Figure 1
Moderated mediation model
Comments: The diagram shows a conceptual model of the relationship between exposure to political influencer content and manifest participation, mediated by latent participation and moderated by general political interest and engagement with influencer.
Table 1
Respondents and their background information
| Variable | Number of respondents in full sample (N = 1,025) | % of N | Number of respondents in subsample (n = 680) | % of n | % in the population (15–65) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 519 | 51 | 337 | 50 | 51 |
| Female | 506 | 49 | 343 | 50 | 49 | |
| Age | 15–24 | 183 | 18 | 148 | 22 | 17 |
| 25–34 | 205 | 20 | 152 | 22 | 20 | |
| 35–44 | 199 | 19 | 135 | 20 | 20 | |
| 45–54 | 204 | 20 | 112 | 17 | 19 | |
| 55–65 | 234 | 23 | 133 | 20 | 23 | |
| Region | Western Finland | 243 | 24 | 167 | 25 | 24 |
| Helsinki – Uusimaa | 340 | 33 | 228 | 34 | 33 | |
| Southern Finland | 220 | 21 | 144 | 21 | 21 | |
| Northern and Eastern Finland | 222 | 22 | 140 | 21 | 22 | |
Table 2
Respondents who reported encountering or not encountering political influencer content, by age group (per cent)
| Answer | Age group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15–24 | 25–34 | 35–44 | 45–54 | 55–65 | |
| Yes | 81 | 74 | 68 | 55 | 57 |
| No | 19 | 26 | 32 | 45 | 43 |
Table 3
Respondents who reported their attitudes towards political influencer content, by age group (per cent)
| Attitude | Age group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15–24 | 25–34 | 35–44 | 45–54 | 55–65 | |
| Very positive | 14 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 6 |
| Somewhat positive | 32 | 27 | 21 | 16 | 12 |
| Neither negative nor positive | 37 | 36 | 41 | 34 | 39 |
| Somewhat negative | 8 | 15 | 21 | 24 | 22 |
| Very negative | 2 | 4 | 3 | 12 | 12 |
| Can’t say | 7 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 9 |
Figure 2
Respondents who reported encountering political content created by influencers during the past year at least once, by topic (per cent)
Comments: n = 680
Table 4
Respondents’ engagement with political topics, by age group (per cent)
| Variable | Age group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15–24 | 25–34 | 35–44 | 45–54 | 55–65 | ||
| Engagement with influencer content related to lifestyle politics | Liking | 42 | 20 | 21 | 16 | 14 |
| Commenting | 5 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 8 | |
| Sharing | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 1 | |
| Disliking | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 4 | |
| No engagement | 45 | 71 | 71 | 73 | 74 | |
| Engagement with influencer content related to formal politics | Liking | 29 | 14 | 13 | 13 | 11 |
| Commenting | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 8 | |
| Sharing | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 3 | |
| Disliking | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
| No engagement | 60 | 76 | 78 | 78 | 74 | |
Figure 3
Findings for the moderated mediation model with exposure to political influencer content (IV) and manifest participation (DV)
Comments: The moderators are mean-centred. Multicollinearity diagnostics are all good (tolerances range between .84 and .93 and VIF scores from 1.074 to 1.185).
Table A1
Regression analyses for Figure 3
Table A2
Regression analyses for Figure 3 with covariates
| Mediator (0–1) | DV (0–1) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | SE | B | SE | |
| Exposure to politics (0–1) | ***.16 | .04 | ||
| EXP*Engagement (0–1) | −.16 | .18 | ||
| EXP*Interest (0–1) | −.08 | .17 | ||
| Gender | ***.08 | .02 | ||
| Age group | ***−.03 | .00 | ||
| Education level | −.00 | .01 | ||
| Constant | ***.35 | |||
| N | 602 | |||
| R2 | .20 | |||
| Exposure to politics (0–1) | **.07 | .03 | ||
| Mediator (0–1) | ***.70 | .03 | ||
| Gender | .01 | .01 | ||
| Age group | −.01 | .01 | ||
| Education level | −.00 | .00 | ||
| Constant | **.09 | .03 | ||
| N | 602 | |||
| R2 | .60 | |||