Political campaigning on social media is a core feature of contemporary democracy. However, evidence of the effectiveness of this type of campaigning is thin. This study tests three theories linking social media to vote outcomes, using a novel 6,000 observation panel data set from two British elections. We find that Twitter-based campaigning does seem to help win votes. The impact of Twitter use is small, though comparable with campaign spending. Our data suggest that social media campaign effects are achieved through using Twitter as a broadcast mechanism. Despite much literature encouraging politicians to engage with social platforms in an interactive fashion, we find no evidence that this style of communication improves electoral outcomes. In light of our results, theories of how social media are changing processes of campaigns and elections are discussed and enhanced.
AldrichJ.GibsonR.CantijochM.KonitzerT. (2015). Getting out the vote in the social media era: Are digital tools changing the extent, nature and impact of party contacting in elections?Party Politics, 22, 165-178. doi:10.1177/1354068815605304
2.
AlhabashS.McAlisterA.KimW.LouC.CunninghamC.QuilliamE. T.RichardsJ. (2016). Saw it on Facebook, drank it at the bar! Effects of exposure to Facebook alcohol ads on alcohol-related behaviors. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 16, 44-58. doi:10.1080/15252019.2016.1160330
BalmasM.SheaferT. (2010). Candidate image in election campaigns: Attribute agenda setting, affective priming, and voting intentions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22, 204-229. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edq009
5.
BarnidgeM.Ardèvol-AbreuA.GildeZúñigaH. (2018). Content-expressive behavior and ideological extremity: An examination of the roles of emotional intelligence and information network heterogeneity. New Media & Society, 20, 815-834. doi 10.1177/1461444816675183
6.
BartelsL. M. (1987). Candidate choice and the dynamics of the presidential nomination process. American Journal of Political Science, 31, 1-30. doi:10.2307/2111322
7.
BaxterG.MarcellaR. (2013). Do online election campaigns sway the vote? A study of the 2011 Scottish parliamentary election. Libri, 63, 190-205. doi:10.1515/libri-2013-0015
8.
BeneM. (2018). Post shared, vote shared: Investigating the link between Facebook performance and electoral success during the Hungarian general election campaign of 2014. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95, 363-380. doi:10.1177/1077699018763309
9.
BentivegnaS.MarchettiR. (2017). Campaigning on Twitter: The use of social media in the 2014 European elections in Italy. In DavisR.Holtz-BachaC.JustM. (Eds.), Twitter and elections around the world (pp. 126-140). London, England: Routledge.
10.
BlankG. (2017). The digital divide among Twitter users and its implications for social research. Social Science Computer Review, 35, 679-697. doi:10.1177/0894439316671698
11.
BlankG.GrahamM.CalvinoC. (2018). Local geographies of digital inequality. Social Science Computer Review, 36, 82-102. doi:10.1177/0894439317693332
12.
BodeL.EpsteinB. (2015). Campaign klout: Measuring online influence during the 2012 election. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12, 133-148. doi:10.1080/19331681.2014.994157
13.
BondR.FarissC.JonesJ.KramerA.MarlowC.SettleJ.FowlerJ. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489, 295-298. doi:10.1038/nature11421
14.
Borge BravoR.Esteve Del ValleM. (2017). Opinion leadership in parliamentary Twitter networks: A matter of layers of interaction?Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 14, 263-276. doi:10.1080/19331681.2017.1337602
15.
BornsteinR. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265-289. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.265
16.
BoulianneS. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 524-538. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542
17.
BoulianneS. (2016). Campaigns and conflict on social media: A literature snapshot. Online Information Review, 40, 566-579. doi:10.1108/OIR-03-2016-0086
18.
BradyH. E.JohnstonR.SidesJ. (2006). The study of political campaigns. In BradyH. E.JohnstonR.SidesJ. (Eds.), Capturing campaign effects (pp. 1-28). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
19.
BrightJ. (2018). Explaining the emergence of political fragmentation on social media: The role of ideology and extremism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23, 17-33. doi:10.1093/jcmc/zmx002
20.
BroockmanD. E.GreenD. P. (2014). Do online advertisements increase political candidates’ name recognition or favorability? Evidence from randomized field experiments. Political Behaviour, 36, 263-289. doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9239-z
21.
CastellsM. (2009). Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
CaldeiraG. A.ClausenA. R.PattersonS. C. (1990). Partisan mobilization and electoral participation. Electoral Studies, 9, 191-204. doi:10.1016/0261-3794(90)90025-4
23.
ChoJ.ShahD. V.McLeodJ. M.McLeodD. M.SchollR. M.GotliebM. R. (2009). Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects. Communication Theory, 19, 66-88. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01333.x
24.
CuttsD. (2006). “Where we work we win”: A case study of local Liberal Democrat campaigning. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 16, 221-242. doi:10.1080/13689880600950501
25.
CuttsD.ShryaneN. (2006). Did local activism really matter? Liberal democrat campaigning and the 2001 British general election. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 8, 427-444. doi:10.1111/j.1467-856x.2006.00232.x
26.
DenverD.HandsG.HenigS. (1998). Triumph of Targeting? Constituency Campaigning in the 1997 Election. British Elections and Parties Review, 8, 171-90.
27.
DenverD. T.HandsG.MacAllisterI. (2004). The electoral impact of constituency campaigning in Britain, 1992-2003. Political Studies, 52, 289-306. doi:10.1111%2Fj.1467-9248.2004.00480.x
28.
De WinterL.BaudewynsP. (2015). Candidate centred campaigning in a party centred context: The case of Belgium. Electoral Studies, 39, 295-305. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2014.04.006
29.
DimitrovaD. V.MatthesJ. (2018). Social media in political campaigning around the world: Theoretical and methodological challenges. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95, 333-342. doi:10.1177/1077699018770437
EnliG.SkogerbøE. (2013). Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics. Information, Communication & Society, 16, 757-774. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.782330
32.
FarrellD.Schmitt-BeckR. (2006). Do Political Campaigns Matter? Campaign Effects in Elections and Referendums. London: Routledge.
33.
FennoR. (1977). U.S. House members in their constituencies: An exploration. American Political Science Review, 71, 883-917. doi:10.2307/1960097
34.
FieldhouseE.CuttsD. (2009). The effectiveness of local party campaigns in 2005: Combining evidence from campaign spending and agent survey data. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 367-388. doi:10.1017/S0007123409000726
35.
FisherJ.DenverD. T.HandsH. T. G. (2006). Unsung heroes: Constituency election agents in British general elections. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 8, 569-586. doi:10.1111/j.1467-856X.2006.00238.x
36.
FivaJ.SmithD. (2018). Political dynasties and the incumbency advantage in party-centered environments. American Political Science Review, 112, 706-712. doi:10.1017/S0003055418000047
37.
GeysB.SmithD. M. (2017). Political dynasties in democracies: Causes, consequences and remaining puzzles. Economic Journal, 127, 446-454. doi:10.1111/ecoj.12442
38.
Gil de ZúñigaH.BarnidgeM.DiehlT. (2018). Political persuasion on social media: A moderated moderation model of political discussion disagreement and civil reasoning. The Information Society, 34, 302-315. doi:10.1080/01972243.2018.1497743
39.
GillisN. (2014). The why and how of nonnegative matrix factorization. In SuykensJ. A. K.SignorettoM.ArgyriouA. (Eds.), Machine learning and pattern recognition (pp. 257-291). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
40.
GrahamT.BroersmaM.HazelhoffK.van‘t HaarG. (2013). Between broadcasting political messages and interacting with voters. Information, Communication & Society, 16, 692-716. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.785581
41.
GreenD. P.GerberA. S. (2015). Get out the vote: How to increase voter turnout. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
42.
GreenD. P.McGrathM.AronowP. M. (2013). Field experiments and the study of voter turnout. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 23, 27-48. doi:10.1080/17457289.2012.728223
43.
GreeneD.O’CallaghanD.CunninghamP. (2014). How many topics? Stability analysis for topic models. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.4606
44.
GrusellM.NordL. (2016). Setting the trend or changing the game? Professionalization and digitalization of election campaigns in Sweden. Journal of Political Marketing. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/15377857.2016.1228555
45.
