Youth Media & Politics A New Identity

government official (9.2%), and had signed an online petition relating to politics or public affairs (5.7%).Table 7.5: Political Participation Offline and Online. TYPE OF PARTICIPATION PERFORMED ACTIVITY Political Participation Offline 45.2 Did volunteer work 34.7 Donated money to a charitable cause or organization 29.3 25.5 Worked on a community project 19.4 Attended a public rally or demonstration 14.3 12.7 Raised money for a charitable cause 12.7 Contacted a politician or government official (by telephone or letter) 7.3 7.3 Attended a public discussion forum Worked for a political organization or association 42.0 Signed a hardcopy petition (with your name) on politics or public affairs 39.5 38.2 Written a letter to the editor of a newspaper 20.1 Political Participation Online 19.1 Watched political videos online 15.6 16.6 Visited the website of a party or political organization 9.6 Communicated with friends, family or colleagues online about politics 9.2 Forwarded the link to a political video or news article 5.7 Posted comments on a news website or political blog Posted comments, questions, or information about politics on a website Submitted a political video to YouTube or similar online sites Donated money online to a charitable cause or organization Sent an email to a politician or government official Signed an online petition (with your name) related to politics or public affairsFigures are in percentages (N= 314). Overall, the findings suggest that young Malaysians participated only in a fairly limited number ofpolitical activities both offline and online. Not many improvements have occurred with regards to theinvolvement of young people in politics as the present findings are not that different from what wereobserved in Welsh’s (1996) and Merdeka Center’s (2007, 2009) study. The repressive mediaenvironment, fear of negative repercussions, and fear of the defamation charge might account for the lowlevels of online political participation despite the assumed democratization effects of the Internet andsocial media. Loo (2003) pointed out that, ambivalence towards active online as well as offline politicalactivism among many Malaysians are associated with the entrenched self-censorship mindset, learnedapprehension of open critical debates and fear of challenging the authority in the public sphere.

MEDIA USE AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATIONDoes media use in a highly regulated media environment correlate with political participation online andoffline? Table 7.6 presents the correlation coefficients of news media use and political participation. H1hypothesized that regular users of traditional, online, and social media will exhibit higher levels ofpolitical participation than those who use these media less regularly. The hypothesized relationship isgenerally supported. Among the traditional media, newspaper use was significantly associated withoffline and online political participation (r = .23, p < .01; r = .23, p < .01, respectively), while televisionnews and radio news were not correlated with offline but correlated with online (r = .17, p < .01, r = .22p < .01, respectively). Online news (r = .17, p < .01), cell phone news (r = .21, p < .01), email news (r=.23, p < .01), and social media news (r = .15, p < .05) were significantly related with offline politicalparticipation. Online news, cell phone news, email news, and social media news were significantlyrelated with online political participation (r= .25, p < .01, r= .22, p < .01, r= .26, p < .01, r= .13, p < .01,respectively). Offline political participation were significantly correlated with reading blog news (r= .28,p < .01), posting blog news (r= .23, p < .01), reading forum news (r= .25, p < .01), and social media talk(r= .23, p < .01). Reading blog news (r= .41, p < .01), posting blog news (r= .44, p < .01), reading forumnews (r= .37, p < .01), and social media talk (r= .41, p < .01) were as well significantly related withonline political participation. The findings corroborate previous findings (Shah, et al. 2005) thatindividuals who are regularly users of traditional, online and social media news are more likely to havehigher political participation.Table 7.6: Correlations between New Media Use and Political Participation. MEDIA POLITICAL POLITICAL PARTICIPATION PARTICIPATION Newspaper TV News OFFLINE ONLINE .23** Radio News .09 Online News .08 .17** Cell News .21** Email News .23**Social Media News .15** Internet Leisure .01 Internet Work .08 Social Media Use .06 Forum News .25**Reading Blog News .28**Posting Blog News .23** Social Media Talk .23**Note: ** Correlations significant at .01 level; * Correlations significant at .05 level.

H2 hypothesized that regular users of social media will exhibit a higher level of politicalparticipation than regular users of traditional and online media, and H3 hypothesized that regular users ofsocial media will more likely participate in politics online than offline. Both H2 and H3 were supported.As evident in Table 7.6, the strength of association between social media variables with online politicalparticipation is relatively much stronger than the relationship of traditional and online media withpolitical participation, which supports H2. The findings showing social media variables weresignificantly and strongly correlated with online political participation than with offline politicalparticipation is consistent with H3.CONCLUSIONThe present analysis has shaded light on online and social media use and its connection with offline andonline political participation among young Malaysians. Although young adults generally spend at leasttwo to three hours online daily for information and communication needs, the time spent for news is abouthalf an hour. Mainstream television and newspapers remain as sources of information and news but moreare using online and social media. This study has established evidence that young people use socialnetworking sites for information and news about national affairs, in addition to the online news sites.However, it remains unclear as to the motivation of online and social media use for political informationwhether it is more for entertainment and surveillance or social utility and guidance. Many young Malaysians are not really engaged in the discussion about national politics probably dueto the lack of interest in politics. They seem to be more passive than proactive or interactive consumers ofnews. A culture of keeping silence still prevails in this collectivistic society. Discourse on politics is yetto become a norm among young people. Nevertheless, the findings point to the fact that young Malaysianshave mixed views on how online and social media should be used for political engagement reflecting theexistence of different segments of young adults; those who are politically inclined and those who are lessor not politically inclined. Political participation among young Malaysian adults is not that encouraging. Nonetheless, the presentanalysis has established evidence that regular online and social media use is associated with offline andonline political participation. Online and social media users are more likely to engage in politicalactivities, strengthening the literature on the relationship between Internet technology use and politicalengagement. In the context of a highly regulated media environment in the country, political participationcan be fostered through online and social media use. Moreover, when comparing between online andoffline political participation, regular use of online and social media is associated more significantly withonline political participation than offline political participation. The Internet technology seemingly hasredefined young adults’ method of learning about and participating in politics. The feeling of indifference among youths to the extent that they feel they could not make a difference tothe political landscape of the country could change if their level of offline and online politicalengagements are enhanced and promoted. Online and social media afford excellent opportunities forgreater political participation. Youths should be encouraged to communicate openly of their thoughts andaspirations as concerned citizens. It will be interesting and important to examine future developments inthe pattern of Internet technology use in the public sphere among young Malaysian adults in light of the

amendment to the Universities and University Colleges Act and the new law that replaces the existingInternal Security Act. These developments are expected to lead to new potentials and challenges forgreater democracy and political engagement in Malaysia. Malaysia will remain a semi-democratic country if its people, particularly the young ones, are keptsilent and less engaged in the affairs of the country. Another important consideration is the implication ofthe relationships between online and social media use and political participation. Those politicallyinclined are more likely to use online and social media to boost their political participation, while thoseless politically interested are more likely to use online and social media but not to enhance politicalparticipation; thus widening the gap between these two groups of users with regards to politicalparticipation for better democracy. In other words, the pattern of online and social media use poses achallenging issue of the likelihood of a greater divide between politically inclined and politicallydisengaged individuals in the current already low political engagement of young people. Lastly, more research studies are needed to gain a comprehensive understanding on the uses of onlineand social media for political participation in the Malaysian context. Additionally, more sophisticatedstatistical analysis using a larger random sample should be carried out. The present analysis was aninitial attempt to shed light on online and social media use for political participation in a highly regulatedmedia environment. Overall, the study supports the idea that online and social media are increasinglyused for political information and communication, and that regular use of this media enhances politicalparticipation and more so for those with political interest.REFERENCESAbbott, J. P. (2004). The Internet, Reformasi and Democratization in Malaysia. In Gomez, EdmundTerence (Ed.), The State of Malaysia: Ethnicity, Equity and Reform (pp. 79- 104). New York:Routledge Curzon.Abu Hassan, M. (2002). The Internet in Malaysia? In Rao, Sandhya and Klopfenstein, Bruce C. (eds.),Cyberpath to Development in Asia: Issues and challenges. Westport: Praeger.Abu Hassan, M., & Ismail, N. (2001). Internet Usage among Malaysian Teenagers In Moving TowardsK-Society? Jaring Internet Magazine, August. Retrieved fromhttp://www.magazine.jaring.my/2001/august/.Brown, G.K. (2004). Between Gramsci and graffiti: opposition politics and the impact of the internetin Malaysia. In Abbott, J. P. (Ed.), the Political Economy of the Internet in Asia and the Pacific:Digital Divides, Economic Competitiveness, and Security Challenges. London: Praeger.Digital Media Across Asia. (2012). Digital media in Malaysia. Retrieved fromhttps://wiki.smu.edu.sg/digitalmediaasia/Digital_Media_in_Malaysia#Internet Digitalbuzz Blog.(2011). Infographic: Asia-Pacific Social Media Statistics. Retrieved fromhttp://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/infographic-asia-pacific-social-media-statistics-stats-facts/.George, C. (2006). Contentious Journalism and the Internet: Towards Democratic Discourse inMalaysia and Singapore. Singapore: Singapore University Press.Goi, C. L. (2011). The impact of web site attributes on Internet users’ Online Behaviour: MalaysianPerspective. 2010 International Conference on E-business, Management and Economics IPEDR, 3,47-50. Retrieved from http://www.ipedr.net/vol3/10-M00014.pdf.

Gong, R. (2011). Internet politics and state media Control: Candidate weblogs in Malaysia. Sociological Perspectives, 54(3), 307–328.Hashim, M. S., & Yusooff, F. (2000). Patterns of Internet Usage among Teenagers in Malaysia: A study in and around Multimedia Super Corridor, Paper presented at Sydney Forum on Youth and the Media. Sydney, Australia.Hung, Chin-Fu, & Chen, Po-Chi. (2009). The Politics of the Information and Communications Technologies in Malaysia: A Case Study of the 2008 General Election. Paper presented at Annual Conference of Southeast Asian Area Studies. Taiwan.Ho-Abdulah, I., & Hashim, R. S. (2009). The Metaphors of Malaysian Socio-Political Bloggers: A Shared Cognitive Schema. European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(3), 514-523. Retrieved from http://www.eurojournals.com/ejss_8_3_15.pdf.International Telecommunication Union. (2011). ICT Statistics 2009— Internet. Retrieved rom http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/world/world.html.Jano, Z., Omar, S. R., & Ahmat, N. N. (2008). Political Discourse in Malaysian blogs. In Worran Hj Kabul, Shiren Haron, Mat Zin Mat Kib and Abdul Kadir Rosline (eds.) Prosiding Seminar Politik Malaysia (pp. 59-68). Shah Alam: UPENA UiTM.Javis. (2011). Top 7 Social Media Sites In Malaysia For 2010. Retrieved from http://timugon.com/2011/01/top-7-social-media-sites-in-malaysia.html.Lee, J. C. H. (2007). BN – Political Dominance And General Election of 2004. Journal of Current Southeast Asia, 2, 38-65.Lim, M. K. (2009). The Function of Blogs in Democratic Discourse. Journal of Global Communication, 2(1), 313-326.Loo, E. (2003). Conceptual Barrier To ‘E-Democracy’ in Malaysia. Media Development, 50(1), 45–59.Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission. (2011). MCMC Pocketbook of Statistics 2011 Q2. Retrieved from http://www.skmm.gov.my/attachment/Statistics/Q2_2011_Eng.pdf.Merdeka Center. (2009). Merdeka Center Poll: Youth Well Informed but Politically Disconnected. Retrieved from http://www.merdeka.org/pages/02_research.html.Merdeka Center. (2007). National Youth Survey 2007. Perspectives on Civic Participation and Attitudes towards Democracy, Government and Political Participation. Retrieved from http://www.merdeka.org/pages/02_research.html.Mohd Sani, M. A., & Zengeni, K. T. (2010, July). Democratization in Malaysia: the impact of social media in the 2008 general election. Paper Presented to the 18th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia, Adelaide. Retrieved from http://asaa.asn.au/ASAA2010/reviewed_papers/Sani-M_Azizuddin_M.pdf.Muhamad, R. (2011). Political Blogging and the Public Sphere in Malaysia. Retrieved from http://cs.au.dk/~mkorn/citizengov/wpcontent/uploads/Muhamad.pdf.Mustafa, S. E., & Hamza, A. (2011). Online Social Networking: A New Form of Social Interaction. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 1, No. 2, July 2011. Retrieved from http://www.ijssh.org/papers/17-H006.pdf.Pandi, A. R. (2011). Blogging and Political Mobilization among Minority Indians in Malaysia. PhD Dissertation Submitted To the Graduate Division of the University Of Hawai‘I. Mānoa.Patrick, C. H., Wai, S. K., Arumugan, C. C., & Ang, P. A. (2011). Ethnic-Based Digital Divide And Internet Use Amongst Malaysian Students. Akademika, 81(1), 93-199.Pawenteh, L., & Rahim, S. (2000). Who me? A Cyberteen - Implications of Internet Usage on Realities and Identities of Malaysian Adolescents. Asia Pacific Media Educator, 9(July-December), 43-58.

Rajaratnam, U. D. (2009). Role of Traditional and Online Media in the 12th General Election, Malaysia. SEARCH: The Journal of the South East Asia Research Centre for Communications and Humanities. 1(1), 33-58.Reporters without Borders. (2011). Press Freedom Index 2011–2012. Retrieved from http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html.Salman, A., & Hashim, M. S. (2011). New Media and Democracy: The Changing Political Landscape in Malaysia. Akademika, 81(10, 15-21).Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P. J. R. & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and Expression in a Digital Age: Modeling Internet Effects on Civic Participation. Communication Research, 32, 531-565.Singh, H. (1998). Tradition, UMNO and Political Succession in Malaysia. Third World Quartely, 19(2), 241-254.Smeltzer, S. (2008). Blogging in Malaysia: Hope for a New Democratic Technology? Journal of International Communication, 14(1), 28-45.Smeltzer, S., & Keddy, D. (2010). Won’t You Be My (Political) Friend? The Changing Face(Book) Of Socio-Political Contestation In Malaysia. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 30(3/4), 421- 440.Soon, C. (2010). Politics as Usual? De-Equalizing Rhetoric of Political Parties on the World Wide Web. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 9(1), 1-21.Steele, J. (2009). Professionalism Online: How Malaysiakini Challenges Authoritarianism. International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(1), 91-111.Suffian, Ibrahim. (2008). The Successful Role of the Internet in the 2008 Malaysian General Elections. Hintergrundpapier, Nr. 9.Tan, J. K. L., & Goh, J. W. P. (2006). Why Do They Not Talk? Towards an Understanding of Students’ Cross-Cultural Encounters from an Individualism/Collectivism Perspective. International Education Journal, 7(5), 651-667.Tan. J. E., & Zawawi. I. (2008). Blogging and Democratization in Malaysia: A New Civil Society in the Making. Selangor, Malaysia: Strategic Information and Research Development Center.Uimonen, Paula. (2003). Mediated Management of Meaning: On-Line Nation Building in Malaysia. Global Networks, 3(3), 299-314.Ulicny, B., Matheus, C. J., & Kokar, M. M. (2010). Metrics for Monitoring a Socio-Political Blogosphere. A Malaysian Case. IEEE Internet Computing, March/April, 34-44.Welsh, B. (1996). Attitudes toward Democracy in Malaysia: Challenges to the Regime? Asian Survey, 36(9), 882-903.

THE MEDIATING EFFECT OF INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE BETWEEN MASS MEDIA 8 INFLUENCE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ VOTING INTENTION THE MEDIATING EFFECT OF INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE BETWEEN MASS MEDIA INFLUENCE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ VOTING INTENTION Saodah Wok Syed Arabi Idid Rashid MotenStudents are the backbone of the nation. The development of a nation is largely dependent upon the qualityof its human capital in terms of both intellect and character. Hence, the government has put much emphasison improving the country’s educational system and on re-examining policies and structures so that studentsbecome effective, independent and confident learners (East, 2005). This scenario is true of Malaysia aswell. The aim of all government policies has been to produce graduates who are knowledgeable, uprightand able to contribute meaningfully to the nation-building process. The role that students play in nation-building is very important. Earlier studies on students in Malaysian universities were not theoretical but descriptive in nature.Most of the studies were the hypotheses generating type, using the qualitative research design. This is thecase with scholarly studies provided by Mohd Abu Bakar (1973), Zainah Anwar (1990), Muhamad NurAnuar (1988), and Ramanathan (1985). Theirs may be considered as pioneering efforts in coveringstudent political activism in Malaysia.Teachers in universities are instrumental in increasing students’level of political awareness and political activities. Those in administration attempted to minimizestudent activities with limited success. Anuar (1988) emphasized the need to reform the society tofacilitate a better understanding of Islamic principles through the inculcation of moral values amonguniversity students. However, the study conducted by Saodah, Ezhar, Jusang and Abdul Muati (2011) was quantitative innature. They found support of the Agenda Setting Theory (Mc Combs & Shaw, 1972) which states that, thenews media consumption strongly influences interpersonal news discussion among youths in Malaysia.They found that, youths discussed on current news with family members and friends, resulting from theirhigh perception on media credibility, especially television. They found that, older Malay male youth were

found to consume television the most. The older Indian youth, instead, was dependant on newspapersprior to their discussing on matters further with family members and friends. Saodah et al. (2011) stoppedtheir analysis here. This study tries to proceed to the next stage of the agenda setting process by includingvoting intention as the outcome to be studied. Even though their study involved youths, and this studyinvolved university students; but most of the youths in their study were university students, too. Therefore,the study has posted the following objectives: a) To find out the level of use, attention to, trust on, and influence of the mass media and interpersonal sources perceived by university students. b) To determine the types of sources used for getting political information and current information. c) To ascertain the voting status and habits of university students. d) To test the relationships between media use, attention, trust and influence with party voting intention. e) To test the mediating effect of interpersonal influence on mass media influence for voting intention among university students.PREVIOUS STUDIESLimited Effect TheoryThe media do not directly affect the audience. Instead, its effects are mediated and enhanced by othervariables. One of the variables is the presence of opinion leaders who in turn are able to influence theopinions of their people and cliques into buying the product and services rendered. Here, the power lieson interpersonal communication as the prime mover of opinion change that will lead to attitude andbehavioral changes that follow suit. Media exposure plays an important role when affecting the audience.Besides that, selective exposure to the message that supports one’s belief and interest adds to thepropagation of the infusion of information dissemination that one likes to see and hear. Likewise,messages that contradict ones’ beliefs and likings are avoided and the effects thus become limited. The limited effect theory (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1944) of the mass media still holds truewhen coming to the elections; while interpersonal influence relates to the persuasion, decision-makingprocess and voting behavior. The main role of the mass media is to create awareness of current news andinformation as the starting point for the interpersonal discussion. As such, the agenda setting of the mediais normally followed by the discussion and in turn the interpersonal influence on voting behavior.Agenda Setting TheoryAccording to McCombs and Shaw (1972), the mass media has an agenda setting function. Agenda settingdescribes the process by which the mass media select and concentrate on certain issues, leading people toperceive those issues as more salient or more important than others. This also means that the mediaactually gives greater emphasis to certain news and places, thus resulting in the news to be moreprominently found in newspapers or on newscasts.

Rogers (2002) suggested that the ‘intermedia processes’ of media affect the ways in which mediamessages stimulate interpersonal communication. He pointed out that, the mass media often have effectsthrough interpersonal communication with others. These media effects can be perceived as moreimportant especially when media messages encourage interpersonal communication about certain issues.In other words, mass media coverage of a certain important issue can stimulate interpersonalcommunication among people, which in turn, influences their behavior.Integrating Limited Effect Theory and Agenda Setting TheoryThe limited effect theory has its own benefits over the powerful effect model in taking into considerationthe importance of interpersonal influence in the decision-making process. Similarly, the agenda settingtheory highlights the importance of interpersonal discussion, after the media role of dissemination ofinformation, current and/or political, has taken place. Together, this study tries to incorporate both theories and apply them to current and political newswith voting intention. This is because each theory strengthens one another to make this study meaningfuland to shed some light on students’ voting intentions. To cater for the needs of the study and to tailor to thehypothesis development, a few major topics are discussed. They are media credibility, mediaconsumption, voting intention and media, and voting intention and interpersonal discussion.PERCEIVED MEDIA CREDIBILITYMany studies in Malaysia (Saodah et al. 2011; Syed Arabi & Saodah, 2006; Saodah & Shafizan Mohd,2008) found that, television is the main source of getting current news and/or political information. Manyfound that television is perceived as the most credible media, followed by newspapers and the Internet.This is because, current news and/ or political affairs news, locally and internationally, are disseminateddaily. Furthermore, it is very difficult to differentiate between current news and political news. Thisimplies that voters rely on the media to provide them with current and political informationsimultaneously. Despite the fact that the Internet is the newest medium in the Malaysian media landscape,it is found to be popular among youths and university students (Saodah, Syed Arabi, & Norealyna, 2012). Media credibility is the degree of believability of the source of information as perceived by anaudience (Syed Arabi & Saodah, 2006). According to Bucy (2003), the audience’s perception of newchannel believability is distinct from the believability of journalists, media organizations, or the contentof the news itself. A number of factors contribute to making a source or channel credible, namely:objectivity, accessibility, freedom to report, currency of the report, and relative expertise. Gunther (1992)argued that a person’s involvement in an issue is a good predictor of perceived credibility. People dependon the media to get information to make decisions and judgments. Information from the media is also usedto augment information obtained from interpersonal sources. Many factors are affecting media credibility, with media use and media reliance being frequentlyexamined. Existing literature contends that increases in media use are usually accompanied by enhancedcredibility perception, regardless of media type (Bucy, 2003; Seo & Lim, 2008; Stavrositu & Sundar,

2006). This means that media use (or media exposure) is always related to media credibility. Previousresearch studies on media credibility focused on comparing news credibility by focusing on comparingtelevision to newspapers (Kiousis, 2001; Schafer, 2010; Yuan & Kosicki, 2003). The results of thesestudies have been mixed, with some studies suggesting that television is the most credible medium,followed by newspapers, and radio (Ibelema & Powell, 2001) while others provide evidence thatnewspapers have surpassed television in the credibility rating (Kiousis, 2001; Flanagan & Metzger,2000). A few other studies compared the credibility of both new media and traditional media. Thesestudies have shown that Internet credibility is making its mark alongside television (Kiousis, 2001) andnewspapers (Shafer, 2010). Wanta (1997) found that, individuals’ perceptions of the credibility of the media and their level ofreliance on news media content for information play important roles in the agenda setting process. Ifindividuals believe in the news media and are highly reliant on the news media for political information,they will tend to demonstrate strong agenda setting effects (Wanta & Ghanem, 2001).Media ConsumptionMedia consumption is a measure of audience exposure and measures attention given to the mass media,encompassing television, newspapers, and the Internet. Audience exposure to each medium is calculatedas the time spent in minutes per day for television and for the newspaper whereas for the Internet, it is thetime spent in minutes per week. On the other hand, the attention to the mass media is deemed the focusgiven to watching TV, reading newspaper, and surfing the Internet. The result of audience exposure to eachmedium with attention given to a particular medium is labeled as media consumption, specifically,television consumption, newspaper consumption, and Internet consumption. The primary mission of the news media is to provide the public with the information that helps themmake informed decisions about important public and civic affairs (Kovach & Rosentiel, 2001). Severalstudies have shown that younger people read newspapers and watch television news less than the oldergeneration (Lauf, 2001; Poulus, 2010). Older people are more likely to seek information fromnewspapers, television news, and magazines than are younger people (Lauf, 2001). Currently, the youngergenerations use the Internet more than television and newspapers (Dimmick, Chen & Li, 2004; Schafer,2010) as a source of information. However, in these modern times, the Internet has become an influential political news media, morethan newspapers. A study by the World Association of Newspapers (2007) revealed that young peopleconsidered the Internet as their first choice for news and information. Young people have become moredependent on the Internet for all purposes, including news gathering (Lee, 2006; Vissers & Quintelier,2009). Malaysian youth use the Internet as a significant communication tool for gathering politicalinformation. Similarly, the use of online news media is also common in the political arena in Singaporefor distributing political news and information to communities (Soon & Kluver, 2007). Thus, the type of media used in gathering political information and/or other information seems to haveswitched from newspapers and television to the Internet as the source of information Ali Salman andSamsudin (2012) suggested that efforts should be made to get the youth involved in online social politicaldiscussion for the betterment of the society. They argued that Internet usage depends on the needs and the

current situation of the users to their environment. The youth has to be encouraged to participate inpolitical discussion for the benefit of the country. Specifically, Mahaman and Saodah (2012) found thatthose who use Facebook have a positive relationship in political knowledge among the youth in the Sub-Saharan African context. However, the youth were not actively involved in political activities, but were rather high in theirpolitical knowledge and political interest especially among Facebook political group users. Mohd Hilmi,Norhafizah and Azhar (2012) found that, the media plays an important role in the coverage of by-electionnews in Permatang Pauh. Specifically, the newspaper plays an important role in covering political issuesin Bahasa Malaysia for both mainstream newspapers (Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian) and partisanpapers (Harakah and Suara Keadilan).Voting Intention and MediaThe election is mandatory for Malaysian citizens upon reaching 21 years old. As such, most students areentitled to express and exercise their rights in voting for their own form of government. Malaysians havebeen going to the polls since 1959. The most recent election was in 2013. Participation in electoralactivities, for example, voting, has been widely studied. The role of the media during the elections hasbeen studied either in the form of content analyzing the media (Faridah, Chang, & Kuik, 2012) or throughsurveys (Syed Arabi & Saodah, 2004; 2006) by relating the voters use of the media with their choice ofparty. Malaysians prefer watching television and reading newspapers than referring to other media such asradio and magazine for political issues. Indeed, the dominant media in Malaysia were strongly supportiveof Barisan National, the ruling party, ever since Malaysia posted its first election (Syed Arabi & Saodah,2006). Therefore, elections are closely related to media performance. People depend on the media forinformation to make decisions on their party choice.Voting Intention and Interpersonal DiscussionScheufele (2002) found that, there was a positive relationship between mass media use, includingnewspapers and television hard news, with interpersonal discussions on politics. Through a surveyadministered to a randomly selected sample of residents in Austin, Texas, Kiousis (2001) discovered amoderate negative link between interpersonal communication and the credibility perception on televisionnews but not for newspapers. The WAN Young Readership Development Project (2007) revealed that,young people listed ‘discussion with friends’ as the top sources for news and information, and this wasranked higher than television and newspapers. In particular, Social Networking Sites (SNS) such asFacebook, Myspace, and Twitter, appear to be key resources for spreading news to most young people. Active participation of interpersonal discussions about news is important. Through discussions,people develop and validate their own thoughts and opinions on issues. Scheufele (2002) argued thattalking about certain issues with other citizens is a necessary condition in order to fully understand thoseissues. Interpersonal discussions with peers or family members help not only to reinforce pre-existinginformation, but also helps make people aware of new information (Saodah et al. 2011). During the

election campaigns, the active listeners will have the opportunity to see and listen to the candidatethemselves. This is part of interpersonal influence because the voters and the candidates are at the sameplace and time. This is different from reading the coverage in the newspaper and coverage on televisionbecause the pro-ruling party media will definitely post coverage on the good things about the candidateand the issues that are raised.THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES OF THESTUDYBased on the discussions above, the theoretical framework for the study is developed (Figure 8.1)involving media influence, interpersonal influence and voting intention. Figure 8.1: Conceptual Framework.To complement the theoretical framework, four hypotheses were postulated. The hypotheses of the studyare:GH1: There is a positive relationship between media influence and voting intention.GH2: There is a positive relationship between interpersonal influence and voting intention.GH3: There is a positive relationship between media influence and interpersonal influence.GH4: Interpersonal influence mediates between media influence on voting intention.

CURRENT RESEARCH STUDYResearch DesignThe study used a quantitative research design. It specifically used a cross-sectional survey. Theadvantages of using the survey design are that: a) It is able to investigate problems in a realistic environment. b) It is cheap, compared to the numbers of respondents obtained to the amount to funds used through the use of questionnaires c) It is able to achieve a high response rate that is easily obtained within a short time span.Population of the Study and Sampling ProcedureThe population of the study is undergraduate students in Malaysia. There are 20 public universities(IPTAs) and 18 private universities (IPTS’) in Malaysia. The population size of the study is 375,000undergraduates. However, for this study 20 IPTAs and 8 IPTS’ were considered. To obtain the sample forthe study, the stratified quota sampling method was employed. The stratum used was the type of university,that is, IPTAs and IPTS’. A maximum of 500 undergraduates responded to the study, and this numbervaried from university to university. The data collection phase was from March to May 2011. The totalnumber of respondents was 9,036 with 6,408 coming from the 20 IPTAs and 2,628 from eight IPTS’nationwide.Research InstrumentQuestionnaires were used for the study. It contained nine parts. However, for this study only three partswere considered for the analysis.Part 1Explored the demographic information of respondents where 12 questions were asked. Such questionsincluded: gender, ethnicity, age, religion, university, and field of study, state of origin, part-time work,and membership in any association and how they normally introduced themselves.Part 2Determined issues related to the mass media. It consisted of five questions, namely; frequency ofmedia use per week, media trust, sources of federal government and political information, interest incurrent news and political news, and sources of influence on voting.

Part 3Investigated the voting status and voting intention of undergraduates. Questions 1-5 asked on thevoting status of respondents, factors influencing them to register as voters, influential peopleinfluencing the respondents to register as voters, important factors influencing them to vote, and theparty that they would vote. Question 6 is on the level of support of the selected party. Question 7 istapping the respondents’ perception on public acceptance for the National Front (BN) and theAlternative Party (BA). Other questions were on the characteristics of the party in influencing votingintention.Validity and ReliabilityThe instrument was pilot tested in the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) on 500 students,who were excluded from the final data collection. The instrument was also checked for its face validityand construct validity. Reliability tests were also performed on the items that were developed that weremore than three items and more than a three-point scale. Only items that were reliable were used for thestudy.Data AnalysisData were analyzed using SPSS Win 16 for both descriptive and inferential statistics. Both descriptiveand inferential statistics were used to analyze the data to fulfill the objectives of the study. For thedescriptive statistics part; frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviation, and cross-tabulationswere obtained. Correlation and regression analyses were performed to obtain the results to help answerobjectives 4 and 5 of the study besides to test the research hypotheses postulated.OUTCOMES OF THE STUDYThis section first describes the characteristics of the respondents prior to answering the researchobjectives and testing the research hypotheses.Respondents of the StudyThe respondents of the study consisted of 61.5% female students compared to 38.5% male (Table 8.1).This composition reflects the population of the higher institutions of the nation. Another interesting featureof the respondents is its representativeness according to the Malaysian population in terms of racialdistribution, that is: 60.9% Malay, 27.8% Chinese and 11.3% Indian/Others. Since the respondents wereuniversity students, the 21-25 year old age bracket (66.9%) represented two-thirds of the sample. A totalof 70.9% of the sample was from IPTAs while the rest was from IPTS’ (29.1%). Many of the respondents(63.9%) claimed that they were not members of any association. However, those who were members ofassociations belonged to sports and games clubs (28.3%), art and culture (25.2%), and/or youth

associations (24.8%). Table 8.1: Respondents’ Attributes. RESPONDENTS’ ATTRIBUTES FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE GENDER Male 3463 38.5 Female 5539 61.5 Total 9003 100.0 ETHNICITY 5500 60.9 Malay 2512 27.8 544 6.0 Chinese 480 5.3 Indian 9036 100.0 Others Total 2812 31.3 AGE 6008 66.9 161 1.8 20 and less 8981 100.0 21-25 6408 70.9 26 and above 2628 29.1 Total 9036 100.0 UNIVERSITY 183 5.5 IPTA 943 28.3 IPTS 663 19.9 Total 841 25.2 782 23.5 ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP 826 24.8 Yes 136 4.1 No 352 10.6 Total 843 25.3TYPE OF ASSOCIATION (N=3230)* * * Political Affiliation Sports and Games Cadet and Uniform Arts and Culture Volunteerism Youth Association School Debating Association Martial Arts Other Club/Society/Association * Multiple Responses

Mass Media Influence AttributesTable 8.2 presents the mass media influence attributes according to television, newspapers, radio, and theInternet. The bulk of the students (42.2%) surfed the Internet daily. Surprisingly, many university studentsneither watched television (36.6%) nor listened to the radio (32.2%). However, many do readnewspapers, but not on a regular basis as many read them two to three days a week (38.1%). About two-thirds of the students believed/trusted television (67.1%), newspapers (65.2%), radio (68.9%) and theInternet (61.6%). The students admitted that they were ‘moderately/much’ getting political and FederalGovernment information from television (68.3%) and newspapers (68.5%). On the other hand, thestudents tended to ‘moderately’ (35.9%) get such information from the radio and some of them (34.1%)got ‘much’ of the information from the Internet. When asked the extent of media influence on supportingpolitical parties, 32.2% of the students said that they were ‘moderately’ influenced by television,newspapers (32.3%) and the Internet (31.0%). Radio, on the other hand, was not the medium for politicalparty influence at all (32.3%). Table 8.2: Mass Media Influence Attributes.MASS MEDIA TELEVISION (%) NEWSPAPERS (%) RADIO (%) INTERNET (%) INFLUENCEATTRIBUTES 2798 (32.2) 74 (0.8) 992 (11.4) 106 (1.2)MEDIA USE (DAYS) 1065 (12.3) 188 (2.1) 1093 (12.6) 472 (5.3)0 3180 (36.6) 1318 (15.1) 790 (9.1) 584 (6.5) 672 (7.7) 948 (10.6)1 1310 (15.1) 1192 (13.6) 600 (6.9) 2812 (31.4) 670 (7.7) 3781 (42.2)2 1305 (15.0) 1631 (18.7) 8680 (100.0) 8965 (100.0) 2.44 (2.33) 5.84 (1.47)3 1064 (12.2) 1698 (19.4) 365 (4.2) 313 (3.5)4 520 (6.0) 1056 (12.1) 1681 (19.1) 2060 (23.2) 6053 (68.9) 5471 (61.6)5 351 (4.0) 695 (8.0) 1042 (11.7) 690 (7.9) 8886 (100.0)6 361 (4.2) 508 (5.8) 8789 (100.0) 2.81 (0.68) 2.80 (0.63)7 597 (6.9) 636 (7.3)Total 8688 (100.0) 8734 (100.0)Mean (SD) 1.99 (2.17) 2.83 (2.05) MEDIABELIEVABILITY/ TRUST1 (Do not believe at 523 (5.9) 376 (4.2) all)2 (Do not believe) 1382 (15.6) 1346 (15.1)3 (Believe) 5959 (67.1) 5799 (65.2)4 (Believe very 1013 (11.4) 1368 (15.4) much)Total 8877 (100.0) 8889 (100.0)Mean (SD) 2.84 (0.69) 2.92 (0.68)

EXTENT OF 422 (4.8) 420 (4.8) 1432 (16.5) 410 (4.7) GETTING 1259 (14.3) 996 (11.3) 2300 (26.4) 873 (10.0) 3059 (34.7) 277 (31.7) 2128 (35.9) 2151 (24.7) POLITICAL AND 2957 (33.6) 3231 (36.8) 1472 (16.9) 2966 (34.1) FEDERAL 1115 (12.7) 1350 (15.4) 2303(26.5) 8812 (100.0) 8776 (100.0) 369 (4.2) 8703 (100.0) GOVERNMENT 3.35 (1.03) 3.47 (1.04) 8701 (100.0) 3.68 (1.11) INFORMATION 2.66 (1.07) 1984 (22.4) 1994 (22.6) 1718 (19.7) 1 (None) 2242 (25.3) 2178 (24.7) 2835 (32.3) 1802 (20.7) 2851 (32.2) 2854 (32.3) 2623 (29.9) 2698 (31.0) 2 (A little) 1396 (15.8) 1385 (15.7) 2508 (28.5) 1697 (19.5) 3 (Moderate) 386 (4.4) 414 (4.7) 699 (8.0) 800 (9.2) 8859 (100.0) 8825 (100.0) 120 (1.4) 8715 (100.0) 4 (Much) 2.53 (1.14) 2.54 (1.15) 8785 (100.0) 2.76 (1.25) 2.15 (1.02) 5 (Very much) Total Mean (SD)EXTENT OF MEDIA INFLUENCE ON SUPPORTINGPOLITICAL PARTY 1 (No influence) 2 (A little influence) 3 (Moderate influence) 4 (Much influence) 5 (Very much influence) Total Mean (SD)Interpersonal Influence AttributesThe interpersonal influence was also asked in the study. The interpersonal influence was tapped fromcampaign, association, family, and friends. Table 8.3 presents the results revealing a parallel trendbetween the extent of getting political and Federal Government information and the extent of interpersonalinfluence on supporting political party. It is found that campaign (28.3%) and association (33.4%) werenot students’ sources for getting political and Federal Government information. In addition, the campaign(32.1%) and association (36.6%), too, are not influencing the students in supporting any political party atall. On the other hand, family (34.6%) and friends (35.3%) are sought ‘moderately’ for getting politicaland Federal Government information. Family (29.1%) and friends (30.2%), too, are the two majorinterpersonal influencing sources on supporting the political party. Table 8.3: Interpersonal Influence Attributes.INTERPERSONAL CAMPAIGN ASSOCIATION FAMILY FRIENDS ATTRIBUTES

EXTENT OF 2448 2888 1019 879 GETTING (28.3) (33.4) (11.7) (10.0) 1837 2088 1886 1930 POLITICAL AND (21.2) (24.1) (21.6) (22.0) FEDERAL 2313 2453 3022 3104 (26.7) (28.4) (34.6) (35.3) GOVERNMENT 1404 952 1976 2124 INFORMATION (16.2) (11.0) (22.6) (24.2) 652 271 840 754 1 (None) (7.5) (3.1) (9.6) (8.6) 8654 8652 8743 8791 2 (A little) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) 2.31 2.15 2.84 2.59 3 (Moderate) (1.16) (1.10) (1.24) (1.18) 4 (Much) 2802 3183 1617 2001 (32.1) (36.6) (18.4) (22.8) 5 (Very much) 2193 2267 1867 2115 (25.1) (26.1) (21.2) (24.1) Total 2300 2222 22564 2653 (26.3) (25.5) (29.1) (30.2) Mean (SD) 1072 802 1854 1484 (12.3) (9.2) (21.0) (16.9) EXTENT OF 368 225 906 534INTERPERSONAL (4.2) (2.6) (10.3) (6.1) 8735 8699 8808 8787 INFLUENCE ON (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) SUPPORTING 2.53 2.26 2.97 2.99POLITICAL PARTY (1.26) (1.13) (1.14) (1.10) 1 (No influence)2 (A little influence) 3 (Moderate influence) 4 (Much influence) 5 (Very much influence) Total Mean (SD) The students were also asked the extent of new attention given to current news and political news(Table 8.4). The students claimed that they pay attention to current news more than to political news.Specifically, 42.5% of the students indicated that they pay ‘much’ attention to current news while forpolitical news, 36.4% only ‘moderately’ pay attention to it.

Table 8.4: Extent of News Attention. EXTENT OF NEWS ATTENTION* (%)EXTENT OF NEWS 1 2 3 4 5 Mean SD % ATTENTIONCURRENT NEWS 196 384 2197 3790 2352 3.87 0.93 77.4 (4.3) (24.6) (42.5) (26.4)(N=8919) (2.2)POLITICAL NEWS 1330 2346 3240 1301 677 2.74 1.12 54.8 (26.4) (36.4) (14.6) (7.6)(N=8894) (15.0)*1=none (1-20%), 2=a little (21-40%), 3=moderate (41-60%), 4=much (61-80%), 5=very much (81-100).Students’ Voting Status and Voting HabitsThe study also explores the voting status and habits of the students (Table 8.5). It is found that, only half ofthe students (50.9%) had already registered to vote for the 13th General Election while many still did notdo so (49.1%); probably because they were not qualified (38.5%) due to the age requirement of 21 yearsold to vote. This meant that, there were 10.6% students who were qualified but had not registered asvoters yet. Their sources of influence as voters were many, but mainly due to self-decision (73.7%),family influence (26.8%), and friend influence (11.3%). The sources influencing students’ interest inpolitics were friends (49.0%), parents (48.3%) and/or other family members (44.9%). Other sources suchas politicians (28.0%) and teachers/ lecturers (24.4%) were minimal influences. Table 8.5: Voting Status and Habits. VOTING ATTRIBUTES FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE REGISTERED VOTER 4546 50.9 Yes 4392 49.1 No 8938 100.0 TotalSOURCES INFLUENCING AS A VOTER * 6589 73.7 (N=8938) 2398 26.8 Self decision 1009 11.3 Family influence 922 10.3 Friend influence 504 5.6 Mass media influence 194 2.2 Political party influence Association influence * * TotalSOURCES INFLUENCING INTEREST IN 2228 49.0 POLITICS* (N=4546) Friends

Parents 2197 48.3 Family members 2041 44.9 1275 28.0 Politician 1111 24.4 Teachers/Lecturers * * Total* Multiple ResponsesVoting IntentionIn terms of voting intention, a few questions were asked (Table 8.6a). The three most important things thatmatter for voting are the potential party to vote for, and party characteristics that are given priority invoting. It is found that issues raised (21.9%) and political ideology (21.7%), followed by the candidate(14.5%) play important roles in making a decision on whom to vote for. However, the students were stillnot sure of voting in the 13th General Election (53.3%). Nonetheless, some had already decided based onparty, that is, Barisan National (BN) at 22.5% and Barisan Alternatif (BA) with slightly more responses(24.2%). The reasons for selecting a certain party were based on ‘to maintain Islam as Malaysian nationalreligion’ (42.2%), ‘to give priority to moral development’ (37.6%), ‘to fight for all ethnic rights’(36.9%), and ‘to uphold democratic way of life’ (34.5%). Table 8.6a: Voting Intention. MOST IMPORTANT MATTERS FOR VOTING FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE Issues Raised 1834 21.9 1819 21.7 Political Ideology 1220 14.5 Candidate 1101 13.1 1057 12.6 Basic Amenities 793 9.5 Personality 302 3.6 190 2.3 Political Party 74 0.9 Others 8390 100.0 Ethnicity 1955 22.5 Candidate Wealth 2102 24.2 Total 4630 53.3 8687 100.0 POTENTIAL PARTY TO VOTE BN (UMNO, MCA, MIC, Gerakan) 3666 42.2 PA (PAS, DAP, PKR) Not sure yet TotalPARTY CHARACTERISTICS GIVEN PRIORITY (N=8687)To maintain Islam as Malaysian National Religion

To give priority to moral development 3263 37.6 To fight for all ethnic rights 3208 36.9 2999 34.5 To uphold democratic way of life 2537 29.2 To defend national security 2420 27.9 2314 26.6 To give priority national physical development To fight for own race/ethnicity 2130 24.5To encourage progressive community using science 1734 20.0 and modern technologies 1077 12.4 To help strengthen national understanding * * To fight for the women rights in the nation Total* Multiple Responses. Additional analyses were carried out to determine the profile of potential voters among students forthe two parties, that is, BN and BA (Table 8.6b). It can be summarized that BN will have more votersfrom IPTAs coming from Malays, Indians and ‘Others’ female students; and from ‘Others’ male students.On the contrary, BA potential voters tend to be coming from IPTAs: Malay, Chinese and Indian males andfrom Chinese female students. The IPTS, on the other hand, will have their student voters for BN comingfrom Malay, Indian and ‘Others’females and also from ‘Others’ male students. Similar, to IPTA, IPTSstudents who are Malay, Chinese and Indian, the males will vote for BA. The female Chinese students,too, will vote for BA. Table 8.6b: Voting Intention by Student Profile. IPT RACE GENDER VOTING INTENTION (%) TOTALIPTA Malay Chinese Male BN BA NS 1581 (100.0) Indian Female 3001 (100.0) Others 375 (22.6) 501 (31.7) 723 (45.7) 4582 (100.0) Malay Total 405 (100.0) Male 825 (27.5) 522 (17.4) 1654 (55.1) 577 (100.0) Female 982 (100.0) Total 1182 (25.8) 1023 (22.3) 2377 (51.9) Male 88 (100.0) Female 64 (15.8) 110 (27.2) 231 (57.0) 107 (100.0) Total 195 (100.0) Male 80 (13.9) 102 (17.7) 395 (68.5) 132 (100.0) Female 263 (100.0) Total 144 (14.7) 212 (21.6) 626 (63.7) 395 (100.0) 305 (100.0) 24 (27.3) 24 (27.3) 40 (45.5) 403 (100.0) 708 (100.0) 35 (32.7) 19 (17.8) 53 (49.5) 59 (30.3) 43 (22.1) 93 (47.7) 41 (31.1) 25 (18.9) 66 (50.0) 89 (33.8) 22 (8.4) 152 (57.8) 130 (32.9) 47 (11.9) 218 (55.2) Male 81 (26.6) 82 (26.9) 142 (46.6) Female 107 (26.6) 96 (23.8) 200 (49.6) 188 (26.6) 178 (25.1) 342 (48.3) Total

Chinese Male 68 (10.7) 298 (46.9) 270 (42.5) 636 (100.0) Female 86 (11.1) 201 (26.0) 485 (62.8) 772 (100.0)IPTS Indian 154 (10.9) 499 (35.4) 755 (53.6) 1408 (100.0) Total 27 (18.1) 47 (31.5) 75 (50.3) 149 (100.0) Others Male 50 (28.7) 39 (22.4) 85 (48.9) 174 (100.0) Female 77 (23.8) 86 (26.6) 160 (49.5) 323 (100.0) Total 8 (22.2) 26 (72.2) 36 (100.0) Male 6 (21.4) 2 (5.6) 19 (67.9) 28 (100.0) Female 14 (21.9) 3 (10.7) 45 (70.3) 64 (100.0) Total 5 (7.8) A further question was asked to elucidate the perception of students pertaining to the acceptance of thepolitical party, that is, BN (mean=3.11) and BA (mean=3.35). Results showed that BA is perceived to bewell-received by its potential voters compared to the BN coalition party (Table 8.7). About one-third ofBA supporters (33.7%) positively think that they would definitely vote for BA. On the other hand, BNsupporters were either not sure (36.4%) or just ‘agree’ that they would vote for BN (36.7%). Table 8.7: Perception on Voters’ Acceptance of Political Party and Voting Intention.PERCEIVED ACCEPTANCE TOWARDS BN (%) PR (%) POLITICAL PARTY Lost Acceptance 940 (10.9) 465 (5.5) 1420 (16.4) 710 (8.3) Receiving Less Acceptance 2926 (33.9) 3879 (45.5) Not Sure 2457 (28.4) 2307 (27.1) 899 (10.4) 1156 (13.6) Still Receiving Acceptance 8642 (100.0) 8517 (100.0) Maintaining Strong Acceptance 3.11 (1.14) 3.35 (1.00) Total 71 (3.7) 78 (3.8) Mean (SD) 62 (3.3) 101 (4.9) INTENTION TO VOTE 693 (36.4) 579 (28.3) Strongly disagree 698 (36.7) 597 (29.2) Disagree 380 (20.0) 689 (33.7) 1904 (100.0) 2044 (100.0) Not sure 3.66 (0.956) 3.84 (1.066) Agree Strongly agree Total Mean (SD)Relationship between Voting Intention and Selected Media-RelatedVariablesMedia-related variables that were tested for voting intention among the students were: media use, media

trust, media attention (current and political news), and media influence. The media considered for thisstudy were: television, newspapers, radio, and the Internet. The variables were the average of the media.Table 8.8 presents the correlation values for voting intention and media-related variables for both BN andBA. It is found that, for BN potential student voters, there are positive relationships between theirintention to vote for BN and media use (r=.114, p=.0 00), media trust (r=.103, p=.000), media attention(r=.326, p=.000), and media influence (r=.263, p=.000). All relationships are rather weak. As for BA potential student voters, it is found that, media trust (r=-.146, p=.000) and media influence(r=-.005, p=.421) are negatively related to voting intention. Media trust is significantly but negativelyrelated to voting intention; however, media influence is not significantly related to voting intention at all.On the other hand, media attention (r=.304, p=.000) has a weak positive relationship with votingintention. Therefore, media use and media attention are significant and positively related to votingintention.Table 8.8: Relationships between Voting Intention and Selected Media-Related Variables. VOTING INTENTION VARIABLES BARISAN NASIONAL (BN) BARISAN ALTERNATIF Media Use r p N rP Media TrustMedia Attention 1718 .114 .000 1822 .055 .010 Media 1718 .103 .000 1822 -.146 .000 Influence 1718 .326 .000 1822 .304 .000 1718 .263 .000 1822 -.005 .421 When determining the potential BN student bodies, it is found that media attention (Beta=.259,t=10.226, p=.000) and media influence (Beta=.142, t=5.599, p=.000) are able to predict for BN (Table8.9). The best predictor for BA potential student voters is media attention (Beta=.301, t=13.006, p=.000).Unfortunately, the potential BA youth voters do not trust the media (Beta=-.108, t=-4.650, p=.000). This isbecause only the mainstream newspapers were included in the calculation of the mean for media-relatedvariables. Party newspapers were excluded in the study, although asked in the questionnaire. This meansthat media attention is a predictor regardless of party-affiliation. Regardless of media-related variables,the potential voters for BN and BA have already decided on the party and candidate that they would votefor. The BA potential voters (t=19.500, p=.000) are more definite in their decision than the BN potentialvoters (t=11.210, p=.000).Table 8.9: Simple Multiple Regression for Party Voting Intention with Media-Related Variables. MODEL UNSTANDARDIZED STANDARDIZED t p COEFFICIENT BN .000Constant B STD. ERROR BETA .632Media use 1.895 .169 11.210 0.008 .017 .011 0.479

Media trust 0.103 .052 .046 1.994 .046Media attention 0.300 .029 .259 10.226 .000Media influence F=62.919; df=4,1713; Adj. R square=.126 5.599 .000 BA 0.147 .026 .142 19.500 .000 Constant 3.190 .164 1.300 .194 Media use -4.650 .000 Media trust 0.024 .019 .029 13.006 .000Media attention -2.022 .043Media influence -0.210 .045 -.108 0.364 .028 .301 -0.057 .028 -.048 F=55.569; df=4,1817; Adj. R square=.107The Mediating Effect of Interpersonal Influence between MediaInfluence and Voting IntentionBefore analyzing the mediating effect of the interpersonal influence between media influence and votingintention, zero-order correlation values for the related variables are presented in Table 8.10a. It is foundthat, for BN potential voter, media influence has a strong relationship with interpersonal influence(r=.683, p=.000) and a weak relationship with voting intent (r=.263, p=.000). The relationship betweeninterpersonal influence and voting intention is also weak (r=.212, p=.000). This means that the media areable to influence interpersonal discussion which in turn influences the voting intention among studentpotential voters. As for BA potential voters, similar results exist. The relationship between media influence ismoderate with interpersonal influence (r=.519, p=.000) and negligible for media influence and votingintention (-.005, p=.421). The relationship between interpersonal influence and voting intention is weak(r=.204, p=.000). The results indicate that the media are able to influence interpersonal discussion but themedia are unable to influence potential student voters in their voting intention, despite the fact that theinterpersonal influence is able to influence voting intention.Table 8.10a: Zero-Order Correlation between Interpersonal Influence, Media Influence and Voting Intention. VARIABLE BN BN MEDIA INFLUENCE INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE BN (N=1718) rpMedia Influence 1 rp Interpersonal .683 .000 1 Influence .212 .000 .263 .000Voting Intention BN BN

VARIABLE MEDIA INFLUENCE INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE rp BA (N=1822) rpMedia Influence 1 1 .204 .000 Interpersonal .519 .000 Influence -.005 .421Voting IntentionOutcomes of the Hypotheses TestingHYPOTHESIS STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS OUTCOME GH1: SH1.1: There is a positive relationship between media influence and Partially supported SH1.2: voting intention. GH2: SH2.1: There is a positive relationship between media influence and Supported SH2.2: voting intention among BN potential voters. GH3: SH3.1: There is a positive relationship between media influence and Not supported SH3.2: voting intention among BA potential voters. GH4: SH4.1: There is a positive relationship between interpersonal Supported SH4.2: influence and voting intention. There is a positive relationship between interpersonal Supported influence and voting intention among BN potential voters. There is a positive relationship between interpersonal Supported influence and voting intention among BA potential voters. There is a positive relationship between media influence and Supported interpersonal influence. There is a positive relationship between media influence and Supported interpersonal influence among BN potential voters. There is a positive relationship between media influence and Supported interpersonal influence among BA potential voters. Interpersonal influence mediates between the media influence Partially supported on voting intention. Interpersonal influence mediates between the media influence Supported on voting intention among BN potential voters. Interpersonal influence mediates between the media influence Not supported on voting intention among BA potential voters. Figure 8.2: Summary of Hypotheses Testing. Further analysis was carried out to test whether interpersonal influence is able to mediate therelationship between media influence and the voting intention (Table 8.10b). It is found that for BN thefour-step requirement for performing the mediating effect of interpersonal influence between mediainfluence and voting intention have been satisfied. The requirements according to Ramayah and Ignatius(2010) are:

Step 1To show that initial variable (media influence) is correlated with criterion variable (voting intention).This criterion is met.Step 2To show that initial variable (media influence) is correlated with the mediating variable (interpersonalvariable). This criterion is met.Step 3To show that the mediating variable (interpersonal influence) influences the criterion variable (votingintention). This criterion is met.Step 4To establish that the mediating variable completely mediates the relationship between initial variable(media influence) and the criterion variable (voting intention). This outcome has been established. Results show that the Beta weight for media influence and voting intention has been reduced fromBeta of .262 (p=.000) to .212 (p=.000). The amount is minimal and the relationship between mediainfluence and voting intention has not been reduced totally. Therefore, the hypothesis is partiallysupported. As for BA, the first requirement is not fulfilled. Further analyses were not done.Table 8.10b: Beta Weight for Mediating Effect of the Interpersonal Influence on Voting Intention. VARIABLE STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 VOTINGPredictor for BN VOTING INTERPERSON-AL VOTING INTENTIONMedia Influence INTENTION INFLUENCE INTENTIONMediator for BN .212 (p=.000) .262 (p=.000) .683 (p=.000) Interpersonal Influence .212 (p=.000)

Figure 8.3: The Mediating Effect of Interpersonal Between Media Influence and Voting Intention for BN Potential Voters among Students.CONCLUSIONThe students in the study comprise mainly female students of the Malay race of ages between 21-25 yearsold, mostly from IPTAs, claimed to belong to no particular association. Those who belonged toassociations were involved in sports and games, society/club and art and culture. Most of the studentssurfed the Internet daily. However, there were many students who did not watch television nor listened tothe radio. They read newspapers, but not on a regular basis. However, television is the most crediblemass media for the students, followed by newspapers and the Internet as they get political informationfrom these media. The students were influenced by television, newspapers and the Internet on supportingthe political party. At the interpersonal level, family and friends are two main sources for the students ingetting political information. These two sources are also two major interpersonal influencing sources onsupporting their preferred political party. The mass media (television, newspaper and Internet) and significant others (family and friends) arealso their sources of getting mainly current information compared to political information. At the sametime, students also pay more attention to current news than political news. Many students were still notsure of voting in the elections despite the fact that they were qualified to do so. Self-decision is perceivedas the main source of influence for qualified voters to register. But, friends, parents and other familymembers are the sources influencing students’ interest in politics. Issues and political ideologies are themost important matters for students when voting. Slightly more students would choose Barisan Alternatif(BA) as their potential party to vote compared to Barisan Nasional (BN), but the difference is notsignificant. The priority given to party characteristics are: religion, moral development, ethnic rights anda democratic way of life. There are weak positive relationships between the intention to vote for BN and media use, mediatrust, media attention, and media influence for BN potential student voters. Media use and media attention

are positively related to voting intention for BA potential student voters. Media attention and mediainfluence are the predictors for BN student voters, while media attention is the best predictor for BApotential student voters. Thus, media attention is a predictor regardless of party-affiliation. For BN,although the relationship between media influence and voting intention has been reduced it is minimal andthe relationship has not been reduced totally. Therefore, the hypothesis is partially supported. As for BA,the first requirement is not fulfilled. Further analyses were not conducted. Therefore, the hypothesis forBA is not supported. This means that the interpersonal influence intercepts the relationship between mediainfluence and voting intention with regard to BN but not for BA. The already established preferenceamong the students pertaining to their party choice is not easily being changed through interpersonalinfluence for BA student supporters. They are not easily persuaded by interpersonal communication anddiscussion. Therefore, the limited effect theory and agenda setting are supported by BN student supportersonly, not by BA student supporters. Hence, it could be the boomerang-effect of media influence that isdirectly pro ruling party when government propaganda can revert the noble intention of the media.REFERENCESAli Salman & Samsudin, A. Rahim. (2012). The Internet and Online Participation: A Case Study of What Citizens Do Online. In Faridah Ibrahim, Samsudin A. Rahim, Wan Amizah Wan Mahmud & Normah Mustaffa (Eds). Communication and Transformation: Progress and paradox, pp. 1-12. Bangi: UKM.Bucy, E. P. (2003). Media Credibility Reconsidered: Synergy Effects Between On-Air and Online News. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80 (2), 247-264.Dimmick, J., Chen, Y., & Li, Z. (2004). Competition between the Internet and Traditional News Media: The Gratification-Opportunity Niche Dimension. The Journal of Media Economics, 17 (1), 19-33.East, R. (2005). A Progress Report on Progress Files: The Experience of One Higher Education Institution, Active Learning in Higher Education, 6 (2), 160–171.Faridah Ibrahim, Chang Peng Kee, & Kuik Cheng Chwee. (2012). Ethnic Media and Nation-Building in Malaysia: Issues, Perceptions And Challenges. Bangi: UKM.Flanagan, A., & Metzger, M. (2000). Perceptions of Internet Information Credibility. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77 (3), 515-540.Guther, A. C. (1992). Biased Press Or Biased Public? Attitudes toward Media Cover. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56 (2), 147-167.Ibelma, M., & Powell, L. (2001). Cable Television News Viewed As Most Credible. Newspaper Research Journal, 22 (1), 41-51. Retrieved July 2, 2011.Kiousis, S. (2001). Public Trust or Mistrust? Perceptions of Media Credibility in The Information Age, Mass Communication & Society, 4 (4), 381-403.Kovach, B., & Rosentiel, T. (2001). The Elements of Journalism: What News People Should Know and the Public Should Expect. New York: Three Rivers Press.Lauf, E. (2001). The Vanishing Young Readers: Socio-Demographic Determinants of Newspapers Use As A Source of Political Information In Europe: 1980-98, European Journal of Communication, 16 (2), 233-243.Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in A Political Campaign. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.Lee, K. M. (2006). Effect of Internet Use on College Students’ Political Efficacy. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 9 (4), 415-422.

Mahaman Lahabou & Saodah Wok. (2012). Relationship between Facebook Usage and Youth Political Participation: A Sub-Saharan African Context. In Faridah Ibrahim, Samsudin A. Rahim, Wan Amizah Wan Mahmud & Normah Mustaffa (Eds). Communication and Transformation: Progress and Paradox, pp. 81-96. Bangi: UKM.McCombs, M. & Shaw, D. (1972). The Agenda Setting Function of The Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36 (1), 176-187.Mohd Abu Bakar. (1973). Mahasiswa Menggugat: Satu Analisa dan Peninjauan dari dalam Terhadap Kegiatan. Kuala Lumpur: Pustaka Antara.Mohd Hilmi Hamzah, Norhafizah Yusof & Azhar Kassim. (2012). Pilihan Raya Permatang Pauh: Pendekatan Pembingkaian dalam Analisis Kandungan Terhadap Media Cetak Terpilih. In Wan Amizah Wan Mahmud, Faridah Ibrahim, Samsudin A. Rahim, & Normah Mustaffa (eds). Media & Komunikasi: Transformasi dan Hala Tuju, pp. 155- 169. Bangi: UKM.Muhamad Nur Anuar (1988). Aktivisme Pelajar ke Arah Tajdid Hadhari: Suatu Analisa Sociologi Politik Pelajar Ke Atas Halacara Ledakan Ubudiyyah. Kuala Lumpur: Gedar.Poulus, T. (2010). Google TV Frustrated by Hollywood. Retrieved January 13, 2010. http://change.comminit.com/en/node/244080. Ramanathan, K. (1985). Politik dalam Pendidikan Bahasa 1930-1971. Petaling Jaya: Fajar Bakti.Ramayah, T., & Ignatius, J. (2010). Intention to Shop Online: The Mediating Role of PEOU. Media-East Journal of Science Research, 5(3), 152-156.Rogers, E. M. (2002). Intermedia Processes and Powerful Media Effects. In Jennings Bryant, & Dolf Zillman (Eds). Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Saodah Wok. (2006). Media Effects on Muslim Society. In Mohd. Yusof Hussain (ed). Media and Muslim Society, pp. 252-253. Kuala Lumpur: IIUM Press.Saodah Wok, Ezhar Tamam, Jusang Bolong, & Abdul Muati Ahmad. (2011). Pattern of News Media Consumption and News Discussion among Youth: A Test of Agenda Setting Theory. Global Media Journal Malaysia Edition, 1(1), 1-31.Saodah Wok & Shafizan Mohd. (2008). The Impact of TV And Magazine on Fashion and Dressing of Urban Women of Different Ages. Malaysian Journal of Media Studies, 10 (1), 157-170.Saodah Wok, Syed Arabi Idid, & Norealyna Misman. (2012). Social Media Use For Information Sharing Activities Among Youth In Malaysia. Paper presented at UiTM-AMIC 2012 International Conference at Shah Alam on July 11-14, 2012.Schafer, M. (2010). Filling the Credibility Gap with News Use: College Students News Habits, Preferences, and Credibility Preferences. Unpublished Manuscript. Retrieved July 2, 2011.Scheufele, D. A. (2002). Examining Differential Gains from Mass Media and Their Implications for Participatory Behavior. Communication Research, 29 (1), 46-65.Seo, H., & Lim, J. S. (2008). Journalists Perceptions Of Source Credibility And The Medias Source Use: A Study On Media Coverage Of The Six-Party Nuclear Talks. Unpublished manuscript.Soon, C., & Kluver, R. (2007). The Internet and Online Political Communities in Singapore, Asian Journal of Communication, 17 (2), 246-265.Stavrositu, C., & Sundar, S. S. (2006). If Internet credibility is so iffy, then why the heavy use? The Relationship between Medium Use Credibility. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved July 2, 2011.Syed Arabi Idid & Saodah Wok. (2006). Credibility of Television, Newspaper, and Internet with Popular Vote of Barisan Nasional During Election by Race, Malaysia Journal of Media Studies, 8 (1), 41-46.Vissers, S., & Quintelier, E. (2009). News Consumption and Political Participation among Young People:

Evidence from a Panel Study. Paper for the 5th European Consortium for Political Research General Conference Postdam.Wanta, W. (1997). The Public and The National Agenda: How People Learn About Important Issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Wanta, W., & Ghanem, S. I. (2001). Agenda Setting and Spanish Cable News, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45 (1), 277-287.World Association of Newspapers (WAN). (2007). Youth media DNA: Decoding Youth as News & Information Consumers. Retrieved January 13, 2012.

INDEXAadvertisingagenda settingA-list bloggersalternative mediaalternative newspapersAmbiga SreenevasanAnwar Ibrahimaudience exposureauthoritative voiceBBarack ObamaBarisan AlternatifBABA potential student votersBA potential votersBarisan NasionalBNBN partyBN potential student votersBN potential votersBersihbloggersblogging associationboomerang-effectBR1MBumiputeraby-electioCChief Minister of SelangorChua Soi Lekcitizenscitizenshipcivic participatiocoalition partiescollectivismconnotation

construct validitycontemporaneous forecastingcredibilitycredibility identitycredibility perceptioncredibility ratingcrimescross-sectional surveycultural biascultural dimensionscultural valuescultureDdefamation chargedefensive modedemocracyDAPdemocratic way of lifedemocratization processdemocratizing effectdemocratizing powerdemographic informationdenotationdirect marketingEelectoral behaviourelectoral candidateselectoral choiceelectoral reformelectoral studiesemotionally influencedemotionally influenced’ votersethnic rightsEuropean UnionFface validityframing theoryfreedom of speechG

13th General ElectionGeneral ElectionGeneration YGlobal Bersihgovernment-assisted religious schoolHhegemonyhighly regulated media environmentHindrafIideological positionindividualismindividualistic qualitiesinterdependent selfintermedia processesinterpersonal communicationinterpersonal discussioninterpersonal influenceinterpersonal influencing sourcesinterpersonal news discussionISAKK.G. PalanivelLlegal action on peoplelegitimacyLim Guan Englimited effect theorylocalizationlong- versus short-term orientationMMahathir Mohamadmainstream mediaMalayMalayMalaysia TodayMalaysiakini

Malaysian politicsmanifestomasculinity and femininitymass mediamediamedia attentionmedia consumptionmedia credibilitymedia exposuremedia framingmedia influencemedia landscapemedia performancemedia policymedia usemediating effectmillennial generationmillennium generationminority groupmoral developmentmoral valuesmythmythic meaningNNajib Tun Razaknarcissismnarcissisticnarcissistic behaviorsnarcissistic politicsnational affairsnational economynational problemsnation-building processnegative voternetizensnew culture of citizenshipnew medianew technologynewspaper consumptionNik Abdul Aziznon-Bumiputerasnowcasting

Ooffline political participationonline friendsonline newsonline political participationoppositionPPakatan Rakyat (PR)parliamentary democraciesParti Islam Semalaysia (PAS)Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR)partisan paperspartisan politicsparty affinityparty choiceparty identification perceived credibilitypolicy makerspolitical activismpolitical activitiespolitical analystspolitical communicationpolitical culturepolitical democracypolitical discoursepolitical dominancepolitical environmentpolitical grouppolitical informationpolitical instabilitypolitical institutionspolitical interestpolitical issuespolitical knowledgepolitical leaderspolitical mileagepolitical organizationpolitical participationpolitical partiespolitical sensitivity studypolitical spacepolitical stabilitypolitical system

political tag linepolitical videos onlinepoliticspotential student voterspower distancepowerful effect modelpress freedomprint mediapropagandaPTPTNpublic relationspublic sphereQqualitative research designquantitative content analysisquantitative research designRracial distributionracial harmonyreligious freedomrestrictive communicationRoland BarthesRomneySselective exposureselective votersself-censorship mindsetself-expressionsemi-democratic country semioticanalysissemioticssignifiedsignifiersignssocial activistsocial groupssocial mediasocial media usesocial networkingsocial networking sites

social phenomenonsocial utilitysocial-cleavagesocietal communication normssocio-political bloggerssopo bloggerssource credibilityselective votersstandardizationstudent potential votersstudent voterssurvey on political attitudes of 1994Ttactical votertelevision consumptiontheories of votingtheory of mobilizationtraditional mediatrusttweetstats.comUuncertainty avoidanceundecided votersUnited Malays NationalOrganizationUMNOUtusan MalaysiaVVision 2020 Policyvisionary leadervolunteer workvotersvoting behaviourvoting intentionvoting statusWWorld Association of Newspapers

Yyoung votersyouth