Campaign Agenda-Building Online: The Effects of Online Information Source and Interactivity on Affective Evaluations and the Salience of the Election

Journal of Information Technology and Politics

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 326-340

  Kim, Ji Young ^a   Painter, David Lynn ^b   Dunton Miles, Maridith A ^c  

^a BRADLEY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Full Sail University   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Campaign agenda building; emotions; interactivity; social media

Indexed keywords

EID: 84883546083     PISSN: 19331681     EISSN: 1933169X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19331681.2013.807757     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Abelson, R. P., Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D. and Fiske, S. T. 1982. Affective and semantic components in political person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42: 619-630.
2. Alexa.com. (2012a). Facebook.com site info. Retrieved from http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/facebook.com (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/facebook.com)
3. Alexa.com. (2012b). Youtube.com site info. Retrieved from http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/youtube.com (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/youtube.com)
4. Beer, D. 2008. Social network(ing) sites... revisiting the story so far: A response to Danah Boyd & Nicole Ellison. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13: 516-529.
5. Berelson, B. and Gaudet, H. 1944. The people's choice, New York, Duell: Sloan & Pearce.
6. Brader, T. 2005. Striking a responsive chord. American Journal of Political Science, 49: 388-405.
7. Cho, V., Cheng, T. C. and Lai, W. M. J. 2009. The role of perceived user-interface design in continues usage intention of self-paced e-learning tools. Computer & Education, 53 (2): 216-227.
8. Coleman, R. and Wu, H. D. 2010. Proposing emotion as a dimension of affective agenda setting: Separating affect into two components and comparing their second-level effects. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 87 (2): 315-327.
9. Druckman, J. N., Kifer, M. J. and Parkin, M. 2009. Campaign communications in US congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 103 (3): 343-366.
10. Foot, K. and S. Schneider, S. M. 2006. Web campaigning, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Ghanem, S. 1997. " Filling in the tapestry: The second level of agenda setting ". In Communication and democracy, Edited by: McCombs, M., Shaw, D. and Weaver, D. 3-14. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Gilbert, C. B. (2010, September 14). 2010 Florida governor's race: Alex Sink vs. Rick Scott is most expensive in Florida history. The Grist. Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100914/pl_ynews/ynews_pl3620 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100914/pl_ynews/ynews_pl3620)
13. Hindman, M. 2009. The myth of digital democracy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14. Huckfeldt, R., Sprague, J. and Levine, J. 2000. The dynamics of collective deliberation in the 1996 election: Campaign effects on accessibility, certainty, and accuracy. American Political Science Review, 94(3): 641-651.
15. Jackson, R. A. 1993. Voter mobilization in the 1986 midterm election. The Journal of Politics, 55 (4): 1081-1099.
16. Jenkins, H. 2006. Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide, New York: New York University Press.
17. Just, M. R., Crigler, A. N., Alger, D. E., Cook, T. E., Kern, M. and West, D. M. 1996. Crosstalk: Citizens, candidates, and the media in a presidential campaign, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18. Kaid, L. L., Leland, C. L. and Whitney, S. 1992. The impact of televised political ads: Evoking viewer responses in the 1988 presidential campaign. Southern Communication Journal, 57: 285-292.
19. Kaye, B. K. and Johnson, T. J. 2004. A web for all reasons: Uses and gratifications of Internet resources for political information. Telematics and Informatics, 21: 197-223.
20. Keller, P. A. and Block, L. G. 1996. Increasing the persuasiveness of fear appeals: The effect of arousal and elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 22: 448-459.
21. Kern, M. 1989. 30-Second politics: Political advertising in the eighties, New York: Praeger.
22. Ki, E. J. and Hon, L. 2009. Causal linkages between relationship cultivation strategies and relationship quality outcomes. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3 (4): 242-263.
23. Kim, J. Y. 2006. The impact of Internet use patterns on political engagement: A focus on online deliberation and virtual social capital. Information Polity, 11 (1): 35-49.
24. Kiousis, S. 2005. Compelling argument and attitude strength: Exploring the impact of second-level agenda-setting on public opinion of presidential candidate images. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10: 3-27.
25. Kiousis, S. and Strömbäck, J. 2010. The White House and public relations: Examining the linkages between presidential communications and public opinion. Public Relations Review, 36: 7-14.
26. Kiousis, S., Bantimaroudis, P. and Ban, H. 1999. Candidate image attributes: Experiments on the substantive dimension second-level agenda setting. Communication Research, 26: 414-428.
27. Kiousis, S., Mitrook, M., Wu, X. and Seltzer, T. 2006. First- and second-level agenda-building and agenda-setting effects: Exploring the linkages among candidate news releases, media coverage, and public opinion during the 2002 Florida gubernatorial election. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18: 265-285.
28. Klapper, J. T. 1960. The effects of mass communication, New York: Free Press.
29. Kruikemeier, S., van Noort, G., Vliegenthart, R. and de Vreese, C. H. 2013. Getting closer: The effects of personalized and interactive online political communication. European Journal of Communication, 28 (1): 53-66.
30. Lazarsfeld, F., Berelson, B. and Gaudet, H. 1968. The people's choice, New York: Columbia University Press.
31. Lee, E. J. and Shin, S. Y. 2012. Are they talking to me? Cognitive and affective effects of interactivity in politicians' Twitter communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15 (10): 515-520.
32. Marcus, G. 1988. The structure of emotional response: 1984 presidential candidates. American Political Science Review, 82: 737-761.
33. McCombs, M. E. 2004. Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
34. McCombs, M. E. and Shaw, D. L. 1972. The agenda-setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36: 176-187.
35. McMillan, S. J. 2002. " Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: Users, documents, systems ". In The handbook of new media: Social shaping and consequences of ICTs, Edited by: Lievrouw, L. and Livingstone, S. 163-182. London: Sage.
36. Miller, A. H., Wattenberg, M. P. and Malanchuk, O. 1986. Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. The American Political Science Review, 80 (2): 521-540.
37. Mills, R., & Hale, L. W. (2010, October 30). Scott vs. Sink: Down to the wire, candidates trade barbs, tout credentials. Naplesnews.com. Retrieved from http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/oct/30/alex-sink-rick-scott-florida-governor-down-to-wire/ (http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/oct/30/alex-sink-rick-scott-florida-governor-down-to-wire/)
38. Neuman, W. R., Marcus, G. E., Crigler, A. N. and MacKuen, M. 2007. Theorizing affect's effects. W. R. Newman, G. E. Marcus, A. N. Crigler, & M. MacKuen (Eds.), The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior: 1-20. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39. Owen, D. 2006. " The Internet and youth civic engagement in the United States ". In The Internet and politics: Citizens, voters and activists, Edited by: Oates, S., Owen, D. and Gibson, R. 17-33. New York: Routledge.
40. Page, B. I. 1996. The mass media as political actors. PS: Political Science and Politics: 29(1), 20-24.
41. Pan, Z., Shen, L., Paek, H. J. and Sun, Y. 2006. Mobilizing political talk in a presidential campaign an examination of campaign effects in a deliberative framework. Communication Research, 33 (5): 315-345.
42. Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2008). The Internet and the 2008 election. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_2008_election.pdf (http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_2008_election.pdf)
43. Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2010). Independents oppose party in power... again: More conservative, more critical of national conditions. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2010/09/23/section-1-the-midterm-vote-2/ (http://www.people-press.org/2010/09/23/section-1-the-midterm-vote-2/)
44. Pingree, R. J. 2007. How messages affect their senders: A more general model of message effects and implications for deliberation. Communication Theory, 17 (4): 439-461.
45. Pollard, T. D., Chesebro, J. W. and Studinski, D. P. 2009. The role of the Internet in presidential campaigns. Communication Studies, 60 (5): 574-588.
46. Raacke, J. and Bonds-Raacke, J. 2008. MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11 (2): 169-174.
47. Rahn, W. M., Aldrich, J. H., Borgida, E. and Sullivan, J. L. 1990. " A social-cognitive model of candidate appraisal ". In Information and democratic processes, Edited by: Ferejohn, J. and Kuklinski, J. 136-159. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
48. Schleuder, J., McCombs, M. and Wanta, W. 1991. " Inside the agenda-setting process: How political advertising and TV news prime viewers to think about issues and candidates ". In Television and political advertising 1: Psychological processes, Edited by: Biocca, F. 263-310. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49. Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S. and Brady, H. E. 2010. Weapon of the strong? Participatory inequality and the Internet. Perspectives on Politics, 8 (2): 487-509.
50. Schwartz, T. 1973. The responsive chord, Garden City, NY: Anchor City Books.
51. Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P. and Kwak, N. 2005. Information and expression in a digital age modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32 (5): 531-565.
52. Sheafer, T. 2007. How to evaluate it: The role of story-evaluative tone in agenda setting and priming. Journal of Communication, 57 (1): 21-39.
53. Smith, A. (2009). The Internet's role in campaign 2008. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/6-The-Internets-Role-in-Campaign-2008.aspx (http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/6-The-Internets-Role-in-Campaign-2008.aspx)
54. Stafford, T. F., Stafford, M. R. and Schkade, L. L. 2004. Determining uses and gratifications for the Internet. Decision Sciences, 35: 259-288.
55. Stromer-Galley, J. 2000. On-line interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of Communication, 50 (4): 111-132.
56. Stromer-Galley, J. and Baker, A. B. 2006. " Joy and sorrow of interactivity on the campaign trail: Blogs in the primary campaign of Howard Dean ". In The Internet election: Perspectives on the web in campaign 2004, Edited by: Williams, A. P. and Tedesco, J. 111-132. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
57. Sundar, S. S., Kalyanaraman, S. and Brown, J. 2003. Explicating Web site interactivity: Impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research, 30 (1): 30-59.
58. Sweetser, K. D. and Weaver-Lariscy, R. 2007. Candidates make good friends: An analysis of candidates' use of Facebook, Chicago: National Communication Association.
59. Tedesco, J. C. 2007. Examining Internet interactivity effects on young adult political information efficacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 50 (9): 1183-1194.
60. Trammell, K. D., Williams, A. P., Postelnicu, M. and 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): 21-24.
61. Utz, S. 2009. The (potential) benefits of campaigning via social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14 (2): 221-243.
62. Valenzuela, S., Park, N. and Kee, K. F. 2009. Is there social capital in a social network site?: Facebook use and college students' life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14 (4): 875-901.
63. Wolfinger, R. E., Rosenstone, S. J. and McIntosh, R. A. 1981. Presidential and congressional voters compared. American Politics Research, 9 (2): 245-256.
64. Zaichowsky, J. L. 1985. Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12: 341-352.