867697

research-article2019
SPXXXX10.1177/0731121419867697Sociological PerspectivesMaher and Earl

Sources and Influences of Social Capital

Sociological Perspectives
2019, Vol. 62(6) 865­–883
Barrier or Booster? © The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Digital Media, Social sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0731121419867697
https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121419867697
Networks, and Youth journals.sagepub.com/home/spx

Micromobilization

Thomas V. Maher1 and Jennifer Earl2

Abstract
Research on young people’s protest participation has focused on how the family, peers, and
institutions support activism and micromobilization. But digital and social media usage has
arguably altered how we interact and how individuals participate in politics and activism,
especially among youth. This sets up an important question: Do the institutional supports (e.g.,
schools) and network ties (e.g., friends and family) that have historically driven micromobilization
still matter in a world of pervasive digital and social media usage, particularly for youth? In this
article, we analyze this question using interviews with 40 high school and university students.
Rather than acting as a disruptive force, we find that digital media has become an integral part
of youth micromobilization, facilitating traditional paths to activism and offering pathways to
activism for those with no other options. As has been true historically, participation may also
be dampened when supportive network ties are absent. We conclude with a discussion of the
broader implications for micromobilization and political participation.

Keywords
social movements, digital media, youth, micromobilization, social networks, qualitative

Widespread changes in digital and social media1 use have altered how we learn new information,
interact, and connect with institutions like government and corporations. Evidence suggests that
digital and social media use has had a considerable impact on the role of social movement orga-
nizations (SMOs) for mobilization (Earl 2014; Soon and Cho 2014) as well as how movements
disseminate information (Crossley 2015; Gaby and Caren 2012). Despite this, scholars continue
to debate the impact of digital and social media use on key social movement processes. Studies
alternately contend that social media alters existing processes in predictable ways (W. L. Bennett
and Segerberg 2012; Earl and Kimport 2011), that its effects are more dramatic as it allows par-
ticipants to “route around” traditional paths to activism (Earl, Copeland, and Bimber 2017), or
that it creates few real impacts on social movement processes (Diani 2000; Tarrow 1998; Tilly
and Wood 2015).

1Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

2The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

Corresponding Author:
Thomas V. Maher, Purdue University, 700 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Email: thomasvmaher@purdue.edu
866 Sociological Perspectives 62(6)

While a significant portion of this research has examined changes in organizational recruit-
ment and efforts to establish strong ties (Bimber, Flanagin, and Stohl 2005; Earl and Elliott 2019;
Earl and Schussman 2003; Karpf 2012), researchers have also examined how digital and social
media may disrupt, alter, or fail to influence individual’s decisions to participate—known as
micromobilization (Fisher and Boekkoi 2010; Odabaş and Reynolds-Stenson 2018; Tufekci and
Wilson 2012). This work has tended to look at only partial aspects of the micromobilization pro-
cess (Fisher and Boekkoi 2010) and/or mobilization to particular major events (Odabaş and
Reynolds-Stenson 2018; Tufekci and Wilson 2012), with far less research systematically examin-
ing whether digital and social media use fundamentally reshapes how individuals get involved in
activism. Changes in how individuals get involved in activism—whether it be expanding oppor-
tunities for access, reducing the importance of network ties, or completely replacing them—
would have wide ramifications for our ability to explain protest participation.
In this article, we examine potential participants who theoretically should be at greatest risk for
changing micromobilization processes: youth. We draw on interview data from 40 structured
interviews with high school and university students collected in a southwestern city. Students
varied widely in their level of social movement participation, or political participation more
broadly, allowing us to assess how digital and social media usage influenced micromobilization
processes. Our principal finding is that current debates set up a false dichotomy. Digital and social
media are not fundamentally reshaping existing processes for most students so much as becoming
embedded within them. Indeed, digital and social media innervate the traditional pathways that
youth are already structurally embedded in, becoming such a part of how potential participants
connect with family, peers, and institutions that it would be hard to understand how young people
get involved in activism today without reference to both online media and traditional supports for
activism such as friends, families, and schools. However, for a subset of youth who are not embed-
ded in environments supportive of activism yet still politically interested or motivated by moral
shocks (Jasper and Poulsen 1995), digital and social media do offer an opportunity to “route
around” previously debilitating barriers to engagement. These findings suggest that even when
digital media usage does not fundamentally change how processes work, it may become so inex-
tricably embedded in known processes that it is critical to understand nonetheless.

Micromobilization, Digital Media, and Youth Activism

Research on micromobilization, which is largely derived from work that predates the rise of digital
technologies, suggests that micromobilization tends to be facilitated by a fairly clear set of supports,
or pathways to participation (for reviews, see Beyerlein and Hipp 2006; Klandermans 2004;
Klandermans and Oegema 1987; Ward 2016). First, many find their way into activism through
direct invitations to participate from network ties (Schussman and Soule 2005). Being asked to
participate by friends or family members taps into individual’s shared interests, identities, and con-
cerns with the inviter (Lim 2008) and invitations directly expose recipients to information and
opportunities that they may have been otherwise unaware of (Nekmat et al. 2015; Walgrave
and Wouters 2014). Thus, individuals who are more structurally embedded in politically engaged
organizational and informal networks are more likely to be engaged in activism (Lim 2008;
McAdam and Paulsen 1993; Schussman and Soule 2005). Several scholars have found that while
many held ideologically sympathetic beliefs prior to joining, activists developed strong political
opinions after joining movements (Blee 1996; Munson 2010b), and direct invitations from friends
were an important impetus for getting involved (Munson 2010a; Schussman and Soule 2005).
Second, political activism may also emerge from indirect exposure to activist ideas and oppor-
tunities to participate. Potential participants may be encouraged to engage by more informal ties
to family, friends, schools, churches, and/or civic groups (Corrigall-Brown 2011; Klandermans
2004). Family, peer networks, and institutions have continually been important points of entry into
Maher and Earl 867

political activism (Klandermans and Oegema 1987; Munson 2010b; Sherkat and Blocker 1994).
Several studies suggest that political socialization is partially a product of repeatedly seeing, hear-
ing, and participating in conversations and debates over political topics with friends and family
and at school (Andolina et al. 2003; Lee, Shah, and McLeod 2013). Thomas V. Maher and Jennifer
Earl (2017) also offer evidence that conversations and suggestions from family and friends indi-
rectly influenced young people’s willingness to participate in activism. Such findings reiterate that
“political socialization is not something that adults do to adolescents, it is something that youth do
for themselves” (Youniss et al. 2002:133), and they do so based on their own conversations and
information-consumption practices. Indeed, activist networks help shape attitudes, build solidar-
ity, and, crucially, integrate new participants, but often through indirect exposure (Kitts 2000;
Passy and Giugni 2001; Ward 2016).
Third, political interest and beliefs are also important, whether this is general political interest
(Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995) or a specific moral shock (Jasper 1997; Jasper and Poulsen
1995).2 Social ties are an important—but not necessary (Jasper and Young 2007; Ward 2016)—
condition for activism, and individuals can seek out opportunities for activism independently for
intrinsically motivated reasons. Research suggests that for individuals who do not enjoy the
benefits of direct invitations, political interest is very consequential for decisions to participate
(Schussman and Soule 2005).

Digital Media and Micromobilization

Online technologies’ effects on mobilization have been widely debated. Some scholars have
argued for broad and transformative effects, arguing, for instance, that innovative uses of these
technologies to leverage the cost and co-presence of the web may radically alter existing expla-
nations for mobilization by disrupting well-known social movement processes (Earl and Kimport
2011). Others have also claimed transformative effects, but through altering the role of SMOs (D.
Bennett and Fielding 1999; Castells 2011; Earl 2014). But, much of this work focuses on how
protest is organized not how or why people come to participate (save notable exceptions such as
Earl, Copeland, and Bimber 2017).
Alternatively, other researchers suggest something like an augmentation hypothesis in which
social media may not be transformative, but it does expand existing mobilization processes. For
instance, work by Bruce Bimber, Andrew Flanagin, and Cynthia Stohl (2012) shows that organi-
zations may adapt to participants’ new communication preferences (see also Crossley 2015).
Other work also finds changing participant preferences regarding organizational versus entrepre-
neurial involvement in activism (Earl, Copeland, and Bimber 2017).
A third older but no less influential line of work has argued that digital life is unlikely to affect
social movements due to its inability to foster the strong ties necessary for sustained mobilization
(Diani 2000; Tarrow 1998; Van Laer and Van Aelst 2010). These critiques see the Internet as an
excellent source of weak ties, but a poor producer of the trust and identity perceived as necessary
for higher risk forms of activism (Kavanaugh et al. 2005; Putnam 2000; Van Laer and Van Aelst
2010). In particular, these researchers argue that face-to-face interaction is necessary to foster
activism, especially high-risk action (Diani 2000, see also McAdam 1986). For instance, Tarrow
(1998) lamented that digital media does not “promise the same degree of crystallization, of
mutual trust and collective identity, as do the interpersonal ties in social networks” (p. 240–1).3
But, few of these studies—whether taking a transformative, augmentation, or no-effect
approach—have specifically focused on whether digital technologies affect the exact pathways
for micromobilization that the existing literature identifies as important. Put another way, despite
the burgeoning interest in digital media and social movement participation, there has been little
work exploring how the Internet and social media have impacted how specific pathways, such as
family, friends, and school, influence activism.
868 Sociological Perspectives 62(6)

Communication scholars have focused extensively on digital technologies, but they have
focused on the medium, and often studied more traditional political behavior (i.e., discourse and
voting, Lee et al. 2013; Nekmat et al. 2015). Communication research that does focus on protest
largely overlooks social movements literature (Brunsting and Postmes 2002; Soon and Cho
2014), particularly micromobilization (Maher and Earl 2017).
Simultaneously, micromobilization research, particularly in sociology (with some exceptions,
Crossley 2015; Gaby and Caren 2012; Rohlinger and Bunnage 2015, 2018), has focused more
predominately on offline interactions. When this research does attend to online interactions,
online and personal networks are often treated as separate when, in fact, users interact with
friends and family online and offline. Such an approach traces back to some of the original cri-
tiques of the Internet and social media (Diani 2000; Van Laer and Van Aelst 2010). For example,
Dana R. Fisher and Marije Boekkoi (2010) find that 37 percent of the protest participants they
surveyed at a climate change march stated that the Internet (i.e., email, listservs, or websites) was
the most important channel for learning about the protest, and 28 percent said their personal net-
work was the most important. However, they never asked the origins of their online connections
nor how personal networks contacted them, leaving the role of Internet communications unclear.
Eva Anduiza, Camilo Cristancho, and José M. Sabucedo (2014) also treat mobilization by online
social network and mobilization by friends or acquaintances as separate categories without ask-
ing how individuals were invited to attend the protest.
This analytic separation of offline and online relationships, however, is increasingly difficult
to maintain. Research on digital media usage tends to find that digital technologies augment
existing reality rather than operating as a separate space (Jurgenson 2012), which should imply
that “it is increasingly difficult to study offline movements without considering their online
dimensions” (Crossley 2015:255). But the importance of digital media on micromobilization
remains less explored by social movement scholars.
At the broadest level, this article seeks to connect offline research on micromobilization to
research on digital and social media by understanding how the specific pathways for micromo-
bilization might be transformed, augmented, or unaffected by digital and social media usage.
If a transformation hypothesis is correct, we should see people being recruited into participa-
tion in radically new ways that do not rely on direct invitations, social network ties, political
interest, and/or indirect exposure. If a no-effect hypothesis is correct, we should see micromo-
bilization happening primarily offline and out of reach of digital and social media, reflecting
the bifurcation of online and offline relationships typical in social movement (but not digital
media) scholarship.
We regard a variant of the augmentation hypothesis as much more likely. Specifically, we
argue that digital and social media have become embedded in how traditional pathways like fam-
ily and peers lead to mobilization. That is, we claim that digital and social media use innervates
traditional paths to participation, especially connections to organizations (including schools for
young people, as discussed below) and informal network ties (including families and friends).
Much as nerves bring life to the muscles they innervate, digital media is now so embedded in
people’s lives that it is difficult to understand micromobilization without understanding how
people use digital technologies.
We argue that digital media is a tool and a medium for communication that may stimulate
multiple elements of the micromobilization process. Being asked to participate is particularly
effective for encouraging mobilization, and social media is particularly well suited for facilitat-
ing invitations from strong and weak ties alike. Research also shows that digital media may help
build and maintain digital communities and social capital (Earl and Kimport 2009; Gaby and
Caren 2012). Digital media also expands the window of opportunities for individuals to see or
receive invitations by making messages, posts, and comments accessible for longer periods and
to wider groups. Furthermore, as prior research has shown, social media sites like Facebook also
Maher and Earl 869

enable participants to hold conversations, reach out to others, and do the work to strengthen exist-
ing network ties (Crossley 2015; van Haperen, Nicholls, and Uitermark 2018).
Digital media also provides resources and exposure to how others are engaging politically.
Such “raw material” (i.e., knowledge, models, and ideas) might otherwise be unavailable for
engagement (Lee et al. 2013). Prior research has repeatedly shown that expanded exposure to
new opinions, issues, and practices—particularly when it comes from supportive friends and
family—may collectively contribute to a willingness to engage (Elliott and Earl 2018; Passy and
Giugni 2001). In a meta-analysis of social media use and participation, Shelley Boulianne (2015)
finds that expanded exposure helps people learn about political issues and ideas without having
to seek them out. Digital and social media can facilitate this process by surfacing the issues,
movements, and participation opportunities their family and peers are engaged in. In this context,
family and friends essentially act as a social filter online by “flagging” potentially relevant issues,
opportunities, or petitions for people to research by liking, sharing, or posting them into their
feeds (Messing and Westwood 2014), potentially influencing later engagement in the process.
Research shows that these referral effects are so strong that they overcome well-known media
selection and consumption processes (Earl and Garrett 2016).
While we do not expect it to be a dominant pathway, we do think that research on transforma-
tive effects may capture one dimension that augmentation does not: Digital and social media may
provide a distinct path to activism for those who lack other supports.4 Several scholars have
argued that digital media is a distinctive source for engagement because it offers a new, different
logic of action that is less hierarchical, more connective, and more personalized (W. L. Bennett
and Segerberg 2012). It is these aspects of digital media that may produce the most radical theo-
retical shifts as they disrupt the centrality of, or operation of, core micromobilization predictors
such as biographical availability, political interest, and network ties. For some individuals—and
this is particularly true for youth (as we discuss below)—knowledge of and access to active indi-
viduals is not as available, and digital media may offer a previously unavailable pathway to activ-
ism. Furthermore, just as activists “route around” organizations with individually directed
activism (Earl, Copeland, and Bimber 2017; Karpf 2012), some may “route around” the debilitat-
ing networks they are structurally embedded in to find communities and opportunities that are
not available—or have not presented themselves—offline and/or using the semi-anonymity of
some kinds of online engagement to engage while minimizing perceived social costs (Earl 2012).

Youth and Micromobilization

We focus on the effects of digital media usage on political activism using a group that we argue
allows us special purchase on any potential theoretical shifts: youth. Put simply, if changes are hav-
ing an impact on micromobilization processes, we would expect these to be most concentrated
among youth. Youth spend considerable time on the Internet (boyd 2014). A recent Pew survey
finds that 90 percent of youth (i.e., 18–29 years of age, compared to 65 percent of 30+ adults) are
on at least one social networking site (Perrin 2015). A separate study finds that nearly half (46 per-
cent) of youth get their news and information from social media (Cohen and Kahne 2011).
Youth are also an important subject because, in the last two decades, there has been consider-
able hand wringing over the state of youth political participation (Delli Carpini 2000; Putnam
2000). There is a widespread perception (often referred to as the “deficit model”) that youth are
not only inactive, but also politically disengaged and must be “taught” political interest (Osler
and Starkey 2003). However, a number of scholars point out that youth have been as active, if not
more, as adults when we include noninstitutional political action like volunteering, petitions,
boycotts, and protests (Dalton 2013; Zukin et al. 2006). Indeed, youth are more likely to gravitate
toward noninstitutional activities than political parties and voting (Cohen and Kahne 2011;
Dalton 2013; although see: Caren, Ghoshal, and Ribas 2011; Kim and McCarthy 2018).5
870 Sociological Perspectives 62(6)

Moreover, it may be that when youth are inactive, applying research on digital and social
media to work on traditional paths to activism may shed light on why some avoid activism. While
family and peers are important supports of activism, their tacit or explicit disapproval can be
equally powerful, and the visibility of some forms of online activism may make it easier for par-
ents, whose support for engagement is conditioned on age and gender (Cicognani et al. 2012;
Gordon 2008), to stamp out a young activist’s engagement. Social sanctions from uncivil dis-
course and combative individuals can deter activism among young people (James and Lee 2017,
see also Kitts 2000). The effects of sanctions may be more deeply felt—especially for youth who
are wary of engagement—when network support is weaker, or family and peers themselves are
discouraging engagement (akin to soft repression or social control, see Ferree 2004). Furthermore,
youth are looking to identify with people they hold in high regard (Brunsting and Postmes 2002),
and exposure to online conversations featuring overly simplified arguments, repetitive informa-
tion, or inaccurate arguments may spoil interest in engagement. Finally, youth may also be
deterred by high-profile critiques (e.g., Gladwell 2010) arguing that digital activism is “low qual-
ity” (Conroy, Feezell, and Guerrero 2012).
Understanding youth engagement is also crucial for understanding social movement vitality
more broadly. Youth have been a central part of several social movement campaigns including
Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, and the Sanctuary Movement, among others (Buechler 1990;
Caren et al. 2011; Earl, Maher, and Elliott 2017; McAdam 1986; Wiltfang and McAdam 1991).
As a group, they have had the least time to be exposed to or socialized into protest scripts and
schemes, and likely therefore, the least committed to “the way things have always been done.”
Thus, studying youth represents a privileged vantage from which to observe potential shifts in
micromobilization: If shifts are not occurring where they would be most likely to be observed,
this is evidence against changes in core processes. But, if dramatic shifts are seen, this is not only
theoretically consequential but also practically important because young people are not only
proverbially the future, but are actually the people who will or will not be the lifeblood of move-
ments in decades to come.

Data and Method

Our arguments about the role of digital and social media are process-based: We are arguing that
scholars cannot understand pathways to youth activism today without understanding how digital
and social media usage figures into those pathways and/or their continuing relevance to micro-
mobilization. But the majority of sociological research on youth political engagement has drawn
on quantitative analysis of surveys or websites without taking into account how youth actually
engage with and feel about social media and online activism (Boulianne 2015; Brunsting and
Postmes 2002), with only a few exceptions (Crossley 2015; Gordon 2008). By interviewing high
school and university students about why and how they choose to engage (or not engage), we
were able to offer a more complex understanding of how youth become active and the role of
digital and social media in those pathways. More specifically, we were able to see how youth use
digital media to participate, the role that social media use plays in contact between youth and
their friends and family, and, finally, how the intersection of support and perceptions of digital
engagement influences participation.
Specifically, we drew on structured interviews (Weiss 1995) with 40 high school and uni-
versity students in order to understand how their experiences with social media have influ-
enced their political engagement. Both schools, located in the same southwestern city, were
selected because they are public schools with ethnically and economically diverse populations.
Our cross-sectional data do not allow us to assess how social media use or its influence have
changed over time, but it does offer a picture of how it influences the paths that youth currently
follow into activism.
Maher and Earl 871

The high school selected had more than 1,800 students, a teacher/student ratio of approxi-
mately 23, and, as just mentioned, is economically and racially diverse.6 Thirty-five percent of
the student body was eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. Whites accounted for 54 percent
of the student population, 35 percent of the student population was Latinx, and the remaining 10
percent was divided between American Indians, Asian, Black, and bi-racial students. Our sample
of 20 high school students is largely reflective of the school’s demographics. The average high
school student in our sample is 16 years old (the oldest was 17 and the youngest was 14); young
men and young women are equally represented; and 45 percent of respondents were white, 35
percent were Latinx, and 20 percent were Bi-racial or Asian.
The college students in our sample attended a research university that enrolled slightly more
women (52 percent) than men (48 percent). The campus was racially diverse with whites account-
ing for 53 percent of the student population, Latinx students accounting for 25 percent, and the
remaining 21 percent divided between Asian, Black, and Bi-racial students. As was true at the
high school, our sample of 20 university students was largely reflective of school demographics.
Whites were slightly underrepresented (45 percent), bi-racial students were overrepresented (20
percent), Latinx students were slightly overrepresented (30 percent), and Asian students account
for the rest (5 percent). More generally—for both the high school and college samples—there are
no obvious selection biases that may impact our findings.
We recruited university students during summer of 2014 via advertisements distributed on
university listservs and course pages, and we recruited high school students during spring and fall
of 2015 via flyers distributed during History and Government classes (which are required courses
for juniors and seniors) and lunchtime information sessions. Political discussion can be taboo,
particularly among youth (Eliasoph 1998; Gordon and Taft 2011). We deliberately invited all
youth (i.e., those who were politically active and politically inactive) who were interested to talk
about their political participation, why they chose not to participate, and what they thought about
participation more broadly. We also conceptualized political participation to include a range of
activities from protests to signing petitions to political discussions or sharing and commenting
online. Students who expressed interest were contacted to set up an interview time, and then
interviewed by a project manager or, for high school students, an undergraduate interviewer to
reduce social distance.7 Interviews were conducted in an office on campus or a coffee shop
nearby, and lasted an average of 43 minutes. Interviews focused on respondents’ friends and
families’ political engagement, their own online and offline political activity, and their opinions
about politics and activism more broadly. Each participant received a $20 Amazon gift card.
Although there are likely qualitative differences between college and high school students, we
focused on the similarities across these groups to assess how digital and social media influence
their available paths to political activism. Treating the two groups separately would be problem-
atic because interviewees were able to discuss engagement from any point in their life, meaning
that many college students discussed high school and college life. Also, our sample size means
that cross-group comparisons would be weak and tentative. Finally, prior quantitative and quali-
tative research on youth activism often treats the two groups as one (Andolina et al. 2003; Elliott
and Earl 2018; Kahne and Bowyer 2017).
Once interviews were completed, a research assistant and undergraduate coder topically coded
transcribed interviews using Atlas.ti. One co-author and a research assistant then qualitatively
coded each of the interviews for the degree of influence that varying pathways to participation—
that is, family, friends, school, and social media—had on each respondent. Each wrote memos
covering how and how much each participant participated in activism, how important each of the
pathways was for their engagement, and how social media influenced them, as well as ranking
each pathway as “high,” “medium,” or “low” based on the respondents’ description (i.e., “they
were an important influence”) and/or how often they talked about them in the interview. Coders
also categorized each respondent’s level of activism as “high,” “moderate,” or “low,” based on
872 Sociological Perspectives 62(6)

the frequency, variety, and centrality (i.e., did they devote considerable time to participating or
see it as a part of their identity) of activism for respondents. Coders drew on the memos and
discussions to resolve difficult cases. After coding, one author qualitatively re-immersed them-
selves in the interviews to understand the relationship between social media use and paths to
participation, and how this relationship influenced respondents’ willingness to participate in
online and offline political activism more deeply. As we discuss below, many of our respondents
participated in some form of activism, but we also had a minority of non-active respondents in
our sample. All of our respondents reported using some digital media and so the patterns we see
are not a product of us selecting on our outcome or social media use.
We focus on online and offline activism because we are interested in how youth become
involved in activism writ large. While there may be differences between the two, prior studies, as
well as our own data, show that online and offline activism are not mutually exclusive (Crossley
2015; Vissers and Stolle 2014). By adopting a more inclusive conceptualization of activism, we
recognize the forms of activism available to youth and offer grounded insights into how digital
media have become integral parts of how social movements and political participation operate.

Digital Media, Social Ties, and Political Activism

The youth in our study were broadly involved in activism. Twenty-nine of our respondents par-
ticipated in some form of online or offline activism, and eleven participated in no activist activi-
ties (although several were involved in various civic groups).8 Of those who participated in
activism (i.e., non-traditional political action), we identify fifteen as highly engaged, nine as
moderately engaged, and five as low engagement (i.e., they participated in one or two actions,
but not in any sustained way). Overall, our respondents participated in a wide range of activities,
including marches, boycotts, online petitions, and participating in advocacy organizations. In
total, thirteen participated in some offline activism, and twenty-eight participated in some online
activism. Ten respondents participated in online and offline activism, and five high-engagement
respondents only participated in online activism.
We find that digital media was deeply embedded in the pathways that led youth to activism.
By way of metaphor, social media innervates youth political participation, helping to supply the
flow of ideas, information, and support youth need to engage. Our respondents described how
every aspect of their social networks—close family, distant relatives, friends, acquaintances,
teachers, and online contacts—used digital media to communicate, share information, and offer
encouragement, among many other things. Rather than a medium of weak ties, as hypothesized
by some (Diani 2000; Tarrow 1998), digital technologies have become an integral part of how
young people interact, and, as a result, a key part of pathways leading to activism. Below, we
trace how digital media use and structural embeddedness come together for youth.

Facilitating Traditional Pathways to Activism

For many of the respondents in our analysis, digital and social media were as much, if not more,
of a medium that traditional paths to participation worked through. Online media enabled direct
invitations and exposed respondents to issues and opportunities through shared links and peti-
tions. Eighteen of our respondents (and eight of our 15 highly engaged respondents) described
being directly invited to participate by friends or family, and these invitations often came online.
Several respondents discussed learning about petitions after online and offline discussions with
friends. One of the key ways that digital media facilitated network ties was by helping people
invite others to participate. Getting asked to participate is one of the strongest predictors of par-
ticipation (Klandermans 2004; Walgrave and Wouters 2014), and respondents described receiv-
ing digital invitations, digital follow-ups on prior offline conversations, and in-person responses
Maher and Earl 873

to online posts and discussion. For example, Tim, a 24-year-old white college student who signed
petitions and was active with trans rights issues, was encouraged to sign an online petition sup-
porting LGBTQ issues by one of his friends in an offline conversation. When asked how he heard
about the petition, he stated as follows:

One of my friends actually who was directly affected, who works with [campus LGBTQ group], and
we were talking about it, and it could take five minutes to write a message or click a button.
[Interviewer: Did they ask you in person, did they ask you online?] We were talking about it in person
[and then] I think they sent me the link via Facebook, and I went on like five minutes later. I clicked
it and did it.

While we were conducting interviews, the University started charging students a fee for using
their credit cards to pay tuition, a significant issue for several respondents. Nina, a moderately
engaged 20-year-old Latinx university student who signed petitions, participated in boycotts, and
participated in fan activism, decided to act after her friends told her about a petition circulating
on Facebook.

I was talking with some friends in class about it and one of them said that there was a petition. And
then she sent it to me on Facebook and then I signed it.

Interviewer: Would you have signed it if your friend hadn’t sent it to you?

Nina: I don’t know if I would have seen it.

While the majority of respondents described responding to direct invitations to sign petitions
and engage in other online activism, social media influenced offline engagement as well. Quinn,
a 22-year-old white college woman who signed petitions, attended marches, volunteered with
women’s rights organizations, and engaged in participatory politics, described learning about the
Kony2012 campaign from social media and then hung fliers at her school after one of her friends
invited her to participate. She participated because

it just seemed like such a big thing at the time, which was interesting because it was like one and done.
But it just seemed like something that so many people immediately cared about and they did a very
good job blasting all social media sites, and so it was everywhere, which is I guess why I decided to
participate. I don’t know if I would have [participated if I had not been asked]. I mean, I considered it.
I considered ordering one of their packet things from online but I didn’t, so probably not.

Already paying attention to the issues, Nina and Quinn participated as a result of online and
offline engagement with social network ties. While it is certainly possible that they would have
participated without digital media, it made receiving the direct invitations, and, by proxy, politi-
cal engagement, easier and faster, facilitating existing micromobilization processes (Lim 2008;
Schussman and Soule 2005).
Digital media not only did facilitate the ability to receive invitations, it also enabled students
to offer them. Several respondents described circulating petitions or inviting their friends to go to
political events. For example, in addition to donating money of her own, Yolanda, a 15-year-old
Latinx high school student who was active online and circulated petitions at her school, used
Facebook to encourage others to support and donate to the Trevor Project, an online group work-
ing against LGBTQ discrimination.

Every time I see [a post from] the Trevor Project, I share it, because ever since I learned about [them],
I feel like more people should donate, and I can’t donate every time; I don’t have money yet; I’m not
874 Sociological Perspectives 62(6)

working. But I know eventually, as I get older and as I do get a paycheck and a job, I’d want to donate
to programs like that. So, yeah, I recommended it to people. I would send it to people and be like, oh,
sign this petition or something like that.

Yolanda used digital and social media to pursue her interest in LGBTQ issues. Through digital
media, Yolanda found groups and causes that she felt comfortable supporting and encouraged
others to offer their support too. Indeed, many of our respondents were asked, encouraged, or
inspired to get involved by friends and family, and social media was an obvious tool for them to
use as they tried to influence and support issues they cared about.
In addition to facilitating youth’s ability to learn about issues and filter large amounts of infor-
mation, we also found that social media was a point of indirect exposure to ideas and opportuni-
ties. Nearly every highly or moderately engaged respondent indicated that they saw opportunities
to sign petitions and get involved cross their social media feeds, and several respondents described
using social media to stay engaged by using recommendations from friends and family to filter
through the barrage of information available online, supporting previous work (Messing and
Westwood 2014). This approach was often adopted by more moderately engaged youth, often
constrained by time, enthusiasm, or availability, and it fits with prior research on how politically
aware individuals use social media to stay connected (Rohlinger and Bunnage 2015). For exam-
ple, Josie, a moderately engaged bi-racial university student, found an opportunity to express her
discontent with a proposed anti-LGBT bill on her friends’ Facebook page. Explaining how she
found the petition, she states as follows:

I wasn’t part of the group [responsible for the SB1062 petition] but I just signed it. I heard about it
and I was really upset about it and then it—everyone on Facebook was signing it so it popped up in
my newsfeed and so I was, like, thank God someone is doing something about this. And so I just I
was the least I can do is sign it, and then I shared it and that was about it. [Interviewer: Who asked
you to participate in it?] No one asked me. I just saw it pop up. And I guess they asked their entire
friend list to sign it kind of thing but I was going to sign it regardless. [I]f I came across it on my own,
I would have signed it anyway.

The petition Josie signed eventually garnered more than 63,000 signatures and played a part
in the effort that convinced Governor Brewer to veto the measure (Santos 2014). Several respon-
dents in our sample, like Josie, described petitions, motivating articles, and information about
events “just popping up” in their feeds. For these students, social media doubled as a filter that
surfaced opportunities for them to take action on issues that they cared about, and for them to see
that their friends and family cared about these issues too.

Barriers to Activism
While some parents and friends support activism, others do not, and digital and social media
usage mattered here as well. Respondents whose friends and family were less supportive of
engagement, and who were less politically engaged or warier of digital engagement them-
selves were more likely to describe avoiding political participation—even with issues they
cared about—than their better-supported counterparts. Nine of our respondents, all low or
moderately engaged, indicated that their irregular engagement was due more to a lack of a
clear outlet for engagement than their lack of interest in civic or political issues. For example,
Eileen, a white, 15-year-old high school student, felt that she had no obvious avenues available
to act on her interests in social and racial inequality. Her parents talked about politics, but not
with her, and her friends were not interested in talking about politics. Eileen followed develop-
ments around Black Lives Matter on Twitter, but she was hesitant to do anything more than
retweet something “because I feel like people would judge, like it’s my opinion but so many
Maher and Earl 875

people are so judgmental and stuff . . . I don’t know. I feel like my word wouldn’t count, like
it wouldn’t make it more notable that it’s happening, because I’m just 15.”
The absence of supportive informal and formal network ties left Eileen with little to no sup-
port when she voiced her opinions on the sites that are available to her and few outlets where she
felt comfortable doing so.
For a small set of our respondents, irregular or limited participation was due to more overt
barriers to engagement from family and friends than the absence of support. Anne, a 17-year-old
white high school student, explained that she was reluctant to share her opinion because growing
up with her dad “he always just told me just keep [my] opinions to [myself] and stuff . . . don’t
share this stuff unless someone really asks,” and this was particularly true online because “people
can maybe twist your words online and stuff, people can take that the wrong way.” Indeed, sev-
eral respondents indicated that parents and family members directly or subtly discouraged them
from discussing politics or acting politically online. Such responses indicate that perceptions of
online activism may be the result of a broader trend in political avoidance rather than a new phe-
nomenon (Earl 2012; Eliasoph 1998). It would be difficult to assume that digital technologies can
always help youth overcome such barriers.
Of course, not every young person is interested in political participation. But if lack of
interest did not mean that they were unaware of opportunities to get involved if they ever
decided to do so. Of our 11 low-engagement respondents, six indicated that they received
some direct or indirect invitation to participate, and this often came in through their social
media feeds. But, in contrast to more engaged respondents, politically disengaged respon-
dents largely viewed all prompts as spam. Interestingly, some even lamented the fact that the
“volume” likely covered up issues they might care about. Ethan, a 20-year-old white college
student, explains,

there’s a lot of important issues, or issues that I might find important that I haven’t really heard or
read more about, that I’m kind of overlooking just because there’s other issues that are on there that
I just really couldn’t care less about.

Unsurprisingly, politically disinterested youth are suspicious or dismissive of opportunities to get

politically involved, but these complaints also highlight the fact that—despite their disinterest—
they are still cognizant of such opportunities if they ever change their minds.

“Routing Around” Structural Embeddedness

Not all of the students whose family and friends were disinterested in, or actively discouraged,
engagement, however, remained inactive; some were able to find new paths to activism through
online networks and opportunities. These paths connected youth with activism opportunities
and effectively allowed them to “route around” unsupportive networks. This is a marked change
from the past where participants were more reliant on families, social networks, broader institu-
tions, or a chance encounter with a flyer or newspaper article to learn about opportunities for
participation. Interested youth also faced significant hurdles if their friends or family were not
interested or they did not have access to transportation. Previous research on micromobilization
highlights how important formal and informal network connections are for bringing new par-
ticipants into political activism (Klandermans 2004), and these findings suggest a small but
important change in youth political participation.
Five participants in our sample sought out engagement opportunities online when their friends
and family were not as interested or engaged. Newly interested in social issues (particularly sex-
ism), June, a 15-year-old white high school student, felt like she could not talk to her parents (her
Dad held different beliefs) or her friends (who were not interested). June developed an interest in
876 Sociological Perspectives 62(6)

gender inequality after she saw an Instagram post, did some research, and connected it to her own
experiences.

Well, like I saw a post about it; and then I’d read about it, and Google it, and just do some more
research about it and see what it’s really about.

Interviewer: Why did you decide to do something on that issue like that particular time?

June: I think it interested me and I didn’t really realize anything about it until I heard it and heard
everything about it and so I decided that I wanted to know what it was about, and I would have to deal
with it so I wanted to – [I had seen things like that before and not done anything.] Especially on
Facebook. I see people will like posts about it and I just kind of ignored it until I finally saw enough
and I wanted to see what it really was.

Interviewer: [W]hat made you decide to do something that time?

June: It was probably because—I think it was about dress codes, and like I go to school, and I never
thought about how they’re sexist or whatever. And I was kind of upset because I’ve been dress coded
before and so it happened to me personally so I wanted to know more about it.

June’s exposure to issues and ideas on social media led her to rethink aspects of her own expe-
riences, to sign petitions, and start to engage more visibly. As a result, she has started to “feel like
[she is] a part of something bigger that [is] going to happen,” and that she was learning new
things. Yet, without social media, it is not clear how she would learn about opportunities for
engagement. June has never participated in any offline activity because

I don’t really have access to go and do those things. And I usually don’t hear about them—like I don’t
see it on social media very often and I don’t hear about these kinds of things. I would like to, but I
don’t have the opportunity to.

For June, the Internet and social media clearly provided a new avenue for learning about broader
issues that connected to her own life and about ways to become active.
In addition to finding new opportunities for becoming active, we also find that, for some
respondents, digital media provides social networks and communities with strong ties that may
not be available offline. For example, Gwen, a highly engaged 20-year-old white university stu-
dent who self-identified as “LGBTQIA,” felt her family members were more conservative and
discouraged her beliefs and activities, and so she gravitated toward an online community. She
learned about issues and petitions through online friends and contacts, signed petitions, and
helped friends share activism opportunities more broadly. Prior to the interview, Gwen had
signed and helped circulate a petition calling for Ubisoft to expand diversity in gaming charac-
ters. Gwen was tightly connected with this community, but her connections were almost entirely
online. As she explains,

[O]n Tumblr, you just kind of blog about things you enjoy and you find other people who enjoy
those things. And you just kind of make friends and message people back and forth, and eventually
you do actually get like Skype contacts or email contacts where you will actually get to know them
on a more personal level than a superficial level. And then you just start working together and
coordinating stuff.

Social media use offered a path to participation and community that respondents like Gwen
may not have had otherwise. Such routing around is not limited to online activism. Two of our
respondents that fit this path also participated in offline protests and groups, further highlighting
Maher and Earl 877

the augmented nature of online and offline engagement. While some of these respondents par-
ticipated offline, the ability to privately learn about issues and online communities is appealing
for others (Earl 2012).
Young people who “route around” barriers to engagement may be able to do so, thanks to digi-
tal media’s ability to surface issues and otherwise unknown opportunities for engagement. Some
respondents reported finding opportunities for activism through built-in recommendation systems
or sponsored content on social media sites. Ben, a 25-year-old bi-racial university student, found
groups fighting the Michigan legislature’s attempt to allow employers to refuse coverage of con-
traceptives (Anders 2014) through Facebook’s “People You May Know” suggestions. Similarly,
Eric, a white, high school student who also reported invitations from social ties, signed up for
change.org because of “sponsored posts” on Facebook after a “cute picture of a manatee . . . caught
[his] eye.” Their experiences indicate that, in addition to being a tool that youth can use to find
actions and communities, it can also be a medium for unrecognized opportunities. We found that
digital media sites like change.org helped to facilitate online activism such as signing petitions and
joining groups throughout our interviews. Thus, for some youth without social connections to
activism, digital media provided an opportunity to route around unsupportive networks and find
opportunities to get involved and, in some cases, the tightly connected online communities that
can foster future activism. Furthermore, digital media may provide a similar medium for exposure
to “moral shocks” that can encourage young people to become independently active or to seek out
opportunities for participation (Jasper 1998; Jasper and Poulsen 1995).

Conclusion
Our interviews with high school and college students show that digital and social media were
integral for youth participation in activism because they helped facilitate traditional paths to
political activism. Respondents’ online and offline social networks overlapped considerably.
Family and friends used digital media to directly invite our respondents to participate, share
information, and share ideas to such a degree that their online and offline lives were a part of one
interconnected whole. Respondents also used their friends and families’ posts and comments on
social media to learn about sociopolitical issues and to filter out the most interesting opportuni-
ties and issues. Of course, the intersection between traditional pathways and digital media was
not always advantageous for engagement. The absence of social network support (or an active
dismissiveness) combined with skepticism of online engagement hampered several respondents’
ability to find outlets for activism. Yet we also found that some youth were able to use digital
media to “route around” the family and friends who were not—or were not perceived to be—
supportive of political activism and find important sources of community and opportunity online.
Our findings contribute to social movements and micromobilization research by demonstrat-
ing that—in contrast to skeptics’ arguments (Diani 2000; Tarrow 1998; Van Laer and Van Aelst
2010)—digital media has clear impacts on movement processes. In contrast to previous argu-
ments, we find that the Internet and digital media augment traditional paths to activism and offer
new avenues for participation. Activists and organizations (Crossley 2015; van Haperen et al.
2018) as well as traditional sources of participation like family, social networks, and schools can
use digital media to foster youth’s sense of political efficacy and activism. Simultaneously, the
opportunities for individually directed activism that digital media offers may be especially
important for youth who are structurally embedded in networks that are unsupportive of political
action (W. L. Bennett and Segerberg 2012; Earl, Maher, and Elliott 2017). Digital media and the
Internet are important sources for “supplying” participants with opportunities for engagement
(Klandermans 2004). Social media may also be a source of exposure to moral or political
“shocks” that incite engagement or a venue for sharing inciting images and ideas with others
(Jasper 1997; Jasper and Poulsen 1995; Luker 1985). Youth learn about political issues, hold
878 Sociological Perspectives 62(6)

political discussions, and find or develop opportunities for engagement online. As a result, digital
media innervates traditional paths to activism while equipping youth with the tools necessary to
find opportunities for participation on their own, limiting the role and necessity of formal SMOs
for participation (Earl 2014) and making the collective action process less hierarchical (W. L.
Bennett and Segerberg 2012).
In this sense, as James Youniss et al. (2002) explain,

[f]amilies, schools, service activities, and involvement in political events provide raw material—
knowledge, models, and reflective matter—and various forms of feedback, but it is ultimately the
youth themselves who synthesize this material, individually, and collaboratively, in ways that make
sense to them. (P. 133)

Yet, for youth, this synthesis takes place while using digital media to communicate with close
friends, family, and fellow activists as well as weak ties, strangers, and acquaintances. By recog-
nizing that digital media innervates traditional pathways and offers new avenues for activism, we
expand our recognition of how individuals, particularly youth, engage in and learn about the
political process. As a result, we see new opportunities for understanding the changing face of
who participates in activism, which issues attract public attention, and how people organize over
the short- and the long-term online and offline.

Acknowledgment
We thank Kevin Sharp and Morgan Johnstonbaugh for research assistance.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article: This research is part of a project funded by the Research Network on Youth and
Participatory Politics, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Notes
1. We use digital and social media to denote all forms of online content including the Internet, and social
media platforms like Facebook, Tumblr, and Twitter. While we recognize that there can be meaningful
distinctions drawn between different digital and social media, we only consider those differences at the
specific moments that they are required based on our data.
2. We are not suggesting that an invitation from friends, family, or an organization can overcome disinter-
est, but they may help to increase interest or increase exposure in ways that build interest for people
who are not attitudinally opposed to a movement.
3. These studies also tend to focus almost exclusively on protest organizers (i.e., the “demand side” of
mobilization, Klandermans 2004) rather than how it influences protest participation. For instance,
many existing studies focus on how online technologies influence social movement organizations
(SMOs; Bimber, Flanagin, and Stohl 2005; Earl 2014), large-scale protest events (W. L. Bennett and
Segerberg 2012), and the cross-national diffusion of protest (Castells 2011; Tarrow 2005).
4. Digital media may also expose individuals to moral shocks (Jasper 1997; Jasper and Poulsen 1995),
and in the process offer another path toward activism beyond social network ties. We encourage future
research to explore how digital media has changed points of issue exposure in more depth.
5. We acknowledge that digital media use can make political engagement easier, faster, and more uni-
versal (Boulianne 2015; Van Aelst and Walgrave 2002; Van Laer 2010), affecting the importance of
biographical availability. We also acknowledge that political interest may be shaped by digital media
usage (Boulianne 2011), but examining all of these factors is beyond the scope of a single article.
Maher and Earl 879

6. High school and college data come from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
7. We received institutional review board (IRB) approval for all recruitment and interview materials.
University students were IRB exempt. High school student interviews were conducted under a separate
study ID, and the student and guardian (regardless of age) had to sign the IRB approval forms to be
interviewed.
8. If one takes a broad view of political engagement, our sample is slightly more likely to report partici-
pating in some nontraditional politics but the proportion of higher level engagers is comparable with
participation levels from recent surveys of youth (Cohen and Kahne 2011; Jones et al. 2018), suggest-
ing our sample is not biased.

References
Anders, Melissa. 2014. “Contraception Use ‘Not Your Boss’s Business’ Says Michigan Lawmaker on Anti-
Discrimination Bill.” MLive, March 24. Retrieved April 11, 2016 (http://www.mlive.com/lansing-
news/index.ssf/2014/03/contraception_use_not_your_bos.html).
Andolina, Molly W., Krista Jenkins, Cliff Zukin, and Scott Keeter. 2003. “Habits from Home, Lessons from
School: Influences on Youth Civic Engagement.” Political Science and Politics 36(2):275–80.
Anduiza, Eva, Camilo Cristancho, and José M. Sabucedo. 2014. “Mobilization through Online Social
Networks: The Political Protest of the Indignados in Spain.” Information, Communication & Society
17(6):750–64.
Bennett, Daniel and Pam Fielding. 1999. The Net Effect: How Cyberadvocacy Is Changing the Political
Landscape. Merrifield, VA: e-advocates Press.
Bennett, W. Lance and Alexandra Segerberg. 2012. “The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and
the Personalization of Contentious Politics.” Information, Communication & Society 15(5):739–68.
Beyerlein, Kraig and John R. Hipp. 2006. “A Two-Stage Model for a Two-Stage Process: How Biographical
Availability Matters for Social Movement Mobilization.” Mobilization: An International Journal
11(3):219–40.
Bimber, Bruce, Andrew J. Flanagin, and Cynthia Stohl. 2005. “Reconceptualizing Collective Action in the
Contemporary Media Environment.” Communication Theory 15(4):365–88.
Bimber, Bruce, Andrew J. Flanagin, and Cynthia Stohl. 2012. Collective Action in Organizations: Interaction
and Engagement in an Era of Technological Change. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Blee, Kathleen M. 1996. “Becoming a Racist: Women in Contemporary Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazi
Groups.” Gender & Society 10(6):680–702.
Boulianne, Shelley. 2011. “Stimulating or Reinforcing Political Interest: Using Panel Data to Examine
Reciprocal Effects between News Media and Political Interest.” Political Communication 28(2):147–62.
Boulianne, Shelley. 2015. “Social Media Use and Participation: A Meta-analysis of Current Research.”
Information, Communication & Society 18(5):524–38.
boyd, danah. 2014. It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Brunsting, Suzanne and Tom Postmes. 2002. “Social Movement Participation in the Digital Age. Predicting
Offline and Online Collective Action.” Small Group Research 33(5):525–54.
Buechler, Steven M. 1990. Women’s Movements in the United States: Woman Suffrage, Equal Rights, and
beyond. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Caren, Neal, Raj Andrew Ghoshal, and Vanesa Ribas. 2011. “A Social Movement Generation: Cohort and
Period Trends in Protest Attendance and Petition Signing.” American Sociological Review 76(1):125–51.
Castells, Manuel. 2011. The Power of Identity: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Cicognani, Elvira, Bruna Zani, Bernard Fournier, Claire Gavray, and Michel Born. 2012. “Gender Differences
in Youths’ Political Engagement and Participation. The Role of Parents and of Adolescents’ Social and
Civic Participation.” Journal of Adolescence 35(3):561–76.
Cohen, Cathy J. and Joseph Kahne. 2011. Participatory Politics: New Media and Youth Political Action.
Oakland, CA: YPP Research Network.
Conroy, Meredith, Jessica T. Feezell, and Mario Guerrero. 2012. “Facebook and Political Engagement:
A Study of Online Political Group Membership and Offline Political Engagement.” Computers in
Human Behavior 28(5):1535–46.
880 Sociological Perspectives 62(6)

Corrigall-Brown, Catherine. 2011. Patterns of Protest: Trajectories of Participation in Social Movements.

Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Crossley, Alison Dahl. 2015. “Facebook Feminism: Social Media, Blogs, and New Technologies of
Contemporary Us Feminism.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 20(2):253–68.
Dalton, Russell J. 2013. Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial
Democracies. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Delli Carpini, Michael X. 2000. “Gen.Com: Youth, Civic Engagement, and the New Information
Environment.” Political Communication 17(4):341–49.
Diani, Mario. 2000. “Social Movement Networks Virtual and Real.” Information, Communication &
Society 3(3):386–401.
Earl, Jennifer. 2012. “Private Protest? Public and Private Engagement Online.” Information, Communication
& Society 15(4):591–608.
Earl, Jennifer. 2014. “The Future of Social Movement Organizations the Waning Dominance of SMOs
Online.” American Behavioral Scientist 59(1):35–52.
Earl, Jennifer, Lauren Copeland, and Bruce Bimber. 2017. “Routing around Organizations: Self-directed
Political Consumption.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 22(2):131–53.
Earl, Jennifer and Thomas Elliott. 2019. “Kids These Days: Supply and Demand for Youth Online Political
Engagement.” Pp. 69–100 in Digital Media and Democratic Futures, edited by Michael X. Delli
Carpini. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Earl, Jennifer and R. Kelly Garrett. 2016. “The New Information Frontier: Toward a More Nuanced View
of Social Movement Communication.” Social Movement Studies 16:479–93.
Earl, Jennifer and Katrina Kimport. 2009. “Movement Societies and Digital Protest: Fan Activism and
Other Nonpolitical Protest Online.” Sociological Theory 27(3):220–43.
Earl, Jennifer and Katrina Kimport. 2011. Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in the Internet Age.
Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Earl, Jennifer, Thomas V. Maher, and Thomas Elliott. 2017. “Youth, Activism, and Social Movements.”
Sociology Compass 11(4):e12465.
Earl, Jennifer and Alan Schussman. 2003. “The New Site of Activism: Online Organizations, Movement
Entrepreneurs, and the Changing Location of Social Movement Decision Making.” Research in Social
Movements, Conflicts and Change 24:155–87.
Eliasoph, Nina. 1998. Avoiding Politics: How Americans Produce Apathy in Everyday Life. Boston, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Elliott, Thomas and Jennifer Earl. 2018. “Online Protest Participation and the Digital Divide: Modeling the
Effect of the Digital Divide on Online Petition-Signing.” New Media & Society 20:698–719.
Ferree, Myra Marx. 2004. “Soft Repression: Ridicule, Stigma, and Silencing in Gender-Based Movements.”
Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change 25:85–101.
Fisher, Dana R. and Marije Boekkoi. 2010. “Mobilizing Friends and Strangers: Understanding the Role of
the Internet in Days of Action.” Information, Communication & Society 13(2):192–208.
Gaby, Sarah and Neal Caren. 2012. “Occupy Online: How Cute Old Men and Malcolm X Recruited 400,000
Us Users to Ows on Facebook.” Social Movement Studies 11(3–4):367–74.
Gladwell, Malcolm. 2010. “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted.” The New Yorker,
September 27. Retrieved July 19, 2019 (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/04/small-
change-malcolm-gladwell).
Gordon, Hava R. 2008. “Gendered Paths to Teenage Political Participation Parental Power, Civic Mobility,
and Youth Activism.” Gender & Society 22(1):31–55.
Gordon, Hava R. and Jessica K. Taft. 2011. “Rethinking Youth Political Socialization Teenage Activists
Talk Back.” Youth & Society 43(4):1499–527.
James, Carrie and Ashley Lee. 2017. “Speaking up Online: Civic Identity and Expression in the Digital
Age.” Pp. 119–46 in Social Movements and Media, edited by Jennifer Earl and Deana A Rohlinger.
Bingley, England: Emerald Publishing.
Jasper, James M. 1997. The Art of Moral Protest: Culture, Biography, and Creativity in Social Movements.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Jasper, James M. 1998. “The Emotions of Protest: Affective and Reactive Emotions in and around Social
Movements.” Sociological Forum 13:397–424.
Maher and Earl 881

Jasper, James M. and Jane D. Poulsen. 1995. “Recruiting Strangers and Friends: Moral Shocks and Social
Networks in Animal Rights and Anti-nuclear Protests.” Social Problems 42(4):493–93.
Jasper, James M. and Michael P. Young. 2007. “The Rhetoric of Sociological Facts.” Sociological Forum
22(3):270–99.
Jones, Robert P., Daniel Cox, Rob Griffin, Maxine Najle, Molly Fisch-Friedman, and Alex Vandermaas-
Peeler. 2018. “American Democracy in Crisis: Civic Engagement, Young Adult Activism, and the 2018
Midterm Elections.” PRRI, October 11. Retrieved July 19, 2019 (https://www.prri.org/research/ameri-
can-democracy-in-crisis-civic-engagement-young-adult-activism-and-the-2018-midterm-elections/).
Jurgenson, Nathan. 2012. “When Atoms Meet Bits: Social Media, the Mobile Web and Augmented
Revolution.” Future Internet 4(1):83–91.
Kahne, Joseph and Benjamin Bowyer. 2017. “Educating for Democracy in a Partisan Age Confronting the
Challenges of Motivated Reasoning and Misinformation.” American Educational Research Journal
54(1):3–34.
Karpf, David. 2012. The MoveOn Effect: The Unexpected Transformation of American Political Advocacy.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Kavanaugh, Andrea L., Debbie Denise Reese, John M. Carroll, and Mary Beth Rosson. 2005. “Weak Ties
in Networked Communities.” The Information Society 21(2):119–31.
Kim, Hyun Woo and John D. McCarthy. 2018. “Accounting for the Decreasing Willingness of Us High
School Seniors to Protest, 1976–2015.” Social Currents 5(6):531–49.
Kitts, James A. 2000. “Mobilizing in Black Boxes: Social Networks and Participation in Social Movement
Organizations.” Mobilization: An International Journal 5(2):241–57.
Klandermans, Bert. 2004. “The Demand and Supply of Participation: Social-Psychological Correlates
of Participation in Social Movements.” Pp. 360–79 in The Blackwell Companion to Social
Movements, edited by David A Snow, Sarah A Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi. Maiden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Klandermans, Bert and Dirk Oegema. 1987. “Potentials, Networks, Motivations, and Barriers: Steps
towards Participation in Social Movements.” American Sociological Review 52(4):519–31.
Lee, Nam-Jin, Dhavan V. Shah, and Jack M. McLeod. 2013. “Processes of Political Socialization a
Communication Mediation Approach to Youth Civic Engagement.” Communication Research
40(5):669–97.
Lim, Chaeyoon. 2008. “Social Networks and Political Participation: How Do Networks Matter?” Social
Forces 87(2):961–82.
Luker, Kristin. 1985. Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Maher, Thomas V. and Jennifer Earl. 2017. “Pathways to Contemporary Youth Protest: The Continuing
Relevance of Family, Friends, and School for Youth Micromobilization.” Pp. 55–87 in Social
Movements and Media, vol. 14, edited by Jennifer Earl and Deana A Rohlinger. Bingley, England:
Emerald Publishing.
McAdam, Doug. 1986. “Recruitment to High Risk Activism: The Case of Freedom Summer.” American
Journal of Sociology 92(1):64–90.
McAdam, Doug and Ronnelle Paulsen. 1993. “Specifying the Relationship between Social Ties and
Activism.” American Journal of Sociology 99(3):640–67.
Messing, Solomon and Sean J. Westwood. 2014. “Selective Exposure in the Age of Social Media:
Endorsements Trump Partisan Source Affiliation When Selecting News Online.” Communication
Research 41(8):1042–63.
Munson, Ziad W. 2010a. “Mobilizing on Campus: Conservative Movements and Today’s College Students.”
Sociological Forum 25(4):769–86.
Munson, Ziad W. 2010b. The Making of Pro-life Activists: How Social Movement Mobilization Works.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Nekmat, Elmie, Karla K. Gower, William J. Gonzenbach, and Andrew J. Flanagin. 2015. “Source Effects
in the Micro-mobilization of Collective Action Via Social Media.” Information, Communication &
Society 18(9):1076–91.
Odabaş, Meltem and Heidi Reynolds-Stenson. 2018. “Tweeting from Gezi Park: Social Media and
Repression Backfire.” Social Currents 5(4):386–406.
882 Sociological Perspectives 62(6)

Osler, Audrey and Hugh Starkey. 2003. “Learning for Cosmopolitan Citizenship: Theoretical Debates and
Young People’s Experiences.” Educational Review 55(3):243–54.
Passy, Florence and Marco Giugni. 2001. “Social Networks and Individual Perceptions: Explaining
Differential Participation in Social Movements.” Sociological Forum 16(1):123–53.
Perrin, Andrew. 2015. “Social Media Usage: 2005-2015.” Pew Research Center, Washington, DC.
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Rohlinger, Deana A. and Leslie A. Bunnage. 2015. “Connecting People to Politics over Time? Internet
Communication Technology and Retention in Moveon. Org and the Florida Tea Party Movement.”
Information, Communication & Society 18(5):539–52.
Rohlinger, Deana A. and Leslie A. Bunnage. 2018. “Collective Identity in the Digital Age: Thin and Thick
Identities in Moveon.Org and the Tea Party Movement.” Mobilization 23(2):135–57.
Santos, Fernanda. 2014. “Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill on Refusal of Service to Gays.” The New York
Times, February 26. Retrieved April 11, 2016 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/us/Brewer-
arizona-gay-service-bill.html?_r=2).
Schussman, Alan and Sarah A. Soule. 2005. “Process and Protest: Accounting for Individual Protest
Participation.” Social Forces 84(2):1083–1108.
Sherkat, Darren E. and T. Jean Blocker. 1994. “The Political Development of Sixties’ Activists:
Identifying the Influence of Class, Gender, and Socialization on Protest Participation.” Social
Forces 72(3):821–42.
Soon, Carol and Hichang Cho. 2014. “Omgs! Offline-based Movement Organizations, Online-based
Movement Organizations and Network Mobilization: A Case Study of Political Bloggers in Singapore.”
Information, Communication & Society 17(5):537–59.
Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. “Fishnets, Internets, and Catnets: Globalization and Transnational Collective
Action.” Pp. 228–44 in Challenging Authority: The Historical Study of Contentious Politics, edited
by Michael P. Hanagan, Leslie Page Moch, and Wayne te Brake. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Tarrow, Sidney. 2005. The New Transnational Activism. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Tilly, Charles and Lesley J. Wood. 2015. Social Movements 1768-2012. New York: Routledge.
Tufekci, Zeynep and Christopher Wilson. 2012. “Social Media and the Decision to Participate in Political
Protest: Observations from Tahrir Square.” Journal of Communication 62(2):363–79.
Van Aelst, Peter and Stefaan Walgrave. 2002. “New Media, New Movements? The Role of the
Internet in Shaping the ‘Anti-Globalization’ movement.” Information, Communication & Society
5(4):465–93.
van Haperen, Sander, Walter Nicholls, and Justus Uitermark. 2018. “Building Protest Online: Engagement
with the Digitally Networked# Not1more Protest Campaign on Twitter.” Social Movement Studies
17(4):408–23.
Van Laer, Jeroen. 2010. “Activists Online and Offline: The Internet as an Informtion Channel for Protest
Demonstrations.” Mobilization 15(3):347–66.
Van Laer, Jeroen and Peter Van Aelst. 2010. “Internet and Social Movement Action Repertoires:
Opportunities and Limitations.” Information, Communication & Society 13(8):1146–71.
Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism
in American Politics. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vissers, Sara and Dietlind Stolle. 2014. “Spill-over Effects between Facebook and on/Offline Political
Participation? Evidence from a Two-Wave Panel Study.” Journal of Information Technology &
Politics 11(3):259–75.
Walgrave, Stefaan and Ruud Wouters. 2014. “The Missing Link in the Diffusion of Protest: Asking Others.”
American Journal of Sociology 119(6):1670–709.
Ward, Matthew. 2016. “Rethinking Social Movement Micromobilization: Multi-stage Theory and the Role
of Social Ties.” Current Sociology 64(6):853–74.
Weiss, Robert S. 1995. Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Wiltfang, Gregory L. and Doug McAdam. 1991. “The Costs and Risks of Social Activism: A Study of
Sanctuary Movement Activism.” Social Forces 69(4):987–1010.
Maher and Earl 883

Youniss, James, Susan Bales, Verona Christmas-Best, Marcelo Diversi, Milbrey Mclaughlin, and Rainer
Silbereisen. 2002. “Youth Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century.” Journal of Research on
Adolescence 12(1):121–48.
Zukin, Cliff, Scott Keeter, Molly Andolina, Krista Jenkins, and Michael X. Delli Carpini. 2006. A New
Engagement? Political Participation, Civic Life, and the Changing American Citizen. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Author Biographies
Thomas V. Maher is a Continuing Lecturer in the sociology department at Purdue University. His research
focuses on the intersection between social movements, organizations, and political sociology. He is primar-
ily interested in systems of state and organizational control and the forms of resistance that emerge in
response to them. He has published work on these issues in outlets such as Journal of Peace Research,
American Sociological Review, and Mobilization.
Jennifer Earl is a professor of sociology and government and public policy at the University of Arizona,
where she studies social movements, information technologies, and the sociology of law, with research
emphases on Internet activism, social movement repression, and legal change. She is the recipient of a National
Science Foundation CAREER Award for research from 2006 to 2011 on Web activism. She is also a member
of the MacArthur Research Network on Youth and Participatory Politics. She has published widely, including
an MIT Press book, coauthored with Katrina Kimport, titled Digitally Enabled Social Change, which exam-
ines how the use of Internet affordances is reshaping the basic dynamics of protest online.