This study examines the early adoption and dissemination of emerging technology tools in campaigns by analyzing which candidates were the most likely to adopt and use Facebook in the 2006 and 2008 elections to the US House of Representatives. The research hypotheses draw primarily from the diffusion of innovation literature. Our analysis of 802 candidates in 2006 and 816 candidates in 2008 indicates that Facebook adoption diffused rapidly between 2006 and 2008, with party (Democrats), competition, money and the level of education in the district explaining both adoption and implementation. Challengers and candidates for open seats were more likely to be early adopters, but incumbents used Facebook more extensively. Both higher adoption rates by peers or competitors in the candidate’s own state and a propensity to adopt earlier campaign technologies are strong positive motivators for early adoption, but irrelevant to usage.
AnsteadNChadwickA (2009) Parties, election campaigning, and the Internet: toward a comparative institutional approach. In: ChadwickAHowardPN (eds) Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics. New York: Routledge, pp. 56–71.
2.
CareyJMShugartMS (1995) Incentive to cultivate a personal vote: a rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies14(4): 417–439.
3.
ChadwickA (2006) Internet Politics: States, Citizens and New Communication Technologies. New York: Oxford University Press.
4.
DruckmanJNKiferMJParkinM (2009) Campaign communications in US congressional elections. American Political Science Review103(3): 343–366.
FichmanRG (1992) Information technology diffusion: a review of empirical research. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Information Systems, pp. 195–206.
7.
FichmanRG (2004) Going beyond the dominant paradigm for information technology innovation research: emerging concepts and methods. Journal of the Association for Information Systems5(8): Article 11.
8.
FootKASchneiderSM (2006) Web Campaigning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
FrambachRTSchillewaertN (2002) Organizational innovation adoption: a multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. Journal of Business Research55(2): 163–176.
10.
GibsonRKMargolisMResnickD. (2003) Election campaigning on the WWW in the USA and UK: a comparative analysis. Party Politics9(1): 47–75.
11.
GrayV (1973) Innovation in the states: a diffusion study. American Political Science Review67(4): 1174–1185.
12.
GrynbaumMM (2006) Likes: ice cream, war on terror; campaigns court young, get personal on web site. Boston Globe, 20August, A1.
13.
GulatiGJWilliamsCB (2007) Closing gaps, moving hurdles: candidate web site communication in the 2006 campaigns for Congress. Social Science Computer Review25(4): 443–465.
14.
GulatiGJWilliamsCB (2010) Congressional candidates’ use of YouTube in 2008: its frequency and rationale. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7(2/3): 93−109.
15.
HageJAikenM (1967) Program change and organizational properties: a comparative analysis. American Journal of Sociology72(5): 503–516.
16.
HerrnsonPSStokes-BrownAKHindmanM (2007) Campaign politics and the digital divide: constituency characteristics, strategic considerations, and candidate Internet use in state legislative elections. Political Research Quarterly60(1): 31–42.
HowardPN (2006) New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
JohnsonCA (1976) Political culture in American states: Elazar’s formulation examined. American Journal of Political Science20(3): 491–509.
20.
KamarckEC (2002) Political campaigning on the Internet: business as usual? In: KamarckECNyeJ (eds) governance.com: Democracy in the Information Age. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, pp. 81–103.
21.
KeenJ (2006) Politicians’ campaigns invade MySpace. USA Today, 17October, 1A.
22.
KellyR (2006) Politicians are the new generation of MySpace invaders. CQ Weekly Report, 7August, 2155.
23.
KlotzRJ (2004) The Politics of Internet Communication. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
24.
KwonTHZmudRW (1987) Unifying the fragmented models of information systems implementation. In: BolandJRHirshheimR (eds) Critical Issues in Information Systems Research. New York: John Wiley, pp. 227–251.
25.
LovleyE (2006) Politicians try out MySpace. Wall Street Journal, 14October, A4.
26.
ManzanoSSanchezGR (2010) Take one for the team? Limits of shared ethnicity and candidate preferences. Political Research Quarterly63(3): 568–580.
27.
MarriottM (2006) Blacks turn to internet highway, and digital divide starts to close. New York Times, 31March, A1.
28.
MohrLB (1969) Determinants of innovation in organizations. American Political Science Review63(1): 111–126.
29.
MossbergerKTolbertCJStansburyM (2003) Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
30.
RagsdaleL (1980) The fiction of congressional elections as presidential events. American Politics Research8(4): 375–398.
RobertsonTSGatignonH (1986) Competitive effects on technology diffusion. Journal of Marketing50(1): 1–12.
33.
RogersEM (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edn. New York: Free Press.
34.
SifryML (2006) RNC vs. DNC online: precinct-walking or social-networking?Personal Democracy Forum, 9October. Available at: www.personaldemocracy.com/node/1036 (accessed 5 August 2007).
StrandbergK (2009) Online campaigning: an opening for the outsiders? An analysis of Finnish parliamentary candidates’ websites in the 2003 election campaign. New Media & Society11(5): 835–854.
38.
SwansonDLManciniP (1996) Politics, Media, and Modern Democracy. Westport, CT: Praeger.
TornatzkyLGKleinKJ (1982) Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption- implementation: a meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management29(1): 28–45.
41.
VascellaroJ (2006) Campaign 2006 online: new sites aim to capitalize on social-networking craze spark political involvement. Wall Street Journal, 21September, D1.
42.
WalkerJL (1969) The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review63(3): 880–899.
43.
WardSGibsonR (2009) European political organisations and the Internet: mobilisation, participation, and change. In: ChadwickAHowardPN (eds) Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics. New York: Routledge, pp. 25–39.
WattenbergM (1991) The Rise of Candidate-Centered Politics: Presidential Elections of the 1980s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46.
WelchSThompsonK (1980) The impact of federal incentives on state policy innovation. American Journal of Political Science24(4): 715–729.
47.
WilliamsCBGulatiGJ (2007) Social networks in political campaigns: Facebook and the 2006 midterm elections. Paper presented at the 103rd annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, 30 August – 2 September.
48.
XenosMFootK (2005) Politics as usual or politics unusual? Position-taking and dialogue on campaign web sites in the 2002 U.S. elections. Journal of Communication55(1): 169–185.
49.
YahrE (2006) Politics’ new ploy: in your Facebook. Lexington Herald-Leader, 14August, 1.
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.
