Ideas about what makes a ‘good citizen’ continue to evolve alongside the digitalisation of political participation. We examine these interrelated trends through an in-depth analysis of the normative basis for contemporary online petitioning. This article uses original survey data in Australia and Germany to confirm the emergence of distinctive ‘contribution’ citizenship norms which emphasise the importance of sharing content through networked communications infrastructures. We then examine the relationship between these novel citizenship norms and online petitioning, differentiating online petitioning along two dimensions of mode (signing versus sharing) and frequency. First, we find ‘contribution’ norms are more associated with sharing online petitions than signing them. Second, ‘contribution’ norms are more associated with high-frequency sharing and signing, as opposed to more casual instances of participation. In combination, these findings show that contribution norms are distinctively associated with more intensive forms of online petitioning (e.g. frequent sharing), while more casual forms (such as casual signing) are supported by a more diverse range of normative orientations. We conclude that the way citizens engage with online petitions reflects, in part, their normative orientation to contributing information towards networked communication infrastructures.
AhmaduTSBin DonYHamzatIH (2016) The Influence of Citizenship Norms, Efficacy Belief, and Parents’ Participation on Students’ Civic Engagement in Nigerian Universities: Data Screening and Preliminary Analysis. Journal of Educational and Social Research6 (2): 81–90.
2.
BennettWL (2008) Changing Citizenship in the Digital Age. In: BennettWL (ed.) Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp.1–24.
3.
BennettWL (2013) The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics (Cambridge Studies in Contentious Politics) (ed ASegerberg). New York: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BennettWLWellsCFreelonD (2011) Communicating Civic Engagement: Contrasting Models of Citizenship in the Youth Web Sphere. Journal of Communication61 (5): 835–856.
5.
BlühdornIButzlaffF (2020) Democratization Beyond the Turn: Towards a Research Agenda on New Conceptions of Citizen Participation. Democratization27 (3): 369–388.
6.
BochelCBochelH (2017) ‘Reaching In’? The Potential for in Local Government in the United Kingdom. Information, Communication & Society20 (5): 683–699.
7.
BolzendahlCCofféH (2013) Are ‘Good’ Citizens ‘Good’ Participants? Testing Citizenship Norms and Political Participation across 25 Nations. Political Studies61 (1_Suppl.): 45–65.
8.
BucherTHelmondA (2017) The Affordances of Social Media Platforms. In: BurgessJPoellTMarwickAE (eds) SAGE Handbook of Social Media. London and New York: SAGE Publishing, pp.233–253.
9.
CameronSMcAllisterI (2020) Australian Election Study Interactive Data. Available at: https://australianelectionstudy.org (accessed 18 February 2022).
10.
CantijochMCuttsDGibsonR (2016) Moving Slowly Up the Ladder of Political Engagement: A Model of Internet Participation. British Journal of Politics & International Relations18 (1): 26–48.
11.
ChadwickADennisJ (2017) Social Media, Professional Media and Mobilisation in Contemporary Britain: Explaining the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Citizens’ Movement 38 Degrees. Political Studies65 (1): 42–60.
12.
ChangW-C (2016) Culture, Citizenship Norms, and Political Participation: Empirical Evidence from Taiwan. Japanese Journal of Political Science17 (2): 256–277.
13.
CofféHVan der LippeT (2010) Citizenship Norms in Eastern Europe. Social Indicators Research96 (3): 479–496.
14.
ComunelloFMulargiaSParisiL (2016) The ‘Proper’ Way to Spread Ideas through Social Media: Exploring the Affordances and Constraints of Different Social Media Platforms as Perceived by Italian Activists. The Sociological Review64 (3): 515–532.
15.
CopelandL (2014) Conceptualizing Political Consumerism: How Citizenship Norms Differentiate from Boycotting to Buycotting. Political Studies62 (S1): 172–186.
16.
CopelandLFeezellJT (2017) The Influence of Citizenship Norms and Media Use on Different Modes of Political Participation in the US. Political Studies65 (4): 805–823.
17.
DaltonRJ (2008) Citizenship Norms and the Expansion of Political Participation. Political Studies56 (1): 76–98.
18.
ElliottTEarlJ (2016) Online Protest Participation and the Digital Divide: Modeling the Effect of the Digital Divide on Online. New Media & Society20 (2): 698–719.
19.
EscherTRiehmU (2016) Petitioning the German Bundestag: Political Equality and the Role of the Internet. Parliamentary Affairs70 (1): 132–154.
20.
GagrcinEPorten-CheéPEmmerM, et al. (2022) What Makes a Good Citizen Online? The Emergence
of Discursive Citizenship Norms in Social Media Environments. Social Media + Society, online first.
https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221084297
21.
GibsonRCantijochM (2013) Conceptualizing and Measuring Participation in the Age of the Internet: Is Online Political Engagement Really Different to Offline?The Journal of Politics75 (3): 701–716.
22.
Gil de ZúñigaHMolyneuxLZhengP (2014) Social Media, Political Expression, and Political Participation: Panel Analysis of Lagged and Concurrent Relationships. Journal of Communication64 (4): 612–634.
23.
HalpinDVromenAVaughanM, et al. (2018) Online Petitioning and Politics: The Development of Change.org in Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science53 (4): 1–18.
24.
HalupkaM (2018) The Legitimisation of Clicktivism. Australian Journal of Political Science53 (1): 130–141.
25.
HoogheMOserJ (2015) The Rise of Engaged Citizenship: The Evolution of Citizenship Norms among Adolescents in 21 Countries between 1999 and 2009. International Journal of Comparative Sociology56 (1): 29–52.
26.
HoogheMOserJMarienS (2014) A Comparative Analysis of ‘good Citizenship’: A Latent Class Analysis of Adolescents’ Citizenship Norms in 38 Countries. International Political Science Review37 (1): 115–129.
Infratest dimap (2019) Europatrend Im Auftrag Der ARD, Mai 2019. Berlin: Gesellschaft für Trend- und Wahlforschung
29.
JohnNA (2017) The Age of Sharing. Malden, MA: Polity.
30.
JungherrAJürgensP (2010) The Political Click: Political Participation through E-Petitions in Germany. Policy and Internet2 (4): 131–165.
31.
KarpfD (2016) Analytic Activism: Digital Listening and the New Political Strategy. New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
KotzianP (2014) Good Governance and Norms of Citizenship: An Investigation into the System- and Individual-Level Determinants of Attachment to Civic Norms: Good Governance and Norms of Citizenship. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology73 (1): 58–83.
33.
KümpelASKarnowskiVKeylingT (2015) News Sharing in Social Media: A Review of Current Research on News Sharing Users, Content, and Networks. Social Media + Society1 (2): 2056305115610141.
34.
MargettsHHaleSJohnP, et al. (2016) Political Turbulence: How Social Media Shape Collective Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
MarkusA (2019) Mapping Social Cohesion 2019: The Scanlon Foundation Surveys. Caulfield East: ACJC, Faculty of Arts, Monash University.
36.
MatthewsF (2021) The Value of ‘between Election’ Political Participation Do Parliamentary Matter to Political Elites?The British Journal of Politics and International Relations23: 410–429.
37.
MellonJGilmanHSjobergF, et al. (2017) Gender and Political Mobilization Online: Participation and Policy Success on a Global Petitioning Platform. Cambridge, MA: Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School.
NorrisP (2002) Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
OserJHoogheM (2013) The Evolution of Citizenship Norms among Scandinavian Adolescents. Scandinavian Political Studies36 (4): 320–346.
41.
OserJHoogheM (2018) Democratic Ideals and Levels of Political Participation: The Role of Political and Social Conceptualisations of Democracy. British Journal of Politics & International Relations20 (3): 711–730.
42.
PiconeIKleutJPavlíčkováT, et al. (2019) Small Acts of Engagement: Reconnecting Productive Audience Practices with Everyday Agency. New Media and Society21 (9): 2010–2028.
43.
Porten-CheéPKunstMVromenA, et al. (2021) The Effects of Narratives and Popularity Cues on Signing Online Petitions in Two Advanced Democracies. Information Communication and Society. Published online first, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2021.1991975
44.
PrinceJWallstenS (2020) How Much Is Privacy Worth around the World and across Platforms? Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3528386 (accessed 18 February 2022).
45.
PuschmannCBastosMTSchmidtJ-H (2017) Birds of a Feather Petition Together? Characterizing through the Lens of Platform Data. Information, Communication & Society20 (2): 203–220.
46.
RevelleW (2018) Psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/package=psych (accessed 18 February 2022).
47.
SchulzWFriedmanT (2016) Scaling Procedures for ICCS Questionnaire Items. In: SchulzWCarstensRLositoB. et al (eds) ICCS 2016. Technical Report. Amsterdam: The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), pp.117–137.
48.
ShehataAEkströmMOlssonT (2016) Developing and Dutiful Citizens: Testing the Model Using Panel Data among Adolescents. Communication Research43 (8): 1141–1169.
49.
SheppardJ (2015) Online Petitions in Australia: Information, Opportunity and Gender. Australian Journal of Political Science50 (3): 480–495.
50.
TheocharisYVan DethJW (2018) The Continuous Expansion of Citizen Participation: A New Taxonomy. European Political Science Review10 (1): 139–163.
51.
TillyC (2008) Contentious Performances. New York: Cambridge University Press.
52.
WrightS (2012) Assessing Innovations: ‘Democratic Goods’ and Downing Street. Journal of Information Technology & Politics9 (4): 453–470.
53.
WrightS (2016) ‘Success’ and Online Political Participation: The Case of Downing Street. Information, Communication & Society19 (6): 843–857.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
