Advertisement

Less Is More Ideological: Conservative and Liberal Communication on Twitter in the 2016 Race

  • Morgan Marietta
  • Tyler Cote
  • Tyler Farley
  • Paul Murphy
Chapter

Abstract

Prior to the 2016 race, Twitter was seen as a more Democratic than Republican campaign platform. In light of the extraordinary use of social media by the Trump campaign, this chapter examines how ideological communication by either faction can be advanced or limited within this medium. We argue that the simplest and most inciting aspects of each ideology can be communicated clearly, but not the more complex or mundane facets. This suggests that certain issues will be emphasized and others neglected on Twitter by each side. These hypotheses are borne out in the 2016 Twitter campaigns, in which Clinton and Trump focused on only specific aspects and issues of the competing ideologies, and followers retweeted in a similar pattern. In the Twitter campaign, less can indeed be more ideological when the ideologies are communicated in their reduced forms.

Keywords

Ideology Social media Twitter Psychology of threats Engagement 

References

  1. Albertson, Bethany, and Shana Kushner Gadarian. 2015. Anxious Politics: Democratic Citizenship in a Threatening World. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker, David C. 2002. Rushed to Judgment: Talk Radio, Persuasion, and American Political Behavior. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bobo, Lawrence. 1983. Whites’ Opposition to Busing: Symbolic Racism or Realistic Group Conflict? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 (6): 1196–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bode, Leticia, David Lassen, Young Mie Kim, Dhavan Shah, Erika Fowler, Travis Ridout, and Michael Franz. 2016. Coherent Campaigns? Campaign Broadcast and Social Messaging. Online Information Review 40 (5): 580–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bokhari, Allum. 2016. Conservative Twitter Users Should Fight Back. Breitbart, February 17.Google Scholar
  6. Boyer, Pascal, and Nora Parren. 2015. Threat-Related Information Suggests Competence: A Possible Factor in the Spread of Rumors. PloS One 10 (6): e0128421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conway, Lucien, Laura Gornick, Shannon Houck, Christopher Anderson, Jennifer Stockert, Diana Sessoms, and Kevin McCue. 2015. Are Conservatives Really More Simple-Minded Than Liberals? The Domain Specificity of Complex Thinking. Political Psychology 37 (6): 777–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conway, Lucien, Shannon Houck, Laura Gornick, and Meredith Repke. 2016. Ideologically Motivated Perceptions of Complexity: Believing Those Who Agree with You Are More Complex Than They Are. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 35 (6): 708–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feldman, Stanley, and Karen Stenner. 1997. Perceived Threat and Authoritarianism. Political Psychology 18 (4): 741–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gadarian, Shana Kushner. 2010. The Politics of Threat: How Terrorism News Shapes Foreign Policy Attitudes. Journal of Politics 72 (2): 469–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gross, Justin, and Kaylee Johnson. 2016. Twitter Taunts and Tirades: Negative Campaigning in the Age of Trump. PS: Political Science & Politics 49 (4): 748–754.Google Scholar
  12. Jost, Jon, J. Glaser, A. Kruglanski, and F. Sulloway. 2003. Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin 129 (3): 339–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kessel, Stinj, and Remco Castelein. 2016. Shifting the Blame: Populist Politicians’ Use of Twitter as a Tool of Opposition. Journal of Contemporary European Research 12 (2): 594–614.Google Scholar
  14. Landau, Mark, Sheldon Solomon, Jeff Greenberg, et al. 2004. Deliver Us From Evil: The Effects of Mortality Salience and Reminders of 9/11 on Support for President George W. Bush. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30 (9): 1135–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee, Jayeon, and Young-Shin Lim. 2016. Gendered Campaign Tweets: The Cases of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Public Relations Review 42 (5): 849–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marietta, Morgan. 2011. A Citizen’s Guide to American Ideology: Conservatism and Liberalism in Contemporary Politics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Merolla, Jennifer, and Elizabeth Zechmeister. 2013. Evaluating Political Leaders in Times of Terror and Economic Threat: The Conditioning Influence of Political Partisanship. Journal of Politics 75 (3): 599–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Onreat, Emma, Alain van Hiel, and Ilse Cornelius. 2013. Threat and Right-Wing Attitude: A Cross-National Approach. Political Psychology 34 (5): 791.Google Scholar
  19. Petriglieri, Jennifer. 2011. Under Threat: Responses to and the Consequences of Threats to Individuals’ Identities. Academy of Management Review 36 (4): 641–662.Google Scholar
  20. Petrocik, John. 1996. Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study. American Journal of Political Science 40: 825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pyszczynski, Thomas, Sheldon Solomon, and Jeff Greenberg. 2003. In the Wake of 9/11: The Psychology of Terror. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schmid, Katharina, and Orla Muldoon. 2015. Perceived Threat, Social Identification, and Psychological Well-Being: The Effect of Political Conflict Exposure. Political Psychology 36 (1): 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sobieski, Daniel. 2017. Twitter, Shadowbanning, and Conservatives. American Thinker, May 11.Google Scholar
  24. Tetlock, Philip. 1986. A Value Pluralism Model of Ideological Reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50: 819–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Young, Cathy. 2016. How Facebook, Twitter Silence Conservative Voices Online. The Hill, October 28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Morgan Marietta
    • 1
  • Tyler Cote
    • 1
  • Tyler Farley
    • 1
  • Paul Murphy
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MassachusettsLowellUSA

Personalised recommendations