Examining the Roles of Political Social Network and Internal Efficacy on Social Media News Engagement: A Comparative Study of Six Asian Countries
Abstract
The use of social media has risen exponentially in Asia in the past decade, but there have been few comparative studies examining social media news engagement in the region. We use online survey data to examine the relationships among political social networks, internal political efficacy, and social media news engagement in six countries (Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Singapore). Findings across the samples showed that individuals in political social networks comprising cross-cutting and like-minded political views engage in social media news more, and internal political efficacy accentuated the relationships between cross-cutting/like-minded political social networks and engagement. Implications for the findings are discussed in relation to current debates on the potential for social media news engagement to engender a more deliberative democracy; or lead to greater ideological segregation and echo chambers in social media spaces.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Political interest and efficacy are associated with a reduced likelihood of being in echo chambers.
“Conversely, political interest and efficacy are associated with a reduced likelihood of being in echo chambers [83].”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [83]
Cites
The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation
Mutz, D. C. (2002) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/3088437 · Cited by 1,265 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…rather than “cross-cutting networks” or “dissimilar networks,” that is, the extent in to which one’s social network hold political views to oneself (Mutz 2002), should be more conducive for social media news engagement because it provides a “safe” space in which individuals can share and…”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy
Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2022) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01460-1 · Cited by 348 · see citing works
Hartmann, D., Wang, S. M., Pohlmann, L., & Berendt, B. (2025) · Journal of Computational Social Science · doi:10.1007/s42001-025-00381-z · Cited by 59 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chan, M., Chen, H.-T., & Lee, F. L. F.
- Affiliations
- Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Corresponding author
- Chan, Michael
- Venue
- The International Journal of Press/Politics
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-11-27
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 127-145
- ISSN
- 1040-1620 (ISSN-L)
- 1940-1612
- 1940-1620
- OpenAlex
- W2903269685
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 8.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The International Journal of Press/Politics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- internal political efficacy, deliberative democracy, echo chambers, ideological segregation, Asian countries
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