How Political Efficacy Relates to Online and Offline Political Participation: A Multilevel Meta-analysis

References

• Adugu, E., & Broome, P. A. (2018). Exploring factors associated with digital and conventional political participation in the Caribbean. International Journal of E-Politics (IJEP), 9(2), 35–52. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJEP.2018040103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AlSalem, F. (2015). Digital media and women’s political participation in Kuwait [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Indiana University.
   Google Scholar
• Amsalem, E., & Nir, L. (2021). Does Interpersonal Discussion Increase Political Knowledge? a Meta-Analysis. Communication Research, 48(5), 619–641. http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219866357
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amsalem, E., & Zoizner, A. (2022). Real, but limited: A meta-analytic assessment of framing effects in the political domain. British Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 221–237. http://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123420000253
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anduiza, E., Jensen, M. J., & Jorba, L. (Eds.). (2012). Digital media and political engagement worldwide. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Anduiza, E., Guinjoan, M., & Rico, G. (2019). Populism, participation, and political equality. European Political Science Review, 11(1), 109–124. http://doi.org/10.1017/s1755773918000243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Assink, M., & Wibbelink, C. J. M. (2016). Fitting three-level meta-analytic models in R: A step-by-step tutorial. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12(3), 154–174. http://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.12.3.p154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartels, L. M. (2016). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768. http://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, W. L. (2012). The personalization of politics: Political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 20–39. http://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212451428
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumenau, J. (2021). Online activism and dyadic representation: Evidence from the UK e-petition system. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 46(4), 889–920. http://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12291
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bode, L. (2017). Gateway Political Behaviors: The Frequency and Consequences of Low-Cost Political Engagement on Social Media. Social Media + Society, 3(4), 205630511774334. http://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117743349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Boulianne, S. (2019). US dominance of research on political communication: A meta-view. Political Communication, 36(4), 660–665. http://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1670899
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulianne, S. (2020). Twenty years of digital media effects on civic and political participation. Communication Research, 47(7), 947–966. http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218808186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulianne, S., & Theocharis, Y. (2020). Young people, digital media, and engagement: A meta-analysis of research. Social Science Computer Review, 38(2), 111–127. http://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318814190
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Row, Peterson.
   Google Scholar
• Cantijoch, M., Cutts, D., & Gibson, R. (2016). Moving slowly up the ladder of political engagement: A ‘spill-over’ model of internet participation. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 18(1), 26–48. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856x.12067
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter, E. C., Schönbrodt, F. D., Gervais, W. M., & Hilgard, J. (2019). Correcting for bias in psychology: A comparison of meta-analytic methods. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 115–144. http://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847196
   Google Scholar
• Chamberlain, A. (2012). A time-series analysis of external efficacy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(1), 117–130. http://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr064
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, M., Chen, H.-T., & Lee, F. L. F. (2017). Examining the roles of mobile and social media in political participation: A cross-national analysis of three Asian societies using a communication mediation approach. New Media & Society, 19(12), 2003–2021. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816653190
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chenoweth, E. (2020). The future of nonviolent resistance. Journal of Democracy, 31(3), 69–84. http://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2020.0046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chou, E. Y., Hsu, D. Y., & Hernon, E. (2020). From Slacktivism to Activism: Improving the Commitment Power of E-Pledges for Prosocial Causes. PloS one, 15(4), e0231314. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231314
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, H. S. (2011). Political activities on the internet: slacktivism or political participation by other means? First Monday, 16(2). http://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v16i2.3336
   Google Scholar
• Cook, R. D., & Weisberg, S. (1982). Residuals and influence in regression. Chapman and Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Knutsen, C., Lindberg, S., Teorell, J., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., Fish, M., Glynn, A., Hicken, A., Lührmann, A., Marquardt, K., McMann, K., Paxton, P., Pemstein, D., Seim, B., Sigman, R., Skaaning, S., Staton, J., … Ziblatt, D. (2020a). V-Dem Codebook v10. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3557877
   Google Scholar
• Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Knutsen, C., Lindberg, S., Teorell, J., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., Fish, M., Glynn, A., Hicken, A., Lührmann, A., Marquardt, K., McMann, K., Paxton, P., Pemstein, D., Seim, B., Sigman, R., Skaaning, S., Staton, J., … Ziblatt, D. (2020b). V-Dem [Country–Year/Country–Date] Dataset v10. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. http://doi.org/10.23696/vdemds20
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, S., Linde, J., & Holmberg, S. (2015). Democratic discontent in old and new democracies: Assessing the importance of democratic input and governmental output. Political Studies, 63(1), 18–37. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12170
   Google Scholar
• Dassonneville, R., Feitosa, F., Hooghe, M., & Oser, J. (2021). Policy responsiveness to all citizens or only to voters? A longitudinal analysis of policy responsiveness in OECD countries. European Journal of Political Research, 60(3), 583–602. http://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12417
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinesen, P. T., Schaeffer, M., & Sønderskov, K. M. (2020). Ethnic diversity and social trust: A narrative and meta-analytical review. Annual Review of Political Science, 23(1), 441–465. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052918-020708
   Google Scholar
• Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ennser-Jedenastik, L., Gahn, C., Bodlos, A., & Haselmayer, M. (2022). Does social media enhance party responsiveness? Party Politics, 28(3), 468–481. http://doi.org/10.1177/1354068820985334
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esser, F. (2019). Advances in comparative political communication research through contextualization and cumulation of evidence. Political Communication, 36(4), 680–686. http://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1670904
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrell, H. (2012). The consequences of the Internet for politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 15(1), 35–52. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-030810-110815
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernández-Castilla, B., Declercq, L., Jamshidi, L., Beretvas, S. N., Onghena, P., & Van den Noortgate, W. (2021). Detecting selection bias in meta-analyses with multiple outcomes: A simulation study. The Journal of Experimental Education, 89(1), 125–144. http://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2019.1582470
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finkel, S. E. (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29(4), 891–913. http://doi.org/10.2307/2111186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freelon, D., Marwick, A., & Kreiss, D. (2020). False equivalencies: Online activism from left to right. Science, 369(6508), 1197. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb2428
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, R., & Cantijoch, M. (2013). Conceptualizing and measuring participation in the age of the internet: Is online political engagement really different to offline? The Journal of Politics, 75(3), 701–716. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381613000431
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gil de Zúñiga, H., Barnidge, M., & Scherman, A. (2017). Social media social capital, offline social capital, and citizenship: Exploring symmetrical social capital effects. Political Communication, 34(1), 44–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1227000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giugni, M., & Grasso, M. (2019a). Mechanisms of responsiveness: What MPs think of interest organizations and how they deal with them. Political Studies, 67(3), 557–575. http://doi.org/10.1177/0032321718784156
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giugni, M., & Grasso, M. (2019b). Street citizens: Protest politics and social movement Activism in the age of globalization. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gladwell, M. (2010). Why the revolution will not be tweeted. The New Yorker. Condé Nast. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/04/small-change-malcolm-gladwell
   Google Scholar
• Griffin, J. D., & Newman, B. (2005). Are voters better represented? The Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1206–1227. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00357.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guidetti, M., Cavazza, N., & Graziani, A. R. (2016). Perceived disagreement and heterogeneity in social networks: Distinct effects on political participation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 156(2), 222–242. http://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2015.1095707
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S., & Stewart, G. (2018). Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature, 555(7695), 175–182. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature25753
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halupka, M. (2014). Clicktivism: A systematic heuristic. Policy & Internet, 6(2), 115–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1944-2866.POI355
   Google Scholar
• Htun, M., & Weldon, S. L. (2012). The civic origins of progressive policy change: Combating violence against women in global perspective, 1975-2005. American Political Science Review, 106(3), 548–569. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, B., Gil de Zúñiga, H., Diehl, T., & Liu, J. H. (2019). The citizen communication mediation model across countries. Journal of Communication, 69(2), 144–167. http://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hünermund, P., & Louw, B. (2020, October 1). On the nuisance of control variables in regression analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.10314, 3. http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10314
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, D., & Turner, R. (2017). Power analysis for random-effects meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 8(3), 290–302. http://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1240
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jugert, P., Eckstein, K., Noack, P., Kuhn, A., & Benbow, A. (2013). Offline and online civic engagement among adolescents and young adults from three ethnic groups. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(1), 123–135. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9805-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung, N., Kim, Y., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2011). The mediating role of knowledge and efficacy in the effects of communication on political participation. Mass Communication and Society, 14(4), 407–430. http://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.496135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahne, J., & Bowyer, B. (2018). The political significance of social media activity and social networks. Political Communication, 35(3), 470–493. http://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1426662
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karp, J. A., & Banducci, S. A. (2008). Political efficacy and participation in twenty-seven democracies: How electoral systems shape political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 38(2), 311–334. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123408000161
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karpf, D. (2010). Online political mobilization from the advocacy group’s perspective. Policy & Internet, 2(4), 7–41. http://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2866.1098
   Google Scholar
• Karpf, D. (2012). The MoveOn effect - the unexpected transformation of American political advocacy. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keele, L., Stevenson, R. T., & Elwert, F. (2020). The causal interpretation of estimated associations in regression models. Political Science Research and Methods, 8(1), 1–13. http://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2019.31
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenski, K., & Stroud, N. J. (2006). Connections between Internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 173–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem5002_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, H. M., & Baek, Y. M. (2018). The power of political talk: How and when it mobilizes politically efficacious citizens’ campaign activity during elections. Asian Journal of Communication, 28(3), 264–280. http://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2018.1431295
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kriesi, H. (2013). Democratic legitimacy: Is there a legitimacy crisis in contemporary politics? Politische vierteljahresschrift, 54(4), 609–638. http://doi.org/10.5771/0032-3470-2013-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kriesi, H. (2014). The populist challenge. West European Politics, 37(2), 361–378. http://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2014.887879
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kriesi, H. (2020). Is there a crisis of democracy in Europe? Politische vierteljahresschrift, 61(2), 237–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2014.887879
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristofferson, K., White, K., & Peloza, J. (2014). The nature of slacktivism: How the social observability of an initial act of token support affects subsequent prosocial action. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1149–1166. http://doi.org/10.1086/674137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwak, N., Lane, D. S., Weeks, B. E., Kim, D. H., Lee, S. S., & Bachleda, S. (2018). Perceptions of social media for politics: Testing the slacktivism hypothesis. Human Communication Research, 44(2), 197–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqx008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lane, D. S., Kim, D. H., Lee, S. S., Weeks, B. E., & Kwak, N. (2017). From online disagreement to offline action: How diverse motivations for using social media can increase political information sharing and catalyze offline political participation. Social Media + Society, 3(3), 205630511771627. http://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117716274
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leighley, J. E., & Oser, J. (2018). Representation in an era of political and economic inequality: How and when citizen engagement matters. Perspectives on Politics, 16(2), 328–344. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592717003073
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), e1–e34. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lührmann, A., & Lindberg, S. I. (2019). A third wave of autocratization is here: What is new about it? Democratization, 26(7), 1095–1113. http://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2019.1582029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundberg, I., Johnson, R., & Stewart, B. M. (2021, June 1). What is your estimand? Defining the target quantity connects statistical evidence to theory. American Sociological Review, 86(3), 532–565. http://doi.org/10.1177/00031224211004187
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lutz, C., Hoffman, C. P., & Meckel, M. (2014). Beyond just politics: A systematic literature review of online participation. First Monday, 19(7) . http://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i7.5260
   Google Scholar
• Matthes, J., Knoll, J., & von Sikorski, C. (2018). The “spiral of silence” revisited: A meta-analysis on the relationship between perceptions of opinion support and political opinion expression. Communication Research, 45(1), 3–33. http://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1619638
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthes, J., Knoll, J., Valenzuela, S., Hopmann, D. N., & Von Sikorski, C. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of cross-cutting exposure on political participation. Political Communication, 36(4), 523–542. http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217745429
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthews, F. (2021). The value of “between-election” political participation. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 23(3), 410–429. http://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120959041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menard, S. (2004). Six approaches to calculating standardized logistic regression coefficients. The American Statistician, 58(3), 218–223. http://doi.org/10.1198/000313004X946
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mill, J. S. ([1861] 1962). Considerations on representative government. Henry Regnery.
   Google Scholar
• Morrell, M. E. (2003). Survey and experimental evidence for a reliable and valid measure of internal political efficacy. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(4), 589–602. http://doi.org/10.1086/378965
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munzert, S., & Ramirez-Ruiz, S. (2021). Meta-analysis of the effects of voting advice applications. Political Communication, 38(6) , 691–706. http://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1843572
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1407–1413. http://doi.org/10.2307/1963953
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohme, J., de Vreese, C. H., & Albæk, E. (2018). From theory to practice: How to apply van Deth’s conceptual map in empirical political participation research. Acta Politica, 53(3), 367–390. http://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-017-0056-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oser, J., Hooghe, M., & Marien, S. (2013). Is online participation distinct from offline participation? A latent class analysis of participation types and their stratification. Political Research Quarterly, 66(1), 91–101. http://doi.org/10.1177/1065912912436695
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, C. S. (2015). Pathways to expressive and collective participation: Usage patterns, political efficacy, and political participation in social networking sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 698–716. http://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093480
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 175–181. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.175
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pingree, R. J., Brossard, D., & McLeod, D. M. (2014). Effects of journalistic adjudication on factual beliefs, news evaluations, information seeking, and epistemic political efficacy. Mass Communication and Society, 17(5), 615–638. http://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2013.821491
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell, G. B. (2004). The chain of responsiveness. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 91–105. http://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2004.0070
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quintelier, E., & van Deth, J. W. (2014). Supporting democracy: Political participation and political attitudes. Exploring causality using panel data. Political Studies, 62(S1), 153–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12097
   Google Scholar
• Rains, S. A., Levine, T. R., & Weber, R. (2018). Sixty years of quantitative communication research summarized: Lessons from 149 meta-analyses. Annals of the International Communication Association, 42(2), 105–124. http://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2018.1446350
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, A., & Reher, S. (2019). Civil society engagement and policy representation in Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 52(11), 1648–1676. http://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019830724
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, L., Cotten, S. R., Ono, H., Quan-Haase, A., Mesch, G., Chen, W., Schulz, J., Hale, T. M., & Stern, M. J. (2015). Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 569–582. http://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018794769
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robison, J., Stevenson, R. T., Druckman, J. N., Jackman, S., Katz, J. N., & Vavreck, L. (2018). An audit of political behavior research. SAGE Open, 8(3), 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodgers, M. A., & Pustejovsky, J. E. (2021). Evaluating meta-analytic methods to detect selective reporting in the presence of dependent effect sizes. Psychological Methods, 26(2), 141–160. http://doi.org/10.1037/met0000300
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rojas, H., & Valenzuela, S. (2019). A call to contextualize public opinion-based research in political communication. Political Communication, 36(4), 652–659. http://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1670897
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruess, C., Hoffmann, C., Heger, K., & Boulianne, S. (Forthcoming). Online political participation: The evolution of a concept. Information, Communication & Society, 1–18. http://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.2013919
   Google Scholar
• Saldaña, M., McGregor, S. C., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2015). Social media as a public space for politics. International Journal of Communication, 9. http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/3238
   Google Scholar
• 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. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710001210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, F. M., Otto, L., Alings, D., & Schmitt, M. (2014). Measuring traits and states in public opinion research: A latent state–trait analysis of political efficacy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26(2), 202–223. http://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edu002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schradie, J. (2018). The digital activism gap: How class and costs shape online collective action. Social Problems, 65(1), 51–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spx042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarzer, G., Carpenter, J. R., & Rücker, G. (2015). Meta-analysis with R. Springer. http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-21416-0
   Google Scholar
• Schwarzer, G. Carpenter. (2022). Package ‘meta,’ version 5.2-0. CRAN . http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/meta/meta.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Shuman, E., Saguy, T., van Zomeren, M., & Halperin, E. (2021). Disrupting the system constructively: Testing the effectiveness of nonnormative nonviolent collective action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(4), 819–841. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000333
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 534–547. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0033242
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterne, J. A. C., & Egger, M. (2005). Regression methods to detect publication and other bias in meta-analysis. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 99–110). Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Strömbäck, J., Falasca, K., & Kruikemeier, S. (2018). The mix of media use matters: Investigating the effects of individual news repertoires on offline and online political participation. Political Communication, 35(3), 413–432. http://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1385549
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J. (2002). New Voices in the Public Sphere: A Comparative Analysis of Interpersonal and Online Political Talk. Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture, 9(2), 23–41. http://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2002.11008798
   Google Scholar
• Sun, Y., & Pan, Z. (2020). Not published is not perished: Addressing publication bias in meta-analytic studies in communication. Human Communication Research, 46(2–3), 300–321. http://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqz015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teorell, J., Coppedge, M., Lindberg, S., & Skaaning, S.-E. (2019). Measuring polyarchy across the globe, 1900-2017. Studies in Comparative International Development, 54(1), 71–95. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-018-9268-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theocharis, Y. (2015). The conceptualization of digitally networked participation. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1–14. http://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115610140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theocharis, Y., & Lowe, W. (2016). Does Facebook increase political participation? Evidence from a field experiment. Information, Communication & Society, 19(10), 1465–1486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1119871
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theocharis, Y., & Quintelier, E. (2016). Stimulating citizenship or expanding entertainment? The effect of Facebook on adolescent participation. New Media & Society, 18(5), 817–836. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814549006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theocharis, Y., & van Deth, J. W. (2018). The continuous expansion of citizen participation. European Political Science Review, 10(1), 139–163. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773916000230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theocharis, Y., & de Moor, J. (2021). Creative participation and the expansion of political engagement. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. http://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1972
   Google Scholar
• Vaccari, C. (2017). Online mobilization in comparative perspective: Digital appeals and political engagement in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Political Communication, 34(1), 69–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1201558
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaccari, C., & Valeriani, A. (2018). Digital political talk and political participation: Comparing established and third wave democracies. SAGE Open, 8(2), 215824401878498. http://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018784986
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. http://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viechtbauer, W., & Cheung, M. W. L. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 112–125. http://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viechtbauer, W. (2021). Meta-analysis package for R, version 3.0-2. CRAN. Retrieved March 22, 2022, from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/metafor/metafor.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Vráblíková, K. (2014). How context matters? Mobilization, political opportunity structures, and non electoral political participation in old and new democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 47(2), 203–229. http://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013488538
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vraga, E. K. (2019). What can I do? How to use social media to improve democratic society. Political Communication, 36(2), 315–323. http://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1610620
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, K. M., Gray, T. J., & Gainous, J. (2017). Digital information consumption and external political efficacy in Latin America: Does institutional context matter? Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 14(3), 277–291. http://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2017.1337601
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldner, D., & Lust, E. (2018). Unwelcome change: Coming to terms with democratic backsliding. Annual Review of Political Science, 21(1), 93–113. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050517-114628
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walter, N., Cohen, J., Holbert, R. L., & Morag, Y. (2020). Fact-checking: A meta-analysis of what works and for whom. Political Communication, 37(3), 350–375. http://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1668894
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Bank. (2021). Trade (% of GDP). World development indicators, the world bank group. Retrieved October 24, 2021, from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.TRD.GNFS.ZS
   Google Scholar
• Zhu, Q., Skoric, M., & Shen, F. (2017). I shield myself from thee: Selective avoidance on social media during political protests. Political Communication, 34(1), 112–131. http://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1222471
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zoizner, A. (2021). The consequences of strategic news coverage for democracy: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 48(1), 3–25. http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218808691
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar