Survey data to unveil the power of political crowdsourcing on social media

TL;DR

This paper presents survey data from the UK, Malaysia, and Pakistan to explore how political trust is influenced by social media and other factors.

Contribution

The study introduces a novel dataset on political trust and crowdsourcing in social media across three countries.

Findings

The survey collected 472 responses on political trust and social media use.

Variables like partisanship and online participation were examined for their impact on trust.

The dataset can help policymakers improve political trust through collaborative strategies.

Abstract

This paper describes a dataset collected from a survey carried out in the United Kingdom, Malaysia, and Pakistan, to understand the variables that impact political trust. The data was collected from September to November 2021 via an online survey on Google Forms, and 472 valid responses were obtained. Drawing on relevant literature, the survey instrument was designed to cover the respondents' opinions concerning partisanship, social media utilization, online social capital, voluntary online and offline political participation, and political trust. The dataset offers useful insights for institutional practitioners and policymakers working in the domains of democracy and political communication, facilitating policy formulation to bolster political trust through collaborative crowdsourcing.

Full text

Specifications TableSubjectCommunicationSpecific subject areaSocial media and political communicationData formatRaw Data (.csv), Analysed, DescriptiveType of dataTableData collectionData was acquired via a self-administered structured questionnaire. To enhance comprehension of the scale among respondents and overcome language barriers, the scale was translated from English into Urdu, and Bahasa Melayu, the native languages of Pakistan and Malaysia respectively. The questionnaire was distributed using Google Forms employing snowball sampling. It comprised two distinct sections: Section A contains demographic data, while Section B comprises the instruments employed. Quantitative data was collected from participants’ responses using a 5-point Likert scale. Over a three-month period (September-November 2021), 472 valid responses were received. The questionnaire and an Excel (.csv) data file can be accessed in the repository.Data source locationThe United KingdomMalaysiaPakistanData accessibilityRepository name: Mendeley DataData identification number: 10.17632/rsd9bcjb2f.1Direct URL to data: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/rsd9bcjb2f/1

Value of the Data

1

• •The data yields insights into the effects of social media activities as tools for enhancing voluntary participation among voters in the UK, Malaysia, and Pakistan, expanding on the Motivation-Incentive-Activation-Behavior (MIAB) model as political crowdsourcing model.
• •The data presented here can assist policymakers in devising efficient strategies to enhance political crowdsourcing on social media, fostering political trust among citizens.
• •Other scholars can use this dataset to compare developed and developing democratic countries, expanding upon statistical analysis using techniques such as multigroup analysis.

Background

2

This research aims to analyse data collected from voters who also engaged with social media, to evaluate their level of political trust. The uniqueness of this data lies in the theoretical foundation provided by MIAB model within the domain of political crowdsourcing. The data will also be used to bridge the gap in the existing literature concerning crowdsourced politics via social media communication. In addition, it holds significance as a mechanism for exploring partisanship, social media utilization, and online social capital under the mechanism of collaborative crowdsourcing to foster voluntary online and offline political participation, ultimately establishing political trust.

Data Description

3

Data was collected from the United Kingdom, Pakistan, and Malaysia. The UK is a north-western European parliamentary-based constitutional monarchy. The Malaysian federation is a Southeast Asian parliamentary-based constitutional monarchy [1], and Pakistan is a South Asian republic based on parliamentary democracy [2]. The democratic systems these three countries follow are rooted in the Westminster parliamentary model, which originated in Britain [3]. We selected the UK, Malaysia, and Pakistan for two reasons. Firstly, Malaysia and Pakistan were British colonies and are now commonwealth members, and secondly, they all apply a Westminster-derived structure of government formation [1,4]. Meanwhile variables of partisanship, social media utilization, online social capital, voluntary online and offline political participation, were incorporated to evaluate their influence on political trust, which is an essential political ingredient that ensure the inclusivity of the public policies proposed by political institutions [5]. Theoretically, this article strengthens the findings of the recent research [6,7], drawing on the unique political and technological affordances of social media by exploring its contribution to the quality of democracy.

Data collection was accomplished by implementing a survey methodology, to obtain both demographic information and responses to close-ended questions. Within the specified time frame of September to November 2021, 472 participants actively engaged with the survey, utilizing the Google Form platform. The demographic characteristics of the respondents are illustrated in Table 1. The respondents were asked to use a 5-point Likert scale to express their agreement with statements on social media utilization, online social capital, voluntary online and offline political participation, ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 denotes “Strongly Disagree” and 5 indicates “Strongly Agree’. In contrast, items linked with partisanship were assessed using a scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 represents “Weak” and 5 indicates “Extremely Strong”. The raw data contains feedback from the respondents.Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the respondents.Table 1. FrequencyPercentageCountry of originUKMalaysiaPakistanUKMalaysiaPakistan16015915333.933.732.4Gender Male918811356.955.373.9 Female69714043.144.726.1Age 18-28311013519.46.388.2 29-3945581628.136.510.4 40-503462121.2390.7 51-603514021.98.80 Above 60151409.48.80 Prefer not to answer01100.60.7Education Less than high school2101.20.60 High School12937.55.71.9 Vocational9505.63.10 Bachelor's degree60717137.544.746.4 Master's degree47497429.430.848.4 PhD degree2717516.910.73.3 Prefer not to answer3701.94.40Marital Status Single515112931.932.184.3 Never married11206.91.20 Married/ civil partnership81962350.660.415 Divorced83051.90 Widowed1100.60.60 Separated1000.600 Prefer not to answer7614.43.80.7Religion Islam275115016.932.198 Christianity502031.31.20 Buddhism49602.560.40 Hinduism4302.51.90 Judaism2101.20.60 Atheism310119.400.7 Prefer not  to answer426226.23.81.3Employment Full-time1161012572.563.516.3 Part-time11546.83.12.6 Self-employed1320118.112.67.2 Homemaker1110.60.60.7 Student119916.95.759.5 Retired31501.99.40 Disabled- Unable to work000000 Unemployed but looking for work22141.31.39.2 Unemployed but not looking for work1030.601.9 Prefer not to answer2641.33.82.6

Experimental Design, Materials and Methods

4

Data was collected quantitatively applying the inclusion criteria, aged 18 years and above having voted in at least one general election, as the voting age in the target countries is 18 years. Corresponding with the principles of informed consent, potential participants were advised their participation was voluntary and that they were permitted to withdraw from the study at any time. Over a three-month period, 511 responses were received, of which 472 were validated. The online survey questionnaire comprised 46 measurement items for the six latent variables under investigation (see Table 2). The original version of the scale was in English. To develop a better understanding of the scale among respondents, it was translated from English into Urdu and Bahasa Melayu, the native languages of Pakistan and Malaysia respectively, to overcome the language barrier. A multilingual questionnaire ensures the understanding of respondents from different cultures with different education levels. This research instrument was translated and retranslated following the back-to-back translation procedure [8]. The items were adapted from past literature [[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]]. During the validation process, the items were reviewed by an expert panel and statistically tested by the pilot study.Table 2. Variable, conceptualization, and source.Table 2. VariablesConceptualizationCodeItemSourcePartisanshipPartisanship is a sense of closeness, attachment, and identification towards a particular political party.PS1To what extant do you practically support any political party?[[9], [10], [11]]PS2To what extent do you feel that you are closer to a specific political party?PS3How strong is your level of association to a specific political party?PS4To what extent being a partisan is important to you?PS5To what extent party identity is important to you?PS6When talking about your political party how often do you use “we” instead of “they”?PS7To what extent do you find your party affiliation stable during the election campaign?PS8To what extent do you find your party affiliation stable during the time of voting?PS9To what extent do you find your party affiliation stable after the election results are announced?Social Media UtilizationSocial media utilization refers to the intentional and frequent use of social media to seek, share, and understand political issues.SMUT1I use social media to get information about current political events.[12]SMUT2I use social media to get information about current public affairs.SMUT3I use social media to stay informed about the local community.SMUT4I use social media to get information about government policies.SMUT5I use social media to get information about current events from mainstream news social media site.SMUT6I use social media to get information about current events through friends and family.SMUT7I use social media to stay informed and get updates during elections.SMUT8I use social media to discuss political topics.SMUT9I use social media to stay informed about the people who are politically active on social media.Online Social CapitalOnline social capital refers to developing a connection with people across particular political interest groups.OSC1Interacting with people online makes me interested in things that happen outside of my interest area.[13]OSC2Interacting with people online makes me want to try new things.OSC3Interacting with people online makes me feel like part of a larger social community.OSC4Interacting with people online makes me feel connected to the world.OSC5I am willing to spend time to support online community activities.OSC6Interacting with people online let me meet new people to talk to.Voluntary Online Political ParticipationVoluntary online political participation refers to voluntary participation in diverse online political activities.VONP1I voluntarily participated in a political activity online.[[14], [15], [16]]VONP2I created and invited others to participate in an event related to a political event or social cause.VONP3I signed an e-mail or web petition that support political events or social cause.VONP4I forwarded a political e-mail or link to another person.VONP5I signed up online as a volunteer for political campaign.VONP6I made a donation to a political party or an organization through online sources.VONP7I list my political ideology on my social media.VONP8I made online groups of people to send and receive political updates.Voluntary Offline Political ParticipationVoluntary offline political participation refers to voluntary participation in diverse offline political activities.VOFP1I volunteered for a campaign or other political cause.[15,17]VOFP2I organized or participated in a political event.VOFP3I participated in demonstrations or protests.VOFP4I displayed a political button, sign or sticker.VOFP5I voted in an election.VOFP6I tried to influence how others would vote.VOFP7I got involved in public interest groups, political action groups, political clubs, or party committees.Political TrustPolitical trust refers to the confidence and trust on political institutions.PLT1The government of my country can be trusted.[18,19]PLT2The police in my country can be trusted.PLT3The courts in my country can be trusted.PLT4The judiciary system in my country can be trusted.PLT5The election commission of my country can be trusted.PLT6The local government of my country can be trusted.PLT7Politicians running the government in my country can be trusted.

We employed a snowball sampling technique to access participants for data collection purposes. This technique is recognized for its utility in accessing hard to reach populations, and for swiftly gathering data [8]. It began by connecting personal contacts and groups on social media platforms that were most closely associated with the target population. Some individuals from the contact list were asked to share the questionnaire among their contacts, and to request that they do the same. To ensure the respondents met the inclusion criteria a filter question was added at the start stating, “Do you use social media, living in the UK, Malaysia or Pakistan, belong to the age group 18 years and above, and have experience voting in General elections?”. Table 2 illustrates the measurement items, while Table 3 provides an assessment of validity and reliability.Table 3. Convergent validity and reliability assessment.Table 3. VariablesItemsLoadingMeanSD(α)CRAVEρAPartisanshipPS10.7333.091.3840.9600.9660.7580.966PS20.913PS30.907PS40.890PS50.897PS60.884PS70.892PS80.870PS90.837Social Media UtilizationSMUT10.8122.381.2940.9440.9520.6900.944SMUT20.850SMUT30.781SMUT40.844SMUT50.773SMUT60.892SMUT70.887SMUT80.794SMUT90.837Online Social CapitalOSC10.8552.070.9590.9210.9380.7170.923OSC20.870OSC30.853OSC40.864OSC50.811OSC60.827Voluntary Online Political ParticipationVONP10.8093.481.2670.9390.9500.7020.940VONP20.790VONP30.881VONP40.838VONP50.855VONP60.835VONP70.840VONP80.854Voluntary Offline Political ParticipationVOFP10.8663.401.4060.9490.9590.7690.951VOFP20.844VOFP30.928VOFP40.876VOFP50.922VOFP60.797VOFP70.898Political TrustPLT10.8522.801.0640.9230.930.6551.024PLT20.854PLT30.740PLT40.739PLT50.849PLT60.873PLT70.744

Limitations

None.

Ethics Statement

The study was exempted from ethical review and approval due to the absence of any ethical issues, such as the inclusion of vulnerable groups, the acquisition of sensitive information, exposure to distressing situations, intrusive activities, or the collection of biological materials related to medical research.

CRediT Author Statement

Rehan Tariq: Writing –original draft, Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology. Izzal Asnira Zolkepli: Supervision, Writing –review & editing, Funding acquisition. Pradeep Isawasan: Methodology, Project administration, Data curation. Chekfoung Tan: Investigation, Writing –review & editing, Resources. Muna Mohammad Alhammad: Validation, Writing –review & editing, Conceptualization.