Studies have shown that citizens’ engagement on social media drives politicians to adapt the issues they discuss online. However, for representative democracy to function effectively, politicians must not only discuss these issues but also act on them. This paper explores whether higher citizens’ engagement on social media shapes the issues politicians address online and leads to substantive agenda responsiveness, such as proposing legislation or raising issues in parliament. To do this, we examined over 370,000 Facebook posts by more than 350 politicians in Australia, Belgium, and the United States. Our results indicate that higher citizens’ engagement on politicians’ own social media regarding an issue increases the likelihood of politicians promoting concrete legislative or parliamentary actions related to that issue, regardless of the issue’s salience. These findings highlight social media’s role in informing and motivating politicians’ agenda responsiveness, with important implications for the current state of representative democracy.
AlbaughQuinnSevenansJulieSorokaStuartLoewenPeter John. 2013. “The Automated Coding of Policy Agendas: A Dictionary-Based Approach.” In 6th Annual Comparative Agendas Conference. Antwerp, Belgium.
2.
AndréAudreyDepauwSamDeschouwerKris. 2014. “Legislators’ Local Roots: Disentangling the Effect of District Magnitude.” Party Politics20 (6): 904–917.
3.
AnsellBenGingrichJane. 2024. “Political Inequality.” Oxford Open Economics3 (S1).
4.
AnsolabehereStephenIyengarShanto. 1994. “Riding the Wave and Claiming Ownership over Issues: The Joint Effects of Advertising and News Coverage in Campaigns.” Public Opinion Quarterly58 (3): 335–357.
5.
AnsteadNickO'LoughlinBen. 2015. “Social Media Analysis and Public Opinion: The 2010 UK General Election.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20 (2): 204–220.
6.
BarberáPabloCasasAndreuNaglerJonathanEganPatrick J.BonneauRichardJostJohn T.TuckerJoshua A.. 2019. “Who Leads? Who Follows? Measuring Issue Attention and Agenda Setting by Legislators and the Mass Public Using Social Media Data.” American Political Science Review113 (4): 883–901.
7.
BartelsLarry M.2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
8.
BaumgartnerFrank R.JonesBryan D.. The Politics of Information: Problem Definition and the Course of Public Policy in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015.
9.
BeckNathanielKatzJonathan N.TuckerRichard. 1998. “Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series-Cross-Section Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable.” American Journal of Political Science42 (4): 1260–1288.
10.
BeneMárton. 2017. “Go Viral on the Facebook! Interactions between Candidates and Followers on Facebook during the Hungarian General Election Campaign of 2014.” Information, Communication & Society20 (4): 513–529.
11.
BerzJanKroeberCorinna. 2023. “Walking the Line: Electoral Cycles and the Shift in Legislative Priorities Among German Parliamentarians.” Electoral Studies83: 102595.
12.
BevanShaun. 2019. “Gone Fishing: The Creation of the Comparative Agendas Project Master Codebook.” In Comparative Policy Agendas, edited by BaumgartnerFrankBreunigChristianGrossmanEmiliano, 17–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
BevanShaunJenningsWill. 2014. “Representation, Agendas and Institutions.” European Journal of Political Research53 (1): 37–56.
14.
BeyerDanielaHänniMiriam. 2018. “Two Sides of the Same Coin? Congruence and Responsiveness as Representative Democracy's Currencies.” Policy Studies Journal46: S13–S47.
15.
BlumRachelCormackLindseyShoubKelsey. 2023. “Conditional Congressional Communication: How Elite Speech Varies across Medium.” Political Science Research and Methods11 (2): 394–401.
16.
ButlerDaniel M.NickersonDavid W.. 2011. “Can Learning Constituency Opinion Affect How Legislators Vote? Results from a Field Experiment.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science6 (1): 55–83.
17.
CeccobelliDiego. 2018. “Not Every Day Is Election Day: a Comparative Analysis of Eighteen Election Campaigns on Facebook.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics15 (2): 122–141.
18.
ChadwickAndrewDennisJamesSmithAmy P.. 2015. “Politics in the Age of Hybrid Media: Power, Systems, and Media Logics.” In The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics, 7–22. Routledge.
19.
DahlRobert A. Democracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991.
20.
DruckmanJames N.JacobsLawrence R.. 2006. “Lumpers and Splitters: The Public Opinion Information that Politicians Collect and Use.” International Journal of Public Opinion Quarterly70 (4): 453–476.
21.
EnliGunn SaraSkogerbøEli. 2013. “Personalized Campaigns in Party-Centred Politics: Twitter and Facebook as Arenas for Political Communication.” Information, Communication & Society16 (5): 757–774.
22.
Ennser-JedenastikLaurenzGahnChristinaBodlosAnitaHaselmayerMartin. 2022. “Does Social Media Enhance Party Responsiveness? How User Engagement Shapes Parties’ Issue Attention on Facebook.” Party Politics28 (3): 468–481.
23.
Ennser-JedenastikLaurenzHaselmayerMartinHuberLena MariaFenzMartin. 2022. “Who Talks about what? Issue Strategies across the Party Hierarchy.” European Journal of Political Research61 (3): 842–852.
24.
EriksenDaniel Møller. 2024. “Party Competition on Social Media: Evidence from Politicians' Tweets.” Scandinavian Political Studies47 (2).
25.
EriksonRobert S.MacKuenMichaelStimsonJames A.. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
26.
FeezellJessica T.2018. “Agenda Setting through Social Media: The Importance of Incidental News Exposure and Social Filtering in the Digital Era.” Political Research Quarterly71 (2): 482–494.
27.
FernandesJorge M.DebusMarcBäckHanna. 2021. “Unpacking the Politics of Legislative Debates.” European Journal of Political Research60 (4): 1032–1045.
28.
FoaRobertoKlassenAndrewSladeMichealRandAlexCollinsRosie (2020). “The Global Satisfaction with Democracy Report 2020.”.
29.
GeerJohn G. From Tea Leaves to Opinion Polls. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.
30.
GilardiFabrizioGesslerTheresaKubliMaëlMüllerStefan. 2022. “Social Media and Political Agenda Setting.” Political Communication39 (1): 39–60.
31.
Green-PedersenChristoffer. 2007. “The Growing Importance of Issue Competition: The Changing Nature of Party Competition in Western Europe.” Political Studies55 (3): 607–628.
32.
GrimmerJustin. Representational Style in Congress: What Legislators Say and Why it Matters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
33.
GroseChristian R.MalhotraNeilVan HouwelingRobert Parks. 2015. “Explaining Explanations: How Legislators Explain Their Policy Positions and How Citizens React.” American Journal of Political Science59 (3): 724–743.
34.
GrossmanEmilianoGuinaudeaIsabelle. 2024. “Tunnels of Attention: Reconsidering Issue Competition.” Comparative Political Studies.
35.
HerbstSusan. Reading Public Opinion: How Political Actors View the Democratic Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
36.
HoboltSara BinzerKlemmensenRobert. 2008. “Government Responsiveness and Political Competition in Comparative Perspective.” Comparative Political Studies41 (3): 309–337.
37.
HuberLena MariaBodlosAnitaGrafElisabethMeyerThomas M.. 2022. “Disseminating Legislative Debates: How Legislators Communicate the Parliamentary Agenda.” Party Politics28 (2): 365–376.
38.
JonesBryan D.BaumgartnerFrank R.. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
39.
JonesBryan D.Larsen-PriceHeatherWilkersonJohn. 2009. “Representation and American Governing Institutions.” The Journal of Politics71 (1): 277–290.
40.
JostPeter. 2023. “How Politicians Adapt to New Media Logic. A Longitudinal Perspective on Accommodation to User-Engagement on Facebook.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics20 (2): 184–197.
41.
KalsnesBenteLarssonAnders OlofEnliGunn. 2017. “The Social Media Logic of Political Interaction: Exploring Citizens’ and Politicians’ Relationship on Facebook and Twitter.” First Monday22 (2).
42.
KamChristopher J.2009. Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
KingdonJohn W.Candidates for Office: Beliefs and Strategies. New York: Random House, 1968, 59.
44.
KingdonJohn W.1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
45.
LamotKenzaVan AelstPeter. 2020. “Beaten by Chartbeat? an Experimental Study on the Effect of Real-Time Audience Analytics on Journalists’ News Judgment.” Journalism Studies21 (4): 477–493.
46.
MansbridgeJane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review97 (4): 515–528.
47.
MayhewDavid R.1974. “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals.” Polity6 (3): 295–317.
48.
McCombsMaxwell. 1977. “Agenda Setting Function of Mass Media.” Public Relations Review3 (4): 89–95.
49.
McGregorShannon C.2019. “Social Media as Public Opinion: How Journalists Use Social Media to Represent Public Opinion.” Journalism20 (8): 1070–1086.
50.
MillerWarren E.StokesDonald E.. Constituency influence in Congress. American Political Science Review. 1963; 57(1): 45–56. doi:10.2307/1952717
51.
PeetersJeroenAelstPeter VanPraetStiene. 2021. “Party Ownership or Individual Specialization? A Comparison of Politicians’ Individual Issue Attention across Three Different Agendas.” Party Politics27 (4): 692–703.
52.
PitkinHanna Fenichel. Representation. New York: Atherton Press, 1969.
