Diploma Thesis by Myra v. Ondarza; Hamburg 2007

1. Examiner: Prof. Dr. S. Trepte
2. Examiner: Claudia Huber, M. Sc.; Berlin
University of  Hamburg, Department of Psychology, Classification: 560 (Communication))

Abstract:

This field study examined motivational processes for participation in the political blogosphere on European politics, the “Euroblogosphere”, from a social psychological perspective. The main aim was to contribute to a better understanding of key motivators for participation in the Euroblogosphere: is it used as a source for expert information and debate on European politics or additionally represents a community of (mainly) Europeans that engages in collective action for the sake of shared goals, such as influence on European politics or the development of a European public sphere?

It has often been stated that there is neither solidarity and community between different peoples of the EU member states¹ nor a European public sphere². Nevertheless, the Euroblogosphere can be seen as a space for critical political expression as well as for sharing a deeper interest in Europe - “an emerging new media which hopes to unite Europe in ‘dialogue, democracy and debate’”³  - but can one talk of collective action in this context?

The conceptualization of the study was strongly influenced by theoretical and empirical research on the dual-pathway model of social movement participation, which defines rational calculations on the outcome of participation (the achievement of both personal and collective goals) and collective identification with the social group as “two independent psychological routes to collective action”⁴. However, when transferring the model to the Euroblogosphere, one has to consider that the definition of a social movement as “effort[s] by a large number of people to solve collectively a problem that they feel they have in common”⁵ does not (yet) apply to this phenomenon.

The calculation pathway is build up of three different motives: the collective motive (based on collective goals; in this context e.g. influence on European politics or mass media, a well-founded discussion on Europe etc.), the normative motive (personal importance of the expected reactions of others, such as family, friends, or colleagues), the reward motive (based on personal gains and losses; in this context e.g. gaining additional information, interacting with other Europeans, receiving support for opinion formation etc.; having less time for other activities constituted the only loss).
For the identification pathway, two levels of collective identities were considered: the identification with Europeans as the broader social category, and the identification with Eurobloggers as the more politicized collective identity⁶. Besides this theoretical frame, research on blogs, the European public sphere, and political expertise constituted the basis of the study.

The investigation was composed of a small preliminary study of guided e-mail interviews with Euroblog authors (N = 6), followed by the main study, a quantitative online survey (N = 119). As we were interested in exploring the motives for active commitment in this virtual public arena, only blog authors and people who comment on other blogs were examined but “lurkers” (mere readers; N = 9) were not considered. We called the blog authors “central actors” (N = 49) and the commentators “peripheral actors” (N = 61) to highlight the different roles both groups play for the development of the blogosphere and the differential impact they have on recipients (i.e. bigger influence of blog authors because of higher visibility and quantity of their statements).

Building on Simon’s dual-pathway model for social movement participation, we assumed collective calculation and identification processes to be relevant for willingness to participation, besides the unequivocally important personal rewards in this context. In addition, interest in new online media (so-called “user-generated content”) and political expertise were thought to contribute positively to the prediction of willingness to participate.
Furthermore, we hypothesized the existence of significant differences in the characterization of central and peripheral actors and a shared politicized collective identity as Eurobloggers for Eurosceptics (critics of the EU) and Europhiles (supporters of the EU).

In line with literature on political expertise⁷, the results show that higher active participation (i.e. having one’s own blog in contrast to commenting on other blogs) appeared to be connected with more political expertise (stronger interest in and more knowledge of European politics) and benefit at work. As predicted, central actors also had stronger collective identities than peripheral actors. Because the former voluntarily participate more actively in this sphere, one can assume in line with Simon⁸ that for them, being European and Euroblogger are more important and valued self-aspects than for the latter. Thus, for central actors, these self-aspects serve collective identity processes better than for peripheral actors.

Further, we showed that the key motivators differed in both groups. However, contrary to our original expectation, in neither of them collective motives or the identification with Eurobloggers emerged as significant predictors for willingness to participation. Comparing these results with previous research on the basis of the dual-pathway model, we can conclude that one cannot talk of collective action in the Euroblogosphere (yet) because, first of all, participants were driven by personal incentives only and, in addition, identification with the Euroblogosphere as a “movement” did not seem to be a relevant motivator.

Nevertheless, in regard to the analysis on the level of both participant groups, the peripheral actors’ pattern corresponded very much with the dual-pathway model. Both calculation (reward motive) and identification (with Europeans) pathways contributed positively and independently to willingness to participate in the Euroblogosphere for this group. Interestingly, identification with Europeans but not Eurobloggers appeared to motivate peripheral actors, which is opposing to most of the previous research where identification with the movement was the better predictor for willingness than identification with the broader social category⁹. Thus, for peripheral actors, being European appeared to have a motivating force. This is attributable to the functions that identity processes provide for personal need satisfaction, such as belongingness, distinctiveness, esteem and respect, understanding or meaning, and agency¹⁰; following the motto: “if I know who I am, then I also know what to do”¹¹.
On the other hand, the central actors’ pattern of motivation did not correspond to the dual-pathway model at all. Interest in European politics turned out to be the only strong motivator for this group. Taken together with the findings on the differences between central and peripheral actors, one can conclude that central actors are political experts driven by their interest in European politics, which connects both their offline and online activities.

Furthermore, the results indicated that Eurosceptics do not share the identification as Eurobloggers with Europhiles. Moreover, they do not even share a European identity. It thus appears as if both groups share their interest in a well-founded discussion on European issues and only link to each other for this sake - but do not regard each other as one community. An interviewee described the “common ground” of both groups as follows:
“It is noticeable that most of them are either federalists or outright Eurosceptics. In other words, they are the people who are not content with the current state of affairs, feel the anger and need to ventilate it. They want to turn the tide.”¹²

There are several implications in this study, regarding the further development of the Euroblogosphere and its importance for the “Plan D” of the EU (representing dialogue, democracy and debate¹³). We have shown that the Euroblogosphere is a partial public sphere of very informed and committed citizens (mainly Europeans, but also “Europe-Affiliates”) who are interested in European politics, identify with Europeans (at least the Europhiles), wish to have a well-founded discussion and want to improve things in the EU. However, for several reasons it is not appropriate to speak of a unified community or even “movement” (yet). First of all, there are the two fractions of Eurosceptics and Europhiles with antagonistic political attitudes. Second, there is no conscience of a politicized collectivity yet, which serves for collective identification. Third but not less important, collective goals do not contribute to the willingness to participate and, hence, people do not engage in collective action (e.g. cover collectively certain “cases” to gain attention of the mass media or politicians; if at all, this development is still at the beginning).

In times, where the development of a pan-European public sphere becomes increasingly important for the EU and Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for Institutional relations and communication strategy, says: “I believe the Internet is THE new channel for debate and communication. … The EU needs to get more into the blogosphere and engage in real debate”¹⁴, it becomes vital to know what actually motivates people who are trying to create such a sphere or, in fact, already live it in a smaller frame. Consequently, it is a good start for the Commissioner to set up her own blog, but it is not enough for supporting the growth of a politicized European civil society.

As Klandermans points out, “ideally, social movement organizations will take a variety of approaches, appealing both to collective and to social and reward motives“¹⁵. Even if we take into account that the Euroblogosphere is no such thing like an institutionalized social movement, and nobody should like the idea of a EU that tries to regulate the Euroblogosphere, there are possible ways how the growth of the sphere could be externally supported, taking up Klandermans notion. If “Brussels” gave some attention to the opinions and suggestions of Eurobloggers, this would most probably result in an increased belief in collective influence and, consequently, an increased feeling of community among them.
Klandermans stated that expectations towards other people joining the movement are in a sense self-fulfilling: “the greater the number of individuals who believe collective action will be successful, the more likely it is that mass action will materialize and that the authorities will have to respond”¹⁶. The interviews showed that encouraged by the US development¹⁷, bloggers hope that they will gain influence on European politics in the future but that they only expect to achieve this collectively: “One individual blogger will never have a great amount of influence without dozens of others with whom he/she interacts, I think”. At the moment, the Euroblogosphere is growing in size (especially since the referenda on “the Constitution” in France and the Netherlands), however, the trend can stop or reverse very quickly. As already pointed out, one way to support this development would be to create more incentives for participation - and one option to achieve this for the EU is to listen and react to issues that are covered by many Eurobloggers. As Michael Cornfield, a senior research consultant for the Pew Internet and American Life Project, states, “blogs are ‘only as powerful as decision makers allow them to be. ... If they ignore [an issue], there's really nothing that a constant buzzing and commentary can do to you’ ”¹⁸.

In conclusion, it is not in the hands of the EU to organize the Euroblogosphere but it is in its hands to provide a basis for this partial public sphere to grow, fostering collective incentives, which are fundamental for the development of collective action and community. Doing this is one of the necessary steps that the EU has to take if it wants to act according to its motto of “closing the gap”¹⁹ between citizens and European institutions.

Notes

1 Bellamy, R., & Warleigh, A. (2001). Citizenship and Governance in the European Union. London / New York: Continum.
2 Machill, M., Beiler, M., & Fischer, C. (2006). Europe-Topics in Europe’s Media: The Debate about the European Public Sphere: A Meta-Analysis of Media Content Analyses. European Journal of Communication, 21, p. 57-88.
3 Sforza, T. (2006). Blogging: The saviour of Europe?. Café Babel - When blogs speak European. Retrieved November 15, 2006 from http://cafebabel.com/en/article.asp?T=T&Id=7151, para. 2.
4 Simon, B. (2004). Identity in modern society: A social psychological perspective. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, p. 184.
5 Toch, 1965, as cited in: Simon, B., Loewy, M., Stürmer, S., Weber, U., Freytag, P., Habig, C., et al. (1998). Collective Identification and social movement participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, p. 646-658.
6 Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity. A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56, p. 319-331.
7 Krosnick, J. A. (1990). Expertise and political psychology. Social Cognition, 8, 1-8.
8 Simon (2004)
9 Simon (2004)
10 Simon (2004)
11 Simon et al. (1998), p. 656
12 All interviews have been made anonymous.
13 Wallström, M. (2005, June 28). Communicating a Europe in stormy waters: Plan D. Paper presented at the European Conference "Simplifying Europe", Brussels.
14 Wallström (2005), p. 5
15 Klandermans, B. (1984), Mobilization and participation: Social-psychological expansions of resource mobilization theory. American Sociological Review, 49, p. 583-600, p. 586.
16 Klandermans, B. (1997). The Social Psychology of Protest. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., p. 28.
17 Glover, D. K. (2006). The Rise Of Blogs.   Retrieved February 16, 2007, from http://beltwayblogroll.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/01/the_rise_of_blo.php
18 Glover, D. K. (2006), If You Can't Beat 'Em, Blog With 'Em, para. 1
19 European Commission. (2006). White Paper on a European Communication Policy. Retrieved November 15, 2006. from http://ec.europa.eu/communication_white_paper/doc/white_paper_en.pdf, p. 2.

Publications: