queensland (8.6%; n = 356). Just over half (51.5%; n = 2,049) of all respondents lived in a high SES area, while more than 1 in 10 (13.6%; n = 541) lived in a low SES area. Three quarters (76.6%; n = 3,047) were born in Australia. One third (33.7%; n = 1,341) were employed and working full time, 22.4% (n = 890) were employed and working part time, and 19.1% (n = 759) were retired. Two fifths (39.2%; n = 1,561) had a postgraduate university degree with one third (33.6%; n = 1,336) having a university undergraduate degree. Almost half (47.8%; n = 1,091) indicated that they had no religion; 48.1% (n = 1,913) indicated that religious beliefs were ‘somewhat/very important’ to way of life. Most (75.6%; n = 3,006) of the participants indicated that they were on the ‘left’ of politics, and 91% (n = 3,619) agreed that they felt strongly about their political views.

Table 1. Characteristics of the sample (N = 3,978)

	Total	Facebook (n = 2,416)	Newsletter (n = 1,692)	OR[t]	95% CI	p value
Socio‐economic status
High	51.5	46	58.7	0.6	0.5, 0.7	<.001
Middle	32.0	35.1	27.7	1.4	1.2, 1.6	<.001
Low	13.6	14.9	11.8	1.3	1.1, 1.6	n.s.
Female	81.7	85	77.1	1.7	1.4, 2.0	<.001
Mean age [media; SD; range]	48.1[48; 15.9; 18–95]	45.0	52.4	14.6	—	<.001
Born in Australia	76.6	75.7	77.8	0.9	0.8, 1.0	n.s.
Employment status
Employed, working full time	33.7	36.2	30.4	1.3	1.1, 1.5	<.001
Employed, working part time	22.4	22.4	22.4	1.0	0.9, 1.2	n.s.
Not working	3.9	4.0	3.8	1.1	0.8, 1.5	n.s.
Primary carer	3.9	4.7	2.7	1.8	1.2, 2.5	n.s.
Retired	19.1	13.3	27	0.4	0.3, 0.5	<.001
Studying	8.5	10.6	5.7	1.9	1.5, 2.5	<.001
Education
Postgraduate degree	39.2	35	45	0.5	0.6, 0.7	<.001
Postsecondary-diploma/certificate	15.3	17.1	12.7	1.4	1.2, 1.7	<.001
Some postsecondary	4.9	5.8	3.6	1.6	1.2, 2.2	n.s.
Undergraduate degree	33.6	33.3	33.9	1.0	0.9, 1.1	n.s.
Completed high school	4.8	6.1	3.1	2.0	1.4, 2.8	<.001
Less than high school	2.3	2.8	1.6	1.7	1.1, 2.7	n.s.
No religion	47.8	48.8	46.4	1.1	1.0, 1.2	n.s.
Religious beliefs somewhat/very important to way of life	27.6	26.9	28.7	0.9	0.8, 1.1	n.s.
‘Left’ political views	75.6	74.7	76.7	0.9	0.8, 1.0	n.s.

There were some demographic differences between those recruited by Facebook and those recruited via the newsletter; these are presented in Table 1. Those recruited through Facebook were significantly more likely to be females (85 vs 77.1%; OR = 1.7; 95% CI = 1.4, 2.0), to be from a middle SEIFA area (35.1 vs 27.7%; OR = 1.4; 95% CI = 1.2, 1.6), to be employed and working full time (36.2 vs 30.4%; OR = 1.2; 95% CI = 1.1, 1.5), to have completed high school (6.1 vs 3.15%; OR = 2.0; 95% CI = 1.4, 2.8), to have a postsecondary diploma or certificate (17.1 vs 12.7%; OR = 1.4; 95% CI = 1.2, 1.7), or to be studying (10.6 vs 5.7%; OR = 1.9; 95% CI = 1.5, 2.5); they were less likely to be from a high SEIFA area (46 vs 58.7%; OR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.5, 0.7), to be retired (13.3 vs 27%; OR = 0.4; 95% CI = 0.3, 0.5), or to have a postgraduate qualification (35 vs 45%; OR = 0.5; 95% CI = 0.6, 0.7).

Participants were asked about actions they had taken in the previous 12-months on behalf or for asylum seekers. As shown in Table 2, of those who engaged in action (n = 3,787), most participants engaged in a median of four actions (range: 1–12). Almost all (91.7%; n = 3,677) had signed an Internet petition, had shared social media (77.8%; n = 2,946), or had written to a politician (56%; n = 2,120). There were differences in the actions taken in the previous 12-months between the recruitment methods, as shown in Table 2. Those recruited through Facebook were significantly less likely to have donated money (29.8 vs 63.35%; OR = 0.25; 95% CI = 0.21, 0.28), donated food or material (13.1 vs 23.3%; OR = 0.5; 95% CI = 0.4, 0.6), written to an asylum seeker (7.2 vs 13.2%; OR = 0.5; 95% CI = 0.4, 0.6), supported the organisation through their business or workplace (7.2 vs 11.5%; OR = 0.5; 95% CI = 0.4, 0.6), volunteered (2.6 vs 12.2%; OR = 0.4; 95% CI = 0.3, 0.5), fundraised (2.3 vs 6.2%; OR = 0.4; 95% CI = 0.3, 0.5), or used the organisations catering or cleaning service (2.1 vs 4.7%; OR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.3, 0.6), though were more likely to have signed an Internet petition (93.3 vs 89.6%; OR = 1.6; 95% CI = 1.3, 2.0) or shared social media (92.9 vs 58.2%; OR = 9.4; 95% CI = 7.8, 11.4). When asked what action they would take in the forthcoming 12-months, those who were recruited through Facebook were less likely to indicate that they would donate money (46.1 vs 71.4%; OR = 0.3; 95% CI = 0.29, 0.39), donate food or material (42.7 vs 49.8%; OR = 0.8; 95% CI = 0.7, 0.9), volunteer (22.8 vs 29.8%; OR = 0.7; 95% CI = 0.6, 0.8), or use the organisations catering or cleaning service (11.9 vs 18.8%; OR = 0.5, 0.7).

Table 2. Activism on asylum seekers (N = 3,787)

	Total	Facebook (n = 2,416)	Newsletter (n = 1,692)	OR[t]	95% CI	p value
In the previous 12-months
Signed an Internet petition	91.7	93.3	89.6	1.6	1.3, 2.0	<.001
Shared social media	77.8	92.9	58.2	9.4	7.8, 11.4	<.001
Written to a politician	56	54.4	58.0	0.9	0.8, 1.0	n.s.
Took part in a campaign	44.4	42.6	46.7	0.8	0.7, 1.0	n.s.
Donated money	44.3	29.8	63.3	0.25	0.21, 0.28	<.001
Demonstration	43	41	45.8	0.8	0.7, 0.9	n.s.
Signed a paper petition	39.8	37.4	43	0.8	0.7, 0.9	n.s.
Donated food or material	17.5	13.1	23.3	0.5	0.4, 0.6	<.001
Written to an asylum seeker	9.8	7.2	13.2	0.5	0.4, 0.6	<.001
Workplace support	9.1	7.2	11.5	0.5	0.4, 0.6	<.001
Volunteered	6.8	2.6	12.2	0.4	0.3, 0.5	<.001
Fundraised	4	2.3	6.2	0.4	0.3, 0.5	<.001
Catering/cleaning	3.2	2.1	4.7	0.4	0.3, 0.6	<.001
In the forthcoming 12-months^2
Donate money	57.1	46.1	71.4	0.3	0.29, 0.39	<.001
Donate food or material	45.8	42.7	49.8	0.8	0.7, 0.9	<.001
Volunteer	25.9	22.8	29.8	0.7	0.6, 0.8	<.001
Catering/cleaning	14.9	11.9	18.8	0.6	0.5, 0.7	<.001
Workplace support	13.5	12.2	15.2	0.8	0.6, 0.9	n.s.
Fundraise	10.5	9.6	11.8	0.8	0.6, 1.0	n.s.

Indicates of those who had engaged in an activism action in the previous 12-months.

All participants were asked their opinions regarding asylum seekers who arrive by boat. A similar proportion indicated that they thought asylum seekers should live in the community while they wait for their refugee status to be assessed (44.1%; n = 1,754) and that they should be held in detention in Australia for health and security checks and then allowed to live in the community while they wait for the claim to be assessed (42.8%; n = 1,704). Less than 1% indicated that they should be held in detention in Australia for the whole time that their claim is being assessed (n = 25), that they should be sent back to their country of origin (n = 9), or that they should be sent to an offshore detention centre for the whole time their claim is being assessed and then settled in another country (n = 8). When comparing by recruitment method, those recruited through Facebook were significantly less likely to endorse a notion that asylum seekers should live in the community while they wait for their refugee status to be assessed (40.2 vs 49.3%; OR = 0.7; 95% CI = 0.6, 0.8); no other significant differences were found.

Almost three quarters (70.5%; n = 2,805) of the sample agreed that Australia should provide practical and financial support to Indonesia to develop better systems for processing asylum seekers so that people would be less likely to get on boats to Australia and two fifths (39.7%; n = 1,579) agreed that asylum seeker children should be allowed to live in the community while their refugee claims were being assessed rather than live in detention. Small proportions agreed that it was reasonable to give temporary protection only to refugees and to reassess their need for protection every few years (2.6%; n = 104), that the Australian government's current approach to asylum seekers who arrive by boat was reasonable and justified (1.8%; n = 73), and that the government should use the Australian Navy to patrol Australia's borders and stop boats carrying asylum seekers before they reach Australia's borders (n = 27). Just over 3% (3.3%) of those recruited through Facebook were significantly less likely to believe that children should be allowed to live in the community compared to 89.1% of those recruited by the newsletter (OR = 0.004; 95% CI = 0.003, 0.005; p < .001). Four fifths (80.3%) of those recruited by Facebook were more likely to support giving more money to Indonesia compared to 57.3% of those recruited by the newsletter (OR = 3.0; 95% CI = 2.6, 3.5; p < .001).

DISCUSSION

This study sought to understand the attitudes, opinions, and actions taken by people who support an organisation that works with asylum seekers in Australia. The overall findings of this study indicate that engagement of those who had ‘liked’ the organisation's Facebook page was largely Internet based and public in nature; for example, those liking the Facebook page were more likely to have signed an Internet petition or shared a post on social media. This contrasts with the actions of those who received the newsletter, a less public way of interacting with the organisation. These individuals were more likely to engage in ‘offline’ activism, including volunteering at an asylum seeker organisation, donating money, writing to an asylum seeker in detention, or engaging in other more direct forms of engagement with asylum seekers. Understanding the motivations behind the activities described here is important. Understanding why an individual will like a Facebook page on an issue that is contentions is a clear gap in current research. Investigating the way that individuals interact with these issues and whether these ‘keyboard warriors’ are engaged in greater activism offline is an important avenue for future research in this area.

We suggest two explanations for these findings. The first is consistent with some previous research (Kristofferson et al., 2014; Lim, 2013; Morozov, 2009), whereby those who have liked the Facebook page were showing a superficial level of support. For this group, the act of liking the Facebook page constitutes an easy, low cost, way of showing their Facebook friends that they are engaged in this issue, an example of image management. Despite the importance of such an action in the creation of an issues‐conscious Facebook image, for this group, such superficial action is typically the extent of their support for the cause. The more private newsletter group were found to be much more likely to be engaged at a deeper level, with their engagement occurring in the private space, and with less feedback from peers or ‘friends’. The second explanation for these findings is that because this issue is so negatively viewed by much of the community, those who have liked the Facebook page are showing a significant level of support. These ‘likers’ are actually risking damage to their Facebook‐crafted image by showing support for an unpopular cause, an act that may open them up to conflict or ridicule from their Facebook friends. The engagement of this group may, however, be important, as with the right information and engagement with the organisation, these individuals may be able to share information to their friends who might not normally receive it. These two interpretations of the data will be addressed separately below.

Superficial support

The interpretation of the findings of this study that those who are showing superficial support by liking the Facebook page is consistent with that of previous research, whereby when the cost of engaging in action is low, people are more likely to show their support in low cost ways but do little else (Kristofferson et al., 2014; Schumann & Klein, 2015; Schumann, Klein, & Douglas, 2012). This token support may reinforce the image created by the individual and their Facebook friends, further reinforcing the Facebook ‘echo chamber’, in which individuals are exposed only to information from like‐minded individuals. This type of action typically includes activities such as signing an Internet petition, wearing a bracelet or pin, or engaging in online support such as liking or joining a page on Facebook. This contrasts with contributions that require more effort, and might include actions such as donating money or material aid, or volunteering (Kristofferson et al., 2014). The Internet has made it easier for people to show token support, with Morozov (2009) referring to actions of token support as ‘slacktivist’ activities. Slacktivism has been defined as the willingness of an individual to perform a symbolic, relatively cost free, display of support for a social cause or movement (Davis, 2011; Morozov, 2009).

Previous research has investigated the motivating factors that can lead an individual to engage in activist behaviours (Kristofferson et al., 2014; Schumann & Klein, 2015). One hypothesis is that when an individual engages in online activity, and they are confident that their online only actions are meaningful, they do little else as they have satisfied their own motivations for action (Schumann & Klein, 2015). This interpretation may explain some of the findings of this study, namely that many individuals liked the Facebook page, signed an Internet petition, or shared online information and did little else; these action fulfilled their need for engagement.

Other possible motivations include wanting to present a positive image (a public action), rather than a desire to be consistent with one's own values (often a private action). This current research identified a group who appeared to be engaging in social media ‘activism’ alone. This group, engaged in token action that is high in social observability (for example through social media), have been found in previous research to be unlikely to transform this action to the private arena and engage in a more substantive or direct way (Kristofferson et al., 2014; Morozov, 2009). This lack of meaningful engagement may be related to a desire to satisfy impression‐management motives, or the desire of individuals to present themselves in a positive way to others (Goffman, 1959).

Risking a negative image

The second interpretation of these findings is that any token or superficial support for a cause that is unpopular in the community is actually a potential risk to the image of the individual. Previous research suggests that people seek to avoid actions that could encourage negative impressions of them in the minds of their ‘audience’ (Leary & Kowalski, 1997; Marder, Slade, Houghton, & Archer‐Brown, 2016). Such a concern about self‐presentation on Facebook, and the role of ‘liking’ a page in contributing to the image that is presented suggests that interacting or liking a Facebook page (or not) is also about impression management (Hollenbeck & Kaikati, 2012; Marder et al., 2016). Liking a Facebook page for a negatively viewed issue could be seen as potentially risky for the individual and the image that they are seeking to portray, particularly, when this individual could get the same or similar information in more private arenas, for example from the newsletter, or by accessing the public Facebook page directly. This may explain some of the differences between the Facebook and the newsletter group.

The majority of Australians agree with sending asylum seekers to offshore detention centres, and many Australians would prefer that no asylum seekers arrived in Australia, or, that any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia should do so through pre‐determined ‘correct’ channels (Monash University, 2016). There are many dedicated pages and groups on Facebook that support this stance, and many with the opposing view receive a large number of comments from those who would prefer Australia to accept fewer asylum seekers. By liking or engaging with this Facebook page, and sharing information with their friends (on purpose or inadvertently because of their privacy setting), they are potentially opening themselves up to confrontation about the issue (Burke & Goodman, 2012). This is a legitimate risk, the Facebook page in question attracts as a large number of trolls and a significant number of negative comments on all posts—at times, the commenting function has been turned off to manage these interactions. This interpretation of the findings requires further investigation as the current study is unable to make definitive statement regarding the motivations of participants.

Implications

For many organisations, acquiring ‘likes’ on their Facebook page elicits a number of advantages (Lipsman, Mudd, Rich, & Bruich, 2012). Engaging a supporter base in this way is good for both the organisation, (policies and positions can be promoted, it is useful for donation seeking and actions) and for social media users (as an easy way to gain information, but also for identity or image management). There has been some work that has investigated how political parties engage with users of social media users (Kushin & Yamamoto, 2010; Vitak et al., 2011), but this work has yet to investigate the role of engagement through ‘liking’ a Facebook page, which have been suggested to be important, and possibly leading to further engagement.

Many organisations are increasing their online presence as a way to more easily engage with consumers. One of the advantages of using social media to engage with supporters is the potential low cost of a large reach. There is some research that supports such broad reach, suggesting that any action is positive action for a cause, and that it is only with such small steps that more meaningful forms of social engagement can occur in the future (Skoric & Poor, 2013; Vitak et al., 2011). So, for example, while wearing a pink ribbon for breast cancer many not directly lead to a cure, the act increases awareness of the issue and may result in both personal and policy change (Selleck, 2010). More than simply raising awareness, this is important, as some previous work suggests, that once individuals are engaged in any behaviour, they are more likely to engage in similar behaviours in the future (Winterich, Mittal, & Aquino, 2013).

However, there is also a risk that people will take the action that they are involved in and move no further in to action. This leads us to question if there is any benefit to liking a Facebook page other than allowing the liker to feel like they are doing something, while at the same time showing their ‘friends’ that they are engaged. A question for future research is to understand if public token support (such as liking a Facebook page) can lead on to any more meaningful support, particularly in the case of a unpopular cause.

Limitations

While there are some interesting findings presented here, there are some limitations to this study. The Facebook page typically has more content and information than the newsletter does, so the differences in what the two groups receive in their communication from this organisation may explain the differences in activity or intention to be active. However, given those that signed up to the Facebook page are likely to get more information from the organisation, the relationship between information source and action would be expected to go in the other direction if action was directly related to information received. The nature of the online survey means that participants were largely self‐selected. It is also possible that we received more responses from those in the younger age group as there were more likely to be familiar with the online space, and also those with a higher level of education. This may mean that we received responses from those who more likely to be engaged in issues of policy and human rights. We were specifically targeting those who were interested in this issue, and already engaged to an extent in these issues specifically. As such, that this group are represented in the data is a reflection of both the sample who are likely to be interested and those who are already engaged. Finally, there was no control group from which to benchmark the level of support between the Facebook and newsletter groups, and to gauge whether current and future levels of support are significant or not. However, the purpose of the study was to focus upon those already engaged in the issue through their support for this organisation, not to see how these engagement differ between those engaged and not. The nuances between the groups are more important to the organisation than whether they differ from the community at large.

CONCLUSION

Given the desire of individuals to cultivate a positive image on social media, while at the same time seeking to engage in the easiest form of activism, organisations need to use this to their advantage when creating campaigns. It is important to recognise that there are some individuals who will only ever like a page on social media; these individuals will not take their engagement any further. There are, however, other individuals who, if given the right opportunity and guidance, will take this action further—it is the relationship with these individuals that the organisation needs to foster. If small token acts, such as liking a Facebook page, are ever to lead to more meaningful support for the cause (if those in the Facebook group can be encouraged to engage in more meaningful actions), organisations must allow individuals to share their increased level of action in the public domain, and must recruit these individuals through this medium.

Notes

Conflict of Interest: None to declare.