Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Influence of Twitter Posts on Candidate Credibility: The 2014 Michigan Midterms

  • Chapter
Communication and Midterm Elections

Abstract

The number of people actively participating in online social networking is ever increasing. According to a Pew Research Center survey (Smith, 2014), 16 percent of registered voters follow political candidates, parties, or officials on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter; this has increased from 6 percent since 2010. Forty-one percent reported they follow political figures on social media so they could find out about political news before other people (Smith, 2014). Twitter, a microblogging site that allows users to post 140 characters or less, is becoming increasingly popular among the public as well as current officeholders and political candidates. In the 2012 Republican primaries, for example, all candidates seeking office were present on Twitter. Twitter use is not limited to the top of the ticket, however. Twitter was also widely employed by candidates vying for US Senate, US House, and governor in 2010 (e.g., Hanna, Sayre, Bode, Yang, & Shah, 2011; Parmelee & Bichard, 2012). Indeed, Twitter has become a vital communication tool for campaigns, politicians, political parties, protesters, and voters (Price, 2012; Vergeer, Hermans, & Sams, 2013).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abramowitz, A. I. (1991). Incumbency, campaign spending, and the decline of competition in U.S. House elections. Journal of Politics, 53(1), 34–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amman, S. L. (2010). A political campaign message in 140 characters or less: The use of Twitter by U.S. Senate candidates in 2010. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1725477

  • Ancu, M. (2011). From soundbite to textbite: Election 2008 comments on Twitter. In J. A. Hendricks & L. L. Kaid (Eds.), Techno politics in presidential campaigning: New voices, new technologies, and new voters (pp. 11–21). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, R. D. (2004). Congress, the press, and political accountability. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balch, G. I. (1974). Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept “sense of political efficacy”. Political Methodology, 1, 1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, J. C., & Morris, J. S. (2010). MyFaceTube politics: Social networking websites and political engagement of young adults. Social Science Computer Review, 28(1), 24–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, J. C., Morris, D. S., & Morris, J. S. (2014). Of networks and knowledge: Young adults and the early 2012 Republican presidential primaries and caucuses. In J. A. Hendricks & D. Schill (Eds.), Presidential campaigning and social media: An analysis of the 2012 campaign (pp. 44–56). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, L. B., & Dunwoody, S. (1982). Media use, public affairs knowledge and voting in a local election. Journalism Quarterly, 59, 212–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekafigo, M. A., & McBride, A. (2013). Who tweets about politics? Political participation of Twitter users during the 2011 gubernatorial elections. Social Science Computer Review, 31, 625–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekafigo, M.A., & Pingley, A. (2014). Tweeting negative: Determinants of negative campaigning in the 2011 gubernatorial elections. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyle, T. (1990). Costs of gubernatorial campaigns, 1987–1988. Comparative State Politics, 11(1), 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bichard, S. (2006). Building blogs: A multi-dimensional analysis of the distribution of frames on the 2004 presidential candidate web sites. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(2), 329–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bode, L. (2008). Don’t judge a Facebook by its cover: Social networking sites, social capital and political participation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K. (1976). The ideal source: A re-examination of credibility measurement. Central States Speech Journal, 27, 200–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carsey, T. (2001). Campaign dynamics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (2001) The Internet galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, business, and society. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chaffee, S. H., Zhao, X., & Leshner, G. (1994). Political knowledge and the campaign media of 1992. Communication Research, 21(3), 305–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, B., & Bichard, S. (2012). Public opinion on YouTube: A functional theory analysis of the frames employed in user comments following Sarah Palin’s 2008 acceptance speech. International Journal of E-Politics, 3(2), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, F., & Yang, N. (2011). Twitter adoption in Congress. Review of Network Economics, 10(1). doi:10.2202/1446-9022.1255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Converse, P. E. (1972). Change in the American electorate. In A. Campbell & P. E. Converse (Eds.), The human meaning of social change (pp. 263–337). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corrado, A., & Firestone, C. M. (1996). Elections in cyberspace. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damore, D. (2002). Candidate strategy and the decision to go negative. Political Research Quarterly, 55(3), 669–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiGrazia, J., McKelvey, K., Bollen, J., & Rojas, F. (2013). More tweets, more votes: Social media as a quantitative indicator of political behavior. PLoS ONE, 8(11). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079449

