Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjys20

Download by: [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] Date: 02 April 2016, At: 15:17

Journal of Youth Studies

ISSN: 1367-6261 (Print) 1469-9680 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjys20

Internet use, political knowledge and youthelectoral participation in Australia

Ian McAllister

To cite this article: Ian McAllister (2016): Internet use, political knowledge and youth electoralparticipation in Australia, Journal of Youth Studies, DOI: 10.1080/13676261.2016.1154936

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2016.1154936

Published online: 07 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 25

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Internet use, political knowledge and youth electoralparticipation in AustraliaIan McAllister

School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

ABSTRACTAlmost since its inception, the internet has been seen as a means ofreinvigorating political knowledge and engagement among theyoung. Early studies showed small but significant effects forinternet use and increased political knowledge among the young.Using a large, national election survey conducted in Australia in2013, this paper examines the role of the internet in shapingpolitical knowledge among the young and, in turn, its effects onelectoral participation. The results show that use of the internetduring an election campaign significantly increases politicalknowledge among the young, and that such political knowledgeenhances the likelihood of turning out to vote. Overall, the resultsextend the findings of other studies which have demonstrated thepotential of the internet to re-engage young people into thepolitical process.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 12 November 2015Accepted 12 February 2016

KEYWORDSInternet; new media; politicalcommunication; politicalknowledge

For as long as opinion surveys have included measures of political knowledge, there hasbeen little change in aggregate levels of knowledge among the young.1 This findingcomes in spite of several major changes that have occurred in the past few decades.These have included the increase in the size and scope of civic education in schools,the huge expansion in university education, and the much greater attention given toyoung people by political parties, social movements and interest groups. Taken together,these and other changes should have led to increased political knowledge; in practice, theevidence shows conclusively that they have not. Using evidence from Australia, this paperexamines the potential of the internet to remedy the persistently low levels of politicalknowledge among the young. In turn, the paper evaluates whether enhanced knowledgecould increase youth electoral participation.

The backdrop to this question is the fundamental changes that are taking place in viewsof citizenship across the advanced democracies. Patterns of political engagement amongthe young are changing rapidly, with traditional forms of participation, such as turning outto vote or joining a political party, showing dramatic declines. In particular, low levels ofvoting among the young and policy measures to counter it have been the subject ofmany government reports.2 These traditional forms of political participation are being

© 2016 Taylor & Francis

CONTACT Ian McAllister ian.mcallister@anu.edu.au

JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES, 2016http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2016.1154936

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ort

a D

ogu

Tek

nik

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

15:

17 0

2 A

pril

2016

replaced by issue-based activism, expressed in web-based activity such as blogs andengagement with the social media. In this context, the internet has the capacity toincrease political knowledge and thereby to strengthen democratic citizenship. Inter-actions via the internet have already been found to be similar in their political effects tointerpersonal interactions (Gibson and McAllister 2013, 2014; Kittilson and Dalton 2011).There is no reason to suppose that the internet’s implications for political knowledgeshould be any different.

Most of the information that shapes political knowledge is channeled through the massmedia. In principle, therefore, the rapid rise of the internet and its widespread use amongthe young should enhance political knowledge and as a consequence, increase electoralparticipation (Eveland et al. 2005; Wolfsfeld, Yarchi, and Samuel-Azran 2015). To examinethese questions, this paper examines the role of the internet in shaping political knowl-edge among the young in the context of a national election campaign. In turn, extendingother studies which have examined this topic (but cf Bakker and de Vreese 2011), thepaper tests the consequences of political knowledge for the likelihood that a personwill turnout to vote in a national election. The data come from the 2013 Australian ElectionStudy (AES) survey which asked an extensive range of questions about political knowl-edge, in addition to detailed questions about internet use and electoral participation.

Young people, politics and the internet

There is little doubt that contemporary patterns of political engagement differ markedlyamong young people compared to their older counterparts. The most persuasive argu-ment has been advanced by Lance Bennett in a series of influential papers (see, forexample, Bennett 2008, 2013; Bennett, Wells, and Freelon 2011; Bennett, Wells, andRank 2009). Bennett distinguishes between ‘dutiful citizenship’, which stresses politicalparticipation in formal institutions driven by personal duty, and ‘actualizing citizenship’,which is based on ‘looser personal engagement with peer networks that… organizecivic action using social technologies’ (Bennett, Wells, and Freelon 2011, 839). Other scho-lars have used different names for these two concepts of citizenship. Norris (2003), forexample, talks of the transition from ‘citizen-oriented’ to ‘cause-oriented’ activism, whileDalton (2008) distinguishes between ‘citizen duty’ and ‘engaged citizenship.’3

This fundamental change in the nature of citizenship is demonstrated most forcefullyby declining election turnout among the young. There has been an historic disparitybetween the turnout rates of the youngest and oldest age groups, but the gap hasbeen increasing at a greater rate since the 1990s (Blais and Rubenson 2013; Fieldhouse,Tramner, and Russell 2007; Niemi and Hanmer 2010; Phelps 2012). While there is somevolatility in the trends across countries and between generations (Bhatti, Hansen, andWass 2012; Martin 2012), the low levels of electoral engagement among the young arenot in doubt. In addition to abstention, young people are also much less likely to join pol-itical parties or to attend political meetings. They are also less interested in major politicalissues or party political agendas, focusing instead on individual concerns or on issues ofspecific interest to their peer group (Park 2004).

Political participation is underpinned by political knowledge. Studies shown that knowl-edgeable individuals are more likely to participate in politics more frequently (Delli Carpiniand Keeter 1996), to have a more in-depth understanding of the policy choices offered to

2 I. MCALLISTER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ort

a D

ogu

Tek

nik

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

15:

17 0

2 A

pril

2016

them, and to be better informed about electoral choices (Andersen, Tilley, and Heath 2005;Singh and Roy 2014). But how do individuals acquire the political knowledge that makesthem effective citizens? In practice, much of the political knowledge that people acquire isaccumulated across the lifecycle as citizens gain progressively more exposure to govern-ment and politics. Therefore, the more political events and educational interventions thatoccur early in the lifecycle then – other things being equal – there should be greater thelevels of political knowledge.

Civic education represents one source of political knowledge early in the lifecycle. Gov-ernments around the world have invested considerable resources in order to impart pol-itical skills and knowledge to the young through civic education programs in schools (seeGalston 2001; Kisby and Sloam 2012). While the scope and depth of these programs varieswidely, they all share the goal of creating competent democratic citizens. A second sourceof information is elections and the political debate that accompanies them; this has beenshown to convey knowledge about policy choices and party positions to voters (seeJeffres, Neuendorf, and Atkin 2012). In particular, research has shown that leaders’debates improve voters’ understanding of the election issues (Benoit and Hansen 2004;Coleman and Moss 2016).

While civic education and elections are both important sources of political information,arguably the most important channel through which citizens absorb political informationis the mass media (Aalberg, van Aeist, and Curran 2010; Corrigall-Brown and Wilkes 2014;Iyengar et al. 2010). The most important political change in the mass media during thetwentieth century was the emergence of television as a political medium in the 1950sand 1960s. With its emphasis on visual images and personalities, the application of televi-sion to politics is often seen as the main driver behind the personalization of politics. Inturn, the public’s increasing familiarity with political leaders has led to greater expectationsof government and, when these expectations are unfulfilled, to declining public trust inpolitics and politicians. By contrast, other media, especially newspapers, are viewed as asource of more detailed information, particularly regarding policy choices (Scheufele2002; Weaver and Drew 2001).

The widespread use of the internet in the early twenty-first century is fundamentallyreshaping the operation of the political system in ways which are at least as profoundas television half a century earlier. The most obvious change is in the transition from alow choice media environment to a high choice one. For most of the postwar period,there were relatively few choices in whatever media sources citizens preferred, whetherit was newspapers, radio or TV. The net effect was that citizens were exposed to lowbut constant levels of political information, which could not be ignored save for avoidingthe media altogether (Prior 2007). With the advent of the internet, citizens now haveunprecedented choice in the political information that they choose to access. They maychoose to access large amounts of political information or, equally, they may eschew poli-tics altogether. As Prior (2005, 578) puts it, ‘access to the medium no longer implies accessto the news.’

The interactivity inherent in the internet has been viewed as a key characteristic thatcan enhance political knowledge and political engagement generally (for recentreviews, see Bakker and de Vreese 2011; Bimber 2012; Farrell 2012). This can involveacquiring political information via the internet, as well as using the internet to communi-cate with other citizens, election candidates and parties in order to discuss specific issues.

JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ort

a D

ogu

Tek

nik

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

15:

17 0

2 A

pril

2016

In particular, research has shown that discussion is critical for effective civic education (see,e.g. Hahn 2010; McDevitt and Chaffee 2000); emulating this experience in the virtual worldshould increase knowledge. For example, the international Student Voices program found astrong positive effect on political knowledge for ‘using the internet to explore issues andlearn about candidates’ (Feldman et al. 2007, 97). Used properly, the internet should haveconsiderable potential to enhance political knowledge.

Evaluating the role of the internet in enhancing political knowledge leads to twohypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Following an election on the internet will lead to higher levels of politicalknowledge, other things (including other media sources) being equal.Hypothesis 2 (H2): The impact on political knowledge of following an election on the internetwill be greater among the young compared to the rest of the electorate, other things beingequal.

H1 is easily tested with the available data. H2, by contrast, implies that any increases inpolitical knowledge as a result of internet use will be greater among the young thanthe rest of the population. This accords with the ‘digital divide’ argument, which suggeststhat rises in political knowledge are unequally distributed across the electorate, with theyoung, the more highly educated and the better informed experiencing a more significantgain in knowledge compared to other groups (van Dijk 2005; Kim 2009; Prior 2007).Although the internet is raising the aggregate capacity of the electorate to follow politics,the impact on political knowledge is not uniform and is exacerbating a preexisting knowl-edge gap. This effect is attributed to the self-selectivity involved in accessing internetcontent, since citizens must actively seek information rather than be passively exposedto it via radio or TV.

Political knowledge is widely agreed to be ‘the currency of citizenship’ (Delli Carpini andKeeter 1996, 8). Studies show that knowledgeable citizens are more likely to participate inpolitics and to be better informed generally (Milner 2007; Singh and Roy 2014). Theabsence of political knowledge therefore has major implications for the decline in electionturnout that has occurred across the advanced societies. Successive studies have demon-strated that much of this decline is accounted for by young people abstaining from voting,rather than by any broader change across the electorate as a whole (Blais et al. 2004;Dalton 2008; Lyons and Alexander 2000). Declining levels of political knowledge hasbeen shown to be a significant component in this major change (Gidengil et al. 2003;Milner 2005).

The potential importance of political knowledge in shaping electoral participation leadsto two further hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Higher levels of political knowledge will result in higher levels of electoralparticipation, other things being equal.Hypothesis 4 (H4): The impact of political knowledge on electoral participation will be greateramong the young compared to the rest of the electorate, other things being equal.

Once again, H3 specifies two covariates, while H4 tests the view that political knowledgewill have a disproportionately greater impact among the young compared to the rest ofthe electorate. This reflects the fact that while much political knowledge is cumulativeand is a consequence of the political lifecycle, specific events or behaviors which affectone segment of the electorate more than another may increase knowledge. We

4 I. MCALLISTER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ort

a D

ogu

Tek

nik

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

15:

17 0

2 A

pril

2016

hypothesize that internet use may be an example of such a behavior that has a dispropor-tionate indirect influence on electoral participation. In the remainder of the paper, thesefour hypotheses are tested using a large, national election survey.

Data and method

Data

The data come from the 2013 AES, which was a nationally representative mail-out, mail-back survey of persons registered to vote in the 2013 election. The sampling frame wassupplied by the Australian Electoral Commission from the electoral rolls. There was alsoan online option for completion of the survey, which was used by a small number ofrespondents. The final response rate was 33.9% after four follow-ups. The survey wasweighted to reflect the characteristics of the national electorate. Full details of thesurvey can be found in McAllister and Cameron (2013).

Dependent variables

Two dependent variables are used, political knowledge and the likelihood of voting. Pol-itical knowledge is measured by the proportion of correct answers to 10 factual questionsabout politics included in the 2013 AES survey. Six of the questions related to the oper-ation of the political system in general, three to the circumstances of the 2013 election,and one to international politics. The 10 items were combined into an additive scale, pro-ducing a mean of 4.5 (see Appendix 1).

Studies of political knowledge in the mass electorate have distinguished between‘factual’ political knowledge – information about events, institutions or personalities –and ‘background’ or ‘structural’ political knowledge, which enables citizens to interpretpolitical affairs (Elo and Rapeli 2010; McAllister 1998; Sheppard 2015). The public’s levelof political knowledge is measured here by the former definition, which is the easiest toascertain in the context of a public opinion survey. There are three problems in measuringbasic factual political knowledge within a survey instrument. First, asking factual questionsmay reveal the respondent’s ignorance and result in a terminated interview. The use of aself-completion survey partly mitigates this risk since it avoids the respondent-interviewerinteraction.4 Second, there is the possibility that the respondents might use the internet orsmart phones to identify the correct answers, although we found little evidence of this.5

A third, potentially more serious, problem is that ‘don’t know’ and incorrect responsesmay not necessarily represent an absence of knowledge. As Mondak (2001) has argued, a‘don’t know’ response may reflect a lack on information, while an incorrect response ismore likely to indicate misinformation. To test for this possibility, the results were analyzedto see if ‘don’t know’ and incorrect responses differed from one another in any systematicway. The results did not reveal any significant differences6 and for that reason, the two cat-egories are combined, with respondents being scored one if they gave a correct answerand zero if they gave an incorrect answer or said that they didn’t know.7

Since voting in Australia is compulsory, the second dependent variable, electoral par-ticipation, is based on an attitudinal rather than a behavioral question: ‘Would you havevoted in the election if voting had not been compulsory?’ and is scored from 1 (definitely

JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ort

a D

ogu

Tek

nik

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

15:

17 0

2 A

pril

2016

would not have voted) to 5 (definitely would have voted). Around 84% of the respondentssaid they would ‘definitely’ (66%) or ‘probably’ (18%) vote if voting was voluntary. Whilethe question asks the respondents to imagine how they would act in a hypothetical cir-cumstance – always a difficult proposition in the context of an opinion survey – thesefigures are close to the experience of other countries that have abolished compulsoryvoting. In the Netherlands, for example, turnout was 92.1% in 1967, the last electionbefore compulsory voting was abolished. Turnout declined to an average of 84.1% overthe six voluntary voting elections immediately following 1967. The estimate thatturnout in Australia would decline to around 88% in a voluntary voting election is there-fore very comparable with the Netherlands experience, and suggests that the measure ofelectoral participation used here is robust.

Independent variables

Three variables are used to measure internet use. Frequency of general internet use ismeasured by responses to the question: ‘In general, how often do you use the internet?’and is coded from 1 (never uses the internet) to 7 (uses the internet several times per day).Frequency of election internet use is measured by responses to the question: ‘Did youmake use of the internet at all to get news or information about the 2013 federal election?’and is coded from 1 (never used) to 5 (used many times). Internet skills is an additive scalebased on the question: ‘Have you done any of the following tasks on the internet? … sentan attachment via email … downloaded a software program. … posted audio, video orimage files. … personally designed a webpage or blog.’ All three measures have beenshown to tap into different aspects of how individuals used the internet, with conse-quences for political attitudes and behavior (van Deursen and van Dijk 2010; Gibsonand McAllister 2014; Gil de Zúñiga, Jung, and Valenzuela 2012).

The variables measuring media sources were derived as follows. Frequency of followingthe election in the newspapers is based on the question: ‘Howmuch attention did you payto reports about the election campaign in the newspapers – a good deal, some, not muchor none at all?’ Frequency of following the election on television and on the radio werebased on the question: ‘Did you follow the election campaign news on television – agood deal, some, not much or none at all? And did you follow the election campaignnews on the radio?’ All three variables are coded from 1 (none at all) to 4 (a good deal).These questions provide a summary measure of self-reported media use during the elec-tion campaign.

Six socioeconomic variables are used as controls in the models. Gender, tertiary edu-cation and Australian born are dummy variables. Gender is used as a control variablesince there is evidence that women and men have different rates of internet usage andoften use the internet in different ways (see, e.g. Helsper 2010). Education discriminatesin the quality and quantity of political information that a voter seeks and is thereforealso an important control variable. Birthplace is taken into account since one in five ofthe Australian population have been born overseas, about half of them in non-Englishspeaking countries, and their political outlooks often differ from the Australian born(Bilodeau, McAllister, and Kanji 2010). Age, which reflects cumulative political life experi-ences, is measured in years and family income is measured in quintiles. Urban residenceis a four point scale coded from 1 (lives in a rural area or village) to 4 (lives in a major city

6 I. MCALLISTER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ort

a D

ogu

Tek

nik

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

15:

17 0

2 A

pril

2016

over 100,000 people). This is a potential important control variable since the speed andavailability of internet access varies considerably across Australia.

One attitudinal variable, interest in politics, is also included as a control. It is measured bythe question: ‘Generally speaking, howmuch interest do you usually have in what’s going onin politics?’ and is coded from 1 (none) to 4 (a good deal). Political interest is an importantcontrol since it is one of the most significant predictors in its own right of political knowl-edge (Gronlund and Milner 2006), as well as of electoral participation (Blais and Rubenson2013). It has also been shown to be stable over time, and to have its roots in childhood pol-itical socialization and adolescence (Prior 2010). Given the importance of political interest, itis therefore crucial to take it into account to properly specify the predictive model.

Results

Levels of political knowledge

As virtually all other studies have demonstrated, the level of political knowledge across thegeneral electorate is consistently low (Table 1). The survey respondents were reasonablyknowledgeable about basic political history, with almost three in four knowing that Aus-tralia became a federation in 1901 (question 1). Around half could correctly answer thethree questions concerning the 2013 election (questions 7, 8 and 9). The remaining ques-tions show lower levels of political knowledge. For example, less than one in four knewthat a deposit is required to stand for election (question 4). Overall, the mean respondentin the survey could correctly answer just 4.5 questions out of the 10, a remarkably lowfigure given that the answers were based on true or false options.

As expected, respondents aged under 25 displayed much lower levels of knowledge;the mean number of correct answers was more than 1 question less than the general

Table 1. Political knowledge among citizens 2013.(Percent answering correctly)

Allrespondents

Age 18–24only

1. Australia became a Federation in 1901. 73 752. The Senate election is based on proportional representation. 46 403. The Constitution can only be changed by the High Court. 33 244. No-one may stand for Federal Parliament unless they pay a deposit. 23 135. The longest time allowed between Federal elections for the House of Representativesis four years.

28 17

6. There are 75 members of the House of Representatives. 40 347. Which of these persons was the Federal Treasurer before the recent Federal election? 50 288. What was the current unemployment rate in Australia as of June 2013? 60 429. Which party came in second in seats in the House of Representatives? 56 4510.Who is the current Secretary-General of the United Nations? 47 26Mean 4.5 3.4Standard deviation 2.9 2.5

(1–6) ‘And finally, a quick quiz on Australian government. For each of the following statements, please say whether it is trueor false. If you don’t know the answer, cross the ‘don’t know’ box and try the next one.’ (7–10) ‘Now a few questions aboutyour interest in and knowledge of politics. If you don’t know the answer, just indicate that and move on to the next one.’For questions 1–6, statements 1, 2 and 4 are correct; 3, 5 and 6 are incorrect. For question 7, the choices were Bob Carr,Bill Shorten, Chris Bowen, Tony Burke (the correct answer is italicized). For question 8, 3.7%, 5.7%, 7.7%, 9.7%. For ques-tion 9, Greens, Bob Katter’s Australian Party, Labor Party, Liberal National Coalition. For question 10, Kofi Annan, KurtWaldeim, Ban Ki-moon, Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

Source: AES, 2013.

JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ort

a D

ogu

Tek

nik

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

15:

17 0

2 A

pril

2016

population, at 3.4. Particularly notable is the relatively small proportion who could cor-rectly name the treasurer before the 2013 election and the name of the UN Sec-retary-General. At the other end of the scale, slightly more young people knew thatAustralia became a federation in 1901 compared to the general population, the onlyitem on which young people were more knowledgeable than the rest of the popu-lation. These general results reflect the weaker attachments that younger peoplehave to civic life, through lower levels of home ownership, marriage and parenthood(Galston 2001, 219).

How political knowledge varies across the lifecycle is shown in Figure 1, which esti-mates the mean level of political knowledge by age group. Political knowledge climbsincrementally from the early 1920s onwards, peaking at almost 5.5 correct answers outof a maximum of 10 among those aged in their late 1960s. The patterns suggest a cumu-lative rise in knowledge; as individuals gain more experience and assume more and differ-ent responsibilities, they have greater political interest and acquire more politicalknowledge. Thereafter, political knowledge declines slightly, to 5.0 among those in thelate 1970s, and rises again slightly to 5.2 among those aged 80 or more. There is, then,a distinct and important lifecycle effect in political knowledge.

The levels of knowledge presented above for Australia are very similar to those found inCanada and the US, where survey respondents could correctly answer just 2.9 questionsout of a total of seven (Milner 2007; Table 1). Similar results have been recorded elsewhere,especially in Scandinavia (see, e.g. Grönlund 2007; Grönlund and Milner 2006). Moreover,levels of knowledge are much lower among the young, in line with the acquisition ofknowledge being essentially a cumulative process across the lifecycle. Nor has there

Figure 1. Political knowledge by age. Figures are the mean number of questions answered correctly byeach age group, using the 10 questions listed in Table 2. Broken lines show 95% confidence intervals.Source: AES, 2013.

8 I. MCALLISTER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ort

a D

ogu

Tek

nik

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

15:

17 0

2 A

pril

2016

been much change in these aggregate levels of knowledge overtime, either in Australia(McAllister 2011, 67) or the US (Kohut, Morin, and Keeter 2007). The next section examineswhether the internet can play a role in increasing political knowledge.

The internet and political knowledge

The role of the internet in shaping civic engagement generally, and political knowledgespecifically, has received considerable attention from scholars. This accords with the fre-quently advanced argument that by providing ready access to political information, theinternet has the capacity to reinvigorate civic life. However, as with anything involvingthe internet, such findings are often rapidly eclipsed by changes in the technology.Early studies suggested that there was a small but significant effect for internet useincreasing political knowledge, net of a wide range of other factors (Grönlund 2007;Kenski and Stroud 2006). In a review of 38 studies, Boulianne (2009) has suggested thatthe effects of the internet on engagement are positive, but because of the small size ofthe effects in question, they are unduly affected by whether or not access to onlinenews is included in the models.

Widespread use of social media has added a new dimension to the role of the internetin shaping political knowledge. The interactive nature of the social media is often seen torepresent its greatest potential, by facilitating discussions between citizens on issues ofmutual interest, and between citizens and election candidates. For example, in the 2008US presidential election, Facebook users shared links to news sources, as well as to candi-date profiles and party sites (Hilbert 2009). Studies that have sought to quantify the effectsof social media have generally found that its use has a significant impact on social capitaland civic engagement (Gil de Zúñiga, Jung, and Valenzuela 2012; Gil de Zúñiga, Puig-i-Abril, and Rojas 2009).

How important is internet use – in terms of seeking information, and in possessinginternet skills – in predicting political knowledge, net of a wide range of other factors?Table 2 answers this question by presenting the results of a regression analysis predictingthe probability of possessing political knowledge. Two equations are presented, the firstfor the general population, and the second for those aged 18–24 years only.8 Amongthe general population, internet use is a significant influence on political knowledge, inthe form both of the frequency of election internet use and in the possession of internetskills. This confirms the first hypothesis. Among the young, election internet use is also asignificant predictor of political knowledge. However, for both the general population andthe young, the magnitude of the effect is similar, and the difference in political knowledgebetween someone who never uses the internet for election information and someone whouses it frequently is around 0.4 of 1 question, net of other things. This is a substantial andimportant effect. However, given that the effect is similar for both age groups, the resultsreject the second hypothesis.

In terms of other media effects on political knowledge, only following the election onthe radio is statistically significant, and then only for the general population. Perhaps sur-prisingly, there is no significant effect for newspapers, which have traditionally been seenas the media source of choice for those seeking detailed political information. It may be, ofcourse, that newspaper readers now access their political information through online edi-tions of newspapers, many behind paywalls, and that this effect is being picked up by

JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ort

a D

ogu

Tek

nik

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

15:

17 0

2 A

pril

2016

following the election on the internet. The survey did not distinguish between followingthe election in newspapers using hard copy and on the internet.9

As we would expect, the results for the general population also show that age is the mostimportant predictor in the model, with each decade increasing the cumulative level of pol-itical knowledge by about half of one question, net of other things. Second in importance ispolitical interest: someone who said they were very interested in politics could expect to cor-rectly answer about 0.8 of 1 question more than someone with no interest in politics. This issimilar to the impact of possessing a tertiary education. Among the young, only politicalinterest and family income matter in predicting political knowledge; the latter may indicatethe level of political discussion in the family home which is absorbed by the child.

The internet, political knowledge and voting

Australia’s system of compulsory voting results in a turnout rate of over 90%, by far thehighest among the advanced democracies. The system has been in use in federal electionssince 1924 and is widely supported by voters (McAllister 2011, 20ff). It is therefore notpossible to measure the effects of internet use on turnout in Australia. To the extentthat there is abstention, it is manifested in eligible voters failing to enroll, rather thanenrolled voters failing to turnout to vote (Edwards 2007). Since the survey used heresampled enrolled voters only, we are unable to measure under-enrollment. We can,however, measure the likelihood that an enrolled voter would turnout to vote if votingwas voluntary. These results are shown in Table 3.

Both political knowledge and media sources play a significant role in shaping the like-lihood that a person will turnout to vote, if they had the choice between casting a ballotand abstaining. This holds for both the electorate as a whole, and for younger voters, thus

Table 2. Political knowledge, internet and media use.All respondents Age 18–24 only

b (SE) b (SE)

Internet useFrequency of general internet use .017 (.030) .125 (.169)Frequency of election internet use .418* (.043) .374* (.126)Internet skills .307* (.046) −.030 (.145)

Media sourcesFrequency of following election in newspapers .075 (.050) .076 (.154)Frequency of following election on TV .057 (.053) −.023 (.146)Frequency of following election on radio .236* (.044) .120 (.133)

ControlsPolitical interest .857* (.069) .644* (.194)Gender .709* (.081) .290 (.237)Age .052* (.003) −.011 (.068)Tertiary education .772* (.095) .524 (.302)Australian born .534* (.093) −.154 (.306)Family income .123* (.032) .231* (.080)Urban resident .131* (.030) .141 (.098)Constant −5.366 −1.728Adj R 2 .395 .262(N ) (3,955) (404)

Ordinary least squares regression estimates showing partial (b) coefficients and standard errors predicting the probability ofpossessing political knowledge, measured from 0 to 10. See Appendix 1 for details of variables and scoring.

Source: AES, 2013.*Statistically significant at p<.01.

10 I. MCALLISTER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ort

a D

ogu

Tek

nik

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

15:

17 0

2 A

pril

2016

confirming the third hypothesis. However, there are two notable differences. First, politicalknowledge has a greater impact among the young than among the electorate as a whole,confirming the fourth and final hypothesis. Second, possessing more internet skills is sig-nificant for the general population, but not for the younger group. This may be becauseinternet skills are already high among the young and therefore do not adequately discrimi-nate between the respondents. Among the general electorate television is an importantpredictor of the probability of voting. Once again, these effects are net of a wide rangeof other factors, including political interest, age and education.

These results show a consistently strong effect for the internet increasing politicalknowledge. Across the population, this manifests itself in using the internet in order toacquire election information, and knowledge is more likely to be gained among thosewho are skilled in using the internet. Among the young, the effect is limited to usingthe internet for election information, and there is no effect for internet skill. In turn, knowl-edge and internet use assume greater importance among the young in predicting the like-lihood of turning out to vote, compared to the electorate as a whole. However, for bothgroups, political knowledge is a significant predictor of the likelihood of voting.

Discussion

The internet has often been viewed as a panacea for the ills of modern democracy, not leastdeclining electoral participation and low levels of political trust and efficacy. The 1990s andearly 2000s saw historically low levels of election turnout in many of the advanced democra-cies. In Britain, turnout in the 2001 general election was just 59.4%, the lowest since 1918,while turnout in the 1996 US presidential election was the lowest since the early 1920s.

Table 3. Likelihood of voting, political knowledge, and internet use.All respondents Age 18–24 only

b (SE) b (SE)

Political knowledge .047* (.007) .067* (.025)Internet useFrequency of general internet use −.017 (.013) −.024 (.080)Frequency of election internet use .056* (.018) .210* (.072)Internet skills .030 (.020) .188* (.069)

Media sourcesFrequency of following election in newspapers .070* (.022) .075 (.073)Frequency of following election on TV .158* (.022) .109 (.069)Frequency of following election on radio .034 (.019) .156* (.063)

ControlsPolitical interest .480* (.030) .479* (.093)Gender −.173* (.035) −.282 (.113)Age .006* (.001) −.015 (.032)Tertiary education .023 (.040) .188 (.143)Australian born .088 (.039) .206 (.145)Family income .038* (.014) .032 (.035)Urban resident −.010 (.013) −.081 (.046)Constant 1.335 .870Adj R 2 .357 .458(N ) (3,955) (404)

Ordinary least squares regression estimates showing partial (b) coefficients and standard errors predicting the probability ofvoting if turnout was voluntary, measured from 1 (definitely would not vote) to 5 (definitely would vote). See Appendix 1for details of variables and scoring.

Source: AES, 2013.*Statistically significant at p<.01.

JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ort

a D

ogu

Tek

nik

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

15:

17 0

2 A

pril

2016

The almost universal decline in turnout is mostly accounted for by abstention among theyoung. Accordingly, considerable attention has been directed at ways to reinvigorate youthelectoral participation (for a review, see Loader 2007). Among other things, proposals haveincluded: the introduction of compulsory voting; reducing the voting age to 16; e-votingand easier postal voting; and easier and quicker methods of voter registration. But perhapsmost attention has been devoted to the potential of the internet to mobilize young voters.

Early studies of the internet and political engagement among the young producedmixedresults. Some of the observed effects, while statistically significant, tended to be small (see, e.g. Calenda and Meijer 2009; Tolbert and McNeal 2003). Other effects potentially attributableto the internet are difficult to identify due to changes in technology, not least the transitionof newspapers from hard to soft copy. In addition, some studies have relied on limitedsurveys of young people or students, and the generalizability of these findings are oftenin doubt. This paper has sought to overcome these problems by using a national electionsurvey, enabling a wide range of controls to be added to the models. In addition, thepaper has extended current findings about the link between internet and political knowl-edge by measuring their combined effects on youth election participation.

Net of a wide range of other factors, the results demonstrate a strong effect for electioninternet use increasing political knowledge. The magnitude of the effect among thegeneral population easily surpasses any other media source, and is similar to the effectof a person possessing a tertiary education (see Christensen and Bengtsson 2011). Theeffect among the young is also significant, although it is limited to the frequency of elec-tion internet use, rather than to possessing particular internet skills. Among the generalpopulation, possessing internet skills is only slightly less important than following the elec-tion on the internet. This may reflect the fact that as sophisticated internet skills havebecome widely dispersed among the young, it represents a normalization of themedium (van Deursen and van Dijk 2010; Gibson and McAllister 2014).

Political knowledge and internet use are both important resources in determining elec-toral participation. And both knowledge and internet use are more important resources forthe young than for the general population as a whole. This confirms the hypothesis thatusing the internet to increase political knowledge among the young can result in higherlevels of electoral participation. In other words, efforts to arrest declining youth electionturnout should start with the internet, and might be expected to reap significantreturns. Election management bodies and political parties are already alert to the internet’spotential in this regard. Election management bodies in Australia, Germany and elsewhereare actively evaluating the role of the internet in e-voting and voter registration and enroll-ment (see, e.g. Macnamara, Sakinofsky, and Beattie 2012), while political parties have alsobecome more attuned to the internet’s potential to mobilize supporters (see, e.g. Lillekerand Jackson 2013). Despite these positive advances, much more could be done to harnessthe potential of the internet to reinvigorate youth electoral participation.

Notes

1. The literature on this is large, but for general overviews and evidence see Althaus (2003);Bennett (2003); Jennings (1996); Lau and Redlawsk (2006) and Milner (2002).

2. Among the many government reports seeking to remedy low youth electoral participation,see particularly Australian Government (2009); Russell et al. (2002); United Kingdom ElectoralCommission (2004).

12 I. MCALLISTER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ort

a D

ogu

Tek

nik

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

15:

17 0

2 A

pril

2016

3. Bennett, Wells, and Freelon (2011, 839) argue that the Norris and Dalton distinctions areinadequate because an emphasis on causes and engagement also represents a form ofcitizen action.

4. The disadvantage of the self-completion survey is that it risks the possibility that the answersreflect the collective knowledge of the household, rather than the knowledge of the individ-ual. This difficulty, which studies have shown affects only a small proportion of the responses,applies to other questions in a self-completion survey; it is unlikely that the political knowl-edge questions would be affected to a greater extent than other parts of the survey (McAllister1998).

5. To test for this possibility, the responses of younger respondents were examined over-timeusing earlier AES surveys (which also asked the political knowledge questions). Youngerpeople are more likely to use the internet and smart phones in the later surveys, but therewas no significant change in the proportions of correct answers for this group comparingthe 2013 AES with the 2001 and 2007 AES surveys.

6. Regressions were conducted on the 2013 AES predicting ‘don’t know’ and incorrect responsesfrom the full range of independent variables, but the results did not reveal any systematic orsignificant variations between the two.

7. Delli Carpini and Keeter (1996) suggest that political knowledge batteries should include anintroductory statement dissuading respondents from guessing a response. That approachwas used here; the full question wording appears in the note below Table 1.

8. The choice of the 18–24 age category to identify youth is somewhat arbitrary. However by age24, most individuals will have completed tertiary education, but most will not have married orbought a house. Preliminary analyses using different cut-off ages (ranging from 22 to 26) didnot reveal significantly different results from those presented here.

9. A question was asked in the survey about whether or not the respondent used the internet toaccess mainstream news media. Including this variable in the equation showed a significanteffect for the general population, suggesting that this may represent a partial explanation.There was no significant effect for younger voters.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References

Aalberg, T., P. van Aeist, and J. Curran. 2010. “Systems and the Political Information Environment: ACross-National Comparison.” International Journal of Press/Politics 15 (3): 255–271.

Althaus, S. 2003. Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics: Opinion Surveys and the Will of the People.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Andersen, R., J. Tilley, and A. F. Heath. 2005. “Political Knowledge and Enlightened Preferences: PartyChoice Through the Electoral Cycle.” British Journal of Political Science 35 (2): 285–302.

Australian Government. 2009. Electoral Reform Green Paper—Strengthening Australia’s Democracy.Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Accessed November 9, 2012. http://www.dpmc.gov.au/consultation/elect_reform/strengthening_democracy/index.cfm.

Bakker, T. P., and C. H. de Vreese. 2011. “Good News for the Future? Young People, Internet Use, andPolitical Participation.” Communication Research 20 (1): 1–20.

Bennett, S. E. 2003. “Is the Public’s Ignorance of Politics Trivial?” Critical Review 13 (3–4): 307–337.Bennett, W. L. 2008. “Changing Citizenship in the Digital Age.” In Civic Life Online, edited by W. L.

Bennett, 1–24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Bennett, W. L. 2013. “Civic Learning in Changing Democracies: Challenges for Citizenship and Civic

Education.” In Young Citizens and New Media: Learning from Democratic Participation, edited by P.Dahlgren, 59–78. London: Routledge.

JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ort

a D

ogu

Tek

nik

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

15:

17 0

2 A

pril

2016

Bennett, W. L., C. Wells, and D. Freelon. 2011. “Communicating Civic Engagement: ContrastingModels of Citizenship in the Youth Web Sphere.” Journal of Communication 61 (5): 835–856.

Bennett, W. L., C. Wells, and A. Rank. 2009. “Young Citizens and Civic Learning: Two Paradigms ofCitizenship in the Digital Age.” Citizenship Studies 13 (1): 105–120.

Benoit, W. L., and G. J. Hansen. 2004. “Presidential Debate Watching, Issue Knowledge, CharacterEvaluation, and Vote Choice.” Human Communication Research 30 (1): 121–144.

Bhatti, Y., K. M. Hansen, and H. Wass. 2012. “The Relationship Between Age and Turnout: A Roller-Coaster Ride.” Electoral Studies 31 (3): 588–593.

Bilodeau, A., I. McAllister, and M. Kanji. 2010. “Adaptation to Democracy Among Immigrants inAustralia.” International Political Science Review 31 (2): 141–165.

Bimber, B. A. 2012. “Digital Media and Citizenship.” In Sage Handbook of Political Communication,edited by H. A. Simetko and M. Scammell, 230–256. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Blais, A., E. Gidengil, N. Nevitte, and R. Nadeau. 2004. “Where Does Turnout Decline Come From?”European Journal of Political Research 43 (2): 221–236.

Blais, A., and D. Rubenson. 2013. “The Source of Turnout Decline: New Values or New Contexts?”Comparative Political Studies 46 (1): 95–117.

Boulianne, S. 2009. “Does Internet Use Affect Engagement? A Meta-Analysis of Research.” PoliticalCommunication 26 (2): 193–211.

Calenda, D., and A. Meijer. 2009. “Young People, the Internet and Political Participation.” Information,Communication and Society 12 (6): 879–898.

Christensen, H. S., and A. Bengtsson. 2011. “The Political Competence of Internet Participants.”Information, Communication and Society 14 (6): 896–916.

Coleman, S., and G. Moss. 2016. “Rethinking Election Debates: What Citizens Are Entitled to Expect.”International Journal of Press/Politics 21 (1): 3–24.

Corrigall-Brown, C., and R. Wilkes. 2014. “Media Exposure and the Engaged Citizen: How the MediaShape Political Participation.” Social Science Journal 51 (4): 408–421.

Dalton, R. J. 2008. The Good Citizen: How a Younger Generation Is Reshaping American Politics.Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Delli Carpini, M. X., and S. Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.

van Deursen, A., and J. van Dijk. 2010. “Internet Skills and the Digital Divide.” New Media and Society13 (6): 893–911.

van Dijk, J. 2005. The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Edwards, K. 2007. “From Deficit to Disenfranchisement: Reframing Youth Electoral Participation.”

Journal of Youth Studies 10 (4): 539–555.Elo, K., and L. Rapeli. 2010. “Determinants of Political Knowledge: The Effects of the Media on

Knowledge and Information.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 20 (1): 133–146.Eveland, W. P., A. F. Hayes, D. V. Shaa, and N. Kwak. 2005. “Understanding the Relationship Between

Communication and Political Knowledge: A Model Comparison Approach Using Panel Data.”Political Communication 22 (4): 423–446.

Farrell, H. 2012. “The Consequences of the Internet for Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 15:35–52.

Feldman, L., J. Pasek, D. Romer, and K. H. Jamieson. 2007. “Identifying Best Practices in CivicEducation: Lessons from the Student Voices Program.” American Journal of Education 114 (1):75–100.

Fieldhouse, E., M. Tramner, and A. Russell. 2007. “Something About Young People or SomethingAbout Elections? Electoral Participation of Young People in Europe: Evidence from a MultilevelAnalysis of the European Social Survey.” European Journal of Political Research 46 (4): 797–822.

Galston, W. A. 2001. “Political Knowledge, Political Engagement and Civic Education.” Annual Reviewof Political Science 4: 217–234.

Gibson, R. G., and I. McAllister. 2013. “Online Social Ties and Political Engagement.” Journal ofInformation Technology and Politics 10 (1): 21–34.

Gibson, R. G., and I. McAllister. 2014. “Normalizing or Equalizing Party Competition? Assessing theImpact of the Web on Election Campaigning.” Political Studies 63 (3): 529–547.

14 I. MCALLISTER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ort

a D

ogu

Tek

nik

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

15:

17 0

2 A

pril

2016

Gidengil, E., A. Blais, N. Nevitte, and R. Nadeau. 2003. “Turned Off or Tuned Out: Youth Participation inCanada.” Electoral Insight. Ottawa: Elections Canada. Accessed December 12, 2015 http://www.elections.ca/res/eim/article_search/article.asp?id=48andlang=eandfrmPageSize.

Gil de Zúñiga, H., N. Jung, and S. Valenzuela. 2012. “Social Media Use for News and Individuals’ SocialCapital, Civic Engagement and Political Participation.” Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication 17 (3): 319–336.

Gil de Zúñiga, H., E. Puig-i-Abril, and H. Rojas. 2009. “Weblogs, Traditional Sources Online and PoliticalParticipation: An Assessment of How the Internet is Changing the Political Environment.” NewMedia and Society 11 (4): 553–574.

Gronlund, K. 2007. “Knowing and Not Knowing: The Internet and Political Information.” ScandinavianPolitical Studies 30 (3): 397–418.

Gronlund, K., and H. Milner. 2006. “The Determinants of Political Knowledge in ComparativePerspective.” Scandinavian Political Studies 29 (2): 386–406.

Hahn, C. L. 2010. “Comparative Civic Education Research: What We Know and What We Need toKnow.” Citizenship, Learning and Teaching 6: 5–23.

Helsper, E. J. 2010. “Gendered Internet Use Across Generations and Life Stages.” CommunicationResearch 37 (3): 352–374. doi:10.1177/0093650209356439.

Hilbert, M. 2009. “The Maturing Concept of e-Democracy: From e-Voting and Online Consultations toDemocratic Value Out of Jumbled Online Chatter.” Journal of Information Technology and Politics 6(1): 87–110.

Iyengar, S., J. Curran, A. B. Lund, I. Salovaara‐Moring, K. S. Hahn, and S. Coen. 2010. “Cross-NationalVersus Individual-Level Differences in Political Information: A Media Systems Perspective.”Journal of Election Public Opinion and Parties 20 (3): 291–309.

Jeffres, L. W., K. Neuendorf, and D. J. Atkin. 2012. “Acquiring Knowledge from the Media in theInternet Age.” Communication Quarterly 60 (1): 59–79.

Jennings, M. K. 1996. “Political Knowledge Over Time and Across Generations.” Public OpinionQuarterly 60 (2): 228–252.

Kenski, K., and N. J. Stroud. 2006. “Connections Between Internet Use and Political Efficacy,Knowledge and Participation.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 50 (2): 173–192.

Kim, Y. M. 2009. “Issue Publics in the New Information Environment. Selectivity, Domain Specificity,and Extremity.” Communication Research 36 (2): 254–284.

Kisby, B., and J. Sloam. 2012. “Citizenship, Democracy and Education in the UK: Towards a CommonFramework for Citizenship Lessons in the Four Home Nations.” Parliamentary Affairs 65 (1): 68–89.

Kittilson, M. C., and R. J. Dalton. 2011. “Virtual Civil Society: The New Frontier of Social Capital?”Political Behavior 33 (4): 625–644.

Kohut, A., R. Morin, and S. Keeter. 2007. What Americans Know: 1989–2007: Public Knowledge ofCurrent Affairs Little Change by New and Information Revolutions. Washington DC: The PewResearch Center for the People and Press. Accessed December 1, 2015. http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/319.pdf.

Lau, R. R., and D. P. Redlawsk. 2006. How Voters Decide: Information Processing During ElectionCampaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lilleker, D. G., and N. A. Jackson. 2013. “Reaching Inward not Outward: Marketing via the Internet atthe UK 2010 General Election.” Journal of Political Marketing 12 (2–3): 244–261.

Loader, D. B., ed. 2007. Young Citizens in the Digital Age: Political Engagement, Young People and NewMedia. London: Routledge.

Lyons, W., and R. Alexander. 2000. “A Tale of Two Electorates: Generational Replacement and theDecline of Voting in Presidential Elections.” Journal of Politics 62 (4): 1014–1034.

Macnamara, J., P. Sakinofsky, and J. Beattie. 2012. “E-electoral Engagement: How Governments useSocial Media to Engage Voters.” Australian Journal of Political Science 47 (4): 623–639.

Martin, A. J. 2012. Young People and Politics. Political Engagement in the Anglo-American Democracies.London: Routledge.

McAllister, I. 1998. “Civic Education and Political Knowledge in Australia.” Australian Journal of PoliticalScience 33 (1): 7–24.

JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ort

a D

ogu

Tek

nik

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

15:

17 0

2 A

pril

2016

McAllister, I. 2011. The Australian Voter: Fifty Years of Change. Sydney: University of New South WalesPress.

McAllister, I., and S. Cameron. 2013. Trends in Australian Political Opinion. Accessed December 1,2015. http://aes.anu.edu.au/.

McDevitt, M., and S. H. Chaffee. 2000. “Closing Gaps in Political Communication and Knowledge:Effects of a School Intervention.” Communication Research 27 (3): 259–292.

Milner, H. 2002. Civic Literacy: How Informed Citizens Make Democracy Work. Hanover, NH: UniversityPress of New England.

Milner, H. 2005. “Are Young Canadians Becoming Political Dropouts? A Comparative Perspective.”IRPP Choices 11 (3): 1–26.

Milner, H. 2007. Political Knowledge and Participation Among Young Canadians and Americans.Montreal: Institute for Research in Public Policy. Working Paper.

Mondak, J. K. 2001. “Developing Valid Knowledge Scales.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (2):224–38.

Niemi, R. G., and M. J. Hanmer, 2010. “Voter Turnout Among College Students: New Data and aRethinking of Traditional Theories.” Social Science Quarterly 91 (2): 301–323.

Norris, P. 2003. Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Park, A. 2004. “Has Modern Politics Disenchanted the Young?” In British Social Attitudes, the 21stReport, edited by A. Park, J. Curtis, K. Thompson, C. Bromley, and M. Phillips, 23–48. London: Sage.

Phelps, E. 2012. “Understanding Electoral Turnout Among British Young People: A Review of theLiterature.” Parliamentary Affairs 65 (3): 281–299.

Prior, M. 2005. “News Versus Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in PoliticalKnowledge and Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (4): 577–592.

Prior, M. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Prior, M. 2010. “You Either Got it or You Don’t? The Stability of Political Interest Over the Life-Cycle.”

Journal of Politics 72 (3): 747–766.Russell, A., E. Fieldhouse, K. Purdam, and V. Kalra. 2002. Voter Engagement and Young People: Research

Report. London: Electoral Commission.Scheufele, D. A. 2002. “Examining Differential Gains from Mass Media and Their Implications for

Participatory Behavior.” Communication Research 29 (1): 46–65.Sheppard, J. 2015. “Compulsory Voting and Political Knowledge: Testing a ‘Compelled Engagement’

Hypothesis.” Electoral Studies 40 (3): 300–307.Singh, S. P., and J. Roy. 2014. “Political Knowledge, the Decision Calculus and Proximity Voting.”

Electoral Studies 34 (1): 89–99.Tolbert, C. J., and R. S. McNeal. 2003. “Unravelling the Effects of the Internet on Political

Participation?” Political Research Quarterly 56 (2): 175–185.United Kingdom Electoral Commission. 2004. Age of Electoral Majority: Report and Recommendations.

London: HMSO. Accessed November 11, 2012. http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/63749/Age-of-electoral-majority.pdf.

Weaver, D., and D. Drew. 2001. “Voter Learning and Interest in the 2000 Presidential Election: Did theMedia Matter?” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 78 (4): 787–798.

Wolfsfeld, G., M. Yarchi, and T. Samuel-Azran. 2015. “Political Information Repertoires and PoliticalParticipation.” New Media and Society. doi:10.1177/1461444815580413.

16 I. MCALLISTER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ort

a D

ogu

Tek

nik

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

15:

17 0

2 A

pril

2016

Appendix 1: Variables, scoring and means.

Means

Variable Coding All 18–24

Likelihood of voting From 1 (definitely not vote) to 5 (definitely vote) 4.20 3.70Political knowledge From 0 to 10 4.51 3.41Internet useFrequency of generalinternet use From 1 (never uses) to 7 (several times per day) 5.77 6.75

Frequency of electioninternet use

From 1 (never used) to 5 (used many times) 2.66 3.07

Internet skills Additive scale, 0–4 2.14 3.23Media sourcesFrequency of followingelection in newspapers From 1 (none at all) to 4 (a good deal) 2.47 2.10

Frequency of followingelection on TV From 1 (none at all) to 4 (a good deal) 2.90 2.63

Frequency of followingelection on radio From 1 (none at all) to 4 (a good deal) 2.31 2.00

ControlsPolitical interest From 1 (none) to 4 (a good deal) 3.02 2.56Gender 0 (female) or 1 (male) 0.48 0.46Age Years 48.43 21.09Tertiary education 0 or 1 0.32 0.23Australian born 0 or 1 0.74 0.82Family income Quintiles 3.35 3.37Urban resident From 1 (rural area or village) to 4 (a major city over 100,000

people3.96 3.99

(N ) (3,955) (404)

Source: AES, 2013.

JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ort

a D

ogu

Tek

nik

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

15:

17 0

2 A

pril

2016