Advertisement

Personalization and Gender: 2014 Gubernatorial Candidates on Social Media

  • Regina G. Lawrence
  • Shannon C. McGregor
  • Arielle Cardona
  • Rachel R. Mourão

Abstract

On June 25, 2013, the Senate chamber of the Texas state capitol became the scene of a remarkable political showdown. For 13 hours, citizens at the capitol—along with over 100,000 viewers via a live web stream and thousands more on Twitter—watched and waited for the conclusion of a contentious filibuster of Senate Bill 5 (SB 5), which would impose numerous restrictions on abortion access and clinic facilities. Standing at the center of the filibuster showdown, state senator Wendy Davis became a national political celebrity literally overnight. Her pink running shoes, worn to withstand hours in which she could not relinquish the podium, quickly became an online meme.

Keywords

Social Medium Female Candidate Policy Stance Woman Candidate Midterm Election 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Banwart, M.C. (2010). Gender and candidate communication: Effects of stereotypes in the 2008 election. American Behavioral Scientist, 54(3), 265–283. doi: 10.1177/0002764210381702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett, W. L. (2012). The personalization of politics: Political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 20–39. doi: 10.1177/0002716212451428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blankenship, J., & Robson, D. C. (1995). A “feminine style” in women’s political discourse: An exploratory essay. Communication Quarterly, 43(3), 353–366. doi: 10.1080/01463379509369982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooks, D. J. (2013). He runs, she runs: Why gender stereotypes do not harm women candidates. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bystrom, D. G. (1996). Candidate gender and the presentation of self: The videostyles of men and women in U.S. Senate campaigns. Notes on recent dissertations, Political Communication, 13, 487–489. doi: 10.1080/10584609.1996.9963133Google Scholar
  7. Bystrom, D. G., Banwart, M. C., Kaid, L. L., & Robertson, T. A. (2004). Gender and candidate communication: Videostyle, webstyle, and newsstyle. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, K. K. (1989). The sound of women’s voices. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 75, 212–20. doi: 10.1080/00335638909383873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corner, J., & Pels, D. (2003). Introduction: The re-styling of politics. In J. Corner & D. Pels (Eds.), Media and the re-styling of politics: Consumerism, celebrity, and cynicism (pp. 1–18). London, UK: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. C-SPAN. (2014, August 17). Digital campaigning. Retrieved from http://www.c-span.org/video/?321165-1/discussion-digital-campaigning
  11. Dolan, K. (2005). Do women candidates play to gender stereotypes? Do men candidates play to women? Candidates sex and issue priorities on campaign websites. Political Research Quarterly, 58, 31–44. doi: 10.1177/106591290505800103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dolan, K. (2014). When does gender matter? Women candidates and gender stereotypes in American elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Druckman, J. N., Kifer, M. J., & Parkin, M. (2009). Campaign communications in U.S. congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 103(3), 343–366. doi: 10.1017/S0003055409990037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dunaway, J., Lawrence, R. G., Rose, M., & Weber, C. R. (2013). Traits versus issues: How female candidates shape coverage of Senate and gubernatorial races. Political Research Quarterly, 66(3), 715–726. doi: 10.1177/1065912913491464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Enli, G. S., & Skogerbø, E. (2013). Personalized campaigns in party-centered politics: Twitter and Facebook as arenas for political communication. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 757–774. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.782330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fridkin, K. L., & Kenney, P. J. (2014). The changing face of representation: The gender of U.S. Senators and constituent communications. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fowler, L. L., & Lawless, J. L. (2009). Looking for sex in all the wrong places: Press coverage and the electoral fortunes of gubernatorial candidates. Perspectives on Politics, 7(3), 519–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Golbeck, J., Grimes, J. M., & Rogers, A. (2010). Twitter use by the U.S. Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1612–1621. doi: 10.1002/asi.21344Google Scholar
  20. Graham, T., Broersma, M., Hazelhoff, K., & van’t Haar, G. (2013). Between broadcasting political messages and interacting with voters. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 692–716. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.785581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greider, E. (2014, April). Bio hazard. Texas Monthly. Retrieved from http://www.texas-monthly.com/story/wendy-davis-and-women-in-politics
  22. Holtz-Bacha, C., Langer, A. I., & Merkle, S. (2014). The personalization of politics in comparative perspective: Campaign coverage in Germany and the United Kingdom. European Journal of Communication, 29, 153–170. doi: 10.1177/0267323113516727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huddy, L. & Terkildsen, N. (1993). The consequences of gender stereotypes for women candidates at different levels and types of office. Political Research Quarterly, 46(3), 503–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Iyengar, S., Valentino, N. A., Ansolabehere, S., & Simon, A. F. (1997). Running as a woman: Gender stereotyping in women’s campaigns. In P. Norris (Ed.), Women, media, and politics (pp. 77–98). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Jamieson, K. H. (1995). Beyond the double bind: Women and leadership. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kahn, K., & Gordon, A. (1997). How women campaign for the U.S. Senate: Substance and strategy. In P. Norris (Ed.), Women, media, and politics (pp. 59–76). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Klinger, U. (2013). Mastering the art of social media. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 717–736. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.782329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kreiss, D. (2014). Seizing the moment: The presidential campaigns’ use of Twitter during the 2012 electoral cycle. New Media & Society, 1–18. doi:1461444814562445Google Scholar
  29. Lawrence, R. G., & Rose, M. (2009). Hillary Clinton’s race for the White House: Gender politics and the media on the campaign trail. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Mazzoleni, G., & Schulz, W. (1999). “Mediatization” of politics: A challenge for democracy? Political Communication, 16(3), 247–261. doi: 10.1080/105846099198613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McGregor, S., Lawrence, R. G., & Cardona, A. (2015, May). Personalization, gender, and social media: Gubernatorial candidates’ social media strategies. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  32. McGraw, K. (2003). Political impressions: Formation and management. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 394–432). NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Meeks, L. (2012). Is she “man enough”? Women candidates, executive political offices, and news coverage. Journal of Communication, 62, 175–193. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01621.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meeks, L. (2014, November). Let’s get personal: Effects of Twitter personalization on voter evaluations. Paper presented at the meeting of National Communication Association, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  35. Niven, D., & Zilber, J. (2001). Do women and men in congress cultivate different images? Evidence from congressional web sites. Political Communication, 18, 395–405. doi: 10.1080/10584600152647100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paul, D., & Smith, J. L. (2008). Subtle sexism? Examining vote preferences when women run against men for the presidency. Journal of Women, Politics, and Policy, 29(4), 451–476. doi: 10.1080/15544770802092576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pew Research Center. (2012a, August 12). How the presidential candidates use the web and social media. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/2012/08/15/how-presidential-candidates-use-web-and-social-media/
  38. Pew Research Center. (2012b, April 23). How the media covered the 2012 campaign. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/files/legacy/2012PrimaryCampaignReport.pdf
  39. Rose, M. (2012). Women and executive office: Pathways and performance. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Schaffner, B. F. (2005). Priming gender: Campaigning on women’s issues in U.S. Senate elections. American Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 803–817. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00156.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schulz, W. (2004). Reconstructing mediatization as an analytical concept. European Journal of Communication, 19, 87–101. doi: 10.1177/0267323104040696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Serazio, M. (2014). The new media designs of political consultants: Campaign production in a fragmented era. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 743–763. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Slater, W. (2014, January 18). As Wendy Davis touts life story in race for governor, key facts blurred. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved from http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20140118-as-wendy-davis-touts-life-story-in-race-for-governor-key-facts-blurred.ece
  44. Smith, J., Paul, D., & Paul, R. (2007). No place for a woman: Evidence for gender bias in evaluations of presidential candidates. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(3), 225–233. doi: 10.1080/01973530701503069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stalsburg, B. L. (2010). Voting for mom: The political consequences of being a parent for male and female candidates. Politics & Gender, 6(3), 373–404. doi: 10.1017/S1743923X10000309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stanyer, J. (2008). Elected representatives, online self-presentation and the personal vote: Party, personality and webstyles in the United States and United Kingdom. Information, Community & Society, 11(3), 414–432. doi: 10.1080/13691180802025681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Strömbäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization An analysis of the mediatization of politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(3), 228–246. doi: 10.1177/1940161208319097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van Aelst, P., Sheafer, T., & Stanyer, J. (2011). The personalization of mediated political communication: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 203–220. doi: 10.1177/1464884911427802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Witt, L., Paget, K. M., & Matthews, G. (1994). Running as a woman: Gender and power in American politics. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Regina G. Lawrence, Shannon C. McGregor, Arielle Cardona, and Rachel R. Mourão 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Regina G. Lawrence
  • Shannon C. McGregor
  • Arielle Cardona
  • Rachel R. Mourão

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations