Brazil’s online politics: media effects on millennial’s voting intention and political involvement

outubro de 2021 UMinho | 2021 Juliana Silva Brazil’s Online Politics: Effects of the Media on Millennial’s Voting Intention and Political Involvement Universidade do Minho Escola de Economia e Gestão Juliana Silveira e Silva Brazil’s Online Politics: Media Effects on Millennial’s Voting Intention and Political Involvement Universidade do Minho Escola de Economia e Gestão Juliana Silveira e Silva Brazil’s Online Politics: Media Effects on Millennial’s Voting Intention and Political Involvement Dissertação de Mestrado Mestrado em Marketing e Estratégia Trabalho efetuado sob a orientação da Professora Doutora Cláudia Simões ii DIREITOS DE AUTOR E CONDIES DE UTILIZAO DO TRABALHO POR TERCEIROS Este  um trabalho acadmico que pode ser utilizado por terceiros desde que respeitadas as regras e boas prticas internacionalmente aceites, no que concerne aos direitos de autor e direitos conexos. Assim, o presente trabalho pode ser utilizado nos termos previstos na licena abaixo indicada. Caso o utilizador necessite de permisso para poder fazer um uso do trabalho em condies no previstas no licenciamento indicado, dever contactar o autor, atravs do RepositriUM da Universidade do Minho. Licena concedida aos utilizadores deste trabalho Atribuio CC BY https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ iii Agradecimentos Agradeço primeiramente à minha família que me encorajou a seguir este sonho e fez todo o possível para possibilitar o meu sucesso na vida e, especialmente, nos estudos. Diante das adversidades enfrentadas nos últimos dois anos, o vosso apoio possibilitou-me chegar ao momento que me encontro hoje, na certeza de que vos faço orgulhosos. Agradeço também a todos os professores que fizeram parte do meu percurso académico, em especial à Professora Doutora Cláudia Simões por todo o suporte prestado e conhecimento compartilhado durante o desenvolvimento da presente investigação. Finalmente, agradeço as pessoas especiais que tive a oportunidade de conhecer ao longo deste percurso, dentro e fora da Universidade. Sem o vosso apoio, carinho e compreensão, nada disso seria possível. iv STATEMENT OF INTEGRITY I hereby declare having conducted this academic work with integrity. I confirm that I have not used plagiarism or any form of undue use of information or falsification of results along the process leading to its elaboration. I further declare that I have fully acknowledged the Code of Ethical Conduct of the University of Minho. v Resumo Título: Brazil’s Online Politics: Media Effects on Millennial’s Voting Intention and Political Involvement Muitos dos conceitos tradicionais de marketing como branding e stakeholders estão a ser aplicados no âmbito político, gerando um aumento no uso de práticas de marketing de sucesso, como as mídias sociais (Keating & Melis, 2017; Nielsen, 2017; Parsons & Rowling, 2018). Para os millennials, o marketing online é parte da sua vida diária e alguns estudos apresentam que esse novo canal de comunicação é fundamental para partidos, instituições e políticos que desejam atingir essa geração (Parsons & Rowling, 2018; Towner & Munoz, 2016). Portanto, o objetivo da presente investigação é entender em que medida o uso de mídia em massa ou mídias sociais como fonte de informação política e o engagement com essas mídias sociais afetarão a intenção de voto e o envolvimento político dos millennials no Brasil. Um questionário estruturado foi aplicado numa amostra final de 51 elementos, e a análise de dados foi realizada através de teste t e correlações a fim de testar as hipóteses apresentadas. 4 das 5 hipóteses foram aceitas e sugerem que as mídias sociais têm grande influência na intenção de voto e no envolvimento político dos millennials brasileiros. É, desta forma, uma ferramenta fundamental para aumentar a participação política nesta geração. Palavras-chave: marketing político, mídias sociais e millennials. vi Abstract Title: Brazil’s Online Politics: Media Effects on Millennial’s Voting Intention and Political Involvement Many of the traditional marketing concepts such as branding and stakeholders are now being applied into politics, increasing the usage of trending marketing practices such as social media (Keating & Melis, 2017; Nielsen, 2017; Parsons & Rowling, 2018). For millennials, online marketing is a part of their day to day life and some studies argue that this new communication channel is fundamental for parties, institutions and politicians who wish to target this generation (Parsons & Rowling, 2018; Towner & Munoz, 2016). Therefore, the purpose of this research is to understand to what extent does the usage of mass media or social media as source for political information and social media engagement will affect voting intention and political involvement among Brazilian millennials. A structured questionnaire was applied with a final sample of 51 elements, and data analysis was performed using t test and correlations to test the hypothesis presented. 4 of 5 hypotheses were accepted and suggest that social media has a great influence on Brazilian millennial’s voting intention and political involvement. It is therefore a fundamental tool to increase political participation among this generation. Keywords: political marketing, social media, millennials vii SUMMARY DIREITOS DE AUTOR E CONDIES DE UTILIZAO DO TRABALHO POR TERCEIROS ......................................... II AGRADECIMENTOS ............................................................................................................................................... III STATEMENT OF INTEGRITY .................................................................................................................................... IV RESUMO .................................................................................................................................................................. V ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................................... VI LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................... IX 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 PRESENTING POLITICAL MARKETING AND MILLENNIALS ....................................................................................... 1 1.2 WHY SOCIAL MEDIA AND BRAZIL?.................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 RESEARCH PROBLEM AND PURPOSE ................................................................................................................ 3 2. CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL FOUNDATION .......................................................................................... 3 2.1 POLITICAL MARKETING ................................................................................................................................ 3 2.1.1 Social Media ..................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.2 Social Media in Politics ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 MILLENNIALS ............................................................................................................................................. 9 2.3 TRUST .................................................................................................................................................... 11 2.4 ENGAGEMENT.......................................................................................................................................... 14 2.5 CONCEPTUAL MODEL ................................................................................................................................ 17 2.5.1 Trust on Mass Media and Social Media ......................................................................................... 17 2.5.2 Social Media Engagement .............................................................................................................. 18 2.5.3 Media and Political Involvement .................................................................................................... 19 3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................ 19 3.1 RESEARCH PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................. 19 3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................................................................... 20 3.3 POPULATION AND SAMPLE ......................................................................................................................... 20 3.4 QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION ......................................................................................... 21 3.4.1 Questionnaire structure .................................................................................................................. 21 3.5 DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................ 28 4. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 28 4.1 SAMPLE PROFILING ................................................................................................................................... 28 4.2 MASS MEDIA CHANNEL AND SOCIAL MEDIA PAGE ......................................................................................... 29 5 C. Pich & Armannsdottir (2018) attempt to apply the ‘brand image framework’ to understand the brand efforts of UK Conservative Party in the 2010 General Election also demonstrates how the theoretical optics can be relevant to the study of political brands. The ‘brand image framework’ is based on six variables: strenght, uniqueness, expectations, perceptions and associations, experiences and evaluations (Han, Boshoff, Venter, & Bosch, 2006; C. Pich & Armannsdottir, 2018). Originally it was proposed in the context of higher education institutions, yet C. Pich & Armannsdottir (2018) relied upon these six variables and discussions within focus groups to access the political brand image of the party, the party leader and the party policy. Other researches refering to variations of ‘political brand image’ could not be found, sustaining the argument that this field of study lacks academic study (C. Pich & Armannsdottir, 2018). Strenght is related to the complexity of the brand’s identity; and uniqueness, as the name suggests, is associated with the brand’s unique aspects. Expectations, perceptions and associations, experiences and evaluations are all based on the opinion of stakeholders and users: what they expact from the brand’s performance, brand associations that mold stakeholder’s perceptions, how is their experience when in contact with the brand and, finally, how they evaluate the brand image based on their perceptions, expectations and experiences (Han et al., 2006; C. Pich & Armannsdottir, 2018). Indeed, other authors have also shared their concern with the lack of theoretical foundation and research related to political brand or branding (Guzmán et al., 2015; Marder, Marchant, Archer-Brown, Yau, & Colliander, 2018), leading to a discussion about the reliability of the studies developed so far in this subject (Nielsen, 2017). Yet, some have succeeded in approaching political brand in different perspectives, such as how the internal market responds to party’s branding efforts (Christopher Pich, Dean, & Punjaisri, 2016), how the brand equity traditional marketing concept can be applied to politics (Ahmed et al., 2017) and the interaction of voters with political brands through Social Networks Site (SNS) (Marder et al., 2018). Indeed, research that approaches the usage of online marketing tools are becoming more usual (Fisher, 2018; Haenschen & Jennings, 2019). Taking into consideration the importance of political digital marketing for the current study, it is presented below as a separated subject. 6 2.1.1 Social Media Although the definition of social media may seem simple and common knowledge among its users, it may vary according to the perspective and objective of its use. From a generic user point of view, social media is a digital environment where users co-create content and interact with one another. Kapoor et al. (2018, p. 536) for instance present social media as “… a digital space created by the people for the people and provides an environment that is conductive for interactions and networking to occur at different levels (for instance, personal, professional, business, marketing, political, and societal)”. On the other hand, it is possible to define social media in a more practical and marketing-biased perspective as social media is “… another type of digital marketing channel that marketers can use to communicate with consumers through advertising” (Appel, Grewal, Hadi, & Stephen, 2020, p. 80). In fact, both definitions are connected in a sense that the relevance of social media in its user’s life is what enabled it to become such a fundamental tool for digital marketers nowadays. For instance, Facebook (2020) has reported that over a hundred billion messages and one billion stories are shared every day on this media, approximately 12 messages per habitant on all planet. Social media has become an important part of people’s lives in the last decade and there is no doubt about its magnitude (Alalwan, Rana, Dwivedi, & Algharabat, 2017; Kapoor et al., 2018). Practically, companies have used social media to create closer relationships with the public, families have used it to maintain long-distance communication and even the public sector have enjoyed the benefits of applying social networks on their marketing activities (Alalwan et al., 2017; Dwivedi et al., 2020). Even so, in the latest years, the initial public excitement about potential benefits of social media has given way to discussions under the long term effects of its massive usage in the modern society, especially among younger generations (Allcott, Braghieri, Eichmeyer, & Gentzkow, 2020). One of these effects is the usage of social media as the main source of information (Kapoor et al., 2018). Similar to what was experienced in the past with television (Allcott et al., 2020), social media offers such practicality and large diverse amounts of data that it is naturally becoming a main source of information to most users (Appel et al., 2020). This relates to data gathered in past research about the trust of users in social media. WarnerSøderholm et al. (2018) for instance, presented in their quantitative research that trust in 7 social media is greater among younger users, especially those under twenty years old and also among women. Furthermore, the heavy use of social media has led us to increase the trust on everything shared there. The more we follow and interact with others, more we tend to trust them (Warner-Søderholm et al., 2018) Among social media trust, three other topics are commonly found in academic literature about social media marketing (SMM): influencer marketing (Appel et al., 2020), electronic word of mouth (E-WOM)(Chu & Kim, 2018; Ismagilova, Slade, Rana, & Dwivedi, 2020; Kunst & Vatrapu, 2018) and fake news (Koidl & Kapanova, 2020).E-WOM has increasingly received attention from practitioners as its relevance to decisions on online purchases in constantly recognized (Kunst & Vatrapu, 2018). This concept can be defined as any user-generated review or statement published online and available for others, whether positive (P-WOM) or negative (N-WOM) (Chu & Kim, 2018). This statement will reflect the opinion of its author regarding a product, company, brand or service and ultimately influences other shoppers on their decision-making process (Ismagilova et al., 2020), thus presenting companies with a cheaper alternative to traditional online advertising (Cheong, Muthaly, Kuppusamy, & Han, 2020). Taking into consideration that SM is a place where people are stimulated to share their own opinion, it holds naturally a high concentration of E-WOMs (Appel et al., 2020). Plus, as social media are becoming more optimized to allow in-app purchases, for example, the importance of user-generated reviews in these platforms is constantly growing (IzquierdoYusta, Pick, Anguera, & Huete-Alcocer, 2017). However, in their study composed by in-depth interviews with university students, Cheong, Muthaly, Kuppusamy, & Han (2020) have suggested that the relevance of social media E-WOMs may be lower for users than those found on shopping websites, as they present a higher number of reviews gathered in only one place. Even so, E-WOMs in social media will not stop and companies that have not yet taken advantage of it, must start right away. And one of the most common solutions, also considered a natural component on the future of social media (Appel et al., 2020) is the use of influencers. Influencers are individuals with a significant number of followers on SM, with the ability to generate valuable content for their followers, that will eventually influence others (Wiedmann & von Mettenheim, 2020). They are recognized as influencers because they have built a reputation around a certain topic attracting other people that share the same interest 8 and, therefore, building a highly qualified and targeted audience. Their qualified audience is what attracts brands and companies to look for partnership with them, also known in SM as Ads (Childers, Lemon, & Hoy, 2019). This collaboration between brands and influencers is denominated influencer marketing, and is a fundamental strategy for any B2C digital marketing strategy (Farivar, Wang, & Yuan, 2020). As user-generated content, any Ad on social media that results from influencer marketing can be also considered E-WOM (Childers et al., 2019). And it is, therefore, susceptible to generate false or misleading information, also known as fake news (Talwar, Dhir, Singh, Virk, & Salo, 2020). This topic has received increased attention after the 2016 US and 2018 Brazilian presidential elections, which were heavily influenced by the spread of usergenerated fake news (Clayton et al., 2019). The situation can easily get out of control, especially if the user who created the content is a public figure, such as an influencer, an artist or even a politician. 2.1.2 Social Media in Politics The usage of social media (SM) in politics has been vastly discussed, especially after important events around the world, such as the 2010’s revolutionary wave of pro-democracy protests, known as Arab Spring, used this kind of online media to spread and share political opinions and begin several discussions about their political leaders (Keating & Melis, 2017; Maduku, 2019; Wolfsfeld, Segev, & Sheafer, 2013). The same is true most recently, with social media playing a decisive role in general elections in countries, such as, the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK) and Brazil (BR) (Hultman et al., 2019). One could think that, thanks to the introduction of this media and its universalized access (Loader & Mercea, 2011), the worldwide population would be more participative on political decisions (Haenschen & Jennings, 2019; Parsons & Rowling, 2018), translating on higher voting rates. However, this is not true. On some developed countries, general and specially young voters are showing less to exercise their democratic right to vote (Keating & Melis, 2017). In fact, more than 50% of the Portuguese population did not participate on the 2019 Republic Assembly election (PORDATA, 2019) and more than 20% of Brazilians also abstained from the 2018 presidential election in the country, where the vote is both a duty and a right (Damé, 2018). This data does not mean that social media is not effective on spreading news and open 9 discussions on politics, but perhaps supports the argument that political parties and politicians are not using it right (Klinger, 2013; Parsons & Rowling, 2018). Although social media is vastly known as the technology that enabled the general population to become more than passive receivers of political information (Fenton & Barassi, 2011; Hultman et al., 2019; Loader & Mercea, 2011), arguments that support the little use of its full potential towards younger generations (Bennett, 2012) , and even the fear of its power presented by political figures (Parsons & Rowling, 2018) are also frequent. When it comes to the public in general, however, there is a different scenario. Differently than its leaders, the public as individuals are becoming more and more empowered in social media (Hultman et al., 2019), leading social and political changes around the globe (Fenton & Barassi, 2011) and personalizing politics to fit each other’s best interests (Bennett, 2012). On the other hand, some argue that the fact of having access to SM actually reduces the need to protest, since one is already expressing themselves online (Wolfsfeld et al., 2013). In their study Wolfsfeld et al. (2013) showed that higher SM penetration resulted in fewer political protests, providing a different perspective into the discussion of the influence of SM in voters and general public political behavior. Nevertheless, no one can deny the increasing usage of social media in politics (Fenton & Barassi, 2011; Hultman et al., 2019; Parsons & Rowling, 2018) and the growing financial effort invested in this media by political actors (Haenschen & Jennings, 2019). Therefore, it is fundamental to understand its effects on voters’ intentions. 2.2 Millennials Millennials, also known as Generation Y, are a generational cohort and, although the exact years division between generations is widely discussed, for the purpose of this research millennials are individuals born between 1983 and 1994 (Deloitte, 2019). As a great number of these individuals are now economically active/independent, the growth of their importance for marketeers and businesses cannot be challenged (Heo & Muralidharan, 2019; Keating & Melis, 2017; Moreno, Lafuente, Carreón, & Moreno, 2017). The new challenges and behavioral changes they portrait, however, is still of great interest for academics and corporate studies. As this generation approaches their 40’s, many differences can be withdrawn from its 10 antecessors. In addition to being constantly in contact with technology (Moreno et al., 2017), these individuals are also more interested in engaging with brands (Smith, 2011). In fact, the success of cause-related marketing campaigns among millennials comes from the fact that they are more willing to become loyal to brands that support social causes. (Partouche, Vessal, Khelladi, Castellano, & Sakka, 2020) Even so, when it comes to sustainable consumption, there are disagreements among researchers. (Heo & Muralidharan, 2019) Despite being recognized as a generation that seeks an ethical and responsible way of life in an effort of distancing themselves from materialism (Partouche et al., 2020), it has also been said that they have a difficulty when it comes to converting environmental concerns into actions (Heo & Muralidharan, 2019). Therefore, marketers have faced a difficult challenge when it comes to targeting these individuals, as traditional media are not as appealing as they were before (Valentine & Powers, 2013) and their consumption behavior is still under discussion. In fact, as their purchasing power and access to information increases and their life aspiration changes, they become even more relevant and attractive for companies who wish to sell physical goods or services (Deloitte, 2019; Keating & Melis, 2017; Moreno et al., 2017). With politics, it is not different. Previous studies have shown how millennials have significantly different political opinions and political content sources if compared to older generations (Fisher, 2018; Towner & Munoz, 2016). Towner & Munoz (2016) present in their study that Boomers, the generation before Millennials, will go for traditional media (such as TV or radio) for political information, as generation Y will pay more attention – and be more influenced by – online sources. Millennial’s trust in mass media sources, however, have not changed from Boomers generation, as millennials still do not trust completely on the information provided by mass media (Grosser, Hase, & Wintterlin, 2019; Towner & Munoz, 2016). Thanks to this distrust, internet has been playing a decisive role on their lives. Electronic Word-of-Mouth (E-WOM), online shopping and social media are common topics when it comes to millennials way of life (Cheong et al., 2020; Heo & Muralidharan, 2019; Smith, 2011). Even though they are increasingly participative in social media, millennials also have their share of concerns, especially with the risks involving purchases on these media, which could eventually decrease their level of engagement in social networks (Y. Wang & Herrando, 2019). Additionally, privacy is a constant topic when discussing social media amongst 11 millennials (Y. Wang & Herrando, 2019), rapidly increasing after the scandals involving Facebook and Cambridge Analytica in 2019. This ultimately leads to more serious concerns regarding legal regulations and a decrease of the perceived trustworthiness in this media (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017). 2.3 Trust The concept of trust has been widely applied in previous research (Levi & Stoker, 2000) and accepts the existence of two main characters: the person who deposits trust (or trustor) and the person who is worthy of trust (or trustee) (Ben-Ner & Halldorsson, 2010). Therefore, trust can be defined “…as the perception of the trustor about the degree to which the trustee would satisfy an expectation about a transaction constituting risk” (Moturu & Liu, 2011, p. 242). This expectation is influenced by some characteristics, that often include regularity, fairness, and efficiency. These characteristics are hardly universal, as they will vary depending on the situation and objects involved (Moturu & Liu, 2011). The deposit or withdraw of trust will depend on singularities of both the trustor and the trustee (Heyns & Rothmann, 2015; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Levi & Stoker (2000) establish in their study that the trustee carries a set of attributes or factors that eventually results in their perceived trustworthiness, also known as attributes of trustworthiness. These attributes are what give the trustor an assurance that the trustee will fulfill their part on the transaction in place and eventually determine the extent to which a trustee is worthy of trust (Mayer et al., 1995). In Figure 1, Mayer et al. (1995) present three attributes of trustworthiness, or factors of perceived trustworthiness: ability, benevolence and integrity. 12 Figure 1 - Attributes of Trustworthiness Source: Mayer et al. 1995; 715 Ability is related to the trustee’s competence or skills on a specific domain (Mayer et al., 1995). For instance, when it comes to politicians, profound knowledge in economics and international relations are highly appreciated abilities. However, for the domain of politics, the ability to play tennis is not. Therefore, ability is domain-specific, meaning that this factor may vary according to the scenario in place (Levi & Stoker, 2000). Other studies may mention ability using synonymous, such as competence or expertise (Mayer et al., 1995). Benevolence is related to the intention of the trustee to do good to the trustor (Mayer et al., 1995). In other words, the commitment carried by the trustee that they will act in the interests of the trustor (Levi & Stoker, 2000). Benevolent political leaders, for example, will have a commitment to their voters as well as to the general welfare of the public institution they represent, seeking a constant balance between both dimensions (Heyns & Rothmann, 2015). Integrity is related to the “trustor’s perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable.” (Mayer et al., 1995, p.719). Therefore, one’s perceived level of integrity will be defined by how similar their principles are compared to the trustor’s principles. How integrity is judged may be affected by a great number of factors such as reputation and past behaviors. However, how perceived integrity is build is not as relevant as the level of perceived integrity to building general perceived trustworthiness, reason why these factors will not be further discussed (Heyns & Rothmann, 2015). 13 The 3 factors that build perceived trustworthiness will result in a decision by the trustor to trust or not to trust, but that will be also influenced by characteristics of the trustor himself, such as his propensity to trust (Mayer et al., 1995). Besides the widely application of the presented framework in academic papers, some argue that this subjective construct lacks broader application for public organizations and governments, especially in developing countries (Grimmelikhuijsen & Knies, 2017; Zhao & Hu, 2017). Additionally, a great number of research in this topic argues that trust in public organizations and governments by the public is decreasing (Bovens & Wille, 2008; Foster & Frieden, 2017; Van de Walle, Van Roosbroek, & Bouckaert, 2008; Webster, 2018; Zhao & Hu, 2017). In a research performed annually by the Organization for Economic co-operation and Development, participants are asked “In this country, do you have confidence in the national government?”. The percentage of respondents that answered yes for that question in Brazil decreased from 41.5% in 2006 to 20% in 2018 (Economic & Co-operation and Development, 2018), portraying the decrease of trust in the Brazilian government by the public. Studies also apply the concept of trust in politics use different approaches for this construct. Foster & Frieden (2017) for instance developed a more practical study by discussing the trust in government in EU using socio-economical parameters, such as income, level of education and cultural characteristics. These authors emphasize on the Eurozone Crisis and how it impacted trust on public organizations. Christensen & Lægreid (2005) found similar results in their study, namely that people with higher education seem to have more trust on the government then those with lower levels of education. Still under the topic of integrity, when discussing trust or trustworthiness in politics it is impossible not to approach fake news and how they have influenced perceived trustworthiness on the political scenario and on social media in general (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017; Clayton et al., 2019; Talwar et al., 2020). Ultimately, fake news is the term commonly used to describe false and unverified news that are published in social media (SM), usually with the main goal of misleading the public to serve other particular agendas (Talwar et al., 2020). Although SM is known to be an easily accessible and universalized media (GarcíaPerdomo, Salaverría, Kilgo, & Harlow, 2018; Hultman et al., 2019; Loader & Mercea, 2011), this type of behavior will have big impact on millennials, since candidate evaluation by this generation is highly influenced by online media (Clayton et al., 2019; Towner & Munoz, 2016). Therefore, the existence of such misleading and unverified information and the facility to 14 which it can reach a large number of people will ultimately affect millennial’s perceived trustworthiness towards social media (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017; Song & Lee, 2016; Towner & Munoz, 2016). 2.4 Engagement Before social media engagement, customer engagement was already highly important for any business-to-consumer (B2C) brand, thanks to the development of relationship marketing philosophies in the 90s (de Oliveira Santini et al., 2020; Prentice, Wang, & Loureiro, 2019). In customer engagement, the consumer is seen not in a passive-only role, but as an active actor in the consumer-brand relationship (Dolan, Conduit, Frethey-Bentham, Fahy, & Goodman, 2019; Obilo, Chefor, & Saleh, 2020), moving past the act of buying and including other non-buying behaviors (Kumar, Rajan, Gupta, & Pozza, 2019). In fact, a large number of research involving engagement will approach this subject in a practical and objective way. Ott & Theunissen (2015) approach engagement strategies after social media crisis in three multinational firms. Voorveld, van Noort, Muntinga, & Bronner (2018) talk about engagement with paid social media advertisements. Dolan, Conduit, Frethey-Bentham, Fahy, & Goodman (2019) provide results that testify the different engagement behavior as a result of different types of content. Nevertheless, there is still a wide variety of definitions to engagement but with little consensus (Hollebeek, Glynn, & Brodie, 2014; Syrdal & Briggs, 2018). This could be because the term has been used in so many different areas of study since the 20th century (Eccles, 2016). Before being applied to marketing, ‘engagement’ was used in other social sciences such as psychology and organizational behavior (Hollebeek et al., 2014) and until this day can be found in a wide variety of researches from different areas of knowledge. However, a concept that has been applied in many studies that approaches engagement in marketing is consumer brand engagement (CBE) (Obilo et al., 2020). Hollebeek, Glynn, & Brodie (2014, p.54) define CBE as “a consumer’s positively valanced brand-related cognitive, emotional and behavioral activity during or related to focal consumer/brand interactions”, thus presenting three dimensions that relate to the cognitive, emotional and behavioral facets of engagement: cognitive processing, affection and activation (Hollebeek et al., 2014). Cognitive processing is related to the level of though generated by 21 specifically convenience sampling (Malhotra & Birks, 2015). Also, thanks to the characteristics of the population (some information is not publicly available) and the data collection method), the listing of all elements and calculation of the chance of each one to be chosen, as well as the sampling error and size is limited. (Malhotra & Birks, 2015; McDaniel & Gates, 2015). Even though, for the purpose of this research the expected sample size is 100. 3.4 Questionnaire development and application Data collection in quantitative researched commonly involves a survey. This implies the application of a formal questionnaire to a sample of a given population. Usually, questions and answers are standardized in order to maintain a consistency throughout the entire process, leading to a disadvantage regarding the low malleability of the questionnaire for respondents, which may not be willing to answer questions accordingly. Specially in researches that require a deep understanding about feelings or beliefs, such as the present, the choices of correct wording and phrasing are even more important and play a fundamental role to the validity of the survey (McDaniel & Gates, 2015). A few characteristics of internet-based survey portraits why this is the best method for this investigation. In this technique, problems are answered through structured surveys, meaning questions and their order of presentation are standardized, as well as the answers (Malhotra & Birks, 2015). This results in the decrease of interviewer bias, reduced costs and higher speed of application (Malhotra & Birks, 2015; McDaniel & Gates, 2015). Additionally, taking in consideration that the sample required is already familiar with the usage of internet, this proves to be a great alternative to reach a greater number of people. 3.4.1 Questionnaire structure Five constructs are used to develop the proposed questionnaire: trust on mass media, trust on social media, social media engagement, voting intention and political involvement. To measure these constructs, scales are chosen according to their effectiveness regarding the data required. Selected constructs and scales are presented on Table 1. 22 Table 1 - Constructs and Scales Construct Original Scale Mass Media Trust (mmt) Prochazka and Schweiger (2019), adapted from Kohring and Mattes (2007) Social Media Trust (smt) Prochazka and Schweiger (2019), adapted from Kohring and Mattes (2007) Social Media Engagement (sme) Hopp and Gallicano (2016) Voting Intention (vi) A. Jamal, et al. (2019) Political Involvement (pi) A. Jamal, et al. (2019) Original scales were adapted to fit the purpose of this investigation. Some wording adaptations were needed to use Mass Media trust (mmt) and Social Media trust (smt) and engagement (sme) in the political scenario. Furthermore, some questions were removed from the original mass media trust scale to fit the reality of social media. Original and adapted items are presented on table 2. Table 2 – Original and Final Items Dimensions Original Items Items Mass Media Trust (mmt) - Adapted from Prochazka and Schweiger (2019) Selectivity of Topics The media pay the necessary attention to important topics. This media channel pays the necessary attention to important topics related to POLITICIAN A. (mmt1) The media assign important topics an adequate status. This media channel assigns important topics related to POLITICIAN A an adequate status. (mmt2) The media report on important topics in an adequate frequency. This media channel reports on important topics related to POLITICIAN A in na adequate frequency. (mmt3) The media report on important topics on the necessary regular basis. This media channel reports on important topics related to POLITICIAN A on the necessary regular basis. (mmt4) 23 Table 2 – Original and Final Items (continuation) Dimensions Original Items Items Mass Media Trust (mmt) - Adapted from Prochazka and Schweiger (2019) Selectivity of Facts The media address the essential points of the topics. This media channel addresses the essential points related to POLITICIAN A. (mmt5) The media coverage’s focus is on the important facts. This media channel coverage's focus is on important facts related to POLITICIAN A. (mmt6) The media provide all important information regarding current topics. This media channel provides all important information regarding current topics related to POLITICIAN A. (mmt7) Media reporting includes different points of view. Media reporting includes different points of view on topics related to POLITICIAN A. (mmt8) Accuracy of depictions The information in the news coverage would be verifiable if examined. The information related to POLITICIAN A in the news coverage would be verifiable if examined. (mmt9) The reported information is true. The reported information related to POLITICIAN A is true. (mmt10) Media reports recount the facts truthfully. Media reports recount the facts related to POLITICIAN A truthfully. (mmt11) I receive correct facts regarding the topics which are covered. I receive correct facts regarding topics related to POLITICIAN A which are covered in this media. (mmt12) Journalistic Assessment Journalists express criticism in an adequate manner. Journalists express criticism in na adequate manner. (mmt13) The journalists’ opinions are wellfounded. The journalists' opinions are wellfounded. (mmt14) The journalists’ conclusions are wellreflected. The journalists’ conclusions are wellreflected. (mmt15) I feel that journalistic assessments are useful. I feel that journalistic assessments are useful. (mmt16) 24 Table 2 – Original and Final Items (continuation) Dimensions Original Items Items Social Media Trust (smt) - Adapted from Prochazka and Schweiger (2019) Selectivity of Topics The media pay the necessary attention to important topics. This page pays the necessary attention to important topics related to POLITICIAN A. (smt1) The media assign important topics an adequate status. This page assigns important topics related to POLITICIAN A an adequate status. (smt2) The media report on important topics in an adequate frequency. This page reports on important topics related to POLITICIAN A in na adequate frequency. (smt3) The media report on important topics on the necessary regular basis. This page reports on important topics related to POLITICIAN A on the necessary regular basis. (smt4) Selectivity of Facts The media address the essential points of the topics. This page addresses the essential points related to POLITICIAN A. (smt5) The media coverage’s focus is on the important facts. This page coverage's focus is on important facts related to POLITICIAN A. (smt6) The media provide all important information regarding current topics. This page provides all important information regarding current topics related to POLITICIAN A. (smt7) Media reporting includes different points of view. Content in this page include different points of view on topics related to POLITICIAN A. (smt8) Accuracy of depictions The information in the news coverage would be verifiable if examined. The information related to POLITICIAN A in this page would be verifiable if examined. (smt9) The reported information is true. The shared information related to POLITICIAN A in this page is true. (smt10) Media reports recount the facts truthfully. Media reports recount for facts related to POLITICIAN A truthfully. (smt11) I receive correct facts regarding the topics which are covered. I receive correct facts regarding topics related to POLITICIAN A which are covered in this media. (smt12) 25 Table 2 – Original and Final Items (continuation) Dimensions Original Items Items Social Media Engagement (sme) - Adapted from Hopp and Galliciano (2016) Presence I find content posted on my favorite blog to be disagreeable/agreeable I find content about POLITICIAN A posted on this page to be agreeable. (sme1) I find content posted on my favorite blog to be not involving /involving I find content about POLITICIAN A posted on this page to be involving. (sme2) I find content posted on my favorite blog to be not absorbing/absorbing I find content about POLITICIAN A posted on this page to be absorbing. (sme3) I find content posted on my favorite blog to be not personable/personable I find content about POLITICIAN A posted on this page to be personable. (sme4) Utility I find content posted on my favorite blog to be useless/useful I find content about POLITICIAN A posted on this page to be useful. (sme5) I find content posted on my favorite blog to be not valuable/valuable I find content about POLITICIAN A posted on this page to be valuable (sme6) I find content posted on my favorite blog to be worthless/worthwhile I find content about POLITICIAN A posted on this page to be worthwhile (sme7) I find content posted on my favorite blog to be not relevant to me/relevant to me I find content about POLITICIAN A posted on this page to be relevant to me (sme8) Virality How likely are you to recommend the blog to someone? How likely are you to recommend this page to someone? (sme9) How likely are you to discuss the information presented in your “offline” life with someone? How likely are you to discuss the information presented in your “offline” life with someone? (sme10) How likely are you to talk about articles posted on the blog with someone you know (either online or in person)? How likely are you to talk about articles posted on this page with someone you know (either online or in person)? (sme11) How likely are you to share a link to one of the blog posts through an online tool, such as e-mail or social media? How likely are you to share a link to one of this page posts through an online tool, such as e-mail or social media? (sme12) 26 Table 2 – Original and Final Items (continuation) Dimensions Original Items Items Voting Intention (vi) - Adapted from A. Jamal, et al. (2019) I am planning to vote in upcoming general elections in the Netherlands I plan to vote for POLITICIAN A in the upcoming elections in Brazil. (vi1) I am likely to vote in upcoming general elections in the Netherlands I am likely to vote for POLITICIAN A in upcoming elections in Brazil. (vi2) I intend to vote in upcoming general elections in the Netherlands I intend to vote for POLITICIAN A in upcoming elections in Brazil. (vi3) Political Involvement - Adapted from A. Jamal, et al. (2019) Dutch politics is a relevant part of my life Brazilian politics is a relevant part of my life (pi1) Dutch politics is significant to me Brazilian politics is significant to me (pi2) I am involved in Dutch politics I am involved in Brazilian politics (pi3) I am interested in Dutch politics I am interested in Brazilian politics (pi4) Dutch politics means a lot to me Brazilian politics means a lot to me (pi5) Respondents were asked upfront to think of the Politian they voted for in the last Brazilian presidential election to answer all questions. This figure is referred to as “POLITICIAN A” throughout the questionnaire. In addition, key control questions were placed before mass media and social media sections to control the data retrieved. Respondents were asked to choose the mass media channel and social media page they are more familiar with and consider them to answer the questions that followed. The entire questionnaire with control questions is presented on ATTACHMENT 1. Apart from the control questions mentioned above, non-comparative interval Likert scale varying from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree) was applied on all selected scales to allow final relations to be drawn from collected data. Likert scales measure the degree of agreement of the user regarding one object, not comparing one object with another but analyzing one at a time - also known as non-comparative analysis (Malhotra & Birks, 2015). Since variables used in this study do not have an absolute zero starting point and are more related to one’s opinions regarding a given subject, this scale allowed a much more effective quantification and measurement of attitudes and motivations. The questionnaire was developed using Google Forms and was composed by 55 27 questions divided in 5 sections: Introduction to the questionnaire, mass media trust (17 questions), social media trust and engagement (25 questions), voting intention and political involvement (9 questions), and personal information (4 questions). It was first tested with 3 users that fit the sample required. From that test three feedbacks were received, which required 2 modifications: one question from the voting intention and political involvement session was deleted (there were two very similar questions and was confusing to the user) and another question was added to the personal information section (it was suggested by one of the respondents and considered relevant for the purpose of this study). Therefore, the final questionnaire had 55 questions, with the division indicated on table 3 below. Table 3 - Sections of the Questionnaire Section Subject Number of Items Control Question Section 1 Introduction 0 No Section 2 Mass Media Trust 17 Yes Section 3 Social Media Trust and Engagement 25 Yes Section 4 Voting Intention and Political Involvement 8 No Section 5 Personal Information 5 No Total 55 As the questionnaire was applied in Brazil, all questions were translated to Portuguese by the author. Original and translated questions are also referenced on ATTACHMENT 1. The questionnaire was applied online from September 30th until October 14th and shared in social media tools such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram and WhatsApp. Taking into consideration that millennials are comfortable with the use of such tools on a daily basis this was the most effective way to reach the target audience. 28 3.5 Data Analysis Data analysis will be performed using the software SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). To test the presented hypothesis, correlations will be drawn from the collected data. 4. Analysis and Results In the present section the characterization of the sample will be presented as well as results of correlations between variables that will prove or deny previously presented hypothesis. Finally, a discussion about the results of such correlations will be presented. 4.1 Sample Profiling Sample size for the current study was 51, all with ages between 27 and 38, registered voters in Brazil, users of at least one social media and voted on the last Brazilian presidential election. Originally 56 answers were received, but 4 did not qualify as millennials and 1 respondent was not able to choose a mass media channel on control question 1, choosing “none” as his final answer. The fact that this user was not able to choose a mass media channel invalidates all following answers regarding mass media trust. Demographic information about the sample can be observed on Table 4. Most of the respondents were younger millennials with ages between 27 and 30 (49%). When it comes to gender, there was a balance between feminine (49%) and masculine (50%). At scholarly level more than 50% of respondents stated to have completed a master’s degree or post-graduation (54%), while 37% had completed bachelor’s degree and 5% had completed high school. Most respondents were from the South (37%), Northeast (31%) and Southeast (27%) regions of Brazil. Almost half of the sample identified themselves mostly with left political ideology (49%), followed by right (17%) and center-left (11%). 13% preferred not to answer this question, which was the only non-mandatory question. 29 Table 4 - Demographic Sample Profiling Variable Options Quantity % of total Age 27 - 30 25 49,02% 31 - 34 15 29,41% 35 - 38 11 21,57% Gender Feminine 25 49,02% Masculine 26 50,98% Others 0 0% Prefer not to say 0 0% Scholarly Level Completed Middle School 0 0% Completed High School 3 5,88% Incompleted Bachelor's Degree 1 1,96% Completed Bachelor's Degree 19 37,25% Completed Master's Degree or Post-Grad 28 54,90% Completed Doctorate 0 0% Region of birth-state Central-west 1 1,96% Northeast 16 31,37% North 1 1,96% Southeast 14 27,45% South 19 37,25% Political Ideology Center 1 1,96% Center-right 2 3,92% Center-left 6 11,76% Right 9 17,65% Left 25 49,02% Extreme Left 1 1,96% Extreme Right 0 0% Prefer not to say 7 13,73% 4.2 Mass Media Channel and Social Media Page As previously mentioned, two control questions were added at the beginning of Mass Media Trust and Social Media Trust sections. Respondents were asked to choose which mass media channel and “Politician A” social media page they were more familiarized with. Results are detailed on Table 5. In mass media channel, 73% of the respondents stated to be more familiarized with Globo, which shows a clear advantage over CNN (13%) and all other options presented. When it comes to “Politician A” social media page, Instagram has the preference of millennials as 60% of them are more familiarized with this social media, followed by Twitter (33%), Facebook 30 (6%) and LinkedIn (2%). Table 5 - Mass Media Channels and Social Media Pages Variable Options Quantity % of total Mass Media Channel Band News 1 2% CNN 7 14% Globo 38 75% Jovem pan e Youtube 1 2% JPan 1 2% SBT 2 4% Valor econômico 1 2% Social Media Page Página do POLÍTICO A no Facebook 3 6% Página do POLÍTICO A no Instagram 31 61% Página do POLÍTICO A no LinkedIn 1 2% Página do POLÍTICO A no Twitter 16 31% 4.3 Hypothesis Discussion Here it will be determined whether the hypothesis previously presented will be proved by the data collected. To do so, Spearman correlation coefficient was applied to test hypothesis that required correlation. Spearman correlation coefficient determines how strong is the association between two variables and it may vary from -1.0 to +1.0. Strong relationship between two variables will have a coefficient closer to 1, whilst the negative or positive sign will determine if this relationship is negative or positive, respectively (Birks & Malhotra, 2006). Although all scales selected for this study were already applied and tested in previous papers, it was applied a reliability test using Cronbach’s alpha to test their internal consistency. Alpha value ranges from 0 to 1, whereas 0.6 is considered the lowest acceptable level of reliability (Birks & Malhotra, 2006). On table 6, Cronbach’s alpha for all variables is presented, together with average and standard deviation. Variables are mass media trust, social media trust, social media engagement, voting intention and political involvement. 37 assumption was reflected on presented hypotheses to the extent that 4 out of 5 hypotheses presented proved to be significant, as presented on Table 13. Table 13 - Conclusion of hypotheses Hypothesis Conclusion Hypothesis 1: Millennials’ present higher trust on information shared on politician’s social media page than on information shared about a politician by mass media channels. Accepted Hypothesis 2: Trust on information shared about a politician on mass media channels negatively influences political involvement among millennials. Nonsignificant Hypothesis 3: Trust on information shared on politician’s social media page will have a higher influence on voting intention than trust on information shared about a politician by mass media channels. Accepted Hypothesis 4: Engagement with a politician’s social media page has a positive influence in voting intention. Accepted Hypothesis 5: Engagement with a politician’s social media page positively influences political involvement among millennials. Accepted From hypothesis 1, we can assume that millennials indeed present less trust on information shared by mass media than information shared by the politician himself, even if that information is biased as it is shared on his own social media page. If we assume that information shared by the politician himself on his social media is more personal than information shared by mass media, this behavior among millennials is expected since this generation looks for a more personal and personalized experience, as well as closer relationship with brands (Partouche et al., 2020; Smith, 2011). It was assumed that, because millennials trust less on mass media, they would look for other sources for political information and become more comfortable to actively talk about politics on social media, therefore positively influencing their political involvement. However, hypothesis 2 has proven to be incorrect since the correlation coefficient did not support a 38 significant relationship between these two dimensions. On the same sense of hypothesis 1, hypothesis 3 has also proven to be significant. Trust on information shared by mass media about a politician has less impact on voting intention than information shared on politician’s social media page. This assumption is also supported by studies about the millennial generation and their patterns of behavior towards social media (Valentine & Powers, 2013). Towner & Munoz (2016) have reached a similar conclusion, as their finding suggest that online sources will have a higher impact on candidates’ perception for millennials than for older generations. Political engagement has shifted in the last decades as traditional engagement (such as voting or volunteering for political parties) has decreased in some developed countries (Keating & Melis, 2017), while the use of social media as an arena for political discussions has increased (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017; Appel et al., 2020; Towner & Munoz, 2016). This related to results found in hypothesis 4 and 5, as engagement with information shared on a politician’s social media page positively influences millennial’s intention to vote for that politician in future elections and their political involvement. Finally, it can be concluded from the current investigation that social media has a great influence on Brazilian millennial’s voting intention and political involvement, and it is therefore a fundamental tool to increase political participation among this generation. In Brazil where the debate about social media usage in politics is escalating daily, millennials may be the most impacted generation when it comes to the dissemination of false information regarding elections, public policies and, more currently, Covid-19. Whether social media will be used to mobilize millions of people to the streets to fight racism or lead millions of people to believe that Covid-19 is a simple flu, it will always depend on who is the mind behind the screen. 5.2 Managerial Implications This study presented important conclusions for political marketers that must take into considerations the particularities of generation Y and their social media behavior in any upcoming elections in Brazil. As this generation is entirely in voting age, they are an important segment that requires special attention and tools. By understanding the negative perception of millennials regarding information shared on mass media channels and their preference for 39 politician’s social media page, it is important that this media is used correctly in order to have a positive impact on a politician’s performance. By creating more personal content and generating engagement, followers are more likely to vote for this candidate and become more politically involved, possibly inviting other people to join their community. The fact that generation Y presents a lack of trust in information shared by mass media offers an opportunity for them to rethink their strategy when it comes to political subjects. Mass media channels must find a way to present this information in a more personal way and should create online strategies to position themselves as reliable online source for political information. This update is mandatory for news network that wish to target younger generations, as this behavior is expected to continue and increase in the next years. 5.3 Limitations and suggestions for future investigation What most impacted and limited this study was the difficulty of obtaining respondents. Although the questionnaire was shared on personal social media profiles with more than 2,000 followers and on public groups that were targeted at Brazilians on Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp and LinkedIn it is possible that the length and depth of the questions negatively impacted the participants’ willingness to finish it. For future research it is suggested that the length of the questionnaire is decreased and that it stays online for more time to attract more respondents and allow more trustworthy results. When drawing conclusions for this study, it was found that the trust dimension is very complex and could have been more detailed in order to offer more insightful conclusions as to why millennials trust more on social media than on mass media. Therefore, a suggestion for future investigation is to focus only on the trust construct. This could produce interesting insights both for mass media channels and for political marketers around millennials behavior. Another suggestion for future research is to create a cross-country study that compares results from Brazil with another country where vote is not mandatory. Because voting is mandatory in Brazil, this could naturally lead to higher levels of political involvement and engagement with a politician’s social media page, whereas in other countries the behavior could be distinct. Finally, it could also be interesting to understand if millennial’s behavior will shift in the next years. Later elections have been surrounded by scandals around fake news that are mostly spread around using social media networks. Especially in Brazil this discussion is 40 receiving more attention every month, with politician’s accounts being blocked or limited for sharing disrespectful or untruthful information. This could compromise this generation’s trust on social media and make them turn to other sources for political information, maybe even back to traditional mass media channels. 41 6. Bibliography Ahmed, M. A., Lodhi, S. A., & Ahmad, Z. (2017). Political Brand Equity Model: The Integration of Political Brands in Voter Choice. Journal of Political Marketing, 16(2), 147–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2015.1022629 Alalwan, A. A., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Algharabat, R. (2017). Social media in marketing: A review and analysis of the existing literature. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), 1177– 1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.05.008 Allcott, H., Braghieri, L., Eichmeyer, S., & Gentzkow, M. (2020). The welfare effects of social media†. American Economic Review, 110(3), 629–676. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190658 Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211 Appel, G., Grewal, L., Hadi, R., & Stephen, A. T. (2020). The future of social media in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00695-1 BBC. (2020). Inquérito das Fake News: STF decide continuar investigação que atinge aliados de Bolsonaro. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-53003097 Ben-Ner, A., & Halldorsson, F. (2010). Trusting and trustworthiness: What are they, how to measure them, and what affects them. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(1), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2009.10.001 Bennett, W. L. (2012). The Personalization of Politics: Political Identity, Social Media, and Changing Patterns of Participation. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212451428 Birks, D. F., & Malhotra, N. K. (2006). Marketing Research: An Applied Approach (2nd. Europ). Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Blair, G., Cooper, J., Coppock, A., & Humphreys, M. (2019). Declaring and diagnosing research designs. American Political Science Review, 113(3), 838–859. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000194 Bode, L. (2016). Political News in the News Feed: Learning Politics from Social Media. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 24–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1045149 Boufides, C. H., Corcoran, E., Matthews, G. W., Herrick, J., & Baker, E. L. (2019). Millennials as New Messengers for Public Health. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 25(2), 197–200. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000964 Bovens, M., & Wille, A. (2008). Deciphering the Dutch drop: Ten explanations for decreasing political trust in The Netherlands. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74(2), 283–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852308091135 Cheong, J. W., Muthaly, S., Kuppusamy, M., & Han, C. (2020). The study of online reviews and its relationship to online purchase intention for electronic products among the millennials in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 32(7), 1519– 1538. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-03-2019-0192 Childers, C. C., Lemon, L. L., & Hoy, M. G. (2019). #Sponsored #Ad: Agency Perspective on Influencer Marketing Campaigns. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 40(3), 258–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2018.1521113 Chowdhury, T. A., & Naheed, S. (2020). Word of mouth communication in political marketing: Understanding and managing referrals. Journal of Marketing 42 Communications, 26(3), 290–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2018.1523217 Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2005). Trust in Government: The Relative Importance of Service Satisfaction, Political Factors, and Demography. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(4), 487–511. Chu, S. C., & Kim, J. (2018). The current state of knowledge on electronic word-of-mouth in advertising research. International Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2017.1407061 Clayton, K., Blair, S., Busam, J. A., Forstner, S., Glance, J., Green, G., … Nyhan, B. (2019). Real Solutions for Fake News? Measuring the Effectiveness of General Warnings and FactCheck Tags in Reducing Belief in False Stories on Social Media. Political Behavior, 42(4), 1073–1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09533-0 Damé, L. (2018). Taxa de abstenção na eleição presidencial é a maior desde 1998. Retrieved from Brasil, Agência website: https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/politica/noticia/201810/taxa-de-abstencao-na-eleicao-presidencial-e-maior-desde-1998 De Oliveira, M. J., Huertas, M. K. Z., & Lin, Z. (2016). Factors driving young users’ engagement with Facebook: Evidence from Brazil. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.038 de Oliveira Santini, F., Ladeira, W. J., Pinto, D. C., Herter, M. M., Sampaio, C. H., & Babin, B. J. (2020). Customer engagement in social media: a framework and meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(6), 1211–1228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00731-5 Deloitte. (2019). The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey 2019: Societal discord and technological transformation create a “generation disrupted.” In Deloitte. Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/AboutDeloitte/deloitte-2019-millennial-survey.pdf Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., & Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015). Consumer engagement in online brand communities: A social media perspective. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 24(1), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2014-0635 Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Frethey-Bentham, C., Fahy, J., & Goodman, S. (2019). Social media engagement behavior: A framework for engaging customers through social media content. European Journal of Marketing, 53(10), 2213–2243. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-03-2017-0182 Dwivedi, Y. K., Ismagilova, E., Hughes, D. L., Carlson, J., Filieri, R., Jacobson, J., … Wang, Y. (2020). Setting the future of digital and social media marketing research: Perspectives and research propositions. International Journal of Information Management, (May), 102168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102168 Eccles, J. S. (2016). Engagement: Where to next? Learning and Instruction, 43, 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.003 Economic, O. for, & Co-operation and Development. (2018). Trust in government. Retrieved from https://data.oecd.org/gga/trust-in-government.htm Elhajjar, S. (2018). An Empirical Test of a Model of Resistance to Political Marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 6(1), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.15640/jmm.v6n1a7 Facebook. (2020). Institutional Public Information. Retrieved from https://about.fb.com/company-info/ Farivar, S., Wang, F., & Yuan, Y. (2020). Opinion leadership vs. para-social relationship: Key factors in influencer marketing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, (October), 102371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102371 43 Fenton, N., & Barassi, V. (2011). Alternative media and social networking sites: The politics of individuation and political participation. Communication Review, 14(3), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2011.597245 Fisher, P. (2018). A political outlier: The distinct politics of the Millennial generation. Society, 55(1), 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-017-0209-7 Foster, C., & Frieden, J. (2017). Crisis of trust: Socio-economic determinants of Europeans’ confidence in government. European Union Politics, 18(4), 511–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116517723499 García-Perdomo, V., Salaverría, R., Kilgo, D. K., & Harlow, S. (2018). To Share or Not to Share: The influence of news values and topics on popular social media content in the United States, Brazil, and Argentina. Journalism Studies, 19(8), 1180–1201. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1265896 Giakoumaki, C., & Krepapa, A. (2020). Brand engagement in self-concept and consumer engagement in social media: The role of the source. Psychology and Marketing, 37(3), 457–465. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21312 Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Knies, E. (2017). Validating a scale for citizen trust in government organizations. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(3), 583–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315585950 Grosser, K. M., Hase, V., & Wintterlin, F. (2019). Trustworthy Or Shady?: Exploring the influence of verifying and visualizing user-generated content (UGC) on online journalism’s trustworthiness. Journalism Studies, 20(4), 500–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2017.1392255 Guzmán, F., Paswan, A. K., & Van Steenburg, E. (2015). Self-Referencing and Political Candidate Brands: A Congruency Perspective. Journal of Political Marketing, 14(1–2), 175–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2014.990837 Haenschen, K., & Jennings, J. (2019). Mobilizing Millennial Voters with Targeted Internet Advertisements: A Field Experiment. Political Communication, 36(3), 357–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1548530 Han, Y., Boshoff, C., Venter, E., & Bosch, J. (2006). The impact of brand identity on the perceived brand image of a merged higher education institution : part two. Management Dynamics : Journal of the Southern African Institute for Management Scientists, 15(3), 36–47. Harmes, A. (2016). Political Marketing in Post-Conflict Elections: The Case of Iraq. Journal of Political Marketing, 0(0), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2016.1193834 Heo, J., & Muralidharan, S. (2019). What triggers young Millennials to purchase eco-friendly products?: the interrelationships among knowledge, perceived consumer effectiveness, and environmental concern. Journal of Marketing Communications, 25(4), 421–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2017.1303623 Heyns, M., & Rothmann, S. (2015). Dimensionality of trust: An analysis of the relations between propensity, trustworthiness and trust. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 41(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v41i1.1263 Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002 Hultman, M., Ulusoy, S., & Oghazi, P. (2019). Drivers and outcomes of political candidate image creation: The role of social media marketing. Psychology and Marketing, 36(12), 1226–1236. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21271 44 Ismagilova, E., Slade, E. L., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2020). The Effect of Electronic Word of Mouth Communications on Intention to Buy: A Meta-Analysis. Information Systems Frontiers, 22(5), 1203–1226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09924-y Izquierdo-Yusta, A., Pick, D., Anguera, M. T., & Huete-Alcocer, N. (2017). A Literature Review of Word of Mouth and Electronic Word of Mouth: Implications for Consumer Behavior. Front. Psychol, 8, 1256. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01256 Kapoor, K. K., Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., Patil, P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Nerur, S. (2018). Advances in Social Media Research: Past, Present and Future. Information Systems Frontiers, 20(3), 531–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9810-y Keating, A., & Melis, G. (2017). Social media and youth political engagement: Preaching to the converted or providing a new voice for youth? British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 19(4), 877–894. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117718461 Klinger, U. (2013). MASTERING THE ART OF SOCIAL MEDIA: Swiss parties, the 2011 national election and digital challenges. Information Communication and Society, 16(5), 717– 736. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.782329 Koidl, K., & Kapanova, K. G. (2020). Introduction to the Special Issue: Re-Imagining a More Trustworthy Social Media Future. Social Media and Society, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120923007 Kumar, V., Rajan, B., Gupta, S., & Pozza, I. D. (2019). Customer engagement in service. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(1), 138–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0565-2 Kunst, K., & Vatrapu, R. (2018). Understanding electronic word of behavior: conceptualization of the observable digital traces of consumers’ behaviors. Electronic Markets, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-018-0301-x Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000). Political Trust and Trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 475–507. Loader, B. D., & Mercea, D. (2011). Introduction networking democracy? Social media innovations and participatory politics. Information Communication and Society, 14(6), 757–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.592648 Maduku, D. K. (2019). Privacy concerns, internal political efficacy, intrusiveness, and voter resistance to the acceptance of political mobile marketing campaigns. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, (May 2018), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1636 Malhotra, N. K., & Birks, D. F. (2015). Marketing Approach: An Applied Approach (Updated Se). Pearson, Prentice Hall. Marder, B., Marchant, C., Archer-Brown, C., Yau, A., & Colliander, J. (2018). Conspicuous political brand interactions on social network sites. European Journal of Marketing, 52(3–4), 702–724. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-01-2017-0059 Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. McDaniel, C., & Gates, R. (2015). Marketing Research (10th Editi). Wiley. Mollen, A., & Wilson, H. (2010). Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. Journal of Business Research, 63(9–10), 919–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.014 Moreno, F. M., Lafuente, J. G., Carreón, F. Á., & Moreno, S. M. (2017). The Characterization of the Millennials and Their Buying Behavior. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 9(5), 135. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v9n5p135 45 Moturu, S. T., & Liu, H. (2011). Quantifying the trustworthiness of social media content. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 29(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10619010-7077-0 Nielsen, S. W. (2016). Measuring Political Brands: An Art and a Science of Mapping the Mind. Journal of Political Marketing, 15(1), 70–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2014.959682 Nielsen, S. W. (2017). On Political Brands: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of Political Marketing, 16(2), 118–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2014.959694 Obilo, O. O., Chefor, E., & Saleh, A. (2020). Revisiting the consumer brand engagement concept. Journal of Business Research, (January), 0–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.023 Ormrod, R. P. (2017). Stakeholders in the political marketing context. Journal of Public Affairs, 17(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1671 Ott, L., & Theunissen, P. (2015). Reputations at risk: Engagement during social media crises. Public Relations Review, 41(1), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.10.015 Parsons, M., & Rowling, M. (2018). Social Media and the Paradox of Fear: An Exploratory Study of Political Relationship Marketing Within South Wales. Journal of Political Marketing, 17(3), 235–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2015.1039746 Partouche, J., Vessal, S., Khelladi, I., Castellano, S., & Sakka, G. (2020). Effects of causerelated marketing campaigns on consumer purchase behavior among French millennials: A regulatory focus approach. International Marketing Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-12-2018-0348 Pich, C., & Armannsdottir, G. (2018). Political brand image: An investigation into the operationalisation of the external orientation of David Cameron’s Conservative brand. Journal of Marketing Communications, 24(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2015.1072577 Pich, Christopher, Dean, D., & Punjaisri, K. (2016). Political brand identity: An examination of the complexities of Conservative brand and internal market engagement during the 2010 UK General Election campaign. Journal of Marketing Communications, 22(1), 100– 117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2013.864321 PORDATA. (2019). Taxa de abstenção nas eleições para a Assembleia da República: total, residentes em Portugal e residentes no estrangeiro. Retrieved from https://www.pordata.pt/Portugal/Taxa+de+abstenção+nas+eleições+para+a+Assemble ia+da+República+total++residentes+em+Portugal+e+residentes+no+estrangeiro-2208 Prentice, C., Wang, X., & Loureiro, S. M. C. (2019). The influence of brand experience and service quality on customer engagement. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50(February), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.04.020 Serazio, M. (2017). Branding politics: Emotion, authenticity, and the marketing culture of American political communication. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17(2), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540515586868 Simons, G. (2020). Policy and Political Marketing : Promoting Conflict as Policy. Journal of Political Marketing, 0(0), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2020.1724426 Smith, K. T. (2011). Digital marketing strategies that Millennials find appealing, motivating, or just annoying. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(6), 489–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2011.581383 Song, C., & Lee, J. (2016). Citizens Use of Social Media in Government, Perceived Transparency, and Trust in Government. Public Performance and Management Review, 46 39(2), 430–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1108798 Statista. (2020a). Number of social network users worldwide from 2010 to 2023. Statista. (2020b). Social media: active usage penetration in selected countries 2020. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/282846/regular-social-networkingusage-penetration-worldwide-by-country/ Syrdal, H. A., & Briggs, E. (2018). Engagement With Social Media Content: a Qualitative Exploration. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 26(1–2), 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2017.1389243 Talwar, S., Dhir, A., Singh, D., Virk, G. S., & Salo, J. (2020). Sharing of fake news on social media: Application of the honeycomb framework and the third-person effect hypothesis. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57(July), 102197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102197 Towner, T., & Munoz, C. L. (2016). Boomers versus millennials: Online media influence on media performance and candidate evaluations. Social Sciences, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci5040056 Valentine, D. B., & Powers, T. L. (2013). Generation Y values and lifestyle segments. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(7), 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-07-2013-0650 Van de Walle, S., Van Roosbroek, S., & Bouckaert, G. (2008). Trust in the public sector: Is there any evidence for a long-term decline? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852307085733 Voorveld, H. A. M., van Noort, G., Muntinga, D. G., & Bronner, F. (2018). Engagement with Social Media and Social Media Advertising: The Differentiating Role of Platform Type. Journal of Advertising, 47(1), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2017.1405754 Wang, X., & Liu, Z. (2019). Online engagement in social media: A cross-cultural comparison. Computers in Human Behavior, 97(May 2018), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.014 Wang, Y., & Herrando, C. (2019). Does privacy assurance on social commerce sites matter to millennials? International Journal of Information Management, 44(October 2018), 164– 177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.016 Warner-Søderholm, G., Bertsch, A., Sawe, E., Lee, D., Wolfe, T., Meyer, J., … Fatilua, U. N. (2018). Who trusts social media? Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.026 Webster, S. W. (2018). Anger and Declining Trust in Government in the American Electorate. Political Behavior, 40(4), 933–964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9431-7 Wiedmann, K. P., & von Mettenheim, W. (2020). Attractiveness, trustworthiness and expertise – social influencers’ winning formula? Journal of Product and Brand Management, (May). https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2019-2442 Wolfsfeld, G., Segev, E., & Sheafer, T. (2013). Social Media and the Arab Spring: Politics Comes First. International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 115–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161212471716 Zhao, D., & Hu, W. (2017). Determinants of public trust in government: empirical evidence from urban China. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(2), 358–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315582136 ATTACHMENT 2 - Correlation between items of each variable Correlation between items of mass media trust Items mmt1 mmt2 mmt3 mmt4 mmt5 mmt6 mmt7 mmt8 mmt9 mmt10 mmt11 mmt12 mmt13 mmt14 mmt15 mmt16 mmt1 1 0,837 0,789 0,769 0,688 0,621 0,616 0,281 0,493 0,464 0,489 0,542 0,485 0,364 0,462 0,335 mmt2 0,837 1 0,715 0,646 0,661 0,512 0,612 0,462 0,46 0,47 0,467 0,509 0,502 0,413 0,47 0,27 mmt3 0,789 0,715 1 0,85 0,794 0,71 0,66 0,366 0,591 0,586 0,585 0,624 0,511 0,366 0,48 0,437 mmt4 0,769 0,646 0,85 1 0,79 0,774 0,732 0,379 0,4 0,4 0,438 0,464 0,46 0,277 0,385 0,291 mmt5 0,688 0,661 0,794 0,79 1 0,754 0,782 0,604 0,56 0,552 0,589 0,594 0,613 0,456 0,562 0,391 mmt6 0,621 0,512 0,71 0,774 0,754 1 0,725 0,428 0,439 0,391 0,434 0,488 0,467 0,308 0,397 0,3 mmt7 0,616 0,612 0,66 0,732 0,782 0,725 1 0,532 0,526 0,514 0,592 0,616 0,677 0,504 0,591 0,389 mmt8 0,281 0,462 0,366 0,379 0,604 0,428 0,532 1 0,626 0,553 0,589 0,552 0,654 0,687 0,606 0,456 mmt9 0,493 0,46 0,591 0,4 0,56 0,439 0,526 0,626 1 0,83 0,838 0,864 0,669 0,711 0,69 0,67 mmt10 0,464 0,47 0,586 0,4 0,552 0,391 0,514 0,553 0,83 1 0,962 0,908 0,715 0,765 0,738 0,698 mmt11 0,489 0,467 0,585 0,438 0,589 0,434 0,592 0,589 0,838 0,962 1 0,918 0,757 0,784 0,754 0,701 mmt12 0,542 0,509 0,624 0,464 0,594 0,488 0,616 0,552 0,864 0,908 0,918 1 0,801 0,812 0,835 0,719 mmt13 0,485 0,502 0,511 0,46 0,613 0,467 0,677 0,654 0,669 0,715 0,757 0,801 1 0,852 0,873 0,748 mmt14 0,364 0,413 0,366 0,277 0,456 0,308 0,504 0,687 0,711 0,765 0,784 0,812 0,852 1 0,894 0,684 mmt15 0,462 0,47 0,48 0,385 0,562 0,397 0,591 0,606 0,69 0,738 0,754 0,835 0,873 0,894 1 0,772 mmt16 0,335 0,27 0,437 0,291 0,391 0,3 0,389 0,456 0,67 0,698 0,701 0,719 0,748 0,684 0,772 1 Correlation between items of social media trust Item smt1 smt2 smt3 smt4 smt5 smt6 smt7 smt8 smt9 smt10 smt11 smt12 smt1 1 0,835 0,754 0,825 0,831 0,844 0,606 0,379 0,674 0,68 0,643 0,702 smt2 0,835 1 0,847 0,864 0,898 0,832 0,693 0,537 0,711 0,737 0,678 0,76 smt3 0,754 0,847 1 0,878 0,825 0,803 0,831 0,618 0,756 0,679 0,698 0,75 smt4 0,825 0,864 0,878 1 0,817 0,796 0,73 0,506 0,736 0,667 0,71 0,722 smt5 0,831 0,898 0,825 0,817 1 0,889 0,741 0,56 0,768 0,716 0,701 0,781 smt6 0,844 0,832 0,803 0,796 0,889 1 0,727 0,546 0,743 0,7 0,675 0,774 smt7 0,606 0,693 0,831 0,73 0,741 0,727 1 0,613 0,745 0,644 0,695 0,729 smt8 0,379 0,537 0,618 0,506 0,56 0,546 0,613 1 0,634 0,623 0,691 0,7 smt9 0,674 0,711 0,756 0,736 0,768 0,743 0,745 0,634 1 0,838 0,851 0,891 smt10 0,68 0,737 0,679 0,667 0,716 0,7 0,644 0,623 0,838 1 0,871 0,855 smt11 0,643 0,678 0,698 0,71 0,701 0,675 0,695 0,691 0,851 0,871 1 0,883 smt12 0,702 0,76 0,75 0,722 0,781 0,774 0,729 0,7 0,891 0,855 0,883 1 Correlation between items of social media engagement Item sme1 sme2 sme3 sme4 sme5 sme6 sme7 sme8 sme9 sme10 sme11 sme12 sme1 1 0,808 0,754 0,7 0,735 0,696 0,712 0,732 0,664 0,505 0,478 0,521 sme2 0,808 1 0,957 0,722 0,683 0,69 0,746 0,726 0,603 0,342 0,369 0,454 sme3 0,754 0,957 1 0,731 0,627 0,676 0,726 0,679 0,601 0,313 0,353 0,465 sme4 0,7 0,722 0,731 1 0,662 0,655 0,674 0,663 0,537 0,351 0,397 0,462 sme5 0,735 0,683 0,627 0,662 1 0,827 0,884 0,901 0,769 0,628 0,617 0,618 sme6 0,696 0,69 0,676 0,655 0,827 1 0,889 0,887 0,811 0,591 0,605 0,686 sme7 0,712 0,746 0,726 0,674 0,884 0,889 1 0,913 0,861 0,654 0,664 0,716 sme8 0,732 0,726 0,679 0,663 0,901 0,887 0,913 1 0,793 0,585 0,546 0,655 sme9 0,664 0,603 0,601 0,537 0,769 0,811 0,861 0,793 1 0,74 0,792 0,834 sme10 0,505 0,342 0,313 0,351 0,628 0,591 0,654 0,585 0,74 1 0,92 0,822 sme11 0,478 0,369 0,353 0,397 0,617 0,605 0,664 0,546 0,792 0,92 1 0,877 sme12 0,521 0,454 0,465 0,462 0,618 0,686 0,716 0,655 0,834 0,822 0,877 1 55 Correlation between items of voting intention Item vi1 vi2 vi3 vi1 1 0,965 0,954 vi2 0,965 1 0,938 vi3 0,954 0,938 1 Correlation between items of political involvement Item pi1 pi2 pi3 pi4 pi5 pi1 1 0,829 0,631 0,689 0,741 pi2 0,829 1 0,631 0,806 0,849 pi3 0,631 0,631 1 0,679 0,701 pi4 0,689 0,806 0,679 1 0,907 pi5 0,741 0,849 0,701 0,907 1