Page numbers in italics refer to figures in the text.
agreeableness (Big Five trait), 160–67, 172–73, 187, 188, 191–92, 201, 235
Anonymous (hacktivist collective), 50
Arab Spring (2011), 3–4, 13, 15–16, 20, 45, 65, 70, 152, 194, 199, 202, 217
Ariely, D., 139
associationalism, 209–10, 212, 213
Baidu Baike, 5
bandwagon effect, 114, 116–18, 131, 133–34
Barlow, John Perry, 38
Baumgartner, Frank, 17, 89, 90, 109, 200
Bieber, Justin, 45, 56, 58, 81
big data, 22–24, 32–33, 76, 80–82, 221. See also data science
Big Five personality traits, 155, 159–60, 162–65, 180–94, 187, 201, 234–35. See also personality; specific traits
Bimber, Bruce, 25, 27–29, 36, 72, 211–13
Black Lives Matter, 2, 43, 44, 58–59, 59, 60, 61, 152
Boone, C., 182
Borge, R., 102
Brand, Russell, 45
Brazil, 1, 20, 46, 157, 197, 219, 220
Brown, Gordon, 54
Brown, Michael, 58–59, 59, 60, 61, 152
bureaucracy, 217
butterfly effect, 204
Cardenal, A., 102
Carpenter, D., 181
cDc (‘Cult of the Dead Cow’), 38
Centola, D., 66
chain reactions. See feedback loops and chain reactions
chaotic pluralism, 198, 213–23
charitable donations: charitable organizations and interest groups prior to the rise of social media, 35–36; electronic giving sites, 51; and Ice Bucket Challenge, 13, 136–37, 151; and social information, 115; and visibility, 70, 136–37, 139, 151–52. See also public goods game
Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack (France, 2015), 19–20
Cole, G. D. H., 209
collective action: and Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack, 19–20; defined/described, 9–12; difficulty of sustaining mobilizations, 4, 218; and the digital age, 1–33; examples of scaling up, 54–61; factors in launching, 175–95; factors in successful mobilization, 189–90 (see also critical mass/tipping point for mobilization; thresholds for mobilization); failure of most/success of a few online mobilizations, 16, 17, 74, 82–88, 84, 85, 105, 192, 199, 200; free-rider problem, 39, 72, 112, 162, 171; ‘hacktivism’, 37–38, 50; impact of personality (see personality); importance of early days, 76, 83, 87, 141, 192; individualism in, 48–50, 72, 199; low start-up costs of initiating online campaigns, 16; mobilization of groups that have been least likely to participate, 4, 27, 154–59; mobilization without leaders, 15–16, 192–95; personalization of, 72; and policy agenda setting, 17–18; and policy changes (see policy change); policy implications of chaotic turbulence, 219–23; and ‘politics as pain’ principle, 10; and regime change, 3–4 (see also Egypt); and rise of social media, 39–48 (see also social media); Schelling’s participation curve, 178, 178–79, 189; scholarship on, 25–29 (see also specific researchers); ‘slacktivism’, 11, 136, 199; transaction costs of political participation, 53. See also petitions; political acts, tiny; political representatives, contacting; political turbulence; protest movements
Collective Action (Hardin), 25
Collective Action in Organizations (Bimber), 28
Comparative Policy Agendas Project, 89
competitors (social value orientation), 161
computational social science. See data science
conditional cooperation, 114–15, 118, 161–62, 173, 189
Connolly, William, 210, 213, 214, 215
conscientiousness (Big Five trait), 160, 162, 164, 172, 187, 201, 235
cooperators (social value orientation), 161
corporatism, 213
critical mass/tipping point for mobilization: and group size, 116; and instability, 19, 135; and petitions, 78, 90, 133, 135; and policy change, 90, 93, 194–95; and protest movements, 28, 176, 194–95, 202; and rapid success or failure of mobilizations, 74, 87–88, 192, 199; and social information and viability signals, 69, 114, 116–18, 133, 135, 141; and thresholds for mobilization, 15, 176–79, 202 (see also thresholds for mobilization)
Dahl, Robert, 32, 207, 208, 212
data science, 22–24, 74–75, 80–82, 214, 221, 224–26. See also research methodology
Delicious, 5
democracy, pluralism model of, 32, 206–19
demographics, 155–59, 186, 201
Denny, K., 160
Digg, 5
Doyle, O., 160
Egypt: and Arab Spring, 4, 13, 15–16, 20, 45, 70, 152; consequences of lack of organization in protest movement, 20–22, 195, 202; Facebook Revolution, 4, 45, 70; Facebook usage statistics, 8; importance of anonymity in protest movements, 13, 152; and leadership, 15–16, 195; leaders’ underestimation of social media influence, 220; Muslim Brotherhood, 20–21, 195, 202, 220
elections, 2, 42–43, 45, 64–65. See also voting
Electrohippies Collective, 38
emotional stability. See neuroticism (Big Five trait)
Erdogan, Recep Tayyip, 197
experiments, 22–25; engagement with politicians experiment, 120–25; Facebook voting experiment, 64–65, 225–26; global political issues experiment, 113, 125–33; natural experiments, 24–25, 76, 95–102, 107; and personality, 163–74; and petition data, 23, 80–110 (see also petitions); public goods game, 141–47, 147, 163–74, 182–92, 184, 185, 229–37; regression discontinuity (RD) experimental design, 24, 99; and social information, 113, 120–35; and thresholds for mobilization, 182–92, 184, 185; and visibility, 141–47, 147. See also research methodology
extraversion (Big Five trait): assessment of, 235; defined/described, 160; extraverts as starters, 189, 191, 193; and leadership, 181, 192; and number of friends on social media, 194; and participation in collective action, 162–65, 168; and successful mobilizations, 190–91; and thresholds for mobilization, 186, 187, 188, 189; and visibility, 166–67, 173, 201
Facebook, 5; and Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack, 19; collective action involving, 4, 10, 16, 45, 59, 60, 61, 70, 136–37, 176, 203 (see also Ice Bucket Challenge; police brutality; protest movements); as corporate actor, 218; data capture, 225; median number of friends, 193; and micro-donations of political resources (liking, sharing, etc.), 52; network structure effects, 65; and petitions, 77, 78, 103; and political information, 44–45; rise of, 42, 44–45; and social information, 107, 111; usage statistics, 8, 46–47; and voting experiment, 64–65, 225–26
feedback loops and chain reactions, 74, 90, 176, 177, 197. See also critical mass/tipping point for mobilization; thresholds for mobilization
Fehr, E., 171
Ferguson, Missouri, shooting incident, 2, 58–59, 59, 60, 61, 152
15-M (Indignados), 3, 157, 176, 177, 194–95, 203
free-rider problem, 39, 72, 112, 162, 171
Garner, Eric, 43, 44, 59, 59, 60, 152
Gerber, A., 119, 137–38, 140, 159, 162, 172–73
Goldstein, J., 119
González-Bailón, S., 177
Granovetter, Mark, 14–15, 64, 116, 176, 179, 194, 202
Greece, 3
Green, D., 119
Gunduz, Erdem, 197
Hardin, Russell, 25
Here Comes Everybody (Shirky), 27, 47–48
Huberman, B. A., 88
The Hybrid Media System (Chadwick), 28
Ice Bucket Challenge, 13, 136–37, 151
Indignados, 3, 157, 176, 177, 194–95, 203
individualists (social value orientation), 161
individuals, social media’s focus on, 48–50, 72, 199
Information and American Democracy (Bimber), 28, 211
Internet: adoption by interest groups prior to rise of social media, 34–39; defined/described, 6; ‘hacktivism’, 37–38, 50; inequalities in access to, 156, 216; Internet of Things, 226; Internet users as more politically active than other citizens, 52; network structure effects, 63–67; proposed expiration dates on personal data, 70–71; rise of social media, 39–48; sale of personal data, 249n55; usage statistics, 6–7, 7, 30, 45–47, 240n65. See also social media; specific platforms
Internet Politics (Chadwick), 27
Islamic State, 43
Italy, 203
James, William, 213
John, P., 36
Jones, B., 17, 89, 90, 109, 200
Judge, T., 181
Karpf, David, 72
Kaufman, Gerald, 125
Kramer, A., 225
Lady Gaga, 45
Larimer, C., 119
Laski, Harold, 209
leadership: and extraversion, 181, 192; mobilization without leaders, 4, 15–16, 192–95; starters and followers in mobilization, 15–16, 182–93; and thresholds for mobilization, 180–82
