Flow, Diversity, Form, and Influence of Political Talk in Social-Media-Based Public Forums

Human Communication Research

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 209-237

  Choi, Sujin ^a  

^a Kookmin University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84897608514     PISSN: 03603989     EISSN: 14682958     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/hcre.12023     Document Type: Article

References (100)

1. Adamic, L., & Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: Divided they blog. In LinkKDD '05 Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Link Discovery (pp. 36-43). New York, NY: ACM.
2. Al-Saggaf, Y. (2006). The online public sphere in the Arab world: The war in Iraq on the Al Arabiya website. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(1), 311-334.
3. Antony, M. G., & Thomas, R. J. (2010). 'This is citizen journalism at its finest': YouTube and the public sphere in the Oscar Grant shooting incident. New Media & Society, 12(8), 1280-1296.
4. Ausserhofer, J., & Maireder, A. (2013). National politics on twitter: structures and topics of a networked public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 16(3), 291-314.
5. Baek, Y. M., Wojcieszak, M., & Carpini, M. X. D. (2012). Online versus face-to-face deliberation: Who? Why? What? With what effects? New Media & Society, 14(3), 363-383.
6. Bakshy, E., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A., & Watts, D. J. (2011). Everyone's an influencer: quantifying influence on twitter. In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (pp. 65-74). New York, NY: ACM.
7. Bakshy, E., Karrer, B., & Adamic, L. A. (2009). Social influence and the diffusion of user-created content. In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (pp. 325-334). New York, NY: ACM.
8. Barash, V., & Golder, S. (2010). Twitter: Conversation, entertainment, and information, all in one network!. In D. Hansen, B. Shneiderman & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: Insights from a connected world (Chapter 10). Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
9. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10. Bennett, W. L. (2008). Changing citizenship in the digital age. In W. L. Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and learning (pp. 1-24). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
11. Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192-205. doi:10.1509/jmr.10.0353.
12. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing Social Networks. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
13. Boulianne, S. (2009). Does Internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication, 26, 193-211. doi:10.1080/10584600902854363.
14. boyd, d., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662-679.
15. boyd, d. m., Golder, S., & Lotan, G. (2010). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. HICSS-43. IEEE, Kauai, HI.
16. Brundidge, J. (2010a). Encountering "difference" in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication, 60, 680-700. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01509.x.
17. Brundidge, J. (2010b). Political discussion and news use in the contemporary public sphere: The "accessibility" and "traversability" of the Internet. Javnost-The Public, 17, 63-82.
18. Cha, M., Haddadi, H., Benevenuto, F., & Gummadi, K. P. (2010). Measuring user influence in Twitter: The million follower fallacy. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 10-17). CA: AAAI.
19. Chang, W. (2008). The cyber balkanization and structural transformation of the public sphere in Korea. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 7(2): 29-48. Available from http://www.eastasia.at/documents/Chang_.pdf
20. Cho, J., Shah, D. V., McLeod, J. M., McLeod, D. M., Scholl, R. M., & Gotlieb, M. R. (2009). Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects. Communication Theory, 19, 66-88.
21. Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1986). Emotional reactions to the economy: I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 50-78.
22. Dahlberg, L. (2001a). Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(1). Available from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue1/dahlberg.html
23. Dahlberg, L. (2001b). The Internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 4(4), 615-633.
24. Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147-162.
25. Dong, J., & Jung, S. (2011, October 29). The power of Twitter. Dong-a Ilbo. Available from http://news.donga.com/3/all/20111027/41425248/1
26. Etnews. (2011, November 5). Number of Twitter users over the five million threshold. Why this rapid increase? Etnews. Available from http://www.etnews.com/201111040152
27. Eveland, W. P. (2001). The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news evidence from nonelection, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication Research, 28(5), 571-601.
28. Eveland, W. P., & Kleinman, S. B. (2011). Comparing general and political discussion networks within voluntary organizations using social network analysis. Political Behavior, 35(1), 65-87.
29. Eveland, W. P., Morey, A. C., & Hutchens, M. J. (2011). Beyond deliberation: New directions for the study of informal political conversation from a communication perspective. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1082-1103.
30. Freelon, D. G. (2010). Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic communication. New Media & Society, 12(7), 1172-1190.
31. Friedland, L. A., Hove, T., & Rojas, J. (2006). The networked public sphere. Javnost-The Public, 13, 4-26.
32. Floyd, K., Mikkelson, A. C., Hesse, C., & Pauley, P. M. (2007). Affectionate writing reduces total cholesterol: Two randomized, controlled trials. Human Communication Research, 33, 119-142. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00293.x.