HalpernD.ValenzuelaS.KatzJ. E. (2017). We face, I Tweet: How different social media influence political participation through collective and internal efficacy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22, 320-336. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12198
46.
HechtB.StephensM. (2014). A tale of cities: Urban biases in volunteered geographic information. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), (pp. 197-205). Ann Arbor, USA: The AAAI Press.
47.
HeissR.SchmuckD.MatthesJ. (2018). What drives interaction in political actors’ Facebook posts? Profile and content predictors of user engagement and political actors’ reactions. Information, Communication & Society, 22, 1497-1513. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2018.1445273
48.
HolbrookT. M.McClurgS. D. (2005). The mobilization of core supporters: Campaigns, turnout, and electoral composition in United States Presidential Elections. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 689-703. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00149.x
49.
HuckfeldtR.CarminesE. G.MondakJ.ZeemeringE. (2007). Information, activation, and electoral competition in the 2002 congressional elections. The Journal of Politics, 69, 798-812. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00576.x
50.
HuckfeldtR. R.SpragueJ. (1995). Citizens, politics and social communication. information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511664113
51.
JacobsK.SpieringsN. (2019). A populist paradise? Examining populists’ Twitter adoption and use. Information, Communication & Society, 22, 1681-1696. doi:10.1080/2F1369118X.2018.1449883
52.
JacobsonG. (1978). The effects of campaign spending in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 72, 469-491. doi:10.2307/1954105
53.
JungherrA. (2016). Twitter use in election campaigns: A systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13, 72-91. doi:10.1080/19331681.2015.1132401
54.
KamC. D.ZechmeisterE. J. (2013). Name recognition and candidate support. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 971-986. doi:10.1111/ajps.12034
55.
KellerT. R.Kleinen-von KönigslöwK. (2018). Followers, spread the message! Predicting the success of Swiss politicians on Facebook and Twitter. Social Media + Society, 4. doi:10.1177/2056305118765733
56.
KnollJ.MatthesJ.HeissR. (2020). The social media political participation model: A goal systems theory perspective. Convergence, 26, 135-156. doi:10.1177/1354856517750366
57.
KobayashiT. (2018). Is the power of online campaigning in Japanese electoral politics a myth? A causal inference analysis of the 2013 Upper House Election. In KiyoharaS.MaeshimaK.OwenD. (Eds.), Internet election campaigns in the United States, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan (pp. 115-136). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
58.
KobayashiT.IchifujiY. (2015). Tweets that matter: Evidence from a randomized field experiment in Japan. Political Communication, 32, 574-593. doi:10.1080/10584609.2014.986696
59.
Koc-MichalskaK.LillekerD.SmithA.WeissmannD. (2016). The normalization of online campaigning in the web 2.0 era. European Journal of Communication, 31, 331-350. doi:10.1177/0267323116647236
60.
KruikemeierS. (2014). How political candidates use Twitter and the impact on votes. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 131-139. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.025
61.
LabrecqueL. I. (2014). Fostering consumer–brand relationships in social media environments: The role of parasocial interaction. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28, 134-148. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.003
62.
LaMarreH. L.Suzuki-LambrechtY. (2013). Tweeting democracy? Examining Twitter as an online public relations strategy for congressional campaigns. Public Relations Review, 39, 360-368. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.07.009
63.
LangerA. I. (2010). The politicization of private persona: Exceptional leaders or the new rule? The case of the United Kingdom and the Blair effect. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 15, 60-76. doi:10.1177/1940161209351003
64.
LeeE. (2013). Effectiveness of politicians’ soft campaign on Twitter versus TV: Cognitive and experiential routes. Journal of Communication, 63, 953-974. doi:10.1111/jcom.12049
65.
LeeE.ShinS. (2012). Are they talking to me? Cognitive and affective effects of interactivity in politicians’ Twitter communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 515-535. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0228
66.
LevittS. (1994). Using repeat challengers to estimate the effect of campaign spending on election outcomes in the U.S. House. Journal of Political Economy, 102, 777-798. doi:10.1086/261954
67.
LillekerD.Koc-MichalskaK.SchweitzerE. (2011). Informing, engaging, mobilizing or interacting: Searching for a European model of web campaigning. European Journal of Communication, 26, 195-213. doi:10.1177/0267323111416182
68.
LyonsB. A.VeenstraA. (2016). How (not) to talk on Twitter: Effects of politicians’ Tweets on perceptions of the Twitter environment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19, 8-15. doi:10.1089/cyber.2015.0319
69.
MaierD.WaldherrA.MiltnerP.WiedemannG.NieklerA.KeinertA.. . . AdamS. (2018). Applying LDA topic modeling in communication research: Toward a valid and reliable methodology. Communication Methods and Measures, 22, 93-118. doi:10.1080/19312458.2018.1430754
MurthyD. (2015). Twitter and elections: Are tweets, predictive, reactive, or a form of buzz?Information, Communication and Society, 18, 816-831. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1006659
72.
NickersonD. W.RogersT. (2014). Political campaigns and big data. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28, 51-74. doi:10.1257/jep.28.2.51
73.
PattersonS. C.CaldeiraG. A. (1983). Getting out the vote: Participation in gubernatorial elections. American Political Science Review, 77, 675-689. doi:10.2307/1957267
74.
PattieC. J.JohnstonR. J.FieldhouseE. (1995). Winning the local vote: The effectiveness of constituency campaign spending in Great Britain, 1983-1992. American Political Science Review, 89, 969-983. doi:10.2307/2082521
75.
RosenbaumP. (2017). Observation and experiment: An introduction to causal inference. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
76.
RossK.BürgerT. (2014). Face to face(book): Social media, political campaigning and the unbearable lightness of being there. Political Science, 66, 46-62. doi:10.1177/0032318714534106
77.
Schmitt-BeckR.FarrellD. M. (2002). Studying political campaigns and their effects. In FarrellD. M.Schmitt-BeckR. (Eds.), Do political campaigns matter? Campaign effects in elections and referendums (pp. 1-21). London, England: Routledge.
78.
ScottK. A.WhiteM. A. (2016). Mere exposure as a signal: Company objectives and research propositions. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 24, 411-421. doi:10.1080/10696679.2016.1205448
79.
SloanL. (2017). Who Tweets in the United Kingdom? Profiling the Twitter population using the British social attitudes survey 2015. Social Media + Society, 3. doi:10.1177/2056305117698981
StierS.BleierA.LietzH.StrohmaierM. (2018). Election campaigning on social media: Politicians, audiences, and the mediation of political communication on Facebook and Twitter. Political Communication, 35, 50-74. doi:10.1080/10584609.2017.1334728
82.
TrombleR. (2018). Thanks for (actually) responding! How citizen demand shapes politicians’ interactive practices on Twitter. New Media & Society, 20, 676-697. doi:10.1177/1461444816669158
83.
UtzS. (2009). The (potential) benefits of campaigning via social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 221-243. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01438.x
84.
Van NoortG.VliegenthartR.KruikemeierS. (2016). Return on interactivity? The characteristics and effectiveness of Web sites during the 2010 Dutch local elections. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13, 352-364. doi:10.1080/19331681.2016.1230921
85.
VergeerM.HermansL.SamsS. (2011, August1). Is the voter only a tweet away? Micro-blogging during the 2009 European Parliament election campaign in the Netherlands. First Monday, 16. Retrieved from https://firstmonday.org/article/view/3540/3026
86.
WeaverI.WilliamsH.CioroianuI.WilliamsM.CoanT.BanducciS. (2018). Dynamic social media affiliations among UK politicians. Social Networks, 54, 132-144. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2018.01.008
87.
WeeksB. E.Ardèvol-AbreuA.ZúñigaH. (2017). Online influence? Social media use, opinion leadership, and political persuasion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 29, 214-239. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edv050
88.
ZajoncR. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 224-228. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00154
89.
ZehR. (2017). From a tweet to a seat: Twitter, media visibility and electoral support. In DavisR.Holtz-BachaC.JustM. (Eds.), Twitter and elections around the world (pp. 126-140). London, England: Routledge.
90.
ZillmannD.BrosiusH. (2000). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case report on the perception of issues. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
91.
ZittelT. (2015). Constituency candidates in comparative perspective—How personalized are constituency campaigns, why, and does it matter?Electoral Studies, 39, 286-294. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2014.04.005
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.
