Despite the resources devoted to microtargeting in recent election campaigns, we still have a limited understanding of its impacts on the electorate. This article aims to test the reinforcement effect of microtargeted messages on voters’ attitudes. Specifically, it looks at how microtargeting influences the strength and stability of partisan affiliation and the probability of voters changing their vote choice during the 2015 Canadian election campaign. Given that individuals are not targeted randomly, entropy balancing is used to model selection into treatment and create a valid counterfactual for microtargeted individuals. This approach is complemented by an extensive sensitivity analysis to improve confidence in selection on observables. We find evidence that microtargeting reinforces party ties and makes voters less likely to defect from their preferred party.
AlvarezRMHopkinsASinclairB (2010) Mobilizing Pasadena democrats: measuring the effects of partisan campaign contacts. The Journal of Politics72(1): 31–44.
2.
BainesPRWorcesterRMJarrettDMortimoreR (2003) Market segmentation and product differentiation in political campaigns: A technical feature perspective. Journal of Marketing Management19(1–2): 225–249.
3.
Baldwin-PhilippiJ (2017) The myths of data-driven campaigning. Political Communication34(4): 627–633.
4.
BartelsLM (2002) Beyond the running tally: partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior24(2): 117–150.
5.
BeckPAHeidemannED (2014) Changing strategies in grassroots canvassing: 1956–2012. Party Politics20(2): 261–274.
6.
BélangerÉStephensonLB (2010) Parties and partisans: the influence of ideology and brokerage on the durability of partisanship in Canada. In: AndersonCDStephensonLB (eds), Voting Behavior in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press, pp. 107–138.
7.
BennettC (2013) The politics of privacy and the privacy of politics: parties, elections and voter surveillance in Western democracies. First Monday18(8). DOI: 10.5210/fm.v18i8.4789
8.
BennettCJ (2015) Trends in voter surveillance in Western societies: privacy intrusions and democratic implications. Surveillance & Society13(3/4): 370–384.
9.
BennettCJ (2016) Voter databases, micro-targeting, and data protection law: Can political parties campaign in Europe as they do in North America?International Data Privacy Law6(4): 261–275.
10.
BlaemireR (2012) An explosion of innovation: the voter-data revolution. In: PearlmanNG (ed), Margin of Victory: How Technologists Help Politicians Win Elections. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, pp. 107–119.
11.
CampbellAConversePEMillerWE, et al. (1960) The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
12.
CochranWGRubinDB (1973) Controlling bias in observational studies: a review. Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A35(4): 417–446.
13.
DaltonRJ (2016) Party identification and its implications. In: ThompsonWR (ed), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–17.
14.
DelacourtS (2016) Shopping for Votes: How Politicians Choose Us and We Choose Them. Madeira Park: D & M Publishers.
15.
DufresneY (2015) Absent mandate? The role of positional issues in Canadian elections. PhD Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto.
16.
EmuraTWangJKatsuyamaH (2008) Assessing the Assumption of Strongly Ignorable Treatment Assignment Under Assumed Causal Models. Technical Report of Mathematical Sciences. Japan: Chiba University.
17.
FiorinaMP (1981) Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.
18.
FlanaganT (2009) Harper’s Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press.
FranzMM (2013) Microtargeting campaign messages: Good for campaigns but bad for America? In: RidoutTN (ed), New Directions in Media and Politics. New York: Routledge, pp. 113–131.
GermannMGemenisK (2019) Getting out the vote with voting advice applications. Political Communication36(1): 149–170.
23.
GiassonTLees-MarshmentJMarlandA (2012a) Challenges for democracy. In: MarlandAGiassonTLees-MarshmentJ (eds), Political Marketing in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press, pp. 241–256.
24.
GiassonTLees-MarshmentJMarlandA (2012b) Introducing political marketing. In: MarlandAGiassonTLees-MarshmentJ (eds), Political Marketing in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press, pp. 3–21.
25.
GidengilEBlaisAEverittJ, et al. (2012) Dominance and Decline: Making Sense of Recent Canadian Elections. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
26.
GortonWA (2016) Manipulating citizens: How political campaigns’ use of behavioral social science harms democracy. New Political Science38(1): 61–80.
27.
GreenDPGerberAS (2019) Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
28.
GreenDPPalmquistBSchicklerE (2002) Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
29.
GreeneS (2004) Social identity theory and party identification. Social Science Quarterly85(1): 136–153.
30.
GreerJD (2003) Evaluating the credibility of online information: a test of source and advertising influence. Mass Communication and Society6(1): 11–28.
31.
HainmuellerJ (2012) Entropy balancing for causal effects: a multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Political Analysis20(1): 25–46.
32.
HershE (2015) Hacking the Electorate: How Campaigns Perceive Voters. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33.
HillygusDSShieldsTG (2009) The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
34.
HoDEImaiKKingG, et al. (2007) Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis15(3): 199–236.
35.
HowardPN (2006) New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
IssenbergS (2012) How Obama used big data to rally voters, part 1. MIT Technology Review116(1): 38–49.
37.
IyengarSKinderDR (1987) News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38.
IyengarSSoodGLelkesY (2012) Affect, not ideology. A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly76(3): 405–431.
39.
KallaJLBroockmanDE (2018) The minimal persuasive effects of campaign contact in general elections: evidence from 49 field experiments. American Political Science Review112(1): 148–166.
40.
KarpfD (2016) Analytic Activism: Digital Listening and the New Political Strategy. New York: Oxford University Press.
41.
KenskiKHardyBWJamiesonKH (2010) The Obama Victory: How Media, Money, and Message Shaped the 2008 Election. New York: Oxford University Press.
42.
KimYM (2016) Algorithmic opportunity: digital advertising and inequality in political involvement. The Forum14(4): 471–484.
43.
KimYMHsuJNeimanD, et al. (2018) The stealth media? Groups and targets behind divisive issue campaigns on Facebook. Political Communication35(4): 515–541.
44.
KreissD (2012) Taking Our Country Back: The Crafting of Networked Politics from Howard Dean to Barack Obama. New York: Oxford University Press.
45.
KreissD (2016) Prototype Politics: Technology-Intensive Campaigning and the Data of Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
46.
KrotzekLJ (2019) Inside the voter’s mind: the effect of psychometric microtargeting on feelings toward and propensity to vote for a candidate. International Journal of Communication13: 3609–3629.
47.
KruschinskiSHallerA (2017) Restrictions on data-driven political micro-targeting in Germany. Internet Policy Review6(4): 1–23.
48.
LangA (2006) Using the limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing to design effective cancer communication messages. Journal of Communication56: S57–80.
49.
LazarsfeldPFBerelsonBGaudetH (1948) The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign, 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press.
50.
LenzG (2006) What politics is about. PhD Thesis, Princeton University, Princeton.
51.
LevenduskyMS (2013) Why do partisan media polarize viewers?American Journal of Political Science57(3): 611–623.
52.
LordCGRossLLepperMR (1979) Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37(11): 2098–2109.
53.
MaginMPodschuweitNHaßlerJ, et al. (2017) Campaigning in the fourth age of political communication. A multi-method study on the use of Facebook by German and Austrian parties in the 2013 national election campaigns. Information, Communication & Society20(11): 1698–1719.
54.
MunroeKBMunroeHD (2018) Constituency campaigning in the age of data. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique51(1): 135–154.
55.
NegrineRLillekerDG (2002) The professionalization of political communication: continuities and change in media practices. European Journal of Communication17(3): 305–323.
56.
NewmanBI (2016) The Marketing Revolution in Politics: What Recent US Presidential Campaigns Can Teach Us About Effective Marketing. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
57.
O’ShaughnessyNJ (1990) The Phenomenon of Political Marketing. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
58.
PanagopoulosC (2016) All about that base: changing campaign strategies in US Presidential elections. Party Politics22(2): 179–190.
59.
PanagopoulosCFranciaPL (2009) Grassroots mobilization in the 2008 presidential election. Journal of Political Marketing8(4): 315–333.
60.
PariserE (2011) The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. New York: Penguin.
61.
PattenS (2015) Data-driven microtargeting in the 2015 general election. In: MarlandAGiassonT (eds), Canadian Election Analysis. Communication, Strategy, and Democracy. Vancouver: UBC Press, pp. 14–15.
62.
PattenS (2017) Databases, microtargeting, and the permanent campaign. In: MarlandAGiassonTLennox EsselmentA (eds), Permanent Campaigning in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press, pp. 47–66.
63.
PattieCJohnstonRDorlingD, et al. (1997) New labour, new geography? The electoral geography of the 1997 British general election. Area29(3): 253–259.
64.
RosenbaumPRRubinDB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika70(1): 41–55.
65.
SampertSTrimbleL (2015) The ‘new normal’ of mediatization and narrowcasting. In: MarlandAGiassonT (eds), Canadian Election Analysis. Communication, Strategy, and Democracy. Vancouver: UBC Press, pp. 70–71.
66.
ShermanE (1999) Direct Marketing: How Does It Work for Political Campaigns? In: NewmanBI (ed), Handbook of Political Marketing. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 365–402.
67.
SidesJVavreckL (2014) The Gamble: Choice and Chance in the 2012 Presidential Election. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
68.
StraussAB (2009) Political ground truth: How personal issue experience counter partisan biases. PhD Thesis, Princeton University, Princeton.
69.
Stromer-GalleyJ (2014) Presidential Campaigning in the Internet Age. New York: Oxford University Press.
70.
StuartEA (2010) Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Statistical Science: A Review Journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics25(1): 1–21.
71.
TaberCSLodgeM (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science50(3): 755–769.
72.
The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) (2006) On the Data Trail. Ottawa: University of Ottawa.
73.
WinkielmanPCacioppoJT (2001) Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology81(6): 989–1000.
74.
ZallerJ (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
75.
Zuiderveen BorgesiusFJMöllerJKruikemeierS, et al. (2018) Online political microtargeting: promises and threats for democracy. Utrecht Law Review14(1): 82–96.
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.
