Skip to main content

Does the Internet Make People Selfish? Effects of the Internet on Citizens’ Political Attitudes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 721 Accesses

Abstract

I examined differences in opinions between an interview survey and an online survey. In sum, the results of my analysis clarified that opinions in interview surveys tend to be more prosocial compared to opinions in online surveys. Discrepancy and confrontation between opinions in face-to-face and online communication will bring about some problems in our society. Then, we need to understand that discrepancy and confrontation do not occur between different people, but among different frameworks of communication.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anuta, D., Churchin, J., and Luo, J. 2017. Election Bias: Comparing Polls and Twitter in the 2016 US Election. arXiv: 1701.06232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aouragh, M., and A. Alexander. 2011. The Arab spring\(\vert \) the Egyptian experience: Sense and nonsense of the internet revolution. International Journal of Communication 5: 1344–1358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R. M. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, D. 1948. On the Rationale of Group Decision-making. Journal of Political Economy 56 (1): 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bisgin, H., N. Agarwal, and X. Xu. 2012. A Study of Homophily on Social Media. World Wide Web 15 (2): 213–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick, A. 2008. Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of E-democracy in an Era of Informational Exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 5 (1): 9-41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christopherson, K.M. 2007. The Positive and Negative Implications of Anonymity in Internet Social Interactions: “On the Internet, Nobody Knows You’re a Dog”. Computers in Human Behavior 23 (6): 3038–3056.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colleoni, E., A. Rozza, and A. Arvidsson. 2014. Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data. Journal of Communication 64 (2): 317–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, L. 2001. Extending the Public Sphere through Cyberspace: The Case of Minnesota E-Democracy. First Monday 6 (3): 3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R.M. 1980. Social Dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology 31 (1): 169–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. Journal of Political Economy 65 (2): 135–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodou, D., and J.C. de Winter. 2014. Social Desirability is the Same in Offline, Online, and Paper Surveys: A Meta-Analysis. Computers in Human Behavior 36: 487–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eltantawy, N., and J.B. Wiest. 2011. The Arab spring\(\vert \) Social Media in the Egyptian Revolution: Reconsidering Resource Mobilization Theory. International Journal of Communication 5: 1207–1224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitri, N. 2011. Democracy Discourses through the Internet Communication: Understanding the Hacktivism for the Global Changing. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies 1 (2): 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerstenfeld, P.B., D.R. Grant, and C.P. Chiang. 2003. Hate Online: A Content Analysis of Extremist Internet sites. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 3 (1): 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, P. 2010. Social Desirability Bias. Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162 (3859): 1243–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, D. R., and Flowers, C. P. 2000. Social Desirability Responding on World Wide Web and Paper-Administered Surveys. Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (23rd, Denver, CO, October 25-28, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, P. N., Duffy, A., Freelon, D., Hussain, M. M., Mari, W., and Maziad, M. 2011. Opening Closed Regimes: What was the Role of Social Media during the Arab Spring? Project on Information Technology and Political Islam: 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joinson, A.N. 2007. Disinhibition and the Internet. Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Transpersonal Implications 2: 75–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H.K. 1999. Tocqueville in Cyberspace: Using the Internet for Citizen Associations. The Information Society 15 (4): 213–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, M.F., and G.C. Bruner. 2000. Social Desirability Bias: A Neglected Aspect of Validity Testing. Psychology and Marketing 17 (2): 79–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreuter, F., S. Presser, and R. Tourangeau. 2008. Social Desirability Bias in CATI, IVR, and Web Surveys: the Effects of Mode and Question Sensitivity. Public Opinion Quarterly 72 (5): 847–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leets, L. 2001. Responses to Internet Hate Sites: Is Speech too Free in Cyberspace? Communication Law & Policy 6 (2): 287–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauw, H., J.C. Shafer, R. Agrawal, and A. Ntoulas. 2010. Homophily in the Digital World: A LiveJournal Case Study. IEEE Internet Computing 14 (2): 15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotan, G., E. Graeff, M. Ananny, D. Gaffney, and I. Pearce. 2011. The Arab Spring\(\vert \) the Revolutions were Tweeted: Information Flows during the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions. International Journal of Communication 5: 1375–1405.

    Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, M., L. Smith-Lovin, and J.M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27 (1): 415–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Archives and Records Administration. 2017. 2016 Electoral College Results. (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2016/election-results.html. 2/24/2017)

  • Nahon, K., and J. Hemsley. 2014. Homophily in the Guise of Cross-Linking: Political Blogs and Content. American Behavioral Scientist 58 (10): 1294–1313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. 2008. Tragedy of the Commons. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics: 3573–3576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papacharissi, Z. 2002. The Virtual Sphere: The Internet as a Public Sphere. New Media & Society 4 (1): 9–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papacharissi, Z. 2004. Democracy Online: Civility, Politeness, and the Democratic Potential of Online Political Discussion Groups. New Media & Society 6 (2): 259–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poundstone, W. 1993. Prisoner’s Dilemma/John von Neumann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport, A., and Chammah, A. M. 1965. Prisoner’s Dilemma: A Study in Conflict and Cooperation. University of Michigan press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santana, A.D. 2014. Virtuous or Vitriolic: The Effect of Anonymity on Civility in Online Newspaper Reader Comment Boards. Journalism Practice 8 (1): 18–33.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • SSP Project. 2017. http://ssp.hus.osaka-u.ac.jp/en/ (2/27/2017).

  • Stepanova, E. 2011. The Role of Information Communication Technologies in the “Arab Spring”. Ponars Eurasia 15: 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanis, M., and T. Postmes. 2007. Two Faces of Anonymity: Paradoxical Effects of Cues to Identity in CMC. Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2): 955–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsesis, A. 2001. Hate in Cyberspace: Regulating Hate Speech on the Internet. San Diego L. Rev. 38: 817–884.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsesis, A. 2009. Dignity and Speech: The Regulation of Hate Speech in a Democracy. Wake Forest Law Review 44: 497–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Gelder, M.M., R.W. Bretveld, and N. Roeleveld. 2010. Web-based Questionnaires: the Future in Epidemiology? American Journal of Epidemiology 172 (10): 1292–1298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Parts of an earlier version of this study were presented at the 3rd International Sociological Association Forum. I would like to thank the audience, as their constructive comments helped me greatly in improving my article. Also, I would like to thank the SSP Project for giving me permission to use the SSP-I 2010 and SSP-W 2012 surveys’ data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naoki Sudo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sudo, N. (2017). Does the Internet Make People Selfish? Effects of the Internet on Citizens’ Political Attitudes. In: Endo, K., Kurihara, S., Kamihigashi, T., Toriumi, F. (eds) Reconstruction of the Public Sphere in the Socially Mediated Age. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6138-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6138-7_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-6137-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-6138-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics