Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30092076›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Is mobile app a new political discussion platform? An empirical study of the effect of WeChat use on college students' political discussion and political efficacy.

Hua Pang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hua PangInstitute of Media and Communication, Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Saxony, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6490-9035
Technische Universität Dresden · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the last couple of years, the increasing application and popularization of mobile app have dramatically transformed people's daily political lives through offering innovative mechanisms for interpersonal communication. While a majority of past studies on WeChat have mainly focused on its characteristics, only few documents have unearthed the potential effect of using such emerging social media on facilitating political discussion and increasing political efficacy. Given those, this study adopted uses and gratifications approach to explore the possible relationships between gratifications-sought, the intensity of WeChat usage on mobile phones, online political discussion, and political efficacy among college students in China. An empirical survey with 282 WeChat users reveals that WeChat as a relatively new outlet of political information, which fosters online political discussion with others about government and politics. Contrary to the expectation, the intensity of WeChat usages is not helped to strengthen or enhance individual's level of internal or external political efficacy. Furthermore, hierarchical regression analyses demonstrate that information needs and recognition needs are positive predictors of internal political efficacy. Overall, these obtained findings may shed more up-to-date insights on the meaningful role of the mobile-based communication technology in promoting citizens' democratic engagement in a developing country.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsPoliticsSocial MediaAdolescentChinaFemaleHumansMaleStudentsUniversitiesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30092076
PMCPMC6085061
OpenAlexW2887795715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.