In 2014, the EU introduced the lead candidate procedure to raise citizens’ awareness and interest in the European Parliament (EP) elections and, thereby, voter turnout. We study the use of personalization, centralized personalization (focusing on lead candidates), emotional personalization, and private personalization on Facebook by political parties across 12 countries during the 2014 and 2019 EP campaigns and the effects of personalization on user engagement. A standardized quantitative content analysis of 14,293 posts by 227 political parties shows that about half of the Facebook posts were personalized, but there is no general trend of rising personalization. While emotional personalization increased, parties hardly ever posted about their lead candidates and their private lives. Variations are not due to structural (e.g., party and media systems) or geographical/cultural factors. Positive effects are found for the use of emotional personalization attracting a higher volume of user reactions (likes, reactions, shares, and comments) in both elections.
AdamS.MaierM. (2010). Personalization of politics: A critical review and agenda for research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 34(1), 213–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2010.11679101
2.
BalmasM.RahatG.SheaferT.ShenhavS. R. (2014). Two routes to personalized politics: Centralized decentralized personalization. Party Politics, 20(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068811436037
3.
BeneM. (2017). Go viral on the Facebook! Interactions between candidates and followers on Facebook during the Hungarian general election campaign of 2014. Information, Communication and Society, 20(4), 513–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1198411
4.
BennettW. L. (2012). The personalization of politics: Political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212451428
5.
BossettaM. (2018). The digital architectures of social media: Comparing political campaigning on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat in the 2016 US election. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(2), 471–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699018763307
6.
BraderT. (2005). Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 388–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00130.x
CrabtreeC.GolderM.GschwendT.IndriđasonI. H. (2020). It is not only what you say, it is also how you say it: The strategic use of campaign sentiment. The Journal of Politics, 82(3), 1044–1060. https://doi.org/10.1086/707613
9.
DaltonR. J.WattenbergM. P. (Eds.), (2002). Parties without partisans: Political change in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford University Press.
FrantzE.Kendall-TaylorA.NietscheC.WrightJ. (2021). How personalist politics is changing democracies. Journal of Democracy, 32(3), 94–108. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2021.0036
15.
GarziaD.Ferreira da SilvaF.De AngelisA. (2020). Partisan dealignment and the personalisation of politics in West European parliamentary democracies, 1961–2018. West European Politics, 45(2), 311–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2020.1845941
16.
GattermannK. (2022). The personalization of politics in the European Union. Oxford University Press.
17.
GerodimosR.JustinussenJ. (2015). Obama's 2012 Facebook campaign: Political communication in the age of the like button. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 12(2), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2014.982266
18.
HaßlerJ.KümpelA. S.KellerJ. (2023). Instagram and political campaigning in the 2017 German federal election. A quantitative content analysis of German top politicians’ and parliamentary parties’ posts. Information, Communication and Society, 26(3), 530–550.
19.
HermansL.VergeerM. (2013). Personalization in e-campaigning: A cross-national comparison of personalization strategies used on candidate websites of 17 countries in EP elections 2009. New Media and Society, 15(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812457333
20.
KaaseM. (1994). Is there personalization in politics? Candidates and voting behavior in Germany. International Political Science Review, 15(3), 211–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251219401500301
21.
KalsnesB.LarssonA. O.EnliG. (2017). The social media logic of political interaction: Exploring citizens’ and politicians’ relationship on Facebook and Twitter. First Monday, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v22i2.6348
22.
KlingerU.Koc-MichalskaK.RussmannU. (2023). Are campaigns getting uglier, and who is to blame? Negativity, dramatization, and populism on Facebook in the 2014 and 2019 EP election campaigns. Political Communication, 40(3), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2022.2133198
23.
KlingerU.RussmannU. (2017). “Beer is more efficient than social media.” Political parties and strategic communication in Austrian and Swiss national elections. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 14(4), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2017.1369919
24.
KlingerU.SvenssonJ. (2015). The emergence of network media logic in political communication: A theoretical approach. New Media and Society, 17(8), 1241–1257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814522952
25.
Koc-MichalskaK.LillekerD. G.MichalskiT.GibsonR.ZajacJ. M. (2021). Facebook affordances and citizen engagement during elections: European political parties and their benefit from online strategies?Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 18(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2020.1837707
26.
KreissD.McGregorS. C. (2018). Technology firms shape political communication: The work of Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Google with campaigns during the 2016 US presidential cycle. Political Communication, 35(2), 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1364814
27.
KruikemeierS.van NoortG.VliegenthartR.de VreeseC. H. (2013). Getting closer: The effects of personalized and interactive online political communication. European Journal of Communication, 28(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323112464837
28.
MarinoB.Martocchia DiodatiN.VerzichelliL. (2022). The personalization of party politics in Western Europe (1985–2016): Evidence from an expert survey. Acta Politica, 57(3), 571–596. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-021-00210-x
29.
MetzM.KruikemeierS.LechelerS. (2020). Personalization of politics on Facebook: Examining the content and effects of professional, emotional and private self-personalization. Information, Communication and Society, 23(10), 1481–1498. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1581244
NaiA. (2018). Fear and loathing in populist campaigns? Comparing the communication style of populists and non-populists in elections worldwide. Journal of Political Marketing, 20(2), 219–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2018.1491439
32.
NaiA.MaierJ. (2021). The wrath of candidates. Drivers of fear and enthusiasm appeals in election campaigns across the globe. Journal of Political Marketing, 23(1), 74–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2021.1930327
33.
PedersenH. H.RahatG. (2021). Political personalization and personalized politics within and beyond the behavioural arena. Party Politics, 27(2), 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068819855712
34.
RahatG.KenigO. (2018). From party politics to personalized politics? Party change and political personalization in democracies. Oxford University Press.
RussmannU. (2022). Social media as strategic campaign tool: Austrian political parties use of social media over time. In TarasD.DaviesR. (Eds.), Electoral campaigns, media, and the new world of digital politics (pp. 263–282). Michigan University Press.
37.
SchmuckD.MatthesJ.BoomgardenH. (2017). Austria. Candidate-centered and anti-immigrant right-wing populism. In AalbergT.EsserF.ReinemannC.StrömbäckJ.de VreeseC. H. (Eds.), Populist political communication in Europe (pp. 85–98). Routledge.
38.
SigelmanL.BullockD. (1991). Candidates, issues, horse races, and hoopla: Presidential campaign coverage, 1888–1988. American Politics Quarterly, 19(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X9101900101
39.
StrömbäckJ.KiousisS. (2014). Strategic political communication in election campaigns. In Political communication (pp. 109–128). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238174.109
40.
Van SantenR.Van ZoonenL. (2010). The personal in political television biographies. Biography, 33(1), 46–67. https://doi.org/10.1353/bio.0.0157
41.
WeeksB. E. (2015). Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: How anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 699–719. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12164
42.
WidmannT. (2021). How emotional are populists really? Factors explaining emotional appeals in the communication of political parties. Political Psychology, 42(1), 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12693
43.
WilkeJ.ReinemannC. (2001). Do the candidates matter? Long-Term trends of campaign coverage: A study of the German press since 1949. European Journal of Communication, 16(3), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323101016003001
44.
WurstA.-K.FenollV.HaßlerH.KruschinskiS.MaginM.RußmannU.SchlosserK. (2022). Missed opportunity to connect with European citizens? Europarties’ communication on Facebook during the 2019 European election campaign. Studies in Communication Sciences, 22(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.24434/j.scoms.2022.01.3053
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.
