Skip to main content

Automated Diffusion? Bots and Their Influence During the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNISA,volume 10766)


In the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, some candidates used to automated accounts, or bots, to boost their social media presence and followership. Categorizing all automated accounts as “bots” obfuscates the role different types of bots play in the spread of political information in election campaigns. Exploring strategies for automated information diffusion helps scholars understand and model online political behavior. This paper presents an initial effort aimed at understanding the disparate roles of bots in diffusion of political messages on Twitter. Having collected over 300 million tweets from candidates and the public from the U.S. presidential election, we use three OLS regression models to explore the strategic advantages of different types of automated accounts. We approach this by analyzing retweet events, testing a series of hypotheses regarding bots’ influence on the size of retweet events, and the change in candidates’ followers. Next, we develop an estimator to analyze the spread of information across the networks, demonstrating that, while ‘benevolent bots’ serve as overt information aggregators and have an effect on information diffusion, “nefarious bots” act as false amplifiers, covertly mimicking the spread of online information with no effect on diffusion. Making this important distinction allows us to disambiguate the concept of “bots” and reach a more nuanced and detailed understanding of the role of automated accounts in information diffusion in political campaigning online.


This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions


  1. Bessi, A., Ferrara, E.: Social bots distort the 2016 U.S. Presidential election online discussion. First Monday 21(11) (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Breur, T.: US elections: how could predictions be so wrong? J. Mark. Anal. 4(4), 125–134 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bruns, A., Highfield, T.: Political networks on Twitter. Inf. Commun. Soc. 16(5), 667–691 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Clauset, A., et al.: Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Rev. 51(4), 661–703 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Faraway, J.J.: Linear Models with R. Chapman and Hall/CRC, London (2004)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Ferrara, E., et al.: The rise of social bots. Commun. ACM. 59(7), 96–104 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Forelle, M.C., et al.: Political Bots and the Manipulation of Public Opinion in Venezuela (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hemsley, J., et al.: Collection and classification of illuminating 2016 social media data. In: Illuminating 2016 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hemsley, J.: Studying the viral growth of a connective action network using information event signatures. First Monday 21(8) (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kollanyi, B., et al.: Bots and Automation over Twitter during the First U.S. Presidential Debate (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kwak, H., et al.: What is Twitter, a Social Network or a News Media? p. 591 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Salge, C., Karahanna, E.: Protesting corruption on twitter: is it a bot or is it a person? Acad. Manag. Discov. (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Stieglitz, S., Dang-Xuan, L.: Political communication and influence through microblogging–an empirical analysis of sentiment in Twitter messages and retweet behavior. In: 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS), pp. 3500–3509, January 2012

    Google Scholar 

  14. Suh, B., et al.: Want to be retweeted? Large scale analytics on factors impacting retweet in Twitter network. In: 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom), pp. 177–184 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Varol, O., et al.: Online human-bot interactions: detection, estimation, and characterization. In: Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, May 2017

    Google Scholar 

  16. Woolley, S.C., Guilbeault, D.R.: Computational propaganda in the United States of America: manufacturing consensus online. Technical report #2017.5. Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Zaman, T.R., et al.: Predicting Information Spreading in Twitter, pp. 17599–17601 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeff Hemsley .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Boichak, O., Jackson, S., Hemsley, J., Tanupabrungsun, S. (2018). Automated Diffusion? Bots and Their Influence During the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. In: Chowdhury, G., McLeod, J., Gillet, V., Willett, P. (eds) Transforming Digital Worlds. iConference 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10766. Springer, Cham.

Download citation

  • DOI:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78104-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78105-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics