Political Behavior

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 105–128 | Cite as

When Treatments are Tweets: A Network Mobilization Experiment over Twitter

Original Paper

Abstract

This study rigorously compares the effectiveness of online mobilization appeals via two randomized field experiments conducted over the social microblogging service Twitter. In the process, we demonstrate a methodological innovation designed to capture social effects by exogenously inducing network behavior. In both experiments, we find that direct, private messages to followers of a nonprofit advocacy organization’s Twitter account are highly effective at increasing support for an online petition. Surprisingly, public tweets have no effect at all. We additionally randomize the private messages to prime subjects with either a “follower” or an “organizer” identity but find no evidence that this affects the likelihood of signing the petition. Finally, in the second experiment, followers of subjects induced to tweet a link to the petition are more likely to sign it—evidence of a campaign gone “viral.” In presenting these results, we contribute to a nascent body of experimental literature exploring political behavior in online social media.

Keywords

Field experiments Networks Political participation 

Supplementary material

11109_2015_9308_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1145 kb)

References

  1. Aaker, J., & Akutsu, S. (2009). Why do people give?. The role of identity in giving: Stanford University Graduate School of Business Research Paper.Google Scholar
  2. Barr, D., & Drury, J. (2009). Activist identity as a motivational resource: Dynamics of (dis)empowerment at the G8 direct actions, Gleneagles, 2005. Social Movement Studies, 8(3), 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bimber, B., Flanagin, A. J., & Stohl, C. (2005). Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment. Communication Theory, 15(4), 365–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowers, J., Fredrickson, M. M., & Panagopoulos, C. (2013). Reasoning about interference between units: A general framework. Political Analysis, 21(1), 97–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryan, CJ., Walton, GM., Rogers, T., Dweck, CS. (2011). Motivating voter turnout by invoking the sel. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (vol 108(31), pp. 12,653–12,656).Google Scholar
  8. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and Discontent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  9. Coppock, A. (2014). Information spillovers: Another look at experimental estimates of legislator responsiveness. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1(02), 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drury, J., Cocking, C., Beale, J., Hanson, C., & Rapley, F. (2005). The phenomenology of empowerment in collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(3), 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farrell, H. (2012). The consequences of the internet for politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fowler, J. H., Heaney, M. T., Nickerson, D. W., Padgett, J. F., & Sinclair, B. (2011). Causality in political networks. American Politics Research, 39(2), 437–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaby, S., & Caren, N. (2012). Occupy online: How cute old men and malcolm X recruited 400,000 US users to OWS on Facebook. Social Movement Studies, 11, 367–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2000). The effects of personal canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94, 653–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2012). Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  16. Gladwell, M. (2010). Small change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted. The New Yorker.Google Scholar
  17. Gong, S., Zhang, J., Zhao, P., Jiang, X. (2014). Tweets and sales. Retrived from SSRN Working Paper.Google Scholar
  18. Karpf, D. (2010). Online political mobilization from the advocacy group’s perspective: Looking beyond clicktivism. Policy & Internet, 2(4), 7–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kobayashi, T., Ichifuji, Y. (2014). Tweets that matter: Evidence from a randomized field experiment in Japan. In Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  20. Krueger, B. S. (2006). A comparison of conventional and internet political mobilization. American Politics Research, 34(6), 759–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lupia, A., & Sin, G. (2003). Which public goods are endangered?: How evolving communication technologies affect the logic of collective action. Public Choice, 117(3–4), 315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society13(1), 114–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morozov, E. (2009). Iran: Downside to the ‘Twitter revolution’. Dissent.Google Scholar
  25. Nickerson, D. W. (2007). The ineffectiveness of e-vites to democracy: Field experiments testing the role of e-mail on voter turnout. Social Science Computer Review, 25(4), 494–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Obar, J., Zube, P., & Lampe, C. (2012). Advocacy 2.0: An analysis of how advocacy groups in the United States perceive and use social media as tools for facilitating civic engagement and collective action. Journal of Information Policy, 2, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2003). The impact of contact type on web survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63, 579–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosenstone, S., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America. New York: MacMillan Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. New York: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
  31. Shulman, S. W. (2009). The case against mass e-mails: Perverse incentives and low quality public participation in US federal rulemaking. Policy & Internet, 1(1), 23–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sinclair, B., McConnell, M., & Green, D. P. (2012). Detecting spillover effects: Design and analysis of multilevel experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 1055–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Taylor, S.J., Muchnik, L., Aral, S. (2014). Identity and opinion: A randomized experiment. Retrieved from SSRN.Google Scholar
  34. Teresi, H., Michelson, M. (2014). Wired to mobilize: The effect of social networking messages on voter turnout. The Social Science Journal. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2014.09.004.
  35. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Coppock
    • 1
  • Andrew Guess
    • 1
  • John Ternovski
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Oxford Internet InstituteUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations