The present study investigated when and how the level of interactivity in politicians' Twitter communication affects the public's cognitive and affective reactions. In a Web-based experiment (n=264), participants viewed a high profile male politician's Twitter page, wherein he was either actively responding to his followers' questions (high interactivity) or mostly posting messages on his own (low interactivity). Exposure to the high-interactivity Twitter page induced a stronger sense of direct conversation with the candidate (social presence), but only among less affiliative individuals who usually avoid social interaction. Heightened social presence, in turn, led to more positive overall evaluations of the candidate and a stronger intention to vote for him. Although those in the high-interactivity condition generated more positive thoughts, they had fewer issue-related thoughts and exhibited poorer recognition of the issues mentioned by the candidate.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoydDM, EllisonNB. Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2008; 13:210–230.
LevinsonP. The long story about the short medium: Twitter as a communication medium in historical, present, and future context. Journal of Communication Research, 2011; 48:7–28.
4.
OikoLab. 2012. Twitter Korean Index. http://tki.oiko.cc/service/count. 2012 July 7.
5.
LeeHI. 2010. <e-Politics is the current trend> After websites and blogs, Twitter takes the spotlight. SisaOn. www.sisaon.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=7152. 2012 April 28.
6.
Twtpol. 2012. Korea's political twitter. www.twtpol.com. 2012 July 8.
HsuCI, ParkHW. Sociology of hyperlink networks of Web 1.0, Web 2.0, and Twitter: A case study of South Korea. Social Science Computer Review, 2011; 29:354–368.
9.
ParkSH. Twitter as personal political communities and networked public sphere. Korean Political Communication Research, 2010; 18:31–115.
10.
BucyEP. Interactivity in society: locating an elusive concept. The Information Society, 2004; 20:373–383.
11.
SundarSS, KalyanaramanS, BrownJ. Explicating web site interactivity: impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research, 2003; 30:30–59.
12.
TrammellKD, WilliamsAP, PostelnicuMet al.Evolution of online campaigning: increasing interactivity in candidate web sites and blogs through text and technical features. Mass Communication and Society, 2006; 9:21–44.
13.
WarnickB, XenosM, EndresD, GastilJ.2005. Effects of campaign-to-user and text-based interactivity in political candidate campaign web sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10:00, 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00253.x.
14.
UtzS. The potential benefits of campaigning via social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2009; 14:221–243.
15.
BucyEP. 2004. The interactivity paradox: closer to the news but confused. BucyEP, NewhagenJE. Media Access: Social and Psychological Dimensions of New Technology Use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 47–72.
16.
LeeKM, NassC. Social-psychological origins of feelings of presence: creating social presence with machine-generated voices. Media Psychology, 2005; 7:31–45.
17.
NowakKL, BioccaF. The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users' sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 2003; 12:481–494.
18.
SkalskiP, TamboriniR. The role of social presence in interactive agent-based persuasion. Media Psychology, 2007; 10:385–413.
19.
LeeKM. Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 2004; 14:27–50.
20.
HartmannT. 2008. Parasocial interactions and paracommunication with new media characters. KonijnEA, UtzS, TanisM, BarnesSB. Mediated Interpersonal Communication. New York: Routledge, 177–199.
21.
HortonD, WohlRR. Mass communication and para-social interaction: observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 1956; 19:215–229.
22.
BenteG, RuggenbergS, KramerNCet al.Avatar-mediated networking: increasing presence and interpersonal trust in net-based collaborations. Human Communication Research, 2008; 34:287–318.
23.
LeeEJ, JangJW. Not so imaginary interpersonal contact with public figures on social network sites: how affiliative tendency moderates its effects. Communication ResearchIn Press.
24.
MehrabianA. Evidence bearing on the affiliative tendency and sensitivity to rejection scales. Current Psychology, 1994; 2:97–116.
25.
AkertRM, PanterAT. Extraversion and the ability to decode nonverbal communication. Personality and Individual Difference, 1988; 9:965–972.
26.
LevyMR, WindahlS. 1985. The concpet of audience activity. RosenbergKE, WennerLA, PalmgreenP. Media Gratification Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 109–122.
27.
CacioppoJT, PettyRE. 1981. Social psychological procedures for cognitive response assessment: the thought-listing techn ique. MerluzziTV, GlassCR, GenestM. Cognitive Assessment. New York: Guilford Press, 309–342.
28.
CohenJ. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1960; 20:37–46.
29.
MehrabianA. The development and validation of measures of affiliative tendency and sensitivity to rejection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1970; 30:417–428.
30.
ChaJH, CheongJW. A report on the reliability and validity of need for affiliation scale. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 1990; 5:1–9.
31.
RosenbergSW, BohanL, McCaffertyPet al.The image and the vote: the effect of candidate presentation on voter preference. American Journal of Political Science, 1986; 30:108–127.
32.
WyerRS, BudesheimTL, ShavittSet al.Image, issues, and ideology: the processing of information about political candidates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1991; 61:533–545.
33.
WestSG, AikenLS, KrullJL. Experimental personality designs: analyzing categorical by continuous variables interactions. Journal of Personality, 1996; 64:1–48.
34.
HayesAF. 2012. PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf. 2012 July 1.
35.
Statistics Korea. 2012. Korean Social Trends 2011. http://kostat.go.kr/portal/korea/kor_nw/2/1/index.board?bmode=read&aSeq=253180. 2012 July 8.