leptokurtic distributions in petition data, 90–93, 108, 200
Line, 44
LinkedIn, 42
LiveJournal, 39
locus of control, 181–82, 186, 187, 188, 189, 202, 234–35
The Logic of Collective Action (Olson), 25, 114
The Logic of Connective Action (Bennett and Segerberg), 28
Lupia, A., 25, 27, 114, 117, 132
Marwell, G., 116, 120, 133, 179
Mayer-Schönberger, Viktor, 70–71
media, the, 28, 45, 52, 90, 93, 108–9, 175, 177, 211
Mexico, 46
Micromotives and Macrobehaviour (Schelling), 177–79
Milgram, Stanley, 29
Million Mom March, 36
Minecraft, 6
mobile telephones and other devices, 7–8, 47
Morris, William, 209
Mossberger, K., 156
The MoveOn Effect (Karpf), 72
Muslim Brotherhood, 20, 195, 202, 220
mySociety, 11, 51, 78, 121–25, 225
MySpace, 42
Nadeau, R., 117
networks, 29; network structure effects on social influence of social media, 63–67
neuroticism (Big Five trait), 160, 163, 164, 165, 173, 187, 201, 235
‘new mobilization’ thesis, 4, 27, 154–59
No. 10 Downing Street petition platform, 71, 75, 78–79; and fading of collective attention, 86–87; failure rate of petitions, 82–83; measures of success, 78; and skewed distributions in petition data, 91; website design, 95
Nobody Knows I’m a Dog (Perkins), 70
Norris, P., 52
Nudge (Thaler and Sunstein), 222
Olson, Mancur, 25, 26, 114–15, 117–18, 132
openness (Big Five trait), 160, 162, 164, 187, 235
organizations, 48–50, 71–72, 199
Pakistan, 54
Parkes, K., 163
Perkins, Alan, 70
personality, 153–74; Big Five traits, 155, 159–60, 162–65, 180–94, 187, 201, 234–35 (see also specific traits); and free-rider problem, 171; locus of control, 181–82, 186, 187, 188, 189, 202, 234–35; as more important than demographics in mobilization via social media, 155–59, 201; and participation in collective action, 162–74, 165, 167, 168, 170; and public goods game experiment, 163–74, 165, 167, 168, 170, 234–35; and social information, 167–69, 168; social value orientation, 161–62, 165–74, 201; starters and followers, 15–16, 182–93, 184, 185, 187; and susceptibility to social influence, 14, 166–74, 201; and thresholds for mobilization, 14, 15, 19, 26, 176–77, 180–88, 187, 193, 202; and visibility, 166–74, 167, 201; and voting behavior, 160. See also leadership; specific traits
petitions, 6, 51, 75, 90; ‘aimless petitioners’ and instability/unpredictability, 102–10; and anonymity vs. visibility, 71; consequences of petition website design, 95–102, 96, 97, 100, 101, 107, 108; and conventional media, 108–9; and critical mass/tipping point for mobilization, 78, 90, 133, 135; design change in UK petition platforms leading to natural experiment, 76, 95–102, 107; exaggerated success of popular petitions, 76, 95–110, 112; and fading of collective attention, 86–89, 89, 108; failure of most/success of a few online petitions, 17, 82–86, 84, 85, 105; and feedback loops and chain reactions, 90; German petition platforms, 71, 80; and global political issues experiment, 125–31; history of, 76–78; importance of initial number of signers, 76, 83; and lower costs of participation, 77; measures of success, 78–79; most successful petitions in the UK and US, 81; and network structure effects, 67; offline petitions, 12; petitioning as tiny act of political participation, 52, 76–78; and punctuated equilibrium model of policy change, 92–93; and research methodology, 23, 80–82; and road pricing issue (UK), 133; role of tweets in mobilization, 93–94, 94, 106; skewed distributions in online petition data, 17, 18, 90–93, 92, 108; and social information, 12, 68, 76, 95–98, 103–10, 118; as source of political turbulence, 89–93, 103–10; sources of traffic on sites, 103–4; success occurring in rapid bursts followed by periods of stasis, 105–6, 108; UK petition platforms (see No. 10 Downing Street petition platform; UK Cabinet Office petition platform); unpredictable nature of mobilization, 89–93, 105–10; US petition platforms (see We the People petition platform); and visibility, 151; and weak ties, 193; zero-sum attention capacity of signers, 102, 106
pluralism, 28, 32, 67, 196–227; ‘chaotic pluralism’, 198, 213–19; defined/described, 207–10; limitations of political turbulence and chaotic pluralism, 215–19; policy implications, 219–23; ‘postbureaucratic’/‘accelerated’ pluralism, 72, 211–13; turbulent politics as pluralist, 210–13
police brutality, 2, 43, 44, 58–59, 59, 60, 61, 152
policy change: and critical mass of participants, 90, 93, 194–95; no guarantee of sustained political change following leaderless mobilizations, 4, 195; online mobilization independent of conventional media, 108–9; and petitions, 76 (see also petitions); punctuated equilibrium model of policy change, 17–18, 76, 90, 92–93, 108, 200; Right to Education Bill (Pakistan), 54; and road pricing issue (UK), 108–9; ‘Save Our Bees’ campaign, 55, 56, 57, 58; and scaling up of tiny political acts, 54–61; ‘Women on Banknotes’ campaign (UK), 55, 57, 58
political acts, tiny, 6, 34–73, 198–99; and chaotic pluralism, 214; examples, 51–53; and interest groups prior to the rise of social media, 34–39; and lower costs of participation, 48, 53, 74, 77, 121, 154; micro-donations of political resources, 50–54; and ‘new mobilization’ thesis, 157–58; and petitioning, 76–78; and rise of social media, 39–48; scaling up of mobilization, 54–61, 74; and social media’s focus on individuals rather than organizations, 48–50; statistics on, 50–51. See also petitions; political representatives, contacting; political turbulence
political issues, and social information experiment, 113, 125–33
political representatives, contacting, 6, 51–52, 120–25, 132, 134–35
political turbulence, 16–19, 74–110; ‘aimless petitioners’ and instability/unpredictability, 103–10; and chaotic systems/chaotic pluralism, 198, 203–19; consequences of lack of organization in protest movements, 20–22, 195, 202; and electronic petition platforms, 75, 76 (see also petitions); feedback loops and chain reactions, 74, 90, 176, 177, 197; and inequalities, 216; large number of failed mobilizations/small number of unpredictable, extreme events, 200 (see also collective action: failure of most/success of a few online mobilizations); limitations of political turbulence and chaotic pluralism, 215–19; and lower costs of participation, 74; petitions as source of, 89–93, 103–10; and punctuated equilibrium model of policy change, 17–18, 76, 90, 92–93, 108, 200; and scaling up of mobilization, 74; skewed distributions for Internet-based activities, 16–17, 90–93, 200; and the state, 217–23; turbulent politics as pluralist, 210–13
‘politics as pain’ principle, 10, 65
Polsby, Nelson, 207
pro-social and pro-self social value orientation, 161–62, 165–74, 201
protest movements: Arab Spring, 3–4, 13, 15–16, 20, 45, 65, 70, 152, 194, 199, 202, 217; Brazil, 1, 20, 197, 220; consequences of lack of organization in protest movements, 20–22, 195, 202; and critical mass of participants, 28, 176, 194–95, 202; Egypt, 4, 13, 15–16, 20, 45, 70, 152, 195, 202, 220; Greece, 3; ‘hacktivism’, 37–38, 50; Hong Kong, 2, 20, 220; importance of anonymity, 13, 152; importance of social media, 19–22, 152, 176, 177, 220; Iran, 2, 43, 45; and leaderless mobilizations, 4, 15–16, 194–95; no guarantee of sustained political change following leaderless mobilizations, 4, 195 (see also Egypt); numbers of participants played down by authorities, 135; Spain, 3, 176, 177, 194–95, 203; and the state, 217; Syria, 4, 50; Tunisia, 3–4, 13, 45, 152, 220; Turkey, 157, 197, 219, 220; United Kingdom, 2, 46; United States, 2, 3, 28 (see also police brutality)
public goods game, 141–52, 163–74, 182–92; instructions and questionnaire, 229–37; and personality, 163–74, 165, 167, 168, 170, 234–35; and social information, 141–47, 147; and starters and followers, 182–92, 184, 185, 187; and thresholds for mobilization, 182–92, 184, 185; and visibility, 141–47, 147
punctuated equilibrium model of policy change, 17–18, 76, 90, 92–93, 108, 200
Razavi, T., 163
reciprocators, 162
recycling, 119
Reddit, 5
research methodology, 22–25, 32; and engagement with politicians experiment, 120–25; future directions for research, 223–27; and global political issues experiment, 125–31; natural experiments, 24–25, 76, 95–102; and petition data, 23, 80–110, 90–93 (see also petitions); and public goods game experiment, 141–46, 163–74, 182–92, 229–37; regression discontinuity (RD) experimental design, 24, 99. See also data science; experiments
road pricing issue (UK), 108–9, 133
Rockenbach, B., 171
Romney, Mitt, 43
Rotter, J. B., 181
Rotter score, 163, 186, 187, 234–35
Russia, 46
‘Save Our Bees’ campaign, 55, 56, 57, 58
Schattschneider, E. E., 208
Schelling, Thomas, 14–15, 116, 176–80, 189, 194, 202
Schmidt, Eric, 226
Schultz, P. W., 119
Second Life, 6
Seki, E., 181
shame, 138–41, 166, 169–73, 201
The Signal and the Noise (Silver), 205
Silver, Nate, 205
Sin, G., 25, 27, 114, 117, 132
el-Sisi, Abdel Fattah, 21–22, 195
Six Degrees (Watts), 29
Snowden, Edward, 221
social data science. See data science
social influence of social media, 12–16, 61–72; and Facebook voting experiment, 64–65, 225–26; and heterogeneity of online environment, 13–14; network structure effects, 63–67. See also critical mass/tipping point for mobilization; personality; petitions; public goods game; social information; social pressure; viability signals; visibility
social information, 26, 68–69, 111–35; and bandwagon effect, 114, 116–18, 131, 133–34; and conditional cooperation, 68–69, 114–15, 118; and consequences of website design, 95–102, 134–35; and contributions to public goods, 68–69; defined/described, 12; effect compared to visibility, 138, 140–41, 146–52, 147, 149, 201; and engagement with politicians experiment, 113, 120–25, 134–35; and exaggerated success of popular petitions, 76, 95–98, 103–10, 112; and Facebook, 107, 111; and free-rider problem, 112; and global political issues experiment, 113, 125–33; and group size, 114–15, 132–33; and individual decision making, 112, 113; mechanisms of influence, 112, 114–18; and online petitions, 68, 95–98; and personality, 167–69, 168; and popularity of songs, 106, 126; and public goods game experiment, 141–47, 147; scholarship on, 12, 114–18; and Snapchat and WhatsApp, 111; and social pressure, 114–15, 118, 132; and ‘spiral of silence’, 116, 120; and thresholds for mobilization, 14–15, 179, 182 (see also thresholds for mobilization); and tipping points, 114, 116, 133, 135; and Twitter, 111; and viability signals, 15, 69, 112, 116, 133, 135, 141, 200; and YouTube, 107, 111
social media: and attenuation of demographics, 155–59; blogosphere, 39–40; defined/described, 5–9; focus on individuals rather than organizations, 48–50, 72, 199; heterogeneity of online environment, 13–14, 65; importance in modern collective action, 1–4, 19–22, 152, 176, 177, 220; links across platforms (‘networks of networks’), 13; and microdonations of political resources (liking, sharing, etc.), 50–54 (see also political acts, tiny); and mobile telephones and other devices, 7–8, 47; and mobilization of groups least likely to participate, 4, 27, 154–59; network structure effects, 63–67; platforms, 5–7, 10–11, 42, 44–45, 65–66 (see also specific platforms, such as Facebook); policy implications and recommendations for states, 219–23; rise of, 39–48; Shirky on the capacity to ‘organize without organizations’, 47–48; social influence exerted by, 12–16, 61–72 (see also social influence of social media; social information; visibility); types of, 5–6; usage statistics, 8, 46–47; weak ties in social media networks, 64, 66, 193, 211; and Wikipedia, 41. See also petitions; protest movements
social pressure: and social information, 114–15, 118, 132 (see also social information); and visibility, 138–40, 151 (see also visibility)
social value orientation, 161–62, 165–74, 201, 235–36
socioeconomic status, 4, 154–59, 216
songs, popularity of, 12, 106, 126
Spain, 3, 42, 47, 157, 176–77, 194–95, 203
state, the: and chaotic pluralism, 217–23; policy implications and recommendations for, 219–23
Suri, S., 67
Thaler, M., 222
thresholds for mobilization, 14–16, 176–80, 178, 202; and demographics, 186; distribution of thresholds, 15–16, 183–85, 184, 185, 191; and personality, 14, 15, 19, 26, 176–77, 180–88, 187, 193, 202; and public goods game experiment, 182–92, 184, 185; starters and followers, 15–16, 182–93, 184, 185, 187. See also critical mass/tipping point for mobilization
tipping point for mobilization. See critical mass/tipping point for mobilization
transaction costs of political participation, 53
Tunisia, 3–4, 13, 45, 152, 220
turbulence. See political turbulence
Twitter, 5; and chain reactions, 177; and Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack, 19; collective action involving, 10–11, 45–46, 176 (see also specific mobilizations under this heading); as corporate actor, 218; historical Twitter data, 225; and Malala Yousafzai, 55, 57, 58; median number of followers, 193; and micro-donations of political resources (liking, sharing, etc.), 52; network structure effects, 65; and petitions, 77, 78, 93–94, 94, 103–4, 106; and police brutality cases, 58–59, 59, 60, 61, 152; and protest movements, 45–46, 176; rise of, 45; and ‘Save Our Bees’ campaign, 56, 58; and social information, 111; and ‘Women on Banknotes’ campaign, 57
UK Cabinet Office petition platform, 75, 79, 84; consequences of website design change, 24, 95–102, 96, 97, 100, 101, 107; measures of success, 79; sources of traffic to website, 77
Umbrella Revolution, 2
underdog effect, 116
United Kingdom: Behavioural Insights Team, 222; Internet usage statistics, 240n65; most successful petitions, 81; petition platforms (see No. 10 Downing Street petition platform; UK Cabinet Office petition platform); policy changes following online campaigns, 55–56, 57, 58; and ‘politics as pain’ principle, 10; protest movements and riots, 2, 46, 217; road pricing issue, 108–9, 133; social information and contacting political representatives, 121–25; social media usage statistics, 46–47; ‘Women on Banknotes’ campaign, 55, 57, 58
United States: election of 2008, 2, 42–43; Internet usage statistics, 6–7, 7, 30; Million Mom March, 36; most successful petitions, 81; new political advocacy groups, 37; Occupy movement, 3; protest movements, 2–3; social media and police brutality incidents, 2, 43, 58–59, 59, 60, 61, 152; social media usage statistics, 8, 46–47; statistics on micro-donations of political resources, 50–51; We the People petition platform, 75, 79–80, 81, 84–85, 86, 95
viability signals, 15, 69, 112, 116, 133, 135, 141, 176–77, 200. See also critical mass/tipping point for mobilization
visibility, 26, 63, 69–71, 136–52, 201–2; and charitable contributions, 70, 136–37; defined/described, 12–13; effect compared to social information, 138, 140–41, 146–52, 147, 149, 201; and Ice Bucket Challenge, 13, 136–37, 151; importance of anonymity in protest movements, 13, 152; mechanisms of influence (shame and fame), 138–40, 141, 151, 169–72, 173; and personality, 166–74, 167, 201; and public goods game experiment, 141–47, 147; scholarship on, 137–38; and voting, 70, 201
voting, 64–65, 70, 139, 160, 162, 201, 225–26
weak ties in social media networks, 64, 66, 193, 211
The Wealth of Networks (Benkler), 27
We Are All Khaled Said (Facebook page), 16, 70
web: consequences of website design, 95–102, 134–35; and contacting political representatives, 121; defined/described, 6; rise of social media, 39–48; websites of interest groups, 36. See also Internet; social media
WeChat, 44
We the People petition platform (US), 75, 79–80, 81, 84–85, 86, 95
WhatsApp, 111
‘Women on Banknotes’ campaign (UK), 55, 57, 58
Wu, B., 88