53.
PoljakŽeljko. 2024a. “Give the Media what They Need: Negativity as a Media Access Tool for Politicians.” The International Journal of Press/Politics.
54.
PoljakŽeljko. 2024b. “From Speech to Feed: How Parliamentary Debates Shape Party Agendas on Social Media.” Swiss Political Science Review.
55.
ProkschSven-OliverSlapinJonathan B.. 2012. “Institutional Foundations of Legislative Speech.” American Journal of Political Science56 (3): 520–537.
56.
RussellAnnelise. 2018. “US Senators on Twitter: Asymmetric Party Rhetoric in 140 Characters.” American Politics Research46 (4): 695–723.
57.
RussellAnnelise. 2021. “Senate Representation on Twitter: National Policy Reputations for Constituent Communication.” Social Science Quarterly102 (1): 301–323.
58.
RussellAnneliseWenJiebing. 2021. “From Rhetoric to Record: Linking Tweets to Legislative Agendas in Congress.” The Journal of Legislative Studies27 (4): 608–620.
59.
SellersPatrick. Cycles of Spin: Strategic Communication in the US Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
60.
SenningerRomanSeebergHenrik B.. Which Information Do Politicians Pay Attention to? Evidence from a Field Experiment and Interviews. British Journal of Political Science2024; 1–18.
61.
SevenansJulie. 2021. “How Public Opinion Information Changes Politicians’ Opinions and Behavior.” Political Behavior43 (4): 1801–1823.
62.
SevenansJulieSoontjensKarolinWalgraveStefaan. 2022. “Inequality in the Public Priority Perceptions of Elected Representatives.” West European Politics45 (5): 1057–108047.
63.
SidesJohn. 2006. “The Origins of Campaign Agendas.” British Journal of Political Science36 (3): 407–436.
64.
SorokaStuartWlezienChristopher. Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
65.
StimsonJames A.MacKuenMichael B.EriksonRobert S.. 1995. “Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science Review89 (3): 543–565.
66.
SulkinTracy. Issue Politics in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
67.
SulkinTracy. The Legislative Legacy of Congressional Campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
68.
TreschAnke. 2009. “Politicians in the Media: Determinants of Legislators' Presence and Prominence in Swiss Newspapers.” The International Journal of Press/Politics14 (1): 67–90.
69.
UscinskiJoseph E.2009. “When Does the Public's Issue Agenda Affect the Media’s Issue Agenda (And Vice‐versa)? Developing a Framework for Media‐public Influence.” Social Science Quarterly90 (4): 796–815.
70.
Van ErkelPatrickThijssenPeter. 2016. “The First One Wins: Distilling the Primacy Effect.” Electoral Studies44: 245–254.
71.
Van RemoortereAnnelienWalgraveStefaanVliegenthartRens. 2023. “Mass Media Occurrence as a Political Career Maker.” The International Journal of Press/Politics28 (1): 201–218.
72.
VaskoVidarTrillingDamian. 2019. “A Permanent Campaign? Tweeting Differences Among Members of Congress between Campaign and Routine Periods.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics16 (4): 342–359.
73.
WalgraveStefaanDejaeghereYves. 2017. “Surviving Information Overload: How Elite Politicians Select Information.” Governance30 (2): 229–244.
74.
WalgraveStefaanSoontjensKarolin. 2023. “How Politicians Learn about Public Opinion.” Research & Politics10 (3).
75.
WalgraveStefaanSoontjensKarolinSevenansJulie. 2022. Politicians’ Reading of Public Opinion and its Biases. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
76.
WeaverDavid. 1991. “Issue Salience and Public Opinion: Are There Consequences of Agenda-Setting?” International Journal of Public Opinion Research3 (1): 53–68.
77.
WillemsEvelienMaesBartWalgraveStefaan. 2024. “Mechanisms of Political Responsiveness: The Information Sources Shaping Elected Representatives’ Policy Actions.” Political Research Quarterly77 (3).
78.
WlezienChristopher. 1995. “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending.” American Journal of Political Science39 (4): 981–1000.
79.
WorkmanSamuelJonesBryan D.JochimAshley E.. 2009. “Information Processing and Policy Dynamics.” Policy Studies Journal37 (1): 75–92.
80.
YildirimTevfik MuratThesenGunnarJenningsWillDe VriesErik. 2023. “The Determinants of the Media Coverage of Politicians: The Role of Parliamentary Activities.” European Journal of Political Research62 (4): 1369–1388.
81.
ZoiznerAlonSheaferTamirWalgraveStefaan. 2017. “How Politicians’ Attitudes and Goals Moderate Political Agenda Setting by the Media.” The International Journal of Press/Politics22 (4): 431–449.
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.
