Scholars have documented growth in media coverage and popular discourse focusing on politicians’ personal lives—personalization. Candidates use social media and personalization to circumvent mainstream news media, disrupting conventional processes. This personalization arguably increases voters’ reliance on personal characteristics as voting heuristics. An online experiment exposed more than a thousand US adults to personalized or policy/campaigning tweets from a male or female US Senator running for re-election. Candidates who personalized elicited higher evaluations of social presence and parasocial interaction. For female candidates who shared a supported party with a respondent, personalization leads to feelings of perceived presence and parasocial interaction. Ultimately, the feelings of intimacy created by personalized tweets led respondents to express support for personalizing candidates, but this effect is contingent upon the gender and in-party status of the candidate.
Baldwin-PhilippiJ (2015) Using Technology, Building Democracy: Digital Campaigning and the Construction of Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
BaymNK (2010) Personal Connections in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
3.
BennettLW (2012) The personalization of politics: political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science644: 20–39.
4.
BioccaFNowakK (2001) Plugging your body into the telecommunication system: mediated embodiment, media interfaces, and social virtual environments. In: LinCAtkinD (eds) Communication Technology and Society. Waverly Hill, VI: Hampton Press, pp. 407–447.
5.
BishinBGStevensDWilsonC (2006) Character counts? Honesty and fairness in election 2000. Public Opinion Quarterly7: 235–248.
6.
ChadwickA (2013) The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
ConwayBAKenskiKWangD (2013) Twitter use by presidential primary candidates during the 2012 campaign. American Behavioral Scientist57(11): 1596–1610.
8.
CornerJPelsD (2003) Introduction: the re-styling of politics. In: CornerJPelsD (eds) Media and the Re-Styling of Politics. London: SAGE, pp. 1–18.
9.
CowdenJAMcDermottRM (2000). Short-term forces and partisanship. Political Behavior22(3): 197–222.
10.
Delli CarpiniMXWilliamsBA (2001) Let us infotain you: politics in the new media age. In: BennettWLEntmanRM (eds) Mediated Politics Communication in the Future of Democracy. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 160–181. Available at: http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/14
11.
EaglyAHKarauSJ (2002) Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review109(3): 573–598.
12.
EnliGSSkogerbøE (2013) Personalized campaigns in party-centered politics: twitter and Facebook as arenas for political communication. Information, Communication & Society16(5): 757–774.
13.
EvansHKCordovaVSipoleS (2014) Twitter style: an analysis of how house candidates used Twitter in their 2012 campaigns. PS: Political Science & Politics47(2): 454–462.
14.
FennoR (1978) Home Style: Representatives in Their Districts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
15.
FridkinKLKenneyPJ (2014) The Changing Face of Representation: The Gender of U.S. Senators and Constituent Communications. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
16.
GainousJWagnerKM (2014) Tweeting to Power: The Social Media Revolution in American Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
GreenDPalmquistBSchicklerE (2002) Partisan Hearts and Minds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18.
GulatiGJWilliamsCB (2012) A campaign perspective on the motivation for adopting social media in US congressional campaigns. In: Prepared for delivery at the 22nd world congress of political science, Madrid, 8–12July.
19.
HartR (1999) Seducing America: How Television Charms the Modern Voter. London: SAGE.
20.
HayesAF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.
21.
HermansLVergeerM (2012) Personalization in e-campaigning: a cross-national comparison of personalization strategies used on candidate websites of 17 countries in EP elections 2009. New Media & Society15: 72–92.
22.
HoggMATerryDJWhiteKM (1995) A tale of two theories: a critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social psychology quarterly255–269.
23.
HortonDWohlRR (1956) Mass communication and para-social interaction: observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry19: 215–229.
24.
IyengarSWestwoodSJ (2015) Fear and loathing across party lines: new evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science59(3): 690–707.
25.
JamiesonKH (1995) Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
KreissD (2016) Seizing the moment: the presidential campaigns’ use of Twitter during the 2012 electoral cycle. New Media & Society18(8): 1473–1490.
27.
KruikemeierSVan NoortGVliegenthartR. (2013) Getting closer: the effects of personalized and interactive online political communication. European Journal of Communication28: 53–66.
28.
LangerAI (2007) A historical exploration of the personalisation of politics in the print media: the British prime ministers (1945–1999). Parliamentary Affairs60(3): 371–387.
29.
LawrenceRGRoseM (2009) Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White House: Gender Politics and the Media on the Campaign Trail. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
30.
LawrenceRGMcGregorSCCardonaAMourãosRR (2016) Personalization and gender: 2014 gubernatorial candidates on social media. In: Communication and Midterm Elections.US: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 191–206.
31.
LeeEOhS (2012) To personalize or depersonalize? When and how politicians’ personalized tweets affect the public’s reactions. Journal of Communication62: 932–949.
32.
LoaderBDVromenAXenosMA (2014) The networked young citizen: social media, political participation and civic engagement. Information, Communication & Society17(2): 143–150.
McGrawK (2003) Political impressions: formation and management. In: SearsDOHuddyLJervisR (eds) Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 394–432.
35.
McGregorSCLawrenceRGCardonaA (2016) Personalization, gender, and social media: gubernatorial candidates’ social media strategies. Information, Communication & Society1–20.
36.
MazzoleniGSchulzW (1999) “Mediatization” of politics: a challenge for democracy?Political Communication16(3): 247–261.
37.
MeeksL (2012) A woman’s place: gender politics and Twitter in the 2012 elections. Dissertation, Department of Communication, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
38.
NowakKBioccaF (2003) The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments12: 481–494.
39.
PapacharissiZ (2014) Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
ShortJWilliamsEChristieB (1976) The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. New York: Wiley.
41.
Stromer-GalleyJ (2014) Presidential Campaigning in the Internet Age. New York: Oxford University Press.
42.
Van AelstPSheaferTStanyerJ (2011) The personalization of mediated political communication: a review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism13(2): 203–220.
43.
Van ZoonenL (1998) A day at the zoo: political communication, pigs and popular culture. Media, Culture & Society20(2): 183–200.
44.
WeeksBE (2015) Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: how anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. Journal of Communication65(4): 699–719.
