Motivations, Knowledge, Efficacy, and Participation: An O-S-O-R Model of Second Screening’s Political Effects in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Although the topic is obviously interesting, your abstract struggles to synthesise your best findings. From an outsider’s perspective, I am not sure that I understand fully what you aim at researching and what you found, so I’d advise to be more specific and provide a more detailed recount of your investigation in the abstract.

You have also provided what to me sounds like solid enough bibliographical work to support the use and effects of second screenings, though besides the amount of references, I would encourage you to provide also more updated ones (I am talking especially of the paragraph between lines 27 and 33, where the most updated reference is from 2014).

I understand the value of a study outside of a Western-centric scope, as you state on l. 52, but I think your text could benefit from a more elaborated argument on what to expect from authoritative regimes and how this affects to the analysis of second screens and their use. This becomes, in my view, particularly necessary apropos of the model of analysis that you propose: again, as commented for the abstract, I feel that more detailed explanations on how you come up with that model and what the steps are and why are needed (in fact, in l. 89 you send the reader back to figure 1, which leaves us with similar doubts... -further elaboration is needed, I’m afraid-).

Research design is, broadly speaking, quite well explained, though I struggle to understand the repeated expression “positively related”, which can be understood as “certainly related” or “with a positive connotation (as opposed to a negative one)”. Would it be possible to clarify this in the text?

As for the specific method used, I would like to know how many people received the questionnaire to assess how representative the 332 respondents are. Also, have there been strati or the questionnaire was, rather, designed as a snow-ball?

Finally, results and conclusions are, to me the more solid parts of your article.

Generally speaking, I think the text could benefit from a last proofreading, though I don't think English is a major issue here.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We are truly grateful to your insight. We value each and every one of your comments. Below you will find how we addressed your concerns:

 

1. We rewrote the abstract completely and we believe this version highlights our study. Thanks for the great suggestion so we can set up the study on its right footing.
2. Thank you for pointing out that some of our references are old, and we’ve updated our literature, especially for the paragraph (between lines 27 and 33) that you specifically pinpointed.
3. We added a paragraph in the introduction and in the discussion on the theoretical and political importance of studying second screening. We were being cautious in the previous version as such claims have caused reviewers to direct undue attention to generalizability issues. We are very happy that both you and reviewer 2 agreed that this is important. In fact, the intention of this study is to move second screening study from a technological perspective to the domain of political engagement and discussion, a perfect fit for the Chinese setting in which second screening provides access to alternative interpretations, access to information, and a platform to express opinion. Thank you for encouraging us to hit to home in the paper.
4. You raised concern about the term “positively related”. This term means two variables are positively correlated, as opposed to negatively correlated. When one variable increases, the other increases as well. In journalism and media research, this term is clearly defined, and widely used and accepted. We believe this would not cause any confusions for our readers.
5. You asked about our sampling process. The questionnaire was randomly distributed to Beijing residents. We set a sample size of around 350 when we designed the study, and we kept collected responses until it reached the number. After eliminating some invalid responses, we had 332 valid responses. We did not keep a record of how many questionnaires were sent out, but the representativeness of our sample was demonstrated by the demographic attributes of our sample and how well it aligns with the general demographic attributes of all Beijing citizens, according to the 2018 census in China reported by Chinese National Bureau. This was also explained in our article between lines 211 to 220 and table 1.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for giving me the chance to review this interesting article.

The work investigates “second screening” in China.

This study applies an O-S-O-R model and demonstrates an integrated procedure of second screening's political effects among citizens of Beijing, China in 2018 -- from motivations to second screening activities to mediating post-orientations (political knowledge and internal political efficacy), and finally to the behavioral outcome (political participation).

 

The paper is well structured and well-organized methods are appropriate and findings are sound. They show that most of the direct and indirect paths in this model were significantly positive.

Therefore this study represent a useful contribution for those interested in second screening and most widely in political participation.

 

The paper, however, presents certain flaws that should be fixed before its publication.

1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The theoretical background, in my opinion, should be enriched in two directions:

1) The author(s) only rely on international literature focusing on second screening, which is of course important, but it is equally important to give proper definitions of the main concepts

 to properly ground this research.

I am especially referring to the concept of “political participation” that should be clearly defined (is that voting/campaigning/activism?) engaging with the (vast) literature on the topic.

This reference, for instance,  might help:

Boulianne, Shelley. "Twenty years of digital media effects on civic and political participation." Communication research 47.7 (2020): 947-966.

 

2) It is quite surprising that dealing with second screening the authors ignore the seminal concept of “user generated content”, which refers to one of the main activities implemented in second screening.

The author should engage with the literature on this topic

This reference can help you:

Cervi, L. Citizen Journalism and User Generated Content in Mainstream Media. New Dialogic Form of Communication, User-Engagement Technique or Free Labor Exploitation? Revista de Comunicação Dialógica 2017, 1, 120–141.

 

3) The theoretical section would benefit from a Sub-section dedicated to double screening in the Chinese contexts. As per the authors admissions the Chinese context is somehow different so for the sake of clarity this should be explained in a sub-section

 

 

2. CONCLUSION

This paper represents an interesting contribution so first it should be “located” within the international literature studying second screening, and especially its relations with social network.

Accordingly, once the theoretical background has been enriched in the Conclusions author(s) should discuss how their study align/differs with other recent studies.

This, not only would allow showing the strength and limitation of their study stressing out the importance of this contribution, but also will contribute showing how second screening  follows similar/different  paths in different contexts.

In addition, as per the author admission, the case of China is somehow peculiar therefore authotrs should try to give the reader a more nuances perspective about how China is different from other countries.

 

 

The paper would benefit from a native proofreader check.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We are truly grateful for your insight. We value each and every one of your comments. Below you will find how we addressed your concerns:

1. You mentioned that there should be a clearer definition of political participation and provided a reference, thank you very much! We added explanation on how we define political participation (lines 161-166) and used the reference. Table 2 also lists our measurement items of political participation and other variables.
2. We are all for user-generated content, because part of second screening is generating user content. However, it is also not the only purpose. Our study is more on the motivators of second screening, and what effects it may cause. Content is certainly one of the effects. But our concern is that highlighting content may distract our argument from the process and the relationship between predictors, moderators, and outcomes in the proposed model. UGC deserves a separate study. But a very good point.
3. We added two paragraphs, one in the introduction and one in the discussion to hit home our argument on the Chinese setting. We are really grateful to both you and reviewer 1 for pointing this out. On top of these two added arguments, we also tried to tie our context reasoning to the theoretical and practical implications of second screening in authoritarian settings, which we believe is no small contribution.
4. You suggested us to discuss how our study aligns/differs with other recent studies in conclusion, we updated the references used in discussion.
5. We combine this suggestion with point 3 so we don’t repeat ourselves and maintain coherence. Thank you again for the great suggestion.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper discusses the O-S-O-R model of second screening's political effects in China. It explores how individuals in authoritarian systems, like China, engage in second screening activities while watching television content. The paper highlights the importance of second screening as a means for individuals to exchange interpretations, access alternative sources of information, fact-check mainstream media content, and engage in political discussions and dissent. It suggests that second screening can serve as a platform for individuals to express their opinions, exchange ideas, and potentially organize grassroots movements.

 

The main findings of the study contribute to our understanding of citizen engagement in authoritarian contexts. The study focused on China, an authoritarian one-party state known for its tight control and censorship over the media. The researchers found that second screening activities, which involve social networking sites and digital media, can provide a public space outside of state surveillance for political participation. This challenges authoritarian regimes and advances democratic principles. The study's findings suggest that despite the central government's control and censorship over the media in China, second screening activities can still play a role in citizen engagement and challenging authoritarian regimes. 

 

I think this is a well-done study, but I still have some concerns. Most importantly, the study relies on self-reported data from participants, which may be subject to social desirability bias or other forms of response bias. Especially it is done in China, where people may be more afraid of political troubles. Moreover, what are the potential negative consequences of second screening, such as the spread of misinformation or the reinforcement of existing biases? The author should at least discuss them.

Writing flows are fine. Some minor editing is needed as some sentences are correct but not so idiomatic.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for your encouragement! We also sincerely appreciate your comments, which we believe helped us improve our paper greatly.

 

1. You mentioned the limitation of using self-reported responses. We agree this is an important limitation and we added discussion on this issue. Please see the last paragraph, lines 475 – 479 (“Second, ……”).
2. You also suggested we add discussion on the negative effects of second screening. We agreed with your point. Please see the last paragraph, lines 487 – 495 (“For future studies, ……”).

 

Thank you again for the great suggestions!

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for giving me the chance to review this interesting article.

 

The work investigates “second screening” in China.

 

This study applies an O-S-O-R model and demonstrates an integrated procedure of second screening's political effects among citizens of Beijing, China in 2018 -- from motivations to second screening activities to mediating post-orientations (political knowledge and internal political efficacy), and finally to the behavioral outcome (political participation).

 

 

 

Frankly I do not see many improvement in this paper and it seems that the author(s) have not taken my review very seriously.

 

1)The concept of “political participation” is still not clearly defined (is that voting/campaigning/activism?)  and the paper does not engage with the (vast) literature on the topic.

 

 

Again; this paper ,might represent an interesting contribution so first it should be “located” within the international literature studying second screening, and especially its relations with social network.

 

Accordingly, once the theoretical background has been enriched in the Conclusions author(s) should discuss how their study align/differs with other recent studies.

 

This, not only would allow showing the strength and limitation of their study stressing out the importance of this contribution, but also will contribute showing how second screening  follows similar/different  paths in different contexts.

 

In addition, as per the author admission, the case of China is somehow peculiar therefore authotrs should try to give the reader a more nuances perspective about how China is different from other countries.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

 

Thank you again for your reviews! We are sorry that our first round of revisions did not meet your expectations. We do take your comments seriously and deeply appreciate your input!

  

Contrary to perception in the previous revision, we took your points about political participation seriously, because it is really the gist of our paper. In the previous revision, we were trying to balance arguments already in place in the paper, and whether we would like to refocus. But we saw your points. In this revision, we highlight political participation by adding an entire section on digital media and its affordances to political participation, especially in the Chinese context. This section also adds the international literature and findings that you emphasized, and we agreed that they are important. Additionally, we also try to connect political participation throughout the literature when we motivated the predictors and outcomes of the model.

Also in the discussion, we try our best to dissect the nuanced findings pertinent to the Chinese context. You can see these efforts in highlighted texts. We do exercise some caution, however, as we don’t want to appear to stretch our findings too much based on a single study. We hope that these revisions address your concerns and we thank you for bringing our attention to these key points and ultimately making the paper better.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Once again the authors do not seem to take my suggestions into consideration.

Author Response

We are sorry that our revisions did not meet your expectations. In total sincerity, we appreciate your comments and we took them very seriously, contrary to what you perceive. We also spent a substantial amount of time addressing your concerns. Is it possible that you were looking for something specific and we failed in that regard? If you could be more specific on which points you are not satisfied with, and how our current discussions fail to address your comments, it would be greatly appreciated!