Are they talking to me? cognitive and affective effects of interactivity in politicians' twitter communication

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking

Volumn 15, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 515-520

  Lee, Eun Ju ^a   Shin, Soo Yun ^a  

^a Seoul National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AFFECT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; INTERNET; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POLITICS; SOCIAL NETWORK;

ADULT; AFFECT; COGNITION; COMMUNICATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POLITICS; SOCIAL NETWORKING;

EID: 84867526865     PISSN: 21522715     EISSN: 21522723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0228     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Boyd DM, Ellison NB. Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2008; 13:210-230.
2. Lassen DS, Brown AR. Twitter: the electoral connection? Social Science Computer Review 2011; 29:419-436.
3. Levinson P. The long story about the short medium: Twitter as a communication medium in historical, present, and future context. Journal of Communication Research 2011; 48:7-28.
4. OikoLab. (2012) Twitter Korean Index. http://tki.oiko.cc/service/count (accessed July 7, 2012).
5. Lee HI. (2010) E-Politics is the current trend After websites and blogs, Twitter takes the spotlight. SisaOn. www.sisaon.co.kr/news/articleView.html? idxno=7152 (accessed April 28, 2012).
6. Twtpol. (2012) Korea's political twitter. www.twtpol.com (accessed July 8, 2012).
7. Jin KJ. (2012) GNP considers revealing 'Twitter Influence Index.' AsiaToday. www.asiatoday.co.kr/news/view.asp? seq=587508 (accessed July 6, 2012).
8. Hsu CI, Park HW. Sociology of hyperlink networks of Web 1.0, Web 2.0, and Twitter: A case study of South Korea. Social Science Computer Review 2011; 29:354-368.
9. Park SH. Twitter as personal political communities and networked public sphere. Korean Political Communication Research 2010; 18:31-115.
10. Bucy EP. Interactivity in society: locating an elusive concept. The Information Society 2004; 20:373-383.
11. Sundar SS, Kalyanaraman S, Brown J. Explicating web site interactivity: impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research 2003; 30:30-59.
12. Trammell KD, Williams AP, Postelnicu M, et al. Evolution of online campaigning: increasing interactivity in candidate web sites and blogs through text and technical features. Mass Communication and Society 2006; 9:21-44.
13. Warnick B, Xenos M, Endres D, and Gastil, J. (2005) Effects of campaign-to-user and text-based interactivity in political candidate campaign web sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10:00. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101. 2005.tb00253.x.
14. Utz S. The potential benefits of campaigning via social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2009; 14:221-243.
15. Bucy EP. (2004) The interactivity paradox: closer to the news but confused. In: Bucy EP, Newhagen JE, eds. Media Access: Social and Psychological Dimensions of New Technology Use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 47-72.
16. Lee KM, Nass C. Social-psychological origins of feelings of presence: creating social presence with machine-generated voices. Media Psychology 2005; 7:31-45.
17. Nowak KL, Biocca F. The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users' sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 2003; 12:481-494.
18. Skalski P, Tamborini R. The role of social presence in interactive agent-based persuasion. Media Psychology 2007; 10:385-413.
19. Lee KM. Presence, explicated. Communication Theory 2004; 14:27-50.
20. Hartmann T. (2008) Parasocial interactions and paracommunication with new media characters. In: Konijn EA, Utz S, Tanis M, Barnes SB, eds. Mediated Interpersonal Communication. New York: Routledge, pp. 177-199.
21. Horton D, Wohl RR. Mass communication and para-social interaction: observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry 1956; 19:215-229.
22. Bente G, Ruggenberg S, Kramer NC, et al. Avatar-mediated networking: increasing presence and interpersonal trust in net-based collaborations. Human Communication Research 2008; 34:287-318.
23. Lee EJ, Jang JW. Not so imaginary interpersonal contact with public figures on social network sites: how affiliative tendency moderates its effects. Communication Research. In Press.
24. Mehrabian A. Evidence bearing on the affiliative tendency and sensitivity to rejection scales. Current Psychology 1994; 2:97-116.
25. Akert RM, Panter AT. Extraversion and the ability to decode nonverbal communication. Personality and Individual Difference 1988; 9:965-972.
26. Levy MR, Windahl S. (1985) The concpet of audience activity. In: Rosenberg KE, Wenner LA, Palmgreen P, eds. Media Gratification Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 109-122.
27. Cacioppo JT, Petty RE. (1981) Social psychological procedures for cognitive response assessment: the thoughtlisting techn ique. In: Merluzzi TV, Glass CR, Genest M, eds. Cognitive Assessment. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 309-342.
28. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1960; 20:37-46.
29. Mehrabian A. The development and validation of measures of affiliative tendency and sensitivity to rejection. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1970; 30:417-428.
30. Cha JH, Cheong JW. A report on the reliability and validity of need for affiliation scale. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology 1990; 5:1-9.
31. Rosenberg SW, Bohan L, McCafferty P, et al. The image and the vote: the effect of candidate presentation on voter preference. American Journal of Political Science 1986; 30:108-127.
32. Wyer RS, Budesheim TL, Shavitt S, et al. Image, issues, and ideology: the processing of information about political candidates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1991; 61:533-545.
33. West SG, Aiken LS, Krull JL. Experimental personality designs: analyzing categorical by continuous variables interactions. Journal of Personality 1996; 64:1-48.
34. Hayes AF. (2012) PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf (accessed July 1, 2012).
35. Statistics Korea. (2012) Korean Social Trends 2011. http://ko stat.go.kr/portal/korea/kor-nw/2/1/index.board?bmode=readaSeq=253180 (accessed July 8, 2012).