The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What Is Second Screening? Exploring Motivations of Second Screen Use and Its Effect on Online Political Participation: Second Screen Use & Online Political Participation
Open accessAbstract
This study focuses on second screening for news, a hybrid media process that combines watching news on television and a second, web-connected screen (i.e., smart-phone, laptop). Based on U.S.-national, 2-wave panel data, the paper (a) examines people's motivations to engage in second screen use, and then (b) advances the relationship between second screening and online political behaviors. Discussing and pursuing further information are both central motivations for second screen use. Furthermore, results suggest second screening for news is a significant predictor of online political participation and a key link between TV news and political engagement as this relationship is fully mediated. The study advances theoretically and empirically ways in which an informed public opinion may partake of a more engaged democracy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Putnam, R. (2000) · doi:10.1145/358916.361990 · Cited by 17,114
Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.53.9.1017 · Cited by 4,793
Multiple resources and performance prediction
Wickens, C. D. (2002) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/14639220210123806 · Cited by 2,621 · cited 3×
“Multitasking scholarship like multiple resource theory (Wickens, 2002) and thread cognition (Salvucci & Taatgen, 2008) highlight our restricted cognitive ability to process information when engaging in two or more activities at once.”
BackgroundAffective News and Networked Publics: The Rhythms of News Storytelling on #Egypt
Papacharissi, Z., & de Fatima Oliveira, M. (2012) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01630.x · Cited by 803
Holton, A. E., Coddington, M., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2013) · Journalism Practice · doi:10.1080/17512786.2013.766062 · Cited by 80
Cited by
Social media as public opinion: How journalists use social media to represent public opinion
McGregor, S. C. (2019) · Journalism · doi:10.1177/1464884919845458 · Cited by 401
Self-citationKreiss, D., Lawrence, R. G., & McGregor, S. C. (2018) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2017.1334727 · Cited by 294
Self-citationDual Screening the Political: Media Events, Social Media, and Citizen Engagement
Vaccari, C., Chadwick, A., & O'Loughlin, B. (2015) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12187 · Cited by 288
Cheng, Z., & Li, Y. (2024) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/08944393231178603 · Cited by 131
“Like the second screeners who use social media to obtain more information about the TV news (Gil de Z´uñiga et al., 2015; Vaccari et al., 2015), TikTok news users ’ informational needs might be ful fi lled by watching the news explainer TikTok.”
Ahmed, S. (2021) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2020.101508 · Cited by 105
Metadata
- Authors
- Gil de Zúñiga, H., Garcia-Perdomo, V., & McGregor, S. C.
- Venue
- Journal of Communication
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2015-07-15
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 793-815
- ISSN
- 0021-9916 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1910252106
- Cited by
- 240
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 67.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
