Two experiments investigated how politicians’ personal disclosures on social media might affect individuals’ vote intention. In Study 1 (n = 240), a male politician’s Facebook posts centering on his private life (vs. impersonal posts highlighting public activities) enhanced U.S. participants’ intention to vote for him, mostly by heightening likability. By contrast, a female politician’s personal Facebook posts lowered perceived competence, and thereby, vote intention among those who considered Facebook ill-suited for relational purposes. Using Twitter, Study 2 (n = 258) mostly replicated the findings among South Korean participants, confirming bounded benefits of publicizing politicians’ private persona via social media.
AltmanI.TaylorD. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
2.
BanwartM. C.BystromD. G.RobertsonT. (2003). From the primary to the general election: A comparative analysis of candidate media coverage in mixed-gender 2000 races for governor and U.S. Senate. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 658-676. doi:10.1177/0002764202238491
3.
BazarovaN. N. (2012). Public intimacy: Disclosure interpretation and social judgments on Facebook. Journal of Communication, 62, 815-832. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01664.x
4.
BemS. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354-364. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.88.4.354
5.
boydd.EllisonN. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210-230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
6.
BurgoonJ. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 30-48. doi:10.1177/0261927x93121003
7.
BystromD. G.RobertsonT. A.BanwartM. C. (2001). Framing the fight: An analysis of media coverage of female and male candidates in primary races for governor and U.S. Senate in 2000. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 1999-2013. doi:10.1177/00027640121958456
8.
CampbellJ. E. (1983). Candidate image evaluations: Influence and rationalization in presidential primaries. American Politics Quarterly, 11, 293-313. doi:10.1177/004478083011003002
9.
CarliL. L. (1991). Gender, status, and influence. In LawlerE.MarkovskiB.RidgewayC.WalkerH. (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 8, pp. 89-113). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
CohenC. E. (1981). Person categories and social perception: Testing some boundaries of the processing effect of prior knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 441-452. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.40.3.441
12.
ColleyA.MulhernG.MaltbyJ.WoodA. M. (2009). The short form BSRI: Instrumentality, expressiveness and gender associations among a United Kingdom sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 384-387. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.005
13.
CollinsN. L.MillerL. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457-475. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.457
14.
DunnS. G. S.NisbettG. S. (2014). Parasocial interactions online: Candidate intimacy in webpages and Facebook. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 3, 26-41.
15.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
16.
EnliG. S.SkogerbøE. (2013). Personalized campaigns in party-centered politics: Twitter and Facebook as arenas for political communication. Information, Communication & Society, 16, 757-774. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.782330
17.
FlanaginA. J.MetzgerM. J. (2001). Internet use in the contemporary media environment. Human Communication Research, 27, 153-181. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00779.x
18.
ForsythD. R.HeineyM. M.WrightS. S. (1997). Biases in appraisals of women leaders. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 98-103. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.1.1.98
19.
FunkC. L. (1999). Bringing the candidate into models of candidate evaluation. The Journal of Politics, 61, 700-720. doi:10.2307/2647824
20.
FyockJ.StangorC. (1994). The role of memory biases in stereotype maintenance. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 331-343. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01029.x
21.
GilesD. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psychology, 4, 279-305. doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0403_04
22.
GulatiG. J.WilliamsC. B. (2015). Congressional campaigns’ motivations for social media adoption. In Farrar-MyersV.VaughnJ. (Eds.), Controlling the message: New media in American political campaigns (pp. 32-52). New York: New York University Press.
23.
HeilmanM. E.OkimotoT. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 81-92. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81
24.
HennessyM.Delli CarpiniM. X.BlankM. B.WinnegK.JamiesonK. H. (2015). Using psychological theory to predict voting intentions. Journal of Community Psychology, 43, 466-483. doi:10.1002/jcop.21697
25.
HitchonJ. C.ChangC. (1995). Effects of gender schematic processing on the reception of political commercials for men and women candidate. Communication Research, 22, 430-458. doi:10.1177/009365095022004003
26.
HortonD.WohlR. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction; Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19, 215-229. doi:10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049
27.
HughesD. J.RoweM.BateyM.LeeA. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 561-569. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.001
28.
JacksonN.LillekerD. (2011). Microblogging, constituency service and impression management: UK MPs and the use of Twitter. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 17, 86-105. doi:10.1080/13572334.2011.545181
29.
JohnsonS. K.MurphyS. E.ZewdieS.ReichardR. J. (2008). The strong, sensitive type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106, 39-60. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.12.002
30.
KittilsonM. C.FridkinK. (2008). Gender, candidate portrayals and election campaigns: A comparative perspective. Politics & Gender, 4, 371-392. doi:10.1017/S1743923X08000330
31.
KuY.-C.ChuT.-H.TsengC.-H. (2013). Gratifications for using CMC technologies: A comparison among SNS, IM, and e-mail. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 226-234. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.08.009
32.
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
33.
LeeE.-J. (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
34.
LeeE.-J.OhS. Y. (2012). To personalize or depersonalize? When and how politicians’ personalized tweets affect the public’s reactions. Journal of Communication, 62, 932-949. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01681.x
35.
LeeE.-J.ShinS. Y. (2012). Are they talking to me? Cognitive and affective effects of interactivity in politicians’ Twitter communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 515-520. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0228
36.
LeeE.-J.ShinS. Y. (2014). When the medium is the message: How transportability moderates the effects of politicians’ Twitter communication. Communication Research, 41, 1088-1110. doi:10.1177/0093650212466407
37.
MarkusM. L. (1994). Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. Organization Science, 5, 502-527. doi:10.1287/orsc.5.4.502
38.
MarwickA. E.boydd. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13, 114-133. doi:10.1177/1461444810365313
39.
MenneckeB. E.ValacichJ. S.WheelerB. C. (2000). The effects of media and task on user performance: A test of the task-media fit hypothesis. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9, 507-529. doi:10.1023/A:1008770106779
40.
National Assembly Research Service. (2013). Characteristics and states of the use of Internet and SNS by the members of the 19th national assembly (NARS Report No. 28). Retrieved from https://www.nars.go.kr/eng/brdList.do?cmsCd=CM0139&sgrp=S02
41.
OkimotoT. G.BrescollV. L. (2010). The price of power: Power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 923-936. doi:10.1177/0146167210371949
42.
PerseE. M.CourtrightJ. A. (1993). Normative images of communication media mass and interpersonal channels in the new media environment: Mass and interpersonal channels in the new media environment. Human Communication Research, 19, 485-503. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00310.x
43.
RiceR. E. (1993). Media appropriateness. Human Communication Research, 19, 451-484. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00309.x
44.
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
45.
RudmanL. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629-645. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629
46.
RudmanL. A.PhelanJ. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61-79. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003
47.
SczesnyS.BosakJ.NeffD.SchynsB. (2004). Gender stereotypes and the attribution of leadership traits: A cross-cultural comparison. Sex Roles, 51, 631-645. doi:10.1007/s11199-004-0715-0
48.
ShackelfordS.WoodW.WorchelS. (1996). Behavioral styles and the influence of women in mixed-sex groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 284-293. doi:10.2307/2787024
49.
SnyderM.UranowitzS. W. (1978). Reconstructing the past: Some cognitive consequences of person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 941-950. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.9.941
50.
StanyerJ.WringD. (2004). Public images, private lives: An introduction. Parliamentary Affairs, 57, 1-8. doi:10.1093/pa/gsh001
51.
StewartM. C.ClarkeH. D. (1992). The (un)importance of party leaders: Leader images and party choice in the 1987 British election. The Journal of Politics, 54, 447-470. doi:10.2307/2132034
52.
ValkenburgP. M.PeterJ. (2013). The differential susceptibility to media effects model. Journal of Communication, 63, 221-243. doi:10.1111/jcom.12024
53.
Van AelstP.SheaferT.StanyerJ. (2012). The personalization of mediated political communication: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13, 203-220. doi:10.1177/1464884911427802
54.
van ZoonenL. (2006). The personal, the political and the popular: A woman’s guide to a celebrity politics. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 9, 287-301. doi:10.1177/1367549406066074
55.
WestmyerS. A.DiCioccioR. L.RubinR. B. (1998). Appropriateness and effectiveness of communication channels in competent interpersonal communication. Journal of Communication, 48, 27-48. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02758.x
56.
YanivN. W.Tenenboim-WeinblattK. (2016). Politically relevant intimacy: A conceptual and empirical investigation. International Journal of Communication, 10, 5186-5205.
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.
