Hybrid media consumption: How tweeting during atelevised political debate influences the vote decision

Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 1422-1432

  Maruyama, Misa ^a   Robertson, Scott P ^b   Douglas, Sara ^a   Semaan, Bryan ^b   Faucett, Heather ^a  

^a Communication and Information Sciences Program ^*  (United States)

^b University of Hawai'i at Manoa   (United States)

Author keywords

Digital democracy; E participation; Ecitizenship; Microblogging; Social media; Social networking

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK; INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SYSTEMS;

DIGITAL DEMOCRACY; E-PARTICIPATION; ECITIZENSHIP; MICROBLOGGING; SOCIAL MEDIA;

SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE);

EID: 84898982458     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2531602.2531719     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (42)

1. Adamic, L., &Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: Divided they blog. Proc. of the International Workshop on Link Discovery.
2. Anger, I., &Kittl, C. (2011). Measuring influence on Twitter. In I-KNOW, 31.
3. Asch, S.E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9).
4. Cha, M., Haddadi, H., Benevenuto, F., &Gummadi, K. (2010). Measuring user influence in Twitter: The million follower fallacy. Proc. of the Int'l AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
5. Cialdini, R.B., &Goldstein, N.J., (2004). Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621.
6. David, B., &Turner, J. C. (2001). Majority and minority influence: A single process self-categorization analysis. In C. De Dreu; N. De Vries (Eds.), Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation (pp. 91-121). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
7. Diakopoulos, N. A., &Shamma, D. A. (2010). Characterizing Debate Performance via Aggregated Twitter Sentiment. Proc. of CHI '10. New York, NY: ACM.
8. Eveland, W. P. (2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication, 21(2), 177-193.
9. Farrell, H., &Drezner, D.W. (2008). The power and politics of blogs. Public Choice, 134, 15-30.
10. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge: MIT Press.
11. Huberman, B., Romero, D. M., and Wu, F. (2009). Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. First Monday, 14. 1-5. http: //firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/231 7/2063
12. Hyman, I.E. (1994). Conversational remembering: Story recall with a peer versus for an experimenter. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 49-66.
13. Kivran-Swaine, F., &Naaman, M. (2011). Network properties and social sharing of emotions in social awareness streams. Proc. of the conference on Computer supported cooperative work, 379-382. ACM.
14. Lampe, C., Ellison, N., &Steinfield, C. (2006). A face (book) in the crowd: Social searching vs. social browsing. Proc. of the conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work.
15. Marcus, G.E., W.R. Neuman, &M. MacKuen. (2000) Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Marwick, A., &boyd, d. (2011). I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience. New Media &Society, 1-20.
17. Mascaro, C., &Goggins, S.P. (2012). Twitter as Virtual Town Square: Citizen Engagement During a Nationally Televised Republican Primary Debate. APSA 2012 Annual Meeting Paper.
18. Milliken, M., &O'Donnell, S. (2008). User-generated online video: The next public sphere? IEEE Int'l Symposium on Technology and Society, 1-3.
19. Milliken, M., Gibson, K., &O'Donnell, S. (2008). Usergenerated video and the online public sphere: Will YouTube facilitate digital freedom of expression in Atlantic Canada? American Communication Journal, 10, 3.
20. Mondak, J.J., &Huckfeldt, R. (2006). The accessibility and utility of candidate character in electoral decision making. Electoral Studies, 25(1), 20-34.
21. Naaman, M., Boase, J., &Lai, C. H. (2010). Is it really about me?: message content in social awareness streams. Proc. of the conference on Computer supported cooperative work.
22. Nickerson, R. S.(1998) Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.
23. Poor, N. (2005). Mechanisms of an online public sphere: The website Slashdot. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10, 2.
24. Raine, L., &Smith, A. (2012). Politics on social networking sites. Pew Internet and American Life Project.
25. Robertson, S.P., Douglas, S., Maruyama, M., &Chen, L. (2012). Political dialog evolution in a social network, In Proc. of the International Digital Government Research Conference. New York: ACM, 40-48.
26. Robertson, S.P., Douglas, S., Maruyama, M., &Semaan, B. (2013). Political discourse on social networking sites: Sentiment, in-group/out-group orientation and rationality. Information Polity 18(2), 107-126.
27. Robertson, S.P., Vatrapu, R.K., &Medina, R. (2009). The social life of social networks: Facebook linkage patterns in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Proc. of the International Digital Government Research Conference. New York: ACM, 6-15.
28. Romero, D.M., Galuba, W., Asur, S., and Huberman, B.A. (2011). Influence and Passivity in Social Media. Proc. of the European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases.
29. Romero, D.M., Meeder, B., and Kleinberg, J. (2011). Differences in the Mechanics of Information Diffusion Across Topics: Idioms, Political Hashtags, and Complex Contagion on Twitter. Proc. of the International World Wide Web Conference.
30. Ruggiero, T. (2000) Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century. Mass Communication and Society, 3(1), 3-37.
31. Scheufele, D. A. (2002). Examining differential gains from mass media and their implications for participatory behavior. Communication Research, 29(1), 46-65.
32. Shamma, D. A., Kennedy, L., &Churchill, E. (2010a). Tweetgeist: Can the twitter timeline reveal the structure of broadcast events. CSCW Horizons.
33. Shamma, D. A., Kennedy, L., &Churchill, E. F. (2009). Tweet the debates: understanding community annotation of uncollected sources. Proc. of the SIGMM Workshop on Social Media.
34. Shamma, D. A., Kennedy, L., &Churchill, E. F. (2010b). Conversational Shadows: Describing Live Media Events Using Short Messages. Proc. of ICWSM.
35. Smith, A., &Boyles, J. (2012). The rise of the 'connected viewer.' Pew Internet and American Life Project.
36. Stangor, C. (2004). Social groups in action and interaction. Psychology Press.
37. Strauss, A. L. &Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. California: Sage.
38. Tremayne, M. (2006). Blogging, citizenship, and the future of media. Routledge, New York.
39. Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T., Sandner, P., &Welpe, I. (2010) Predicting Elections with Twitter: What 140 Characters Reveal about Political Sentiment. Proc. of International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 178-185.
40. Vatrapu, R., S.P. Robertson, and W. Dissanayake. (2008). Are Political Weblogs Public Spheres or Partisan Spheres? International Reports on Socio-Informatics, 5(1), 7-26.
41. Weisberg, H.F., and J.G. Rusk. (1970). Dimensions of Candidate Evaluation. American Political Science Review, 64, 1167-1185.
42. Zhu, H., Huberman, B.A., Luon, Y. (2012). To switch or not to switch: Understanding influence in online choices. Proc. of CHI 2012, 2257-2266.