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrova, D. (2014). The evolution of digital media use in election campaigns: New functions and cumulative impact. In J. A. Hendricks & D. Schill (Eds.), Presidential campaigning and social media: An analysis of the 2012 campaign (pp. 15–25). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J. N., Kifer, M. J., & Parkin, M. (2010). Timeless strategy meets new medium: Going negative on congressional campaign web sites 2002–2006. Political Communication, 27, 88–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman Digital. (2012). Capitol tweets: The yeas and nays of the congressional Twitterverse. Retrieved from http://www.edelmandigital.com/2012/03/21/capitol-tweets-yeas-and-nays-of-the-congressional-twitterverse/

  • Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, H. K., Cordova, V., & Sipole, S. (2014). Twitter style: An analysis of how house candidates used Twitter in their 2012 campaigns. PS: Political Science & Politics, 47(2), 454–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamson, W., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. Research in Political Sociology, 3, 137–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gil de Zúñiga, H., Puig-I-Abril, E., & Rojas, H. (2009). Weblogs, traditional sources online and political participation: An assessement of how the Internet is changing the environment. New Media & Society, 11(4), 553–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil de Zúñiga, H., Veenstra, A., Vraga, E., & Shah, D. (2010). Digital democracy: Reimagining pathways to political pariticipation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7, 36–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glassman, M. E., Strauss, J. R., & Shogan, C. J. (2009). Social networking and constituent communications: Member use of Twitter during a two-week period in the 111th Congress (CRS Report No. R40823). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golbeck, J., Grimes, J., & Rogers, A. (2010). Twitter use by the U.S. Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1612–1613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graber, D. A., & Dunaway, J. (2015). Mass media and American politics (9th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groshek, J., & Dimitrova, D. (2011). A cross-section of voter learning, campaign interest and intention to vote in the 2008 American election: Did Web 2.0 matter? Studies in Communications, 9, 355–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, L. K. (1995). The electronic republic: Reshaping democracy in the information age. New York, NY: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haber, S. (2011). The 2010 U.S. Senate elections in 140 characters or less: An analysis of how candidates use Twitter as a campaign tool (Unpublished Honors Capstone paper). American University, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1961/10028

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, A., Sayre, B., Bode, L., Yang, J. & Shah, D. (2011). Mapping the political Twitterverse: Candidates and their followers in the midterms. Paper presented at the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Barcelona, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, G., Haridakis, P. M., Cunningham, A. W., Sharma, R., & Ponder, J. D. (2010). The 2008 presidential campaign: Political cynicism in the age of Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 584–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemphill, L., Otterbacher, J., & Shapiro, M. (2013). What’s congress doing on Twitter? Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 877–886). doi:10.1145/2441776.2441876

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., Norpoth, H., & Hahn, K. S. (2004). Consumer demand for election news: The horserace sells. Journal of Politics, 66(1), 157–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, K. F. (1991). Senate elections in the news: Examining campaign coverage. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 16(3), 349–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kone, S. L., & Winters, R. F. (1993). Taxes and voting: Electoral redistribution in the American states. Journal of Politics, 55(1), 22–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kushin, M. J., & Yamamoto, M. (2010). Did social media really matter? College students’ use of online media and political decision making in the 2008 election. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 608–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassen, D., & Brown, A. (2011). Twitter: The electoral connection. Social Science Computer Review, 29(4), 419–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowden, N. B., Anderson, P. A., Dozier, D. M., & Lauzen, M. M. (1994). Media use in the primary election: A secondary medium model. Communication Research, 21(3), 293–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrosky, J. C., Holdridge, W., & Toomb, J. (1974). An instrument for measuring the source credibility of basic speech communication instructors. Speech Teacher, 23, 26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCurley, C., & Mondak, J. J. (1995). The influence of incumbents’ competence and integrity in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 864–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, M. M., & McReynolds, M. (1973). Male chauvinism and source competence: A research note. Speech Monographs, 40, 153–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondak, J. J., (1995). Competence, integrity, and the electoral success of congressional incumbents. Journal of Politics, 57, 1043–1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morreale, J. (1991). A new beginning: A textual frame analysis of the political campaign film. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody, M., Cohen, L., & Fournon, C. (2013). Negativity in a Twitter age: How politicians are adapting to social media. Mass Communication and Journalism, 3(3). doi:10.4172/2165-7912.1000151

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T., Clawson, R., & Oxley, Z. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91, 567–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85, 1407–1413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nimmo, D., & Savage, R. L. (1976). Candidate and their images: Concepts, methods, and findings. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parmelee, J., & Bichard, S. (2012). Politics and the Twitter revolution. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasek, J., More, E., & Romer, D. (2009). Realizing the social Internet? Online social networking meets offline social capital. Journal of Information, Technology and Politics, 6(3–4), 197–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, T. E. (1993). Out of Order: An incisive and boldly original critique of the news media’s domination of America’s political process. New York, NY: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinkleton, B. E., & Austin, E. W. (2002). Exploring relationships among media use frequency, perceived media importance, and media satisfaction in political disaffection and efficacy. Mass Communication and Society, 5, 144–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pole, A., & Xenos, M. (2011). Like, comments and retweets: Facebooking and tweeting on the 2010 gubernatorial campaign trail. Paper presented at the State Politics and Policy Conference, Hanover, New Hampshire.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, T. (2012). Twitter: A new political weathervane. CQ Researcher, 22(36), 876–877.

    Google Scholar 

  • Public Policy Polling. (2014). Michigan survey results. Retrieved from http://www.lcv.org/assets/pdf/michigan-senate-poll-10-06-14.pdf

  • Rosenstiel, T., & Mitchell, A. (2012). How the presidential candidates use the web and social media. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/files/legacy/DIRECT%20ACCESS%20FINAL.pdf

  • Shah, D. V., Kwak, N., & Holbert, R. L. (2001). Connecting and disconnecting with civic life: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18, 141–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (2014). Cell phones, social media, and campaign 2014. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/11/03/cell-phones-social-media-and-campaign-2014/

  • Stephen, T., Harrison, T. M., Husson W., & Albert, D. (2004). Interpersonal communication styles of political candidates. In K. L. Hacker (Ed.), Presidential candidate images (pp. 177–196). Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, E., Kiousis, S., & Strombak, J. (2014). Creating a win-win situation? Relationship cultivation and the use of social media in the 2012 campaigns. In J. A. Hendricks & D. Schill (Eds.), Presidential campaigning and social media: An analysis of the 2012 campaign (pp. 28–43). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweetser, K. D., & Kaid, L. L. (2008). Stealth soapboxes: Political information efficacy, cynicism and uses of celebrity weblogs among readers. New Media & Society, 10(1), 67–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Towner, T. L. (2013). All political participation is socially networked?: New media and the 2012 election. Social Science Computer Review, 31(5), 527–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Towner, T. L., & Dulio, D. A. (2014). Technology takeover: Campaign learning during the 2012 presidential election. In J. A. Hendricks & D. Schill (Eds.), Presidential campaigning and social media: An analysis of the 2012 campaign (pp. 58–73). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Towner, T. L., & Dulio, D. A. (2011a). The Web 2.0 election: Does the online medium matter? The Journal of Political Marketing, 10(1 & 2), 165–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Towner, T. L., & Dulio, D. A. (2011b). An experiment of campaign effects during the YouTube election. New Media & Society, 13(4), 626–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Towner, T. L., & Dulio, D. A. (2011c). The Web 2.0 election: Voter learning in the 2008 presidential campaign. In J. A. Hendricks & L. L. Kaid (Eds.), Techno politics in presidential campaigning: New voices, new technologies, and new voters (pp. 22–43). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trammell, K. D., Williams, A. P., Postelnicu, M., & Landreville, K. D. (2006). Evolution of online campaigning: Increasing interactivity in candidate web sites and blogs through text and technical features. Mass Communication & Society, 9(1), 21–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitak, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., Carr, C., Ellison, N., & Lampe, C. (2011). It’s complicated: Facebook users’ political participation in the 2008 election. CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 4(3), 107–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vergeer, M., Hermans, L., & Sams, S. (2013). Online social networks and micro-blogging in political campaigning: The exploration of a new campaign toll and a new campaign style. Party Politics, 19(3), 477–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, D., & Drew, D. (1993). Voter learning in the 1990 off-year election: Did the media matter? Journalism Quarterly, 70, 356–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicks, R., & Souley, B. (2003). Going negative: Candidate usage of Internet web sites during the 2000 presidential campaign. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(1), 128–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C. B., & Gulati, G. J. (2010). Communicating with constituents in 140 characters or less. OpenSIUC Political Networks Working Papers. Retrieved from http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/pn_wp/43

  • Williams, C., & Gulati, G. (2008). What is a social network worth? Facebook and vote share in the 2008 presidential primaries. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, W., Johnson, T. J., Seltzer, T., & Bichard, S. L. (2010). The revolution will be networked: The influence of social networking sites on political attitudes and behaviors. Social Science Computer Review, 28(1), 75–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X., & Chaffee, S. (1995). Campaign advertisements versus television news as sources of political issue information. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 41–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Terri L. Towner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

John Allen Hendricks Dan Schill

Copyright information

© 2016 Terri L. Towner

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Towner, T.L. (2016). The Influence of Twitter Posts on Candidate Credibility: The 2014 Michigan Midterms. In: Hendricks, J.A., Schill, D. (eds) Communication and Midterm Elections. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137488015_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation