How Social Fairness Perception Affects Youth Political Participation：The Moderating Effect of Internet Use

How Social Fairness Perception Affects Youth Political Participation：The Moderating Effect of Internet Use | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article How Social Fairness Perception Affects Youth Political Participation：The Moderating Effect of Internet Use Yi Han, Wenjun Yang This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9075421/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Youth political participation is a cornerstone of democratic political development. Utilizing data from the 2021 China Social Survey (CSS2021), this study empirically investigates the mechanisms linking social fairness perception, internet use, and youth political participation. Results show that social fairness perceptions and internet use exert distinct effects on institutionalized and non-institutionalized political participation among young people. Specifically, a stronger sense of social fairness among youth is associated with a greater inclination toward institutionalized political participation, while a weaker sense is linked to a higher propensity for non-institutionalized participation. Furthermore, more intensive internet use predicts stronger non-institutionalized political participation, yet has no significant bearing on institutionalized participation. Further analysis indicates that internet use does not moderate the relationship between social fairness perception and institutionalized participation; however, it significantly amplifies the association between social fairness perception and non-institutionalized participation. These results advance our understanding of the drivers behind youth political engagement and the nuanced role of the internet in this process, offering theoretical and practical insights for guiding youth toward orderly political involvement. Social science/Politics and international relations Biological sciences/Psychology Social science/Psychology Institutionalized political participation Non-institutionalized political participation Social fairness perception Internet use Youth Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1.Introduction Political participation is a classic subject of political inquiry and is frequently seen as a key marker of political modernization. Since the launch of reform and opening-up,accompanying the sustained progress of economic and social modernization, political participation among Chinese citizens has continued to expand in both breadth and depth (Cui et al., 2015). The report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China underscored the imperative to “improve the system of institutions through which the people run the country and expand their orderly political participation.”As the future backbone of national and societal development, the political engagement of young people mirrors not only the contemporary political environment but also presages future political trajectories.China is currently undergoing profound changes unseen in a century and is in a phase of deep social transformation, where restructuring interests and reconciling diverse demands have emerged as central governance challenges. As pivotal stakeholders, the avenues through which youth express themselves politically have drawn considerable scrutiny.Directing young people to engage in the political process normatively through institutionalized channels represents a vital aspect of advancing democratic development and modernizing governance.Consequently, a systematic examination of the intrinsic mechanisms driving youth political participation carries substantial theoretical and policy relevance for fostering their orderly engagement and deepening the implementation of whole-process people's democracy. The determinants of political participation have attracted considerable scholarly attention in recent years. Existing research has concentrated on variables including social capital (Putnam,1994), civic culture (Almond & Verba, 1963), democratic support (Song & Ai, 2025), perceptions of social fairness (Svensson, 2015), political efficacy (Zhan & You, 2024), political trust (Miao et al., 2022), and internet use (Bode, 2012). Within this body of work, the mechanisms by which social fairness perceptions and internet use shape political participation have emerged as key research themes, though scholarly consensus on their effects remains limited. Some researchers contend that internet use exerts a significant positive effect on political participation (S.J.Kim,2023), whereas others report only a modest positive association (Bakker & de Vreese, 2011; Boulianne, 2015, 2019), or even argue that there is no robust relationship, or possibly a suppressive one (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2010). These disagreements can be largely attributed to variations in how political participation is conceptualized and measured (Gibson & Cantijoch, 2013).By comparison, greater consensus exists concerning the link between social fairness perception and political participation. Scholars widely agree that social fairness perception—an individual’s subjective evaluation of distributive justice—significantly shapes political behavior (Hou & Liu et al., 2023; Zheng, 2014, 2019). While existing scholarship offers important insights, several avenues remain open for further investigation. First, research on youth political participation remains relatively limited. Although studies have examined political engagement among specific groups such as rural residents (Hou et al., 2023) and urban dwellers (He et al., 2022), most tend to treat the population as homogeneous, leaving the distinctive political participation patterns of Chinese youth underexplored. Thus, the behavioral profile of Chinese youth political participation, as well as whether their responsiveness to social fairness perceptions and internet use differs from that of other groups, still requires systematic analysis.Second, the interactive relationships among social fairness perception, internet use, and political participation are not yet well understood. Most studies either examine these factors in isolation or introduce them as separate controls, rarely integrating social fairness perception and internet use within a unified analytical framework to assess their joint effects. Whether these two variables moderate or reinforce one another, and whether such interactions exert differential impacts on institutionalized versus non-institutionalized political participation, calls for more rigorous empirical inquiry. Against this backdrop, this study focuses specifically on youth, distinguishing between institutionalized and non-institutionalized forms of political participation. Using data from the 2021 Chinese Social Survey (CSS2021) and applying regression analysis alongside tests for moderation effects, we systematically examine how perceptions of social fairness and internet use shape youth political engagement. A central aim is to investigate whether internet use moderates the relationship between social fairness perception and youth political participation. Through this analysis, we seek to clarify the underlying mechanisms of youth political engagement in the digital age and to offer theoretical and policy insights for fostering their orderly participation in political life. 2.Literature review and research hypotheses 2.1 Institutionalized political participation and non-institutionalized political participation Political participation, a central concept in political science, has been variably defined in the literature. Huntington and Nelson (1989) characterize it as activities undertaken by private citizens to influence government decisions, while Van Deth (2014) highlights its nature as voluntary citizen engagement with the state. Early scholarship concentrated primarily on institutionalized participation. As market reforms have deepened, however, non-institutionalized participation has attracted growing scholarly interest, driven by increased demands for interest articulation (Cai, 2005). Consequently, the traditional voting-centric model is increasingly giving way to more diverse modes of engagement (Van Deth, 2021). In terms of typology, Sabucedo and Arce (1991) distinguish between electoral (institutionalized) and non-electoral (non-institutionalized) political participation—a classification widely employed in subsequent research (Putnam, 2000; Copeland, 2014; Theocharis & Quintelier, 2016). Institutionalized participation encompasses conventional, routinized forms of engagement such as voting or attending public hearings, typically characterized by interest articulation and deliberative communication (Liu et al., 2021). Non-institutionalized participation, by contrast, involves extra-institutional or confrontational actions—including collective petitions, protests, and demonstrations—to advance claims (Wang & Yang, 2011). Guided by this framework, the present study adopts the dichotomy of institutionalized versus non-institutionalized political participation. 2.2 Social fairness perceptions and political participation Social fairness entails the distribution of societal benefits and responsibilities according to principles of equity and justice, thereby protecting the fundamental rights of diverse societal actors (Rothmund & Becker,2016). Social fairness perception refers to individuals’ subjective assessment of the fairness prevailing in society (Cao et al.,2017). As a core psychological factor, it reflects not only an individual’s cognitive appraisal of institutional arrangements but also significantly shapes their value orientations and political behaviors (Hou & Liu et al., 2023). Research on the linkage between social fairness perception and political participation falls into two broad streams. The first examines their direct relationship. Lin and Xiao (2019) report a significant association, indicating that individuals with a stronger sense of social fairness are more inclined toward institutionalized political participation. This finding is corroborated by Su and Yao (2022) in an empirical study using five waves of Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) data, which shows that rural residents’ social fairness perception positively predicts institutionalized participation. Conversely, Niu et al.(2017) contend that heightened perceptions of unfairness increase the likelihood of collective action, implying that lower social fairness perception is linked to a greater propensity for non-institutionalized political participation. The second stream of research focuses on the indirect role of social fairness perception in political participation. For instance, Neufeind et al.(2014) demonstrate that social fairness perception significantly moderates the link between political socialization and participation. Zheng (2014) further argues that both procedural and distributive fairness perceptions positively moderate the relationship between political trust and political engagement. Additionally, social fairness perception has been shown to moderate the connection between political knowledge and individual voting behavior (Zheng,2019). The reviewed literature underscores that social fairness perception constitutes an important determinant of political participation. Although scholarly discussion on this topic is well established, research focusing specifically on youth political engagement remains notably limited. Therefore, this paper proposes the following research hypotheses: H1-1:The higher young people's social fairness perceptions, the stronger their institutionalized political participation; H1-2:The lower young people's social fairness perceptions, the stronger their non-institutionalized political participation. 2.3 Internet use and political participation The influence of social fairness perception on youth political participation may also be mediated by other factors, among which internet use is a particularly salient variable. The rapid proliferation of the internet has enabled young people to access political information and voice their opinions online. As a medium of information dissemination, the internet can shape political engagement; however, scholarly opinion remains divided on the direction of this influence—specifically, whether internet use fosters or discourages participation. Proponents of the internet’s mobilizing role contend that it strengthens individuals’ ability to acquire information (Bimber et al.,2015), reduces the costs (Brundidge, 2010) and logistical hurdles of engagement (Willnat et al., 2013), and enables easier affiliation with ideologically aligned political groups (Neubaum & Weeks, 2023), collectively enhancing political participation. In the Chinese context, where online media frequently emphasize positive propaganda, Chen and Zang (2015) show that media use significantly increases political participation among rural residents. Conversely, a substantial body of scholarship argues that internet use may suppress political participation or exert only negligible effects. Putnam (2001) contends that internet use expands time devoted to entertainment, crowding out public political engagement. The commercial and entertainment-driven nature of digital platforms, moreover, may erode individuals’ capacity for political involvement (Bakker & de Vreese, 2011), ultimately dampening their motivation to participate (Bimber et al., 2015). Other studies suggest that the internet’s practical impact on fostering mass political engagement remains modest (Norris, 2002; Theocharis & Quintelier, 2016). Based on this, the following research hypotheses are proposed: H2-1:The stronger young people's internet usage, the stronger their institut- ionalized political participation; H2-2:The stronger young people's internet usage, the stronger their non-in- stitutionalized political participation. 2.4 Moderation effects of internet use Given the significant impact of social fairness perception on political participation, the internet—as a key channel for information diffusion and social exchange—may moderate this relationship. Practical evidence further suggests that internet development plays an important role in addressing public needs and promoting social well-being (Pan et al.,2019). Young people frequently access political information, articulate opinions, and join public discourse online. The extent and manner of their internet use could thus amplify or attenuate the effect of social fairness perception on their political engagement. Studies indicate that the internet does not directly determine participation levels but operates by conditioning individual psychological mechanisms and behavioral pathways (Theocharis & Quintelier, 2016). Specifically, internet use may positively moderate the relationship between social fairness perception and institutionalized political participation. When young people regularly consume political information online, the internet’s informational features can bolster their political awareness and efficacy, reinforcing a sense of civic responsibility. This, in turn, makes them more likely to engage through formal channels such as voting or contacting officials (Zheng, 2014). Under these conditions, a strong sense of social fairness, coupled with high-frequency information exposure, is expected to further encourage institutionalized participation. In contrast, within non-institutionalized pathways, the internet may magnify feelings of relative deprivation stemming from low social fairness perceptions, using online networks to facilitate rapid mobilization and collective action (Niu et al., 2017). Based on this, the following research hypotheses are proposed: H3-2: Youth internet use exerts a positive moderating effect on the relationship between social fairness perceptions and institutionalized political participation; H3-3: Youth internet use exerts a negative moderating effect on the relationship between social fairness perceptions and non-institutionalized political participation. Based on the aforementioned theoretical framework and research hypotheses, this paper constructs a diagram of the theoretical model illustrating the influence mechanism of youth political participation (Fig. 1 ). 3.Data and methods This study employs data from the 2021 Chinese Social Survey (CSS2021), a nationally representative, continuous survey project administered by the Institute of Sociology at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The survey covers 151 counties (districts/cities) across 31 provincial-level units in China. Its target population is urban and rural residents aged 18–69, yielding a total of 10,136 valid responses.Guided by the youth age range (14–35 years) defined in China’s Medium- and Long-Term Youth Development Plan (2016–2025) and considering the structure of the CSS2021 sample, we limit our analysis to respondents aged 18–35. To sharpen the focus of the inquiry, the raw data were filtered according to study-specific criteria, primarily age (18–35) and internet use status. To ensure data quality, observations that were irrelevant to the research aims or contained excessive missing values were removed.After these procedures, 2,019 valid cases were retained for empirical analysis. This sample size fulfills the basic requirements for model estimation and hypothesis testing in this study and offers reasonable representativeness and analytical reliability. 3.1 Explained variable This study uses political participation as the dependent variable, representing the political participation of research subjects. Drawing on Zhang et al. (2024), political participation is measured through questionnaire item H2a: “In the past two years, have you participated in any of the following activities?” Specifically, it includes: “Reporting social issues to media outlets such as newspapers, radio stations, or online forums”; “Submitting opinions to government departments (including via phone, email, etc.)”; “Expressing personal views on government policies through various channels”; “Discussing political issues with others or online users”; “Participating in collective online/offline rights protection actions”; “Engaging in discussions on major decision-making processes within your village/community or workplace”; and “Attending public hearings on public policies organized by government departments.” “Expressing personal opinions on government policies through various channels,” “Discussing political issues with others or online users,” “Participating in collective rights defense actions online/offline,” “Participating in major decision-making discussions in your village/community or workplace,” and “Attending public policy hearings organized by government departments.” The second explanatory variable is “voting participation,” measured by the item H3b: “Did you vote in the most recent election (village committee/neighborhood committee election)?” “Did you vote in the most recent election (neighborhood committee/village committee election)?” First, principal component analysis was applied, followed by factor analysis using the maximum variance method on the eight items. This extracted two common factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 (Table 1 ). The table shows that the items “Reporting social issues to newspapers,” “Expressing opinions to the government, ”“Expressing personal views on policies,”“Discussing political issues,”and “Participating in rights defense actions” loaded heavily on Common Factor 1, while “Participating in major decision discussions,”“Participating in neighborhood committee voting,” and “Attending hearings” loaded heavily on Common Factor 2. Therefore, based on the corresponding item meanings, Common Factor 1 was named “Non-institutionalized Political Participation,” and Common Factor 2 was named “Institutionalized Political Participation.” Table 1 Factor loading analysis of political participation scale Report social issues to newspapers and periodicals (online forums) Ingredient 1 Ingredient 2 0.604 -0.104 Report opinions to government departments 0.586 0.273 Express personal opinions on policy 0.536 0.154 discuss political issues 0.549 -0.115 Participate in online/offline collective rights protection actions 0.505 -0.029 Participate in major decision-making discussions in the village -0.013 0.744 Participate in voting in village committee elections -0.175 0.615 attend hearing 0.240 0.587 KMO sampling suitability quantity 0.617 Bartlett's test of sphericity approximates chi-square 738.195 Significance 0.000 Rotation load square percentage 20.524 17.493 3.2 Explanatory variables The explanatory variable in this study is social fairness perceptions. Following the methodology of Liu & Wang (2023), social fairness perceptions is measured through questionnaire item F3a: “How fair do you perceive the following aspects of contemporary social life to be?” This includes eight indicators: “college entrance examination system,” “political rights,” “judicial and law enforcement,” “public healthcare,” “employment opportunities,” “income distribution,” “social security benefits,” and “urban-rural disparities.” The original scoring for each indicator is defined as follows: “extremely unfair = 1, somewhat unfair = 2, fair = 3, extremely fair = 4, and unsure=-1.” This study converted the original scores into a scale where “extremely unfair = 1, somewhat unfair = 2, hard to say = 3, somewhat fair = 4, extremely fair = 5.” Higher scores indicate a stronger social fairness perceptions 3.3 Moderator variable This study selects internet usage as a moderating variable to further explore the relationship between social fairness perceptions and youth political participation. Internet usage encompasses both internet access and frequency of use. Given the characteristics of this research and practical considerations, only a very small minority of young people do not use the internet at all. Therefore, “internet usage” here primarily refers to “internet usage frequency,” excluding samples that do not use the internet. Following Tang & Ye (2022), the measurement of “frequency of engaging in the following online activities” is conducted through item D5b: “How often do you engage in the following activities online?” to measure seven indicators: “Browsing political news,” “Entertainment and leisure,” “Chatting and making friends,” “Business and work,” “education, ” “online services,” and “investment and financial management.” Response options were coded as follows: “almost daily = 1, multiple times per week = 2, at least once per week = 3, at least once per month = 4, several times per year = 5, and never = 0.” Raw scores were converted to: “almost daily = 6, multiple times per week = 5, at least once per week = 4,at least once per month = 3,several times per year = 2, and never = 1.” Summing all items and taking the average yields a score where higher values indicate stronger internet usage. 3.4 Control variables The control variables selected by this study to reflect the individual characteristics of the research subjects include gender, age, educational attainment, marital status, political identity, household registration status, and employment status. The specific assignment rules are shown in Table 2 . Table 2 Variable assignment and descriptive statistics (N = 2019) Variable Question Assignment Mean (standard deviation) gender Male = 1; Female = 0 0.422(0.494) education level Junior high school and below = 1; high school (technical secondary school and higher vocational school) = 2; college and above = 3 2.233(0.849) Marital status Married = 1; Unmarried = 0 0.516(0.500) working status Working = 1; Not working = 0 0.497(0.500) political outlook Party member (Democratic Party) = 1; non-party member = 0 0.367(0.482) Househo-ld registration Agricultural household registration = 1; non-agricultural household registration = 0 0.597(0.491) institutionalized political participation Participate in major decision-making discussions Participated = 1; Never participated = 0 0.123 (0.200) 0.065(0.246) Participate in village committee voting 0.283(0.450) attend hearing 0.022(0.146) non-institutionalized political participation Report social issues to newspapers and periodicals 0.094 (0.150) 0.044(0.205) Report opinions to the government 0.066(0.248) Comment on policy 0.038(0.192) discuss political issues 0.292(0.455) Participate in rights protection actions 0.030(0.171) Internet Use Browse current affairs information Original assignment: almost every day = 1, many times a week = 2, at least once a week = 3, at least once a month = 4, several times a year = 5, never = 0; Assigned values after conversion: almost every day = 6, many times a week = 5, at least once a week = 4, at least once a month = 3, several times a year = 2, never = 1 3.953 (0.891) 4.514(1.611) entertainment, leisure 5.291(1.199) Chat and make friends 5.407(1.182) business or work 2.904(2.225) study education 3.832(1.947) Online shopping and life services 4.098(1.341) Investment and financial management 1.625(1.358) perceptions of social justice college entrance examination system Original assignment: very unfair = 1, not very fair = 2, relatively fair = 3, very fair = 4, hard to say=-1; Assignment after conversion: Very unfair = 1, Not very fair = 2, Hard to say = 3, Fairly fair = 4, Very fair = 5 3.712 (0.707) 4.118(0.977) political rights 3.847(1.023) Justice and Law Enforcement 3.965(0.939) public health 3.918(0.871) Employment opportunities 3.468(1.073) income distribution 3.292(1.154) social security benefits 3.767(0.963) Urban and rural differences 3.358(1.155) 4.Results 4.1 Sample descriptive statistical analysis Of the 2,019 respondents included in the analysis, 851 (42.1%) were male and 1,168 (57.9%) were female, indicating a modest over-representation of women. In terms of education, 547 (27.1%) had completed junior high school or less, 455 (22.5%) had attained senior high school (including vocational/technical secondary education), and 1,017 (50.4%) held a college degree or higher—the largest subgroup. Married respondents slightly outnumbered unmarried ones. Employment status was nearly evenly split between those with and without work. Most respondents did not belong to the Communist Party or Communist Youth League. Agricultural hukou holders outnumbered non-agricultural hukou holders. (See Table 3 .) Descriptive statistics were generated using SPSS 26 (see Table 2 ). The results indicate that the overall mean scores for institutionalized and non-institutionalized political participation are 0.123 and 0.094, respectively—both below the scale midpoint of 0.5—reflecting a generally low level of political engagement among youth. The mean score for the independent variable, social fairness perception, is 3.712, above the midpoint of 3.0, suggesting that youth, on average, perceive society as relatively fair. Scores for all specific fairness dimensions exceeded the midpoint, with perceptions of fairness in the college entrance examination (Gaokao) system rated highest. The mean for the moderating variable, internet use, is 3.953, above the midpoint of 3.5, indicating comparatively high levels of internet engagement among young people. Item-level scores reveal that youth internet activity is concentrated mainly in entertainment/leisure, social communication, and browsing news/political information. Table 3 Basic situation of the sample (N = 2019) Name Category Frequency (%) Name Category Frequency (%) gender male 851(42.1) working status Have a job 1004(49.7) female 1168(57.9) no job 1015(50.3) education level Junior high school and below 547(27.1) political outlook party member 741(36.7) High school (technical secondary school and vocational school) 455(22.5) non-party members 1278(63.3) University and above 1017(50.4) Household registration Agricultural household registration 1206(59.7) Marital status married 1041(51.6) Non-agricultural household registration 813(40.3) Unmarried 978(48.4) 4.2 Regression analysis This study uses hierarchical linear regression to analyze the effects of social fairness perception and internet use on youth institutionalized and non-institutionalized political participation separately. All models control for demographic and socioeconomic covariates: gender, age, education, employment status, political affiliation, and household registration (hukou). Model 1 (institutionalized participation) and Model 4 (non-institutionalized participation) include only control variables. Model 2 and Model 5 add the independent variable, social fairness perception, to Models 1 and 4, respectively. Model 3 and Model 6 further incorporate the moderating variable, internet use, building on Models 2 and 5 (see Table 4 ). As shown in Models 2 and 5, social fairness perception significantly predicts both forms of youth political participation. Its coefficient for institutionalized participation is 0.018 (p < 0.01), indicating a positive effect: youth with a stronger sense of social fairness are more likely to engage through institutionalized channels such as voting or contacting officials. Hypothesis H1-1 is therefore supported. For non-institutionalized participation, the coefficient is − 0.031 (p < 0.001), revealing a negative relationship: lower perceived fairness is associated with a greater propensity for extra-institutional actions like collective petitions or protests, confirming hypothesis H1-2.These results underscore social fairness perception as a pivotal psychological driver shaping how youth choose to engage politically. When young people view society as relatively fair, they favor institutionalized modes of participation; when they perceive unfairness, they are more inclined toward unconventional, non-institutionalized forms of expression. Models 3 and 6 show that the coefficient for internet use on institutionalized political participation is 0.010 (p > 0.05), which is not statistically significant, indicating no meaningful effect. By contrast, its coefficient for non-institutionalized participation is 0.027 (p < 0.001), reflecting a strong positive association: more frequent internet use corresponds to higher levels of non-institutionalized political engagement. Thus, hypothesis H2-1 is rejected, while H2-2 is supported. These findings suggest that internet use does not foster institutionalized participation but does markedly amplify non-institutionalized involvement. Several control variables also show significant associations. Male youth exhibit higher levels of both institutionalized and non-institutionalized participation than females. Age is positively related to institutionalized participation but unrelated to non-institutionalized forms. Educational attainment does not significantly predict institutionalized participation, yet higher education is associated with greater non-institutionalized engagement. Marriage is linked to lower non-institutionalized participation, suggesting a suppressive effect. Being employed is associated with higher institutionalized participation, though employment status does not affect non-institutionalized involvement. Party/League membership predicts greater engagement in both participation types. Finally, youth with agricultural hukou show higher institutionalized participation than those with non-agricultural hukou, while hukou type has no bearing on non-institutionalized participation. Table 4 The impact of social justice perception and Internet use on youth political participation Variable Institutionalized political participation Non-institutionalized political participation Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 Model5 Model6 gender (Female = 0) 0.025 ** (0.009) 0.025 ** (0.009) 0.025 ** (0.009) 0.017 * (0.007) 0.018 * (0.007) 0.018 * (0.007) age 0.009 *** (0.001) 0.009 *** (0.001) 0.009 *** (0.001) −0.009 (−0.309) −0.035 (−1.149) −0.042 (−1.395) education level −0.039 (−1.501) −0.043 (−1.649) −0.043 (−1.649) 0.030 *** (0.004) 0.031 *** (0.004) 0.019 *** (0.005) Marital status (Single = 0) 0.057( 1.816) 0.059 (1.882) 0.059 (1.822) −0.019 * (0.008) −0.025 ** (0.008) −0.027 *** (0.008) working status(no work = 0) 0.021 * (0.010) 0.020 * (0.010) 0.020 * (0.010) 0.016 (0.693) 0.014 (0.628) −0.014 (−0.638) political identity (Non-party member = 0) 0.039 *** (0.010) 0.037 *** (0.010) 0.037 *** (0.010) 0.024 ** (0.008) 0.0279 ** (0.008) 0.025 * (0.008) Household registration (non-agricultural = 0) 0.031 ** (0.009) 0.031 ** (0.009) 0.031 ** (0.009) −0.029 (−1.336) −0.027 (−1.236) −0.016 (−0.723) social justice perception 0.018 ** (0.006) 0.018 ** (0.006) −0.031 *** (0.005) −0.033 *** (0.005) Internet usage 0.010 (0.439) 0.027 *** (0.004) sample size 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 constant −0.166 −0.243 −0.243 0.021 0.135 0.068 F 25.876 22.955 22.955 39.444 41.433 42.632 R2 0.060 0.064 0.064 0.073 0.093 0.113 Note: *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001; numbers in brackets are standard errors. 4.3 Moderating effect analysis To further examine whether internet use moderates the relationship between social fairness perception and youth political participation, a moderation analysis was conducted using the Process 2.16.3 in SPSS 26. The detailed results are presented in Table 5 . Table 5 Test results of the moderating effect of Internet use on the relationship between social justice and political participation Variable Institutionalized political participation Non-institutionalized political participation Model7 Model8 β SE 95%CI β SE 95%CI gender (Female = 0) 0.028 ** 0.009 [0.011,0.047] 0.018 ** 0.007 [0.005,0.031] age 0.008 *** 0.001 [0.006,0.010] −0.001 0.001 [−0.003,0.001] education level −0.011 0.007 [−0.024,0.002] 0.018 *** 0.005 [0.009,0.028] Marital status (Single = 0) 0.020 0.013 [−0.005,0.045] −0.019 * 0.009 [−0.038,0.001] working status(no work = 0) 0.021 * 0.010 [0.001,0.041] −0.001 0.007 [−0.015,0.014] political identity (Non-party member = 0) 0.047 *** 0.011 [0.025,0.069] 0.023 ** 0.008 [0.007,0.040] Household registration (non-agricultural = 0) 0.028 ** 0.009 [0.010,0.046] −0.005 0.007 [−0.018,0.008] social justice perception 0.017 ** 0.006 [0.005,0.030] −0.035 *** 0.005 [−0.044,0.026] Internet usage 0.006 0.006 [−0.005,0.017] 0.026 *** 0.041 [0.018,0.034] Int_1 −0.006 0.006 [−0.018,0.006] −0.011 * 0.005 [−0.020,−0.002] sample size 2019 2019 F 14.531 26.445 R 2 0.068 0.116 Note: *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001; numbers in brackets are standard errors. As displayed in Table 5 , the direction of each variable’s effect on youth political participation remains largely consistent with the patterns shown in Table 4 , though coefficient magnitudes differ slightly. Model 7 shows that the interaction between social fairness perception and internet use on institutionalized political participation is − 0.006 (p > 0.05), indicating no significant moderating effect. Hypothesis H3-1 is therefore not supported. In Model 8, the corresponding interaction term for non-institutionalized participation is − 0.011 (p < 0.05), confirming a significant moderation effect. Hypothesis H3-2 is thus supported. To probe this moderation further, a simple-slopes analysis was performed, categorizing internet use into high (M + 1 SD) and low (M–1 SD) groups (see Fig. 2 ). The results reveal that the negative relationship between social fairness perception and non-institutionalized political participation is significantly stronger among youth with high internet use. This indicates a reinforcing moderating effect: more frequent internet use amplifies the extent to which social fairness perception suppresses non-institutionalized political engagement. 5.Conclusion and discussion Drawing on CSS2021 data, this study distinguishes between institutionalized and non-institutionalized forms of political participation. Through hierarchical regression and moderation analysis, we empirically demonstrate a non-linear relationship between social fairness perception and youth political engagement, as well as a differential moderating role of internet use. These findings offer a fresh analytical lens for understanding the mechanisms shaping youth political participation in a period of social transformation. 5.1 Research conclusion First, the findings confirm that social fairness perception significantly influences both institutionalized and non-institutionalized youth political participation, and that internet use moderates the link between social fairness perception and non-institutionalized participation Specifically:1)Social fairness perception positively predicts institutionalized political participation and negatively predicts non-institutionalized participation. That is, higher perceived fairness is associated with greater institutionalized engagement, while lower perceived fairness correlates with stronger non-institutionalized involvement.2)Internet use does not significantly affect institutionalized participation but exhibits a positive association with non-institutionalized participation. Thus, internet use appears ineffective in promoting institutionalized engagement, while potentially amplifying non-institutionalized forms. Second, moderation tests reveal that internet use does not significantly moderate the relationship between social fairness perception and institutionalized political participation, but it does significantly strengthen the link between social fairness perception and non-institutionalized participation. On the one hand, internet use neither enhances nor suppresses the effect of social fairness perception on institutionalized engagement. On the other hand, under conditions of high internet use, the negative association between social fairness perception and non-institutionalized participation becomes more pronounced. In other words, when youth perceive lower social fairness and use the internet more frequently, their non-institutionalized political participation intensifies. 5.2 Practical inspiration Based on the above research findings, this study suggests that the following aspects warrant attention in promoting orderly political participation among youth. First, advancing social fairness in a comprehensive manner is essential. Given that social fairness perception is a key determinant of youth political engagement, strengthening that perception is critical to promoting more orderly participation among young people. Constructing social fairness requires establishing a multidimensional institutional framework designed to counteract the mechanisms that produce structural inequality. Such an effort fundamentally entails aligning institutional justice, opportunity structures, and participatory efficacy into a mutually reinforcing system. At the level of institutional justice, it is imperative to strengthen the capacity of institutions to respond normatively to diverse social claims. Enhancing the equity and accessibility of basic public services—such as education, healthcare, and employment—can alleviate feelings of “absolute deprivation” among youth. At the same time, improving redistributive mechanisms to provide targeted compensation for urban–rural, regional, and inter-generational disparities would help mitigate experiences of “relative deprivation.” With respect to opportunity structures, a holistic employment lifecycle management system should be developed. Multifaceted measures ought to be taken to expand youth employment channels, improve rights protection and professional development regimes, strengthen sector-specific talent cultivation, and deliver re-employment support. Complementarily, refining lifelong learning systems can narrow the mismatch between young individuals’ capabilities and available opportunity structures.In the domain of participatory efficacy, the interests and demands of youth should be systematically integrated into the government’s policy agenda. Hearings, deliberative consultations, and other participatory mechanisms can build consensus and help shift youth from passive policy targets to active governance actors. In short, a multidimensional strategy is needed to raise youth perceptions of social fairness, bolster their identification with institutions, and ultimately foster a virtuous cycle between perceived fairness and orderly political participation. The role of internet use—a key variable shaping youth non-institutionalized political participation—cannot be overlooked. As digital natives, contemporary young people increasingly engage politically through means that transcend traditional institutional channels, reflecting a clear “mediatized turn.” This trend contains dual potential: it may enhance political efficacy in positive ways, yet it also carries structural risks that could challenge governance order. On the one hand, the internet—functioning as a decentralized platform for information exchange—enables young people to access policy information promptly, interact with government bodies, broaden their social and political awareness, and accelerate political socialization. On the other hand, the immediacy, viral spread, and affective mobilization inherent in online communication can magnify governance tensions in a risk society, raise the likelihood of non-deliberative expression, and even precipitate online collective actions, thereby posing substantive challenges to state governance systems. Consequently, the regulation and guidance of the online content ecosystem must be reinforced. First, a tiered and categorized content governance system should be instituted, supported by a dynamically adjusted mechanism for assessing content quality, with particular emphasis on curbing disinformation, incendiary rhetoric, and extremist discourse. Second, by harnessing artificial intelligence and big-data analytics, fine-grained behavioral “profiling” of youth online activity can inform tailored, audience-sensitive political communication strategies aligned with their information preferences. Moreover, in light of youth characteristics, government transparency and the timeliness of public communication should be elevated. By channeling legitimate youth demands through institutionalized avenues, “technological empowerment” can be converted into “governance effectiveness,” steering youth toward political participation within an orderly framework. The ultimate objective is to realize a mutually reinforcing dynamic between political stability and youth agency. 5.3 Research limitations This study represents a preliminary inquiry into the connections between social fairness perception, internet use, and youth political participation. Several limitations should, however, be noted.First,limited operationalization of political participation.Relying on secondary data constrained the measurement of political participation to eight specific items. As a result, the analysis does not cover the full range of possible engagement forms—such as campaign volunteering, membership in civic associations, or innovative digital activism. Future research would benefit from developing more comprehensive and varied measures to better capture the diversity and complexity of youth political involvement. Second,narrow range of control variables.The control variables were largely confined to individual-level socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, education, political affiliation). Potentially important external and contextual factors—including the influence of significant others (family, peers), broader socio-political conditions, and qualitative features of the online environment (e.g., misinformation prevalence, platform design)—were not considered. Subsequent studies should incorporate a wider set of such variables to provide a more holistic and nuanced account of the drivers of youth political participation. Declarations Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Ethical approval Ethical approval was not required for this study as it utilized publicly accessible data from the 2021 China Social Survey (CSS2021) Additional information Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Wenjun Yang. Author Contribution Y：Develop an overall research plan and revise the thesisW：Collect data and draft the initial version of the paper Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are available from the 2021 China Social Survey (CSS2021) References Almond,C.A.,Verba,S.(1963).The Civic Culture:Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations.Princeton:Princeton University Press.https://doi.org/10.2307/2091433 Bakker,T.P.,& de Vreese,C.H.(2011).Good news for the future?Young people, internet use,and political participation.Communication Research,38(4),451–470.https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210381738 Bimber,B.,Cunill,M.C.,Copeland,L.,& Gibson,R.(2015).Digital media and political participation:The moderating role of political interest across acts and over time. Social sciencecomputer review,33(1)21–42.https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314526559 Bimber,B.,Cunill,M.C.,Copeland,L.,& Gibson,R.(2015).Digital media and political participation:The moderating role of political interest across acts and over time. Social science computer review, 33(1),21–42.https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314526559 Bode,L.(2012).Facebooking it to the polls:A study in online social networking and political behavior.Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(4),352–369.https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.709045 Boulianne,S.(2015).Social media use and participation:A meta-analysis of current research.Information,Communication and Society,18(5),524–538.https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542 Boulianne,S.(2019).US dominance of research on political communication:A meta-view.Political Communication,36(4),660–665.https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1670899 Brundidge,J.(2010).Encountering“difference”in the contemporary public sphere:T-he contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks.Journal of communication, 60(4),680–700.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01509.x Cai,Y.(2005).China's moderate middle class:the case of homeowners'resistance.A-sian Survey,45(5),777–799.https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2005.45.5.777 Cao,J.,Huang,J.,and Lu,X.(2017).Social fairness and political trust:an empirical s-tudy based on"Chinese township democracy and governance survey".Theor.Invest.3,152–158.doi:10.16354/j.cnki.23-1013/d.2017.03.026 Chen,P.,Zang,L.Z.(2015).The Relationship between Media and Political Participa-tion Behavior of Chinese Rural Residents:Evidence from Asian Barometer Survey Data.Journal of Public Management,(3):69–82.https://doi.org/10.16149/j.cnki.23-1523.2015.03.007 Copeland,L.(2014).Conceptualizing political consumerism:How citizenship norms differentiate boycotting from buycotting.Political studies, 62(1_suppl),172–186.https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12067 Cui,E.,Tao,R.,Warner,T.J.,& Yang,D.L.(2015).How Do Land Takings Affect Polit-ical Trust in Rural China? Political Studies,63,91–109.https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12151 Gibson,R.,& Cantijoch,M.(2013).Conceptualizing and measuring participation in the age ofthe internet:Is online political engagement really different to offl-ine? The Journal ofPolitics,75(3),701–716.https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381613000431 Gil de Zúñiga,H.,Veenstra,A.,Vraga,E.,& Shah,D.(2010).Digital democracy: Reimagining pathways to political participation.Journal of information technology & politics,7(1),36–51.https://doi.org/10.1080/19331680903316742 He,L.,Wang,K.,Liu,T.,Li,T.,& Zhu,B.(2022).Does political participation help improve the life satisfaction of urban residents:Empirical evidence from China.Plos one,17(10),e0273525.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273525 Hou,B.,Liu,Q.,Wang,Z.,Hou,J.,& Chen,S.(2023).The intermediary mechanism of social fairness perceptions between social capital and farmers’political part-icipation:Empirical research based on masking and mediating effects. Front-ers in Psychology,13,1021313.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1021313 Huntington,S.P.,& Nelson,J.M.(1976).No easy choice:Political participation in de-veloping countries.Harvard University Press.https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674863842.c6 Kim,S.J.(2023).The role of social media news usage and platforms in civic and political engagement: Focusing on types of usage and platforms.Compute-rs in Human Behavior,138,107475.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107475 Lin,J.,Xiao,T.B.(2021).How does the Sense of Social Justice Affect Political Pa-rticipation? ——An Analysis of the CSS2019 Data.Journal of Central Chi-na Normal University(Humanities and Social Sciences),6:10–20. Liu,W.,Xiao,S.T.,Peng,Q.(2021).Political Trust,Perception of Government Performance and Political Participation——Based on the Data of the“Chinese People’s Political Mentality Survey”(2019).Journal of Central China Normal University(Humanities and Social Sciences),6:1–9. Liu,G.X.,Wang,C.X.(2023).How Does Sense of Social Justice and Sense of Political Performance Influence Political Participation:An Empirical Research Based on CSS2019 Data,(01):19–30.https://doi.org/10.16614/j.gznuj.skb.2023.01.003. Miao,H.,Wu,H.C.,& Huang,O.(2024).The influence of media use on different modes of political participation in China:political trust as the mediating factor.Journal of Asian Public Policy,17(1),21–43.https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2021.2022851 Neubaum,G.,&Weeks,B.(2023).Computer-mediated political expression:A concept-ual framework of technological affordances and individual tradeoffs.Journal of Information Technology and Politics,20(1),19–33.https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2022.2028694 Neufeind,M.,Jiranek,P.,& Wehner,T.(2014).Beyond skills and structure:Justice dis-positions as antecedents of young citizens'volunteering and political partici-pation.Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology,24(4),278–295.h-ttps://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2166 Niu,J.K.,Du,H.F.,Du,W.,Liu,Q.(2016).The Impact of Perceived Justice on Migrant Workers' Collective Action——Based on Moderating Effect of Equal Awa-reness.Journal of Public Management,3:89–99.https://doi.org/10.16149/j.cnki.23-1523.2016.03.008 Norris,P.(2002).Democratic Phoenix:reinventing political activism.Cambridge Uni-versity Press.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610073 Pan,H.,DeDonder,L.,Dury,S.,Wang,R.,DeWitte,N.,&Vert´e,D.(2019).Social participa-tion among older adults in Belgium’s Flanders region:Exploring the roles of both new and old media usage.Information,Communication and Society, 22(13),1956–1972.https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1473460 Nanetti,R.Y.,Leonardi,R.,& Putnam,R.D.(1994). Making democracy work:civic traditions in modern Italy.Princeton University Press.https://muse.jhu.edu/book/64810 Putnam,R.D.(2000). Bowling alone:The collapse and revival of American community.Simon and schuster.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2004.03.019 Rothmund,T.,Becker,J.C.,& Jost,J.T.(2016).The psychology of social justice in political thought and action.In Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp.275–291).New York,NY:Springer New York.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3216-0_15 Sabucedo,J.M.,& Arce,C.(1991)Types of political participation:A multidimensional analysis European Journal of Political Research, 20: 93–102.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1991.tb00257.x Song,S.,& Ai,M.(2025).Internet use,support for democracy and political participation:a comparative study of Chinese mainland and Taiwan. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1),1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04637-x Su,Z.W.,Yao,Q.C.,Li,H.(2023).How Does the Sense of Social Justice Affect Rural Residents Institutionalized Political Participation?——Based on Five Stages of the CGSS.China Public Administration Review,1:95–117. Svensson,J.(2015).Participation as a pastime:political discussion in a queer community online.Javnost-The Public, 22(3),283–297.https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2015.1060014 Tang,Z.W.,Ye,C.X.,(2022).Digital Use Gap and Citizens' Political Participation:An Empirical Analysis of Political Efficacy as an Intermediary Variable.Journal of Intelligence,41(9):129–135,111.https://link.cnki.net/urlid/61.1167.G3.20220804.1239.026 Theocharis,Y.,& Quintelier,E.(2016).Stimulating citizenship or expanding entertainment?The effect of Facebook on adolescent participation.New Media and Society,18(5),817–836.https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814549006 Van Deth,J.W.(2014).A conceptual map of political participation. Acta politica,49(3),349–367.https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2014.6 Van Deth,J.W.(2021).What is political participation.Int.Encyclopedia.Polit.Commun.49,349–367.https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.68 Wang,M.S.,Yang,T.(2011)Gaigekaifang Yilai Woguo Zhengzhicanyu Yanjiu De Huigu Yu Zhanwang(改革开放以来我国政治参与研究的回顾与展望).Qinghuadaxue Xuebao(Zhexueshehuikexue Ban)(清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版)),6:5–21. Willnat,L.,Wong,W.J.,Tamam,E.,& Aw,A. (2013).Online media and political participation:The case of Malaysia. Mass Communication and Society,16(4),557–585. Zhan,W.Z., & You,Z.W.,(2024).Factors influencing villagers'willingness to participate in grassroots governance:evidence from the Chinese social survey.Humanities And Social Sciences Communications.11(1)https://DOI10.1057/s41599-024-03574-5 Zhang,Y.X,Liu,D.X.,Li,Z.C.(2024)Information Incentives and Community-driven Engagement: How Internet Use Facilitates Political Participation.China Public Administration Review,6(3):172–197.https://link.cnki.net/urlid/10.1653.D0.20240923.1706.002 Zheng,J.J.(郑建君)(2013).Zhengzhixingren Shehuigongzheng Yu Zhengzhicanyu De Guanxi——Yixiang Jiyu 625 Ming Zhongguobeishi De Shizhengfenxi(政治信任、社会公正与政治参与的关系——一项基于625名中国被试的实证分析).Zhengzhixueyanjiu(政治学研究).6:61–74. Zheng,J.J.(郑建君)(2019).Zhengzhizhishi,Shehuigongpinggan Yu Xuanjucanyu De Guanxi——Jiyu Meitishiyong De Gaojie Tiaojiexiaoying Fenxi(政治知识、社会公平感与选举参与的关系——基于媒体使用的高阶调节效应分析).Zhengzhixueyanjiu(政治学研究).2:73–87 + 127. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files rawdatadownloadedfromCSS2021.xlsx 2019rawdataentriesafterscreening.xlsx variabledefinitionscodingschemes.docx datawithvariablenamingandcoding.sav Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9075421","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":611559385,"identity":"f6b5967f-e421-466e-8f05-27591949d027","order_by":0,"name":"Yi Han","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nanchang University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yi","middleName":"","lastName":"Han","suffix":""},{"id":611559387,"identity":"20cfe88b-a69e-4d3b-9128-98018e9a87bc","order_by":1,"name":"Wenjun Yang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nanchang University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wenjun","middleName":"","lastName":"Yang","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-09 16:38:16","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9075421/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9075421/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":105419024,"identity":"a4be420b-2993-4b30-99a3-efcfc4695cb8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-25 20:07:05","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":23774,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTheoretical model diagram\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9075421/v1/f5c745aaf803c5cce90907a1.png"},{"id":105419023,"identity":"9bbd642a-a74e-404e-b050-1a1ec18780bd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-25 20:07:05","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":22863,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Moderating Role of Internet Usage in the Relationship Between Perceived Social Equity and Youth's Non-Institutionalized Political Participation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9075421/v1/fbdf19fdcece8c710ccac35c.png"},{"id":108543798,"identity":"dab9c9bf-ccf7-40a3-8a48-1c7920379d5b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-05 19:39:27","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":526413,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9075421/v1/e3f0408d-d184-4392-a784-542f421332fe.pdf"},{"id":105565792,"identity":"641f1f9b-7249-4953-96b9-69d204651b70","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-27 12:54:24","extension":"xlsx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":1665174,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rawdatadownloadedfromCSS2021.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9075421/v1/1ecca2638a56e33529b46bd3.xlsx"},{"id":105419027,"identity":"463db557-e2d4-44de-b9a1-890972023da0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-25 20:07:05","extension":"xlsx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":829924,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"2019rawdataentriesafterscreening.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9075421/v1/d3c8afbd3a349159debd6049.xlsx"},{"id":105419025,"identity":"766171dd-d743-408d-a6ec-3f9a1c50f0d1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-25 20:07:05","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":26215,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"variabledefinitionscodingschemes.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9075421/v1/ed279d3a3db73396e3d822d8.docx"},{"id":105565240,"identity":"b4e34cbb-0585-4efd-b55f-00fff1bb815f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-27 12:52:32","extension":"sav","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":823427,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"datawithvariablenamingandcoding.sav","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9075421/v1/04355159400d9f88873eb0fd.sav"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"How Social Fairness Perception Affects Youth Political Participation：The Moderating Effect of Internet Use","fulltext":[{"header":"1.Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003ePolitical participation is a classic subject of political inquiry and is frequently seen as a key marker of political modernization. Since the launch of reform and opening-up,accompanying the sustained progress of economic and social modernization, political participation among Chinese citizens has continued to expand in both breadth and depth (Cui et al., 2015). The report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China underscored the imperative to \u0026ldquo;improve the system of institutions through which the people run the country and expand their orderly political participation.\u0026rdquo;As the future backbone of national and societal development, the political engagement of young people mirrors not only the contemporary political environment but also presages future political trajectories.China is currently undergoing profound changes unseen in a century and is in a phase of deep social transformation, where restructuring interests and reconciling diverse demands have emerged as central governance challenges. As pivotal stakeholders, the avenues through which youth express themselves politically have drawn considerable scrutiny.Directing young people to engage in the political process normatively through institutionalized channels represents a vital aspect of advancing democratic development and modernizing governance.Consequently, a systematic examination of the intrinsic mechanisms driving youth political participation carries substantial theoretical and policy relevance for fostering their orderly engagement and deepening the implementation of whole-process people's democracy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe determinants of political participation have attracted considerable scholarly attention in recent years. Existing research has concentrated on variables including social capital (Putnam,1994), civic culture (Almond \u0026amp; Verba, 1963), democratic support (Song \u0026amp; Ai, 2025), perceptions of social fairness (Svensson, 2015), political efficacy (Zhan \u0026amp; You, 2024), political trust (Miao et al., 2022), and internet use (Bode, 2012). Within this body of work, the mechanisms by which social fairness perceptions and internet use shape political participation have emerged as key research themes, though scholarly consensus on their effects remains limited. Some researchers contend that internet use exerts a significant positive effect on political participation (S.J.Kim,2023), whereas others report only a modest positive association (Bakker \u0026amp; de Vreese, 2011; Boulianne, 2015, 2019), or even argue that there is no robust relationship, or possibly a suppressive one (Gil de Z\u0026uacute;\u0026ntilde;iga et al., 2010). These disagreements can be largely attributed to variations in how political participation is conceptualized and measured (Gibson \u0026amp; Cantijoch, 2013).By comparison, greater consensus exists concerning the link between social fairness perception and political participation. Scholars widely agree that social fairness perception\u0026mdash;an individual\u0026rsquo;s subjective evaluation of distributive justice\u0026mdash;significantly shapes political behavior (Hou \u0026amp; Liu et al., 2023; Zheng, 2014, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile existing scholarship offers important insights, several avenues remain open for further investigation. First, research on youth political participation remains relatively limited. Although studies have examined political engagement among specific groups such as rural residents (Hou et al., 2023) and urban dwellers (He et al., 2022), most tend to treat the population as homogeneous, leaving the distinctive political participation patterns of Chinese youth underexplored. Thus, the behavioral profile of Chinese youth political participation, as well as whether their responsiveness to social fairness perceptions and internet use differs from that of other groups, still requires systematic analysis.Second, the interactive relationships among social fairness perception, internet use, and political participation are not yet well understood. Most studies either examine these factors in isolation or introduce them as separate controls, rarely integrating social fairness perception and internet use within a unified analytical framework to assess their joint effects. Whether these two variables moderate or reinforce one another, and whether such interactions exert differential impacts on institutionalized versus non-institutionalized political participation, calls for more rigorous empirical inquiry.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgainst this backdrop, this study focuses specifically on youth, distinguishing between institutionalized and non-institutionalized forms of political participation. Using data from the 2021 Chinese Social Survey (CSS2021) and applying regression analysis alongside tests for moderation effects, we systematically examine how perceptions of social fairness and internet use shape youth political engagement. A central aim is to investigate whether internet use moderates the relationship between social fairness perception and youth political participation. Through this analysis, we seek to clarify the underlying mechanisms of youth political engagement in the digital age and to offer theoretical and policy insights for fostering their orderly participation in political life.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2.Literature review and research hypotheses","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Institutionalized political participation and non-institutionalized political participation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolitical participation, a central concept in political science, has been variably defined in the literature. Huntington and Nelson (1989) characterize it as activities undertaken by private citizens to influence government decisions, while Van Deth (2014) highlights its nature as voluntary citizen engagement with the state. Early scholarship concentrated primarily on institutionalized participation. As market reforms have deepened, however, non-institutionalized participation has attracted growing scholarly interest, driven by increased demands for interest articulation (Cai, 2005). Consequently, the traditional voting-centric model is increasingly giving way to more diverse modes of engagement (Van Deth, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of typology, Sabucedo and Arce (1991) distinguish between electoral (institutionalized) and non-electoral (non-institutionalized) political participation\u0026mdash;a classification widely employed in subsequent research (Putnam, 2000; Copeland, 2014; Theocharis \u0026amp; Quintelier, 2016). Institutionalized participation encompasses conventional, routinized forms of engagement such as voting or attending public hearings, typically characterized by interest articulation and deliberative communication (Liu et al., 2021). Non-institutionalized participation, by contrast, involves extra-institutional or confrontational actions\u0026mdash;including collective petitions, protests, and demonstrations\u0026mdash;to advance claims (Wang \u0026amp; Yang, 2011). Guided by this framework, the present study adopts the dichotomy of institutionalized versus non-institutionalized political participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Social fairness perceptions and political participation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial fairness entails the distribution of societal benefits and responsibilities according to principles of equity and justice, thereby protecting the fundamental rights of diverse societal actors (Rothmund \u0026amp; Becker,2016). Social fairness perception refers to individuals\u0026rsquo; subjective assessment of the fairness prevailing in society (Cao et al.,2017). As a core psychological factor, it reflects not only an individual\u0026rsquo;s cognitive appraisal of institutional arrangements but also significantly shapes their value orientations and political behaviors (Hou \u0026amp; Liu et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch on the linkage between social fairness perception and political participation falls into two broad streams. The first examines their direct relationship. Lin and Xiao (2019) report a significant association, indicating that individuals with a stronger sense of social fairness are more inclined toward institutionalized political participation. This finding is corroborated by Su and Yao (2022) in an empirical study using five waves of Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) data, which shows that rural residents\u0026rsquo; social fairness perception positively predicts institutionalized participation. Conversely, Niu et al.(2017) contend that heightened perceptions of unfairness increase the likelihood of collective action, implying that lower social fairness perception is linked to a greater propensity for non-institutionalized political participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second stream of research focuses on the indirect role of social fairness perception in political participation. For instance, Neufeind et al.(2014) demonstrate that social fairness perception significantly moderates the link between political socialization and participation. Zheng (2014) further argues that both procedural and distributive fairness perceptions positively moderate the relationship between political trust and political engagement. Additionally, social fairness perception has been shown to moderate the connection between political knowledge and individual voting behavior (Zheng,2019).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe reviewed literature underscores that social fairness perception constitutes an important determinant of political participation. Although scholarly discussion on this topic is well established, research focusing specifically on youth political engagement remains notably limited.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, this paper proposes the following research hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH1-1:The higher young people's social fairness perceptions, the stronger their institutionalized political participation;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH1-2:The lower young people's social fairness perceptions, the stronger their non-institutionalized political participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Internet use and political participation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe influence of social fairness perception on youth political participation may also be mediated by other factors, among which internet use is a particularly salient variable. The rapid proliferation of the internet has enabled young people to access political information and voice their opinions online. As a medium of information dissemination, the internet can shape political engagement; however, scholarly opinion remains divided on the direction of this influence\u0026mdash;specifically, whether internet use fosters or discourages participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eProponents of the internet\u0026rsquo;s mobilizing role contend that it strengthens individuals\u0026rsquo; ability to acquire information (Bimber et al.,2015), reduces the costs (Brundidge, 2010) and logistical hurdles of engagement (Willnat et al., 2013), and enables easier affiliation with ideologically aligned political groups (Neubaum \u0026amp; Weeks, 2023), collectively enhancing political participation. In the Chinese context, where online media frequently emphasize positive propaganda, Chen and Zang (2015) show that media use significantly increases political participation among rural residents.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConversely, a substantial body of scholarship argues that internet use may suppress political participation or exert only negligible effects. Putnam (2001) contends that internet use expands time devoted to entertainment, crowding out public political engagement. The commercial and entertainment-driven nature of digital platforms, moreover, may erode individuals\u0026rsquo; capacity for political involvement (Bakker \u0026amp; de Vreese, 2011), ultimately dampening their motivation to participate (Bimber et al., 2015). Other studies suggest that the internet\u0026rsquo;s practical impact on fostering mass political engagement remains modest (Norris, 2002; Theocharis \u0026amp; Quintelier, 2016).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on this, the following research hypotheses are proposed:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH2-1:The stronger young people's internet usage, the stronger their institut-\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eionalized political participation;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH2-2:The stronger young people's internet usage, the stronger their non-in-\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003estitutionalized political participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Moderation effects of internet use\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the significant impact of social fairness perception on political participation, the internet\u0026mdash;as a key channel for information diffusion and social exchange\u0026mdash;may moderate this relationship. Practical evidence further suggests that internet development plays an important role in addressing public needs and promoting social well-being (Pan et al.,2019). Young people frequently access political information, articulate opinions, and join public discourse online. The extent and manner of their internet use could thus amplify or attenuate the effect of social fairness perception on their political engagement. Studies indicate that the internet does not directly determine participation levels but operates by conditioning individual psychological mechanisms and behavioral pathways (Theocharis \u0026amp; Quintelier, 2016).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecifically, internet use may positively moderate the relationship between social fairness perception and institutionalized political participation. When young people regularly consume political information online, the internet\u0026rsquo;s informational features can bolster their political awareness and efficacy, reinforcing a sense of civic responsibility. This, in turn, makes them more likely to engage through formal channels such as voting or contacting officials (Zheng, 2014). Under these conditions, a strong sense of social fairness, coupled with high-frequency information exposure, is expected to further encourage institutionalized participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, within non-institutionalized pathways, the internet may magnify feelings of relative deprivation stemming from low social fairness perceptions, using online networks to facilitate rapid mobilization and collective action (Niu et al., 2017).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on this, the following research hypotheses are proposed:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH3-2: Youth internet use exerts a positive moderating effect on the relationship between social fairness perceptions and institutionalized political participation;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH3-3: Youth internet use exerts a negative moderating effect on the relationship between social fairness perceptions and non-institutionalized political participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the aforementioned theoretical framework and research hypotheses, this paper constructs a diagram of the theoretical model illustrating the influence mechanism of youth political participation (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3.Data and methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employs data from the 2021 Chinese Social Survey (CSS2021), a nationally representative, continuous survey project administered by the Institute of Sociology at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The survey covers 151 counties (districts/cities) across 31 provincial-level units in China. Its target population is urban and rural residents aged 18\u0026ndash;69, yielding a total of 10,136 valid responses.Guided by the youth age range (14\u0026ndash;35 years) defined in China\u0026rsquo;s Medium- and Long-Term Youth Development Plan (2016\u0026ndash;2025) and considering the structure of the CSS2021 sample, we limit our analysis to respondents aged 18\u0026ndash;35. To sharpen the focus of the inquiry, the raw data were filtered according to study-specific criteria, primarily age (18\u0026ndash;35) and internet use status. To ensure data quality, observations that were irrelevant to the research aims or contained excessive missing values were removed.After these procedures, 2,019 valid cases were retained for empirical analysis. This sample size fulfills the basic requirements for model estimation and hypothesis testing in this study and offers reasonable representativeness and analytical reliability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Explained variable\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study uses political participation as the dependent variable, representing the political participation of research subjects. Drawing on Zhang et al. (2024), political participation is measured through questionnaire item H2a: \u0026ldquo;In the past two years, have you participated in any of the following activities?\u0026rdquo; Specifically, it includes: \u0026ldquo;Reporting social issues to media outlets such as newspapers, radio stations, or online forums\u0026rdquo;; \u0026ldquo;Submitting opinions to government departments (including via phone, email, etc.)\u0026rdquo;; \u0026ldquo;Expressing personal views on government policies through various channels\u0026rdquo;; \u0026ldquo;Discussing political issues with others or online users\u0026rdquo;; \u0026ldquo;Participating in collective online/offline rights protection actions\u0026rdquo;; \u0026ldquo;Engaging in discussions on major decision-making processes within your village/community or workplace\u0026rdquo;; and \u0026ldquo;Attending public hearings on public policies organized by government departments.\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Expressing personal opinions on government policies through various channels,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Discussing political issues with others or online users,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Participating in collective rights defense actions online/offline,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Participating in major decision-making discussions in your village/community or workplace,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Attending public policy hearings organized by government departments.\u0026rdquo; The second explanatory variable is \u0026ldquo;voting participation,\u0026rdquo; measured by the item H3b: \u0026ldquo;Did you vote in the most recent election (village committee/neighborhood committee election)?\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Did you vote in the most recent election (neighborhood committee/village committee election)?\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, principal component analysis was applied, followed by factor analysis using the maximum variance method on the eight items. This extracted two common factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The table shows that the items \u0026ldquo;Reporting social issues to newspapers,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Expressing opinions to the government, \u0026rdquo;\u0026ldquo;Expressing personal views on policies,\u0026rdquo;\u0026ldquo;Discussing political issues,\u0026rdquo;and \u0026ldquo;Participating in rights defense actions\u0026rdquo; loaded heavily on Common Factor 1, while \u0026ldquo;Participating in major decision discussions,\u0026rdquo;\u0026ldquo;Participating in neighborhood committee voting,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Attending hearings\u0026rdquo; loaded heavily on Common Factor 2. Therefore, based on the corresponding item meanings, Common Factor 1 was named \u0026ldquo;Non-institutionalized Political Participation,\u0026rdquo; and Common Factor 2 was named \u0026ldquo;Institutionalized Political Participation.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFactor loading analysis of political participation scale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReport social issues to newspapers and periodicals (online forums)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIngredient 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIngredient 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.604\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.104\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReport opinions to government\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003edepartments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.586\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.273\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpress personal opinions on policy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.536\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.154\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ediscuss political issues\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.549\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.115\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipate in online/offline\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ecollective rights protection actions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.505\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.029\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipate in major decision-making discussions in the village\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.013\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.744\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipate in voting in village\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ecommittee elections\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.175\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.615\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eattend hearing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.240\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.587\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKMO sampling suitability quantity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.617\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBartlett's test of sphericity\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eapproximates chi-square\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e738.195\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSignificance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRotation load square percentage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.524\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.493\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Explanatory variables\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe explanatory variable in this study is social fairness perceptions. Following the methodology of Liu \u0026amp; Wang (2023), social fairness perceptions is measured through questionnaire item F3a: \u0026ldquo;How fair do you perceive the following aspects of contemporary social life to be?\u0026rdquo; This includes eight indicators: \u0026ldquo;college entrance examination system,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;political rights,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;judicial and law enforcement,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;public healthcare,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;employment opportunities,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;income distribution,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;social security benefits,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;urban-rural disparities.\u0026rdquo; The original scoring for each indicator is defined as follows: \u0026ldquo;extremely unfair\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, somewhat unfair\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2, fair\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3, extremely fair\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4, and unsure=-1.\u0026rdquo; This study converted the original scores into a scale where \u0026ldquo;extremely unfair\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, somewhat unfair\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2, hard to say\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3, somewhat fair\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4, extremely fair\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.\u0026rdquo; Higher scores indicate a stronger social fairness perceptions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Moderator variable\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study selects internet usage as a moderating variable to further explore the relationship between social fairness perceptions and youth political participation. Internet usage encompasses both internet access and frequency of use. Given the characteristics of this research and practical considerations, only a very small minority of young people do not use the internet at all. Therefore, \u0026ldquo;internet usage\u0026rdquo; here primarily refers to \u0026ldquo;internet usage frequency,\u0026rdquo; excluding samples that do not use the internet. Following Tang \u0026amp; Ye (2022), the measurement of \u0026ldquo;frequency of engaging in the following online activities\u0026rdquo; is conducted through item D5b: \u0026ldquo;How often do you engage in the following activities online?\u0026rdquo; to measure seven indicators: \u0026ldquo;Browsing political news,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Entertainment and leisure,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Chatting and making friends,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Business and work,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;education, \u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;online services,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;investment and financial management.\u0026rdquo; Response options were coded as follows: \u0026ldquo;almost daily\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, multiple times per week\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2, at least once per week\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3, at least once per month\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4, several times per year\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5, and never\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.\u0026rdquo; Raw scores were converted to: \u0026ldquo;almost daily\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6, multiple times per week\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5, at least once per week\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4,at least once per month\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3,several times per year\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2, and never\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.\u0026rdquo; Summing all items and taking the average yields a score where higher values indicate stronger internet usage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Control variables\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe control variables selected by this study to reflect the individual characteristics of the research subjects include gender, age, educational attainment, marital status, political identity, household registration status, and employment status. The specific assignment rules are shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable assignment and descriptive statistics (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2019)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuestion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssignment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean (standard\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003edeviation)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003egender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1; Female\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.422(0.494)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eeducation level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJunior high school and below =\u0026thinsp;1; high school (technical secondary school and higher vocational school)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2; college and above =\u0026thinsp;3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.233(0.849)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarital\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003estatus\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarried\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1; Unmarried\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.516(0.500)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eworking status\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorking\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1; Not working\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.497(0.500)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epolitical outlook\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParty member (Democratic Party)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1; non-party member\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.367(0.482)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHouseho-ld registration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgricultural household registration\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003enon-agricultural household registration\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.597(0.491)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003einstitutionalized political participation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipate in major decision-making\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ediscussions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"7\" rowspan=\"8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipated\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNever participated\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.123\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.200)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.065(0.246)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipate in village committee voting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.283(0.450)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eattend hearing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.022(0.146)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003enon-institutionalized political participation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReport social issues to newspapers and\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eperiodicals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.094\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.150)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.044(0.205)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReport opinions to\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ethe government\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.066(0.248)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComment on policy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.038(0.192)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ediscuss political\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eissues\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.292(0.455)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipate in rights protection actions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.030(0.171)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternet\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUse\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrowse current\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eaffairs information\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOriginal assignment: almost every day\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, many times a week\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2, at least once a week\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3, at least once a month\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4, several times a year\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5, never\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssigned values after conversion: almost every day\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6, many times a week\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5, at least once a week\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4, at least once a month\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3, several times a year\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2, never\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.953\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.891)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.514(1.611)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eentertainment, leisure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.291(1.199)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChat and make\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003efriends\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.407(1.182)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ebusiness or work\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.904(2.225)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003estudy education\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.832(1.947)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOnline shopping and life services\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.098(1.341)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInvestment and\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003efinancial management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.625(1.358)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"7\" rowspan=\"8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eperceptions of social justice\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ecollege entrance\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eexamination system\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"7\" rowspan=\"8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOriginal assignment: very unfair\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, not very fair\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003erelatively fair\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3, very fair\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4, hard to say=-1;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssignment after conversion: Very unfair\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, Not very fair\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2, Hard to say\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3, Fairly fair\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVery fair\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"7\" rowspan=\"8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.712\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.707)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.118(0.977)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epolitical rights\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.847(1.023)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJustice and Law\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnforcement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.965(0.939)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epublic health\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.918(0.871)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmployment\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eopportunities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.468(1.073)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eincome distribution\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.292(1.154)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003esocial security\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ebenefits\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.767(0.963)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban and rural\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003edifferences\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.358(1.155)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4.Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Sample descriptive statistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOf the 2,019 respondents included in the analysis, 851 (42.1%) were male and 1,168 (57.9%) were female, indicating a modest over-representation of women. In terms of education, 547 (27.1%) had completed junior high school or less, 455 (22.5%) had attained senior high school (including vocational/technical secondary education), and 1,017 (50.4%) held a college degree or higher\u0026mdash;the largest subgroup. Married respondents slightly outnumbered unmarried ones. Employment status was nearly evenly split between those with and without work. Most respondents did not belong to the Communist Party or Communist Youth League. Agricultural hukou holders outnumbered non-agricultural hukou holders. (See Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics were generated using SPSS 26 (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The results indicate that the overall mean scores for institutionalized and non-institutionalized political participation are 0.123 and 0.094, respectively\u0026mdash;both below the scale midpoint of 0.5\u0026mdash;reflecting a generally low level of political engagement among youth. The mean score for the independent variable, social fairness perception, is 3.712, above the midpoint of 3.0, suggesting that youth, on average, perceive society as relatively fair. Scores for all specific fairness dimensions exceeded the midpoint, with perceptions of fairness in the college entrance examination (Gaokao) system rated highest. The mean for the moderating variable, internet use, is 3.953, above the midpoint of 3.5, indicating comparatively high levels of internet engagement among young people. Item-level scores reveal that youth internet activity is concentrated mainly in entertainment/leisure, social communication, and browsing news/political information.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBasic situation of the sample (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2019)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eName\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eName\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003egender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e851(42.1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eworking\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003estatus\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHave a job\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1004(49.7)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1168(57.9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eno job\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1015(50.3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eeducation level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJunior high\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eschool and\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ebelow\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e547(27.1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epolitical\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eoutlook\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eparty\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003emember\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e741(36.7)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh school (technical secondary school and\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003evocational\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eschool)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e455(22.5)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003enon-party\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003emembers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1278(63.3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUniversity and\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eabove\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1017(50.4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHousehold\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eregistration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgricultural\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ehousehold registration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1206(59.7)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarital\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003estatus\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003emarried\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1041(51.6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNon-agricultural household\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eregistration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e813(40.3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnmarried\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e978(48.4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Regression analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study uses hierarchical linear regression to analyze the effects of social fairness perception and internet use on youth institutionalized and non-institutionalized political participation separately. All models control for demographic and socioeconomic covariates: gender, age, education, employment status, political affiliation, and household registration (hukou). Model 1 (institutionalized participation) and Model 4 (non-institutionalized participation) include only control variables. Model 2 and Model 5 add the independent variable, social fairness perception, to Models 1 and 4, respectively. Model 3 and Model 6 further incorporate the moderating variable, internet use, building on Models 2 and 5 (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs shown in Models 2 and 5, social fairness perception significantly predicts both forms of youth political participation. Its coefficient for institutionalized participation is 0.018 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), indicating a positive effect: youth with a stronger sense of social fairness are more likely to engage through institutionalized channels such as voting or contacting officials. Hypothesis H1-1 is therefore supported. For non-institutionalized participation, the coefficient is \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.031 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), revealing a negative relationship: lower perceived fairness is associated with a greater propensity for extra-institutional actions like collective petitions or protests, confirming hypothesis H1-2.These results underscore social fairness perception as a pivotal psychological driver shaping how youth choose to engage politically. When young people view society as relatively fair, they favor institutionalized modes of participation; when they perceive unfairness, they are more inclined toward unconventional, non-institutionalized forms of expression.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eModels 3 and 6 show that the coefficient for internet use on institutionalized political participation is 0.010 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), which is not statistically significant, indicating no meaningful effect. By contrast, its coefficient for non-institutionalized participation is 0.027 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), reflecting a strong positive association: more frequent internet use corresponds to higher levels of non-institutionalized political engagement. Thus, hypothesis H2-1 is rejected, while H2-2 is supported. These findings suggest that internet use does not foster institutionalized participation but does markedly amplify non-institutionalized involvement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral control variables also show significant associations. Male youth exhibit higher levels of both institutionalized and non-institutionalized participation than females. Age is positively related to institutionalized participation but unrelated to non-institutionalized forms. Educational attainment does not significantly predict institutionalized participation, yet higher education is associated with greater non-institutionalized engagement. Marriage is linked to lower non-institutionalized participation, suggesting a suppressive effect. Being employed is associated with higher institutionalized participation, though employment status does not affect non-institutionalized involvement. Party/League membership predicts greater engagement in both participation types. Finally, youth with agricultural hukou show higher institutionalized participation than those with non-agricultural hukou, while hukou type has no bearing on non-institutionalized participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe impact of social justice perception and Internet use on youth political participation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutionalized political participation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNon-institutionalized political participation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003egender\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Female\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.025\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.009)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.025\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.009)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.025\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.009)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.017\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.007)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.018\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.007)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.018\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.007)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.009\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.001)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.009\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.001)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.009\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.001)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.009\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u0026minus;0.309)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.035\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u0026minus;1.149)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.042\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u0026minus;1.395)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eeducation\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003elevel\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.039\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u0026minus;1.501)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.043\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u0026minus;1.649)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.043\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u0026minus;1.649)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.030\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.004)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.031\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.004)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.019\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.005)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarital\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003estatus\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Single\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.057(\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.816)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.059\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(1.882)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.059\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(1.822)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.019\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.008)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.025\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.008)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.027\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e(0.008)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eworking\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003estatus(no\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ework\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.021\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.010)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.020\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.010)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.020\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.010)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.016\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.693)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.014\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.628)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.014\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u0026minus;0.638)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epolitical\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eidentity\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Non-party member\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.039\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.010)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.037\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.010)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.037\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.010)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.024\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.008)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0279\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e(0.008)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.025\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.008)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHousehold\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eregistration\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(non-agricultural\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.031\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.009)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.031\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.009)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.031\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.009)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.029\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u0026minus;1.336)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.027\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u0026minus;1.236)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.016\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u0026minus;0.723)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003esocial\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ejustice\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eperception\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.018\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.006)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.018\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.006)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.031\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e(0.005)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.033\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e(0.005)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternet\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eusage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.010\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.439)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.027\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.004)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003esample\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003esize\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003econstant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.166\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.243\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.243\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.021\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.135\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.068\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.876\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.955\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.955\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39.444\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e41.433\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42.632\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.060\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.064\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.064\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.073\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.093\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.113\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eNote: *P\u0026lt;0.05, **P\u0026lt;0.01, ***P\u0026lt;0.001; numbers in brackets are standard errors.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Moderating effect analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo further examine whether internet use moderates the relationship between social fairness perception and youth political participation, a moderation analysis was conducted using the Process 2.16.3 in SPSS 26. The detailed results are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTest results of the moderating effect of Internet use on the relationship between social justice and political participation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutionalized political\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eparticipation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNon-institutionalized political\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eparticipation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95%CI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95%CI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003egender\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Female\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.028\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.009\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.011,0.047]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.018\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.005,0.031]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.008\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.006,0.010]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u0026minus;0.003,0.001]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eeducation\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003elevel\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.011\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u0026minus;0.024,0.002]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.018\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.009,0.028]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarital\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003estatus\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Single\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.020\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.013\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u0026minus;0.005,0.045]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.019\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.009\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u0026minus;0.038,0.001]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eworking\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003estatus(no\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ework\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.021\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.010\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.001,0.041]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u0026minus;0.015,0.014]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epolitical\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eidentity\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Non-party member\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.047\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.011\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.025,0.069]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.023\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.007,0.040]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHousehold\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eregistration\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(non-agricultural\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.028\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.009\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.010,0.046]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u0026minus;0.018,0.008]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003esocial justice perception\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.017\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.006\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.005,0.030]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.035\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u0026minus;0.044,0.026]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternet\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eusage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.006\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.006\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u0026minus;0.005,0.017]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.026\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.041\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.018,0.034]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInt_1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.006\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.006\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u0026minus;0.018,0.006]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.011\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u0026minus;0.020,\u0026minus;0.002]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003esample size\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.531\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.445\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.068\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.116\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eNote: *P\u0026lt;0.05, **P\u0026lt;0.01, ***P\u0026lt;0.001; numbers in brackets are standard errors.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs displayed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, the direction of each variable\u0026rsquo;s effect on youth political participation remains largely consistent with the patterns shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, though coefficient magnitudes differ slightly. Model 7 shows that the interaction between social fairness perception and internet use on institutionalized political participation is \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.006 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), indicating no significant moderating effect. Hypothesis H3-1 is therefore not supported. In Model 8, the corresponding interaction term for non-institutionalized participation is \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.011 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), confirming a significant moderation effect. Hypothesis H3-2 is thus supported.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo probe this moderation further, a simple-slopes analysis was performed, categorizing internet use into high (M\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;1 SD) and low (M\u0026ndash;1 SD) groups (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The results reveal that the negative relationship between social fairness perception and non-institutionalized political participation is significantly stronger among youth with high internet use. This indicates a reinforcing moderating effect: more frequent internet use amplifies the extent to which social fairness perception suppresses non-institutionalized political engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5.Conclusion and discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eDrawing on CSS2021 data, this study distinguishes between institutionalized and non-institutionalized forms of political participation. Through hierarchical regression and moderation analysis, we empirically demonstrate a non-linear relationship between social fairness perception and youth political engagement, as well as a differential moderating role of internet use. These findings offer a fresh analytical lens for understanding the mechanisms shaping youth political participation in a period of social transformation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Research conclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, the findings confirm that social fairness perception significantly influences both institutionalized and non-institutionalized youth political participation, and that internet use moderates the link between social fairness perception and non-institutionalized participation Specifically:1)Social fairness perception positively predicts institutionalized political participation and negatively predicts non-institutionalized participation. That is, higher perceived fairness is associated with greater institutionalized engagement, while lower perceived fairness correlates with stronger non-institutionalized involvement.2)Internet use does not significantly affect institutionalized participation but exhibits a positive association with non-institutionalized participation. Thus, internet use appears ineffective in promoting institutionalized engagement, while potentially amplifying non-institutionalized forms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, moderation tests reveal that internet use does not significantly moderate the relationship between social fairness perception and institutionalized political participation, but it does significantly strengthen the link between social fairness perception and non-institutionalized participation. On the one hand, internet use neither enhances nor suppresses the effect of social fairness perception on institutionalized engagement. On the other hand, under conditions of high internet use, the negative association between social fairness perception and non-institutionalized participation becomes more pronounced. In other words, when youth perceive lower social fairness and use the internet more frequently, their non-institutionalized political participation intensifies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 Practical inspiration\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the above research findings, this study suggests that the following aspects warrant attention in promoting orderly political participation among youth.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, advancing social fairness in a comprehensive manner is essential. Given that social fairness perception is a key determinant of youth political engagement, strengthening that perception is critical to promoting more orderly participation among young people. Constructing social fairness requires establishing a multidimensional institutional framework designed to counteract the mechanisms that produce structural inequality. Such an effort fundamentally entails aligning institutional justice, opportunity structures, and participatory efficacy into a mutually reinforcing system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the level of institutional justice, it is imperative to strengthen the capacity of institutions to respond normatively to diverse social claims. Enhancing the equity and accessibility of basic public services\u0026mdash;such as education, healthcare, and employment\u0026mdash;can alleviate feelings of \u0026ldquo;absolute deprivation\u0026rdquo; among youth. At the same time, improving redistributive mechanisms to provide targeted compensation for urban\u0026ndash;rural, regional, and inter-generational disparities would help mitigate experiences of \u0026ldquo;relative deprivation.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith respect to opportunity structures, a holistic employment lifecycle management system should be developed. Multifaceted measures ought to be taken to expand youth employment channels, improve rights protection and professional development regimes, strengthen sector-specific talent cultivation, and deliver re-employment support. Complementarily, refining lifelong learning systems can narrow the mismatch between young individuals\u0026rsquo; capabilities and available opportunity structures.In the domain of participatory efficacy, the interests and demands of youth should be systematically integrated into the government\u0026rsquo;s policy agenda. Hearings, deliberative consultations, and other participatory mechanisms can build consensus and help shift youth from passive policy targets to active governance actors. In short, a multidimensional strategy is needed to raise youth perceptions of social fairness, bolster their identification with institutions, and ultimately foster a virtuous cycle between perceived fairness and orderly political participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe role of internet use\u0026mdash;a key variable shaping youth non-institutionalized political participation\u0026mdash;cannot be overlooked. As digital natives, contemporary young people increasingly engage politically through means that transcend traditional institutional channels, reflecting a clear \u0026ldquo;mediatized turn.\u0026rdquo; This trend contains dual potential: it may enhance political efficacy in positive ways, yet it also carries structural risks that could challenge governance order.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the one hand, the internet\u0026mdash;functioning as a decentralized platform for information exchange\u0026mdash;enables young people to access policy information promptly, interact with government bodies, broaden their social and political awareness, and accelerate political socialization. On the other hand, the immediacy, viral spread, and affective mobilization inherent in online communication can magnify governance tensions in a risk society, raise the likelihood of non-deliberative expression, and even precipitate online collective actions, thereby posing substantive challenges to state governance systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsequently, the regulation and guidance of the online content ecosystem must be reinforced. First, a tiered and categorized content governance system should be instituted, supported by a dynamically adjusted mechanism for assessing content quality, with particular emphasis on curbing disinformation, incendiary rhetoric, and extremist discourse. Second, by harnessing artificial intelligence and big-data analytics, fine-grained behavioral \u0026ldquo;profiling\u0026rdquo; of youth online activity can inform tailored, audience-sensitive political communication strategies aligned with their information preferences. Moreover, in light of youth characteristics, government transparency and the timeliness of public communication should be elevated. By channeling legitimate youth demands through institutionalized avenues, \u0026ldquo;technological empowerment\u0026rdquo; can be converted into \u0026ldquo;governance effectiveness,\u0026rdquo; steering youth toward political participation within an orderly framework. The ultimate objective is to realize a mutually reinforcing dynamic between political stability and youth agency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3 Research limitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study represents a preliminary inquiry into the connections between social fairness perception, internet use, and youth political participation. Several limitations should, however, be noted.First,limited operationalization of political participation.Relying on secondary data constrained the measurement of political participation to eight specific items. As a result, the analysis does not cover the full range of possible engagement forms\u0026mdash;such as campaign volunteering, membership in civic associations, or innovative digital activism. Future research would benefit from developing more comprehensive and varied measures to better capture the diversity and complexity of youth political involvement. Second,narrow range of control variables.The control variables were largely confined to individual-level socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, education, political affiliation). Potentially important external and contextual factors\u0026mdash;including the influence of significant others (family, peers), broader socio-political conditions, and qualitative features of the online environment (e.g., misinformation prevalence, platform design)\u0026mdash;were not considered. Subsequent studies should incorporate a wider set of such variables to provide a more holistic and nuanced account of the drivers of youth political participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eEthical approval was not required for this study as it utilized publicly accessible data from the 2021 China Social Survey (CSS2021)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAdditional information\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrespondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Wenjun Yang.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eY：Develop an overall research plan and revise the thesisW：Collect data and draft the initial version of the paper\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the 2021 China Social Survey (CSS2021)\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlmond,C.A.,Verba,S.(1963).The Civic Culture:Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations.Princeton:Princeton University Press.https://doi.org/10.2307/2091433\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBakker,T.P.,\u0026amp; de Vreese,C.H.(2011).Good news for the future?Young people, internet use,and political participation.Communication Research,38(4),451\u0026ndash;470.https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210381738\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBimber,B.,Cunill,M.C.,Copeland,L.,\u0026amp; Gibson,R.(2015).Digital media and political participation:The moderating role of political interest across acts and over time. Social sciencecomputer review,33(1)21\u0026ndash;42.https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314526559\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBimber,B.,Cunill,M.C.,Copeland,L.,\u0026amp; Gibson,R.(2015).Digital media and political participation:The moderating role of political interest across acts and over time. Social science computer review, 33(1),21\u0026ndash;42.https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314526559\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBode,L.(2012).Facebooking it to the polls:A study in online social networking\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eand political behavior.Journal of Information Technology \u0026amp; Politics, 9(4),352\u0026ndash;369.https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.709045\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoulianne,S.(2015).Social media use and participation:A meta-analysis of current research.Information,Communication and Society,18(5),524\u0026ndash;538.https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoulianne,S.(2019).US dominance of research on political communication:A meta-view.Political Communication,36(4),660\u0026ndash;665.https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1670899\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrundidge,J.(2010).Encountering\u0026ldquo;difference\u0026rdquo;in the contemporary public sphere:T-he contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks.Journal of communication, 60(4),680\u0026ndash;700.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01509.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCai,Y.(2005).China's moderate middle class:the case of homeowners'resistance.A-sian Survey,45(5),777\u0026ndash;799.https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2005.45.5.777\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCao,J.,Huang,J.,and Lu,X.(2017).Social fairness and political trust:an empirical s-tudy based on\"Chinese township democracy and governance survey\".Theor.Invest.3,152\u0026ndash;158.doi:10.16354/j.cnki.23-1013/d.2017.03.026\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen,P.,Zang,L.Z.(2015).The Relationship between Media and Political Participa-tion Behavior of Chinese Rural Residents:Evidence from Asian Barometer Survey Data.Journal of Public Management,(3):69\u0026ndash;82.https://doi.org/10.16149/j.cnki.23-1523.2015.03.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCopeland,L.(2014).Conceptualizing political consumerism:How citizenship norms differentiate boycotting from buycotting.Political studies, 62(1_suppl),172\u0026ndash;186.https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12067\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCui,E.,Tao,R.,Warner,T.J.,\u0026amp; Yang,D.L.(2015).How Do Land Takings Affect Polit-ical Trust in Rural China? Political Studies,63,91\u0026ndash;109.https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12151\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGibson,R.,\u0026amp; Cantijoch,M.(2013).Conceptualizing and measuring participation in\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ethe age ofthe internet:Is online political engagement really different to offl-ine? The Journal ofPolitics,75(3),701\u0026ndash;716.https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381613000431\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGil de Z\u0026uacute;\u0026ntilde;iga,H.,Veenstra,A.,Vraga,E.,\u0026amp; Shah,D.(2010).Digital democracy: Reimagining pathways to political participation.Journal of information technology \u0026amp; politics,7(1),36\u0026ndash;51.https://doi.org/10.1080/19331680903316742\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHe,L.,Wang,K.,Liu,T.,Li,T.,\u0026amp; Zhu,B.(2022).Does political participation help improve the life satisfaction of urban residents:Empirical evidence from China.Plos one,17(10),e0273525.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273525\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHou,B.,Liu,Q.,Wang,Z.,Hou,J.,\u0026amp; Chen,S.(2023).The intermediary mechanism of\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003esocial fairness perceptions between social capital and farmers\u0026rsquo;political part-icipation:Empirical research based on masking and mediating effects. Front-ers in Psychology,13,1021313.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1021313\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuntington,S.P.,\u0026amp; Nelson,J.M.(1976).No easy choice:Political participation in de-veloping countries.Harvard University Press.https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674863842.c6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim,S.J.(2023).The role of social media news usage and platforms in civic and political engagement: Focusing on types of usage and platforms.Compute-rs in Human Behavior,138,107475.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107475\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLin,J.,Xiao,T.B.(2021).How does the Sense of Social Justice Affect Political Pa-rticipation? \u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;An Analysis of the CSS2019 Data.Journal of Central Chi-na Normal University(Humanities and Social Sciences),6:10\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu,W.,Xiao,S.T.,Peng,Q.(2021).Political Trust,Perception of Government Performance and Political Participation\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;Based on the Data of the\u0026ldquo;Chinese People\u0026rsquo;s Political Mentality Survey\u0026rdquo;(2019).Journal of Central China Normal University(Humanities and Social Sciences),6:1\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu,G.X.,Wang,C.X.(2023).How Does Sense of Social Justice and Sense of Political Performance Influence Political Participation:An Empirical Research Based on CSS2019 Data,(01):19\u0026ndash;30.https://doi.org/10.16614/j.gznuj.skb.2023.01.003.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiao,H.,Wu,H.C.,\u0026amp; Huang,O.(2024).The influence of media use on different modes of political participation in China:political trust as the mediating factor.Journal of Asian Public Policy,17(1),21\u0026ndash;43.https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2021.2022851\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNeubaum,G.,\u0026amp;Weeks,B.(2023).Computer-mediated political expression:A concept-ual framework of technological affordances and individual tradeoffs.Journal of Information Technology and Politics,20(1),19\u0026ndash;33.https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2022.2028694\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNeufeind,M.,Jiranek,P.,\u0026amp; Wehner,T.(2014).Beyond skills and structure:Justice dis-positions as antecedents of young citizens'volunteering and political partici-pation.Journal of Community \u0026amp; Applied Social Psychology,24(4),278\u0026ndash;295.h-ttps://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2166\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNiu,J.K.,Du,H.F.,Du,W.,Liu,Q.(2016).The Impact of Perceived Justice on Migrant Workers' Collective Action\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;Based on Moderating Effect of Equal Awa-reness.Journal of Public Management,3:89\u0026ndash;99.https://doi.org/10.16149/j.cnki.23-1523.2016.03.008\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNorris,P.(2002).Democratic Phoenix:reinventing political activism.Cambridge Uni-versity Press.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610073\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePan,H.,DeDonder,L.,Dury,S.,Wang,R.,DeWitte,N.,\u0026amp;Vert\u0026acute;e,D.(2019).Social participa-tion among older adults in Belgium\u0026rsquo;s Flanders region:Exploring the roles of both new and old media usage.Information,Communication and Society, 22(13),1956\u0026ndash;1972.https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1473460\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNanetti,R.Y.,Leonardi,R.,\u0026amp; Putnam,R.D.(1994). Making democracy work:civic traditions in modern Italy.Princeton University Press.https://muse.jhu.edu/book/64810\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePutnam,R.D.(2000). Bowling alone:The collapse and revival of American community.Simon and schuster.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2004.03.019\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRothmund,T.,Becker,J.C.,\u0026amp; Jost,J.T.(2016).The psychology of social justice in political thought and action.In Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp.275\u0026ndash;291).New York,NY:Springer New York.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3216-0_15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSabucedo,J.M.,\u0026amp; Arce,C.(1991)Types of political participation:A multidimensional analysis European Journal of Political Research, 20: 93\u0026ndash;102.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1991.tb00257.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSong,S.,\u0026amp; Ai,M.(2025).Internet use,support for democracy and political participation:a comparative study of Chinese mainland and Taiwan. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1),1\u0026ndash;9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04637-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSu,Z.W.,Yao,Q.C.,Li,H.(2023).How Does the Sense of Social Justice Affect Rural Residents Institutionalized Political Participation?\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;Based on Five Stages of the CGSS.China Public Administration Review,1:95\u0026ndash;117.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSvensson,J.(2015).Participation as a pastime:political discussion in a queer community online.Javnost-The Public, 22(3),283\u0026ndash;297.https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2015.1060014\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTang,Z.W.,Ye,C.X.,(2022).Digital Use Gap and Citizens' Political Participation:An Empirical Analysis of Political Efficacy as an Intermediary Variable.Journal of Intelligence,41(9):129\u0026ndash;135,111.https://link.cnki.net/urlid/61.1167.G3.20220804.1239.026\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTheocharis,Y.,\u0026amp; Quintelier,E.(2016).Stimulating citizenship or expanding entertainment?The effect of Facebook on adolescent participation.New Media and Society,18(5),817\u0026ndash;836.https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814549006\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Deth,J.W.(2014).A conceptual map of political participation. Acta politica,49(3),349\u0026ndash;367.https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2014.6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Deth,J.W.(2021).What is political participation.Int.Encyclopedia.Polit.Commun.49,349\u0026ndash;367.https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.68\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang,M.S.,Yang,T.(2011)Gaigekaifang Yilai Woguo Zhengzhicanyu Yanjiu De Huigu Yu Zhanwang(改革开放以来我国政治参与研究的回顾与展望).Qinghuadaxue Xuebao(Zhexueshehuikexue Ban)(清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版)),6:5\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWillnat,L.,Wong,W.J.,Tamam,E.,\u0026amp; Aw,A. (2013).Online media and political participation:The case of Malaysia. Mass Communication and Society,16(4),557\u0026ndash;585.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhan,W.Z., \u0026amp; You,Z.W.,(2024).Factors influencing villagers'willingness to participate in grassroots governance:evidence from the Chinese social survey.Humanities And Social Sciences Communications.11(1)https://DOI10.1057/s41599-024-03574-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang,Y.X,Liu,D.X.,Li,Z.C.(2024)Information Incentives and Community-driven Engagement: How Internet Use Facilitates Political Participation.China Public Administration Review,6(3):172\u0026ndash;197.https://link.cnki.net/urlid/10.1653.D0.20240923.1706.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZheng,J.J.(郑建君)(2013).Zhengzhixingren Shehuigongzheng Yu Zhengzhicanyu De Guanxi\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;Yixiang Jiyu 625 Ming Zhongguobeishi De Shizhengfenxi(政治信任、社会公正与政治参与的关系\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;一项基于625名中国被试的实证分析).Zhengzhixueyanjiu(政治学研究).6:61\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZheng,J.J.(郑建君)(2019).Zhengzhizhishi,Shehuigongpinggan Yu Xuanjucanyu De Guanxi\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;Jiyu Meitishiyong De Gaojie Tiaojiexiaoying Fenxi(政治知识、社会公平感与选举参与的关系\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;基于媒体使用的高阶调节效应分析).Zhengzhixueyanjiu(政治学研究).2:73\u0026ndash;87\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;127.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Institutionalized political participation, Non-institutionalized political participation, Social fairness perception, Internet use, Youth","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9075421/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9075421/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eYouth political participation is a cornerstone of democratic political development. Utilizing data from the 2021 China Social Survey (CSS2021), this study empirically investigates the mechanisms linking social fairness perception, internet use, and youth political participation. Results show that social fairness perceptions and internet use exert distinct effects on institutionalized and non-institutionalized political participation among young people. Specifically, a stronger sense of social fairness among youth is associated with a greater inclination toward institutionalized political participation, while a weaker sense is linked to a higher propensity for non-institutionalized participation. Furthermore, more intensive internet use predicts stronger non-institutionalized political participation, yet has no significant bearing on institutionalized participation. Further analysis indicates that internet use does not moderate the relationship between social fairness perception and institutionalized participation; however, it significantly amplifies the association between social fairness perception and non-institutionalized participation. These results advance our understanding of the drivers behind youth political engagement and the nuanced role of the internet in this process, offering theoretical and practical insights for guiding youth toward orderly political involvement.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"How Social Fairness Perception Affects Youth Political Participation：The Moderating Effect of Internet Use","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-25 20:07:00","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9075421/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"0673b3e4-5eaa-4b2a-b3b0-150cb6959361","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 25th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"decision","content":"Rejected","date":"2026-05-05T19:29:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":65072161,"name":"Social science/Politics and international relations"},{"id":65072162,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":65072163,"name":"Social science/Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-05T19:39:07+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-25 20:07:00","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9075421","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9075421","identity":"rs-9075421","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}