Previous research on the success of politicians’ messages on social media has so far focused on a limited number of platforms, especially Facebook and Twitter, and predominately studied the effects of textual content. This research reported here applies computer vision analysis to a total of 59,020 image posts published by 172 Instagram accounts of U.S. politicians, both candidates and office holders, and examines how visual attributes influence audience engagement such as likes and comments. In particular, this study introduces an unsupervised approach that combines transfer learning and clustering techniques to discover hidden categories from large-scale visual data. The results reveal that different self-personalization strategies in visual media, for example, images featuring politicians in private, nonpolitical settings, showing faces, and displaying emotions, generally increase audience engagement. Yet, a significant portion of politician’s Instagram posts still fell into the traditional, “politics-as-usual” type of political communication, showing professional settings and activities. The analysis explains how self-personalization is embodied in specific visual portrayals and how different self-presentation strategies affect audience engagement on a popular but less studied social media platform.
AdamSilkeMaierMichaela. 2010. “Personalization of Politics a Critical Review and Agenda for Research.” Annals of the International Communication Association34 (1): 213–57.
2.
AdaySeanDevittJames. 2001. “Style over Substance: Newspaper Coverage of Elizabeth Dole’s Presidential Bid.” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics6 (2): 52–73.
3.
AlhabashSaleemMcAlisterAnna R.2015. “Redefining Virality in Less Broad Strokes: Predicting Viral Behavioral Intentions from Motivations and Uses of Facebook and Twitter.” New Media & Society17 (8): 1317–39.
4.
ArcherDaneIritaniBonitaKimesDebra D.BarriosMichael. 1983. “Face-ism: Five Studies of Sex Differences in Facial Prominence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology45 (4): 725–35.
5.
BakhshiSaeidehShammaDavid A.GilbertEric. 2014. “Faces Engage Us: Photos with Faces Attract More likes and Comments on Instagram.” In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/2556288.2557403.
6.
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): 513–29.
7.
BergerJonah. 2014. “Word of Mouth and Interpersonal Communication: A Review and Directions for Future Research.” Journal of Consumer Psychology24 (4): 586–607.
8.
CasasAndreuWilliamsNora Webb. 2019. “Images that Matter: Online Protests and the Mobilizing Role of Pictures.” Political Research Quarterly72 (2): 360–75.
9.
CholletFrançois. 2017. Deep Learning with Python. Shelter Island: Manning Publications.
10.
CollianderJonasMarderBenFalkmanLena LidMadestamJennyModigErikSagfossenSofie. 2017. “The Social Media Balancing Act: Testing the Use of a Balanced Self-Presentation Strategy for Politicians Using Twitter.” Computers in Human Behavior74:277–85.
11.
CollinsNancy L.MillerLynn Carol. 1994. “Self-Disclosure and Liking: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Psychological Bulletin116 (3): 457–75.
12.
Deeb-SwihartJuliaPolackChristopherGilbertEricEssaIrfan. 2017. “Selfie-Presentation in Everyday Life: A Large-Scale Characterization of Selfie Contexts on Instagram.” In Proceedings of the Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/60097/2017-Deeb-Swihart-SELLCSCI.pdf.
13.
FengBoSiyueLiNaLi. 2016. “Is a Profile Worth a Thousand Words? How Online Support-Seeker’s Profile Features May Influence the Quality of received support Messages.” Communication Research43 (2): 253–76.
14.
FreelonDeen. 2018. “Computational Research in the Post-API Age.” Political Communication35 (4): 665–68.
15.
GrabeMaria ElizabethBucyErik Page. 2009. Image Bite Politics: News and the Visual Framing of Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
GuérinJorisGibaruOlivierThieryStéphaneNyiriEric. 2017. “CNN Features Are Also Great at Unsupervised Classification.” https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.01700.
17.
HermansLiesbethVergeerMaurice. 2013. “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 (1): 72–92.
18.
Holtz-BachaChristinaLangerAna InesMerkleSusanne. 2014. “The Personalization of Politics in Comparative Perspective: Campaign Coverage in Germany and the United Kingdom.” European Journal of Communication29 (2): 153–70.
19.
JooJungseockBucyErik P.SeidelClaudia. 2019. “Automated Coding of Televised Leader Displays: Detecting Nonverbal Political Behavior with Computer Vision.” International Journal of Communication13:4044–66.
JooJungseockSteinert-ThrelkeldZachary C.2018. “Image as Data: Automated Visual Content Analysis for Political Science.” https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.01544.
22.
KeYanTangXiaoouJingFeng. 2006. “The Design of High-Level Features for Photo Quality Assessment.” In Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1640788.
23.
KochThomasObermaierMagdalena. 2016. “With Heart and (No) Mind? How Recipients Negatively Infer Missing Information about Politicians and How This Affects the Assessment of the Speaker.” Communication Research43 (7): 972–95.
24.
LarssonAnders Olof. 2019. “Skiing All the Way to the Polls: Exploring the Popularity of Personalized Posts on Political Instagram Accounts.” Convergence25 (5–6): 1096–110.
25.
LeeEun-JuOhSoo Youn. 2012. “To Personalize or Depersonalize? When and How Politicians’ Personalized Tweets Affect the Public’s Reactions.” Journal of Communication62 (6): 932–49.
26.
LeeJayeonXuWeiai. 2018. “The More Attacks, the More Retweets: Trump’s and Clinton’s Agenda Setting on Twitter.” Public Relations Review44 (2): 201–13.
27.
ManikondaLydiaMeduriVenkata VamsikrishnaKambhampatiSubbarao. 2016. “Tweeting the Mind and Instagramming the Heart: Exploring Differentiated Content Sharing on Social Media.” In Tenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. Cologne: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.02718.
28.
McGregorShannon C.2018. “Personalization, Social Media, and Voting: Effects of Candidate Self-Personalization on Vote Intention.” New Media & Society20 (3): 1139–60.
29.
McGregorShannon C.LawrenceRegina G.CardonaArielle. 2017. “Personalization, Gender, and Social Media: Gubernatorial Candidates’ Social Media Strategies.” Information, Communication & Society20 (2): 264–83.
30.
MeeksLindsey. 2016. “Gendered Styles, Gendered Differences: Candidates’ Use of Personalization and Interactivity on Twitter.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics13 (4): 295–310.
31.
MeeksLindsey. 2017. “Getting Personal: Effects of Twitter Personalization on Candiate Evaluations.”Politics & Gender13 (1): 1–25.
32.
MetzManonKruikemeierSanneLechelerSophie. 2020. “Personalization of Politics on Facebook: Examining the Content and Effects of Professional, Emotional and Private Self-Personalization.” Information, Communication & Society23:1481–98.
33.
O’ConnellDavid.2018. “# Selfie: Instagram and the United States Congress.” Social Media+ Society 4 (4). doi:10.1177/2056305118813373.
34.
PengYilang. 2017. “Time Travel with One Click: Effects of Digital Filters on Perceptions of Photographs.” In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 6000–11. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/3025453.3025810.
35.
PengYilang. 2018. “Same Candidates, Different Faces: Uncovering Media Bias in Visual Portrayals of Presidential Candidates with Computer Vision.” Journal of Communication68 (5): 920–41.
36.
PengYilangJemmottJohn B.III. 2018. “Feast for the Eyes: Effects of Food Perceptions and Computer Vision Features on Food Photo Popularity.” International Journal of Communication12:313–36.
37.
ProulxMichael J.2010. “Size Matters: Large Objects Capture Attention in Visual Search.” PLoS ONE5 (12): e15293.
38.
RossiniPatríciaStromer-GalleyJenniferKenskiKateHemsleyJeffZhangFeifeiDobreskiBrian. 2018. “The Relationship between Race Competitiveness, Standing in the Polls, and Social Media Communication Strategies during the 2014 US Gubernatorial Campaigns.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics15 (3): 245–61.
39.
ShahDhavan V.HannaAlexBucyErik P.LassenDavid S.Van ThommeJackBialikKristenYangJungHwanPevehouseJon C. W.2016. “Dual Screening during Presidential Debates: Political Nonverbals and the Volume and Valence of Online Expression.” American Behavioral Scientist60 (14): 1816–43.
40.
ShahDhavan V.HannaAlexBucyErik P.WellsChrisQuevedoVidal. 2015. “The Power of Television Images in a Social Media Age: Linking Biobehavioral and Computational Approaches Via the Second Screen.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science659 (1): 225–45.
41.
Stromer-GalleyJenniferZhangFeifeiHemsleyJeffTanupabrungsunSikana. 2018. “Tweeting the Attack: Predicting Gubernatorial Candidate Attack Messaging and Its Spread.” International Journal of Communication12:3511–32.
TrimbleLindaWagnerAngeliaSampertShannonRaphaelDaisyGerritsBailey. 2013. “Is It Personal? Gendered Mediation in Newspaper Coverage of Canadian National Party Leadership Contests, 1975–2012.” The International Journal of Press/Politics18 (4): 462–81.
44.
ValenzaEloisaSimionFrancescaCassiaViola MacchiUmiltàCarlo. 1996. “Face Preference at Birth.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance22 (4): 892–903.
45.
Van AelstPeterSheaferTamirStanyerJames. 2012. “The Personalization of Mediated Political Communication: A Review of Concepts, Operationalizations and Key Findings.” Journalism13 (2): 203–20.
46.
Van SantenRosaVan ZoonenLiesbet. 2020. “The Personal in Political Television Biographies.”Biography33 (1): 46–67.
47.
Webb WilliamsNoraCasasAndreuWilkersonJohn. 2020. Images as Data for Social Science Research: An Introduction to Convolutional Neural Nets for Image Classification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
ZhouBoleiLapedrizaAgataKhoslaAdityaOlivaAudeTorralbaAntonio. 2017. “Places: A 10 Million Image Database for Scene Recognition.” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence40 (6): 1452–64.
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.
