In this research, the authors study the process by which social media posts are created and shared during live political debates. Using data from over 9.5 million tweets posted during and shortly after four key debates leading up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the authors test a series of hypotheses about how tweeting evolves over time during such events. They find that (1) as the debates progressed, the content of the “Twittersphere” became increasingly decoupled from the live event, and (2) the drivers of the success of tweets during the debates differed from the drivers of success observed after the debates. During the debates, users acted akin to narrators, posting shorter tweets that commented on unfolding events, with linguistic emotionality playing a limited role in sharing. However, when the debates were over, users acted more like interpreters, with successful posts being more elaborate and visually and emotionally rich accounts of the event. Evidence for the generalizability of the findings is provided by an analysis of Barack Obama’s last State of the Union Address, where similar dynamics are observed.
BergerJonahMilkmanKatherine (2012), “What Makes Online Content Go Viral?” Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (2), 192–205.
4.
BhatiaSudeepWalasekLukasz (2016), “Event Construal and Temporal Distance in Natural Language,” Cognition, 152 (July), 1–8.
5.
BramlettJosh C.McKinneyMitchell S.WarnerBenjamin R. (2017), “Processing the Political: Presidential Primary Debate ‘Live-Tweeting’ as Information Processing,” in An Unprecedented Election: Media, Communication and the Electorate in the 2016 Campaign, WarnerBenjamin R.BystromDianne G.McKinneyMitchell S.BanwartMary C., eds. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 169–188.
6.
ConoverM.RatkiewiczD.J.FranciscoM.GoncalvesB.FlamminiA.MenczeF. (2011), “Political Polarization on Twitter,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Palo Alto, CA: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, 89–96.
7.
CoppinsMcKay (2016), The Wilderness: Deep Inside the Republican Party’s Combative, Contentious, and Chaotic Bid to Re-Take the White House. New York: Little, Brown.
8.
Dang-XuanLinhStieglitzStefanWladarschJenniferNeubergerChristophe (2013), “An Investigation of Influential and the Role of Sentiment in Political Communications on Twitter During Election Periods,” Information, Communication, and Society, 16 (5), 795–825.
GordonBrett R.HartmannWesley R. (2013), “Advertising Effects in Presidential Elections,” Marketing Science, 32 (1), 19–35.
14.
GordonBrett R.HartmannWesley R. (2016), “Advertising Competition in Presidential Elections,” Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 14 (1), 1–40.
15.
GuadagnoRosanna E.RempalaDaniel M.MurphyShannonOkdieBradley M. (2013), “Why Do Internet Videos Go Viral? A Social Influence Analysis,” Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (6), 2312–19.
16.
HanKyuhongJungJihyeMittalVikasZyungJinyong DanielHajoAdam (2019), “Political Identity and Financial Risk Taking: Insights from Social Dominance Orientation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 56 (4), 581–601.
17.
HansenLars KaiArvidssonAdamNielsenFinn ArrupColleoniElanorEtterMichael (2011), “Good Friends, Bad News—Affect and Virality in Twitter,” in Future Information Technology, vol. 185 of Communications in Computer and Information Science, ParkJ.J.YangL.T.LeeC., eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 34–43.
18.
HarberKent D.CohenD.J. (2005), “The Emotional Broadcaster Theory of Social Sharing,” Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 24 (4), 382–400.
19.
HeathChip (1996), “Do People Prefer to Pass Along Good or Bad News? Valence and Relevance of News as Predictors of Transmission Propensity,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68 (2), 79–94.
HilbeJoseph M. (2011), Negative Binomial Regression, 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
HoangTuan-AnhCohenWilliam W.LimEe-PengPierceDougRedlawskDavid P. (2013), “Politics, Sharing and Emotion in Microblogs,” in Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM ‘13). New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 282–89.
23.
HoeggJoandreaLewisMichael V. (2011), “The Impact of Candidate Appearance and Advertising Strategies on Election Results,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (5), 895–909.
24.
HoustonJ. BrianHawthorneJoshuaSpialekMatthew L.GreenwoodMollyMcKinneyMitchell S. (2013), “Tweeting During Presidential Debates: Effect on Candidate Evaluations and Debate Attitudes,” Argumentation and Advocacy, 49 (4), 302–11.
25.
JungMinah H.CritcherClayton R. (2018), “How Encouraging Niceness Can Incentivize Nastiness: An Unintended Consequence of Advertising Reform,” Journal of Marketing Research, 55 (1), 147–61.
26.
KanavosAndreasPerikosIsidorosVikatosPantelisHatzilygeroudisIoannisMakrisChristosTsakalidisAthanasios (2014), “Modeling ReTweet Diffusion Using Emotional Content,” in Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations. AIAI 2014. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, Vol. 436, IliadisL.MaglogiannisI.PapadopoulosH., eds. Berlin: Springer, 101–10.
27.
KashmiriSaimMahajanVijay (2017), “Values That Shape Marketing Decisions: Influence of Chief Executive Officers’ Political Ideologies on Innovation Propensity, Shareholder Value, and Risk,” Journal of Marketing Research, 54 (2), 260–78.
28.
KimJeehye ChristineParkBrianDuboisDavid (2018), “How Consumers’ Political Ideology and Status-Maintenance Goals Interact to Shape Their Desire for Luxury Goods,” Journal of Marketing, 82 (6), 132–49.
29.
KollanyiBenceHowardPhilip N.WoolleySamuel C. (2016), “Bots and Automation Over Twitter During the First US Presidential Debate,” Comprop Data Memo, 1, 1–4.
30.
LakeThomas (2016), Unprecedented: The Election That Changed Everything. New York: Melcher Media.
31.
LeQuocMikolovTomas (2014), “Distributed Representations of Sentences and Documents,” International Conference on Machine Learning, 1188–96.
LiJunyi JessyNenkovaAni (2015), “Fast and Accurate Prediction of Sentence Specificity,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’15). Palo Alto, CA: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, 2281–87.
34.
LudwigStephande RuyterKoFriedmanMikeBrüggenElisabeth C.WetzelsMartinPfannGerard (2013), “More Than Words: The Influence of Affective Content and Linguistic Style Matches in Online Reviews on Conversion Rates,” Journal of Marketing, 77 (1), 87–103.
35.
MaruyamaMisa T.RobertsonScott P.DouglasSara K.SemaanBryan C.FaucettHeather A. (2014), “Hybrid Media Consumption: How Tweeting during a Televised Political Debate Influences the Vote Decision,” in Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 1422–32.
36.
McGregorShannon C.MolyneuxLogan (2018), “Twitter’s Influence on News Judgment: An Experiment Among Journalists,” Journalism (published online October 5), DOI: 10.1177/1464884918802975.
37.
McKelveyKarissaDiGraziaJosephRojasFabio (2014), “Twitter Publics: How Online Political Communities Signaled Electoral Outcomes in the 2010 US House Election,” Information, Communication, and Society, 17 (4), 436–50.
38.
McKinneyMitchell S.WarnerBenjamin R. (2013), “Do Presidential Debates Matter? Examining a Decade of Campaign Debate Effect,” Argumentation and Advocacy, 49 (4), 238–258.
39.
MejovaYelenaSrinivasanPadminiBoyntonBob (2013), “GOP Primary Season on Twitter: Popular Political Sentiment in Social Media,” in Proceedings of the Sixth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 517–26.
40.
MelumadShiriInmanJ.JeffreyPhamMichel Tuan (2019), “Selectively Emotional: How Smartphone Use Changes User-Generated Content,” Journal of Marketing Research, 56 (2), 259–75.
41.
OrdabayevaNailyaFernandesDaniel (2018), “Better or Different? How Political Ideology Shapes Preferences for Differentiation in the Social Hierarchy,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (2), 227–50.
42.
PennebakerJames W.BoydRyan L.JordanKaylaBlackburnKate (2015), The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC2015. Austin: University of Texas at Austin.
43.
PhillipsJoan M.UrbanyJoel E.ReynoldsThomas J.. (2008), “Confirmation and the Effects of Valenced Political Advertising: A Field Experiment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (6), 794–806.
44.
RamtekeJyotiShahSamarth A.GodhiaDarshanShaikhAadil (2016), “Election Result Prediction Using Twitter Sentiment Analysis,” in International Conference on Inventive Computation Technologies (ICICT), IEEE, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7823280.
45.
ShammaDavid A.KennedyLyndonChurchillElizabeth F. (2010), “Tweetgeist: Can the Twitter Timeline Reveal the Structure of Broadcast Events?” paper presented at the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 589–93.
46.
ShammaDavid A.KennedyLyndonChurchillElizabeth F. (2009), “Tweet the Debates: Understanding Community Annotation of Uncollected Sources,” in WSM ‘09: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Social Media, 3–10.
47.
StieglitzStefanDang-XuanLin (2013), “Emotions and Information Diffusion in Social Media—Sentiment of Microblogs and Sharing Behavior,” Journal of Management and Information Systems, 29 (4), 217–48.
48.
Stromer-GalleyJennifer (2014), Presidential Campaigning in the Internet Age. New York: Oxford University Press.
49.
SuhBongwonHongLichanPirolliPeterChiEd H. (2010), “Want to Be Retweeted? Large Scale Analytics on Factors Impacting Retweet in Twitter Network,” in Social Computing (SocialCom), 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on, 177–184.
50.
SylwesterKarolinaPurverMatthew (2015), “Twitter Language Use Reflects Psychological Differences Between Democrats and Republicans,” PLoS One, 10 (9), e0137422.
51.
TrillingDamian (2015), “Two Different Debates? Investigating the Relationship Between a Political Debate on TV and Simultaneous Comments on Twitter,” Computer Science Review, 33 (3), 259–76.
52.
TropeYaacovLibermanNira (2010), “Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance,” Psychological Review, 117 (2), 440–63.
VarolOnurFerraraEmilioDavisClayton A.MenxzerFilippoFlamminiAlessandro (2017), “Online Human-Bot Interactions: Detection, Estimation, and Characterization,” paper presented at International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (May), https://aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM17/paper/view/15587/14817.
55.
WhiteTheodore H. (1961), The Making of the President 1960. New York: Republished 2009 by HarperCollins.
56.
WinterichKaren PageMittalVikasAquinoKarl (2016), “Moral and Political Identity,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology, NortonMichael I.RuckerDerek D.LambertonCait, eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 589–618.
57.
ZhengPeiShahinS. (2018), “Live Tweeting Live Debates: How Twitter Reflects and Refracts the US Political Climate in a Campaign Season,” Information, Communication & Society (published online August 6), DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1503697.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