33. Gaines, B. J., & Mondak, J. J. (2009). Typing together? Clustering of ideological types in online social networks. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6(3-4), 216-231.
34. Gamson, J. (1999). Taking the talk show challenge: Television, emotion, and public spheres. Constellations, 6(2), 190-205.
35. Garrett, R. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59(4), 676-699.
36. Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals' social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 319-336. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x.
37. Gleave, E., Welser, H. T., Lento, T. M., & Smith, M. A. (2009). A conceptual and operational definition of 'social role' in online community. In Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, Hawaii.
38. González-Bailón, S., Banchs, R. E., & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2012). Emotions, public opinion, and U.S. presidential approval rates: A 5-year analysis of online political discussions. Human Communication Research, 38, 121-143. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01423.x.
39. Graber, D. A., & Smith, J. M. (2005). Political communication faces the 21st century. Journal of Communication, 55(3), 479.
40. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
41. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
42. Hargittai, E., Gallo, J., & Kane, M. (2008). Cross-ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers. Public Choice, 134(1), 67-86. doi:10.1007/s11127-007-9201-x.
43. Heath, C., Bell, C., & Sternberg, E. (2001). Emotional selection in memes: The case of urban legends. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1028-1041.
44. Himelboim, I. (2008). Reply distribution in online discussions: A comparative network analysis of political and health newsgroups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 156-177. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01435.x.
45. Himelboim, I. (2010). Civil society and online political discourse: The network structure of unrestricted discussions. Communication Research, 38(5), 634-659.
46. Himelboim, I., Gleave, E., & Smith, M. (2009). Discussion catalysts in online political discussions: Content importers and conversation starters. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 771-789.
47. Honeycutt, C., & Herring, S. C. (2009). Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. In Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, Hawaii.
48. Hsu, C. L., & Park, H. W. (2012). Mapping online social networks of Korean politicians. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 169-181. 10.1016/j.giq.2011.09.009
49. Huffaker, D. (2010). Dimensions of leadership and social influence in online communities. Human Communication Research, 36(4), 593-617.
50. Jones, S., & Wirtz, J. (2006). How does the comforting process work? An empirical test of an appraisal-based model of comforting. Human Communication Research, 32, 217-243.
51. Joo, S. D. (2012, April 12).The nation's choice based on social networks. EtNews. Available from http://www.etnews.com/news/opinion/2579095_1545.html
52. Karpf, D. (2010). Macaca moments reconsidered: Electoral panopticon or netroots mobilization? Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7(2-3), 143-162.
53. Katz, E. (1957). The two-step flow of communication: An up-to-date report on an hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 21(1), 61-78.
54. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Images of the mass communications process. In E. Katz & P. F. Lazarsfeld Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of communication (Section I) (15-42). New York, NY: Free Press.
55. Kelly, J., Fisher, D. & Smith, M. (2005). Debate, division, and diversity: Political discourse networks in Usenet newsgroups. Presented at the Online Deliberation Conference 2005.
56. Kim, Y. (2011). The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference: The relationships among SNSs, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 971-977.
57. Kim, M. J., & Park, H. W. (2012). Measuring Twitter-based political participation and deliberation in the South Korean context by using social network and Triple Helix indicators. Scientometrics, 90(1), 121-140. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0508-5.
58. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010, April). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 591-600). New York, NY: ACM.
59. Kwon, O., & SongChae, K. (2011, October 28). Struck by the Twitter power, the ruling party decides to hire SNSs experts. Hankyoreh. Available from http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/politics/politics_general/502779.html
60. Lanham, R. A. (2006). The economics of attention: Style and substance in the age of information. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
61. Larsson, A. O., & Moe, H. (2012). Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign. New Media & Society, 14(5), 729-747.
62. Lasswell, H. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The Communication of Ideas. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers.
63. Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people's choice. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
64. Lee, W., Cha, M., & Park, H. (2010). The role of influential in mobile social media. Gwacheon, Gyeonggi: Korea Information Society Development Institute.
65. Lee, C. H., Sim, J.-M., & Yoon, A. (2005). The review about the development of Korean linguistic inquiry and word count. Korean Journal of Cognitive Science, 16(2), 93-121.
66. Lusher, D., & Ackland, R. (2011). A relational hyperlink analysis of an online social movement. Journal of Social Structure, 21(5). Available from http://www.cmu.edu/joss/content/articles/volume12/Lusher/
67. MacKuen, M., Wolak, J., Keele, L., & Marcus, G. E. (2010). Civic engagements: Resolute partisanship or reflective deliberation. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 440-458. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00440.x.
68. Marcus, G. E., & MacKuen, M. B. (1993). Anxiety, enthusiasm, and the vote: The emotional underpinnings of learning and involvement during presidential campaigns. American Political Science Review, 672-685.
69. Marcus, G. E., MacKuen, M., & Neuman, W. R. (2011). Parsimony and complexity: Developing and testing theories of affective intelligence. Political Psychology, 32(2), 323-336.
70. Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13, 114-133.
71. Mehra, B., Merkel, C., & Peterson Bishop, A. (2004). The Internet for empowerment of minority and marginal users. New Media and Society, 6(6), 781-802.
72. Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
73. Mutz, D. C., & Young, L. (2011). Communication and Public Opinion: Plus Ca Change? The Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(5), 1018-1044.
74. Neuman, W. R., Bimber, B., & Hindman, M. (2011). The Internet and four dimensions of citizenship. In R. Y. Shapiro, L. R. Jacobs & G. C. Edwards III (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of American public opinion and the media (pp. 22-42). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
75. Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The virtual sphere 2.0: The Internet, the public sphere and beyond. In P. N. H. Andrew Chadwick (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, 230-245. New York, NY: Routledge.
76. Park, H. W., & Jankowski, N. K. (2008). A hyperlink network analysis of citizen blogs in South Korean politics. Javnost-The Public, 15(2), 57-74.
77. Parmelee, J. H., & Bichard, S. L. (2011). In their own words: Exploring the role and value of political Twitter use in followers' lives. In Politics and the Twitter revolution: How tweets influence the relationship (pp. 142-166). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
78. Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2001. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
79. Ragsdale, L. (1991). Strong feelings: Emotional responses to presidents. Political Behavior, 13(1), 33-65.
80. Recuero, R., Araújo, R., & Zago, G. (2011). How does social capital affect retweets? Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. Available from www.aaai.org.
81. *) models for social networks. Social Networks, 29(2), 192-215. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2006.08.003.
82. Schudson, M. (1992). Was there ever a public sphere? If so, when? Reflections on the American case. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 143-163). Boston, MA: MIT Press.
83. Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: the case of nominal scale coding. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321-25.
84. Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age. Communication Research, 32, 531-565. doi:10.1177/0093650205279209.
85. Shirky, C. (2011). The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere, and political change. Foreign Affairs, 90, 28.
86. Snijders, T. A. B., Pattison, P. E., Robins, G. L., & Handcock, M. S. (2006). New specifications for exponential random graph models. Sociological Methodology, 36, 99-153.
87. Stieglitz, S., & Dang-Xuan, L. (2012). Political communication and influence through microblogging: An empirical analysis of sentiment in Twitter messages and retweet behavior. In 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 3500-3509). IEEE, Maui, HI.
88. Stroud, N. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30(3), 341-366. doi:10.1007/s11109-007-9050-9.
89. Sunstein, C. (2007). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
90. Tinati, R., Carr, L., Hall, W., & Bentwood, J. (2012). Identifying communicator roles in Twitter. In WWW 2012 Companion Proceedings of the 21st international conference companion on World Wide Web (pp. 1161-1168). New York, NY: ACM.
91. Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T. O., Sandner, P. G., & Welpe, I. M. (2011). Election forecasts with Twitter: How 140 characters reflect the political landscape. Social Science Computer Review, 29(4), 402-418.
92. Valentino, N. A., Hutchings, V. L., Banks, A. J., & Davis, A. K. (2008). Is a worried citizen a good citizen? Emotions, political information seeking, and learning via the Internet. Political Psychology, 29(2), 247-273. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00625.x.
93. Vraga, E. K., Bode, L., Wells, C., Driscoll, K., & Thorson, K. (2013). The Rules of engagement: Comparing two social protest movements on YouTube. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. doi:10.1089/cyber.2013.0117.
94. *) Models: User manual. Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne.
95. Way, B. M., & Masters, R. D. (1996). Emotion and cognition in political information-processing. Journal of Communication, 46(3), 48-65. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01488.x.
96. Weber, M. S., & Monge, P. (2011). The flow of digital news in a network of sources, authorities, and hubs. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1062-1081.
97. Weimann, G. (1983). The strength of weak conversational ties in the flow of information and influence. Social Networks, 5(3), 245-267. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(83)90027-8.
98. Wojcieszak, M. E., & Mutz, D. (2009). Online groups and political discourse. Journal of Communication, 59, 40-56. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01403.x.
99. Wu, S., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A., & Watts, D. J. (2011). Who says what to whom on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web.
100. Yang, L., Sun, T., Zhang, M., & Mei, Q. (2012). We know what@ you# tag: Does the dual role affect hashtag adoption? In WWW 2012 Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 261-270). 10.1145/2187836.2187872