THE INFLUENCE OF MEDIA EXPOSURE AND MEDIA LITERACY ON THE POLITICAL COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR OF THE PEOPLE IN THE LOWER NORTHERN REGION OF THAILAND

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Feb 2, 2026

Main Article Content

Athiwat Sonnoi
Department of Political Science, Northern College, Thailand
Thanabodee Jamjaeng
Department of Political Science, Northern College, Thailand

Abstract

This study investigates political communication in the Lower Northern Region of Thailand with four main objectives: 1) to examine levels of media exposure, media literacy, and political communication behaviors; 2) to analyze the relationships between personal factors and political communication behaviors; 3) to assess the influence of media exposure and media literacy on political communication behaviors; and 4) to propose approaches for promoting constructive political communication within communities. A mixed-methods approach was employed. Quantitative data were collected from 400 individuals aged 18 and above in Mueang Tak and Mueang Sukhothai districts using multistage sampling, with a questionnaire demonstrating high reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.84). Qualitative data were obtained through in-depth interviews with 12 purposively selected participants, including community leaders, local activists, local media, and youth, and analyzed using thematic analysis.


Finding:


  1. Respondents demonstrated high levels of media exposure and media literacy overall (Mean = 3.89, SD = 0.54), particularly in terms of accessing news from multiple platforms (Mean = 3.94, SD = 0.64) and distinguishing between real and fake news (Mean = 3.86, SD = 0.57).

  2. Education level was positively correlated with news exposure and political expression (r = .362, p < .01; r = .341, p < .01), whereas age was negatively correlated with digital political engagement (r = –.288, p < .01). Regression results indicate that media literacy (β = .318, p < .01) and political affective involvement (β = .301, p < .01) significantly influenced political communication behaviors.

  3. Furthermore, individuals using multiple platforms showed greater interpretative ability than those relying on a single platform (Mean = 4.02 vs. 3.41, t = 4.382, p < .01).

  4. Qualitative findings suggest four approaches to enhance constructive political communication: strengthening reliable local media, integrating media literacy into education and youth activities, utilizing local culture and language to address political issues, and encouraging youth participation in content creation. Overall, the study confirms that diverse media exposure, media literacy, and affective involvement are key to fostering constructive political communication in regional communities.

Article Details

Issue
Vol. 4 No. 1 (2569): January-February 2026
Section
Article
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

Boulianne, S., Koc-Michalska, K., & Bimber, B. (2020). Digital media and political participation: A meta-analysis. Political Communication, 37(2), 163–185.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. London: SAGE Publications.

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.

Freelon, D., McIlwain, C. D., & Clark, M. D. (2020). Quantifying the power and consequences of social media protest. New Media & Society, 22(1), 77–99.

Hasebrink, U., Domeyer, H., & Hagen, L. M. (2020). Media repertoires as patterns of behaviour and as meaningful practices: A multimodal perspective. Convergence, 26(2), 247–264.

Helmond, A., Nieborg, D. B., & van der Vlist, F. N. (2021). Facebook’s evolution: Development of a platform-as-infrastructure. Internet Histories, 5(2), 123–146.

Livingstone, S. (2018). Audiences in an age of datafication: Critical questions for media research. Television & New Media, 20(2), 170–183.

McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.

Meraz, S., & Papacharissi, Z. (2021). Networked framing and gatekeeping. In S. Coleman & D. Freelon (Eds.), Handbook of digital politics (pp. 155–170). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Napoli, P. M. (2019). Social media and the public interest: Media regulation in the disinformation age. New York: Columbia University Press.

Office of the National Digital Economy and Society Commission. (2023). Thailand digital society and media safety report 2023. Bangkok: Ministry of Digital Economy and Society.

Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

______. (2020). After democracy: Imagining our political future. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Thorson, K., & Wells, C. (2020). Curated flows: A framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory, 30(3), 309–328.

Tucker, J. A., Theocharis, Y., Roberts, M. E., & Barberá, P. (2018). From liberation to turmoil: Social media and democracy. Journal of Democracy, 29(4), 46–59.

UNESCO. (2021). Media and information literacy: Policy and strategy guidelines. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

Vaccari, C., & Valeriani, A. (2021). Outside the bubble: Social media and political participation in Western democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2023). The platform society: Public values in a connective world (Updated ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Yamane, T. (1973). Statistics: An introductory analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.