From echo chamber to persuasive device? Rethinking the role of the Internet in campaigns

New Media and Society

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 109-127

  Vaccari, Cristian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

2008 United States presidential election; Internet politics; media effects; online campaigning; online mobilization; online persuasion; reinforcement

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874294957     PISSN: 14614448     EISSN: 14617315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1461444812457336     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Beck PA,Dalton RJ,Greene S, et al.The social calculus of voting: interpersonal, media, and organizational influences on presidential choices.American Political Science Review. 2002;96 (1): 57-73.
2. Bennett WL,Iyengar S.A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication.Journal of Communication. 2008;58 (4): 707-731.
3. Bimber B,Davis RCampaigning Online: The Internet in US elections. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press; 2003:.
4. Chadwick A.Web 2.0: new challenges for the study of e-democracy in an era of informational exuberance.I/S: Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society. 2009;5 (1): 9-41.
5. Chadwick ADigital Media and Political Engagement Worldwide: A Comparative Study. Anduiza EJensen MJorba L, ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2012:39-55.
6. Davis R,Owen DMaking a Difference: A Comparative View of the Role of the Internet in Election Politics. Ward SOwen DDavis R, ed. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books; 2008:93-111.
7. Davis R,Baumgartner JC,Francia PL, et alThe Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics. Chadwick AHoward PN, ed. London, New York: Routledge; 2009:13-24.
8. Foot K,Schneider SWeb Campaigning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006:.
9. Garrett RK.Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: reframing the selective exposure debate.Journal of Communication. 2009;59 (4): 676-699.
10. Geer JGNominating Presidents: An Assessment of Voters in Presidential Primaries. New York: Greenwood; 1989:.
11. Gibson R,Rommele A.Changing campaign communications: a party-centered theory of professionalized campaigning.Party Politics. 2001;6 (4): 31-43.
12. Glasser BG,Strauss ALThe Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL, New York: Aldine de Gruyter; 1967:.
13. Graber D.Seeing is remembering: how visuals contribute to learning from television news.Journal of Communication. 1990;40 (3): 134-156.
14. Gronbeck BE,Wiese DR.The repersonalization of presidential campaigning in 2004.American Behavioral Scientist. 2005;49 (4): 520-534.
15. Haynes AA,Pitts B.Making an impression: new media in the 2008 presidential nomination campaigns.PS-Political Science & Politics. 2009;42 (1): 53-58.
16. Holbert RL,Garrett RK,Gleason LS.A new era of minimal effects? A response to Bennett and Iyengar.Journal of Communication. 2010;60 (1): 15-34.
17. Howard PNNew Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006:.
18. Mayer WGThe Swing Voter in American Politics. Mayer WG, ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; 2008:1-31.
19. Nielsen RKGround Wars: Personalized Communication in Political Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2012:.
20. Norris P.Preaching to the converted? Pluralism, participation and party websites.Party Politics. 2003;9 (1): 21-45.
21. Norris P,Curtice J.Getting the message out: a two-step model of the role of the Internet in campaign communication flows during the 2005 British General Election.Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 2008;4 (4): 3-13.
22. Pew Internet & American Life Project (2009) The Internet's role in campaign 2008. Available at: http://pewInternet.org/Reports/2009/6-;The-Internets-Role-in-Campaign-2008.aspx.
23. Pew Internet & American Life Project (2010) Government online. Available at: www.pewInternet.org/Reports/2010/Government-Online.aspx.
24. Prior MPost-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007:.
25. Richards B.The emotional deficit in political communication.Political Communication. 2004;21 (3): 339-352.
26. Rubin H,Rubin IQualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. 2005) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, 2nd edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2005:.
27. Schmitt-Beck R.Mass communication, personal communication and vote choice: the filter hypothesis of media influence in comparative perspective.British Journal of Political Science. 2003;33 (2): 233-259.
28. Shah D,Scheufele D.Explicating opinion leadership: nonpolitical dispositions, information consumption, and civic participation.Political Communication. 2006;23 (1): 1-22.
29. Vaccari C.From the air to the ground: the Internet in the 2004 US presidential campaign.New Media & Society. 2008;10 (4): 647-665.
30. Vaccari C.Technology is a commodity: the Internet in the 2008 United States presidential election.Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 2010;7 (4): 318-339.
31. Vissers S.From preaching to the converted to preaching through the converted. Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, 'Parliaments, Parties, and Politicians in Cyberspace'; 2009Lisbon, Portugal; 2009.
32. Warnick BRhetoric Online: Persuasion and Politics on the World Wide Web. New York: Peter Lang; 2007:.
33. Wojcieszak M,Mutz D.Online groups and political discourse: do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement?.Journal of Communication. 2009;59 (1): 40-56.
34. Zaller JRThe Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992:.