Facebook Politics: Toward a Process Model for Achieving Political Source Credibility Through Social Media

Journal of Information Technology and Politics

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 368-382

  Housholder, Elizabeth E ^a   LaMarre, Heather L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Multiple mediation; political campaigns; social media; source credibility

Indexed keywords

EID: 84961290477     PISSN: 19331681     EISSN: 1933169X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19331681.2014.951753     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Aronson, E. (1980). The social animal. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
2. Bakker, T. B., & de Vreese, C. H. (2011). Good news for the future? Young people, Internet use and political participation. Communication Research, 38(4), 451–470.
3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.
4. Baumgartner, J. C. & Morris, J. S. (2010). MyFaceTube politics. Social networking web sites and political engagement of young adults. Social Science Computer Review, 28(1), 24–44.
5. Braunsberger, K. (1996). The effects of source and product characteristics on persuasion. Dissertation Abstracts International: Humanities and Social Sciences, 57 (6–A), 2575.
6. Brenner, J. (2013, February 14). Pew Internet: Social Networking. PEW.
7. Bullock, J. G., Green, D. P., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 550–558. doi:10.1037/a0018933
8. Burns, A. (2010). Distributed creativity: Filesharing and produsage. In S. Sonvilla-Weiss (Ed.), Mashup cultures (pp. 24–37). Germany: Springer-Verlag/Wien.
9. Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 73–77. doi:10.1037/h0044721
10. Dahlberg, L. (2001). Computer–mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(1),, doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00137.x
11. Davis, R. (1999). The Web of politics: The Internet’s impact on the American political system. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
12. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1997). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13. Funk, C. L. (1999). Bringing the candidate into models of candidate evaluation. The Journal of Politics, 61(3), 700–720. Retrieve from http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2647824
14. 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. doi:10.1080/19331680903031531
15. Gilmore, J. (2011). Ditching the pack: Digital media in the 2010 Brazilian congressional campaigns. New Media and Society, 14(4), 617–633.
16. Grant, W. J., Moon, B., & Grant, J. B. (2010). Digital dialogue? Australian politicians’ use of the social network tool twitter. Australian Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 579–604. doi:10.1080/10361146.2010.517176
17. Greenburg, B. S., & Miller, M. (1966). The effects of low-credible sources on message acceptance. Speech Monographs, 33, 127–136. doi:10.1080/03637756609375488
18. Greer, J. D. (2003). Evaluating the credibility of online information: A test of source and advertising influence. Mass Communication and Society, 6(1), 11–28. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0601_3
19. Hamdy, N., & Gomaa, E. H. (2012). Framing the Egyptian uprising in Arabic language newspapers and social media. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 195–211. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01637.x
20. Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420.
21. Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation and conditional process modeling (White paper). Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
22. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
23. Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1990). Source expertise, time of source identification, and involvement in persuasion: An elaborative processing perspective. Journal of Advertising, 19(1), 30–39. doi:10.1080/00913367.1990.10673178
24. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
25. Ifukor, P. (2010). “Elections” or “selections”? Blogging and Twittering the Nigerian 2007 general elections. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(6), 398–414. doi:10.1177/0270467610380008
26. Iyengar, S., & Han, K. S. (2008). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19–39.
27. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, NY: New York University Press.
28. Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (1998). Cruising is believing?: Comparing Internet and traditional sources on media credibility measures. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75(2), 325–340.
29. Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2000). Using is believing: The influence of reliance on the credibility of online political information among politically interested Internet users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(4), 865–879.
30. Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2004). Wag the blog: How reliance on traditional media and the Internet influence credibility perceptions of weblogs among blog users. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(3), 622–642. doi:10.1177/107769900408100310
31. Johnson, T. J., Kaye, B. K., Bichard, S. L., & Wong, W. J. (2007). Every blog has its day: Politically interested Internet users’ perceptions of blog credibility. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 100–122.
32. Kenny, D. A. (2008). Reflections on mediation. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 353–358. doi:10.1177/1094428107308978
33. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–334. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80143-X
34. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.
35. Kushin, M. J., & Kitchener, K. (2009). Getting political on social network sites: Exploring online political discourse on Facebook. First Monday, 14(11). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2645/2350
36. Lafferty, B. A. & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). Corporate credibility’s role in consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used in the ad. Journal of Business Research, 44, 109–116. doi:http://dx.doi.og/10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00002-2
37. LaMarre, H. L., & Suzuki-Lambrecht, Y. (2013). Tweeting democracy? Examining Twitter as an online public relations strategy for congressional campaigns. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 360–368.
38. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing in election campaigns. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39. Lazarsfeld P. F., & Merton R. K. (1954). Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In M. Berger (Ed.), Freedom and control in modern society (pp. 18–66). New York, NY: Van Nostrand.
40. Lee, Y. J., & Ahn, H. Y. (2013). Interaction effects of perceived sponsor motives and Facebook credibility on willingness to visit social cause Facebook page. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 13(1), 41–52.
41. Lim, M. (2012). Clicks, cabs, and coffee houses: Social media and oppositional movements in Egypt, 2004–2011. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 231–241. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01628.x
42. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109.
44. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4
45. Markus, G. B. (1982). Political attitudes during an election year: A report on the 1980 NES panel. American Political Science Review, 76(3), 538–560. doi:http://www.jstor.org/stable/1963730
46. McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Daly, J. A. (1975). The development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 323–332. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00281.x
47. McCroskey, J. C., & Young, T. J. (1981). Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Central States Speech Journal, 32(1), 24–34. doi:10.1080/10510978109368075
48. McCurley, C., & Mondak, J. J. (1995). Inspected by #1184063113: The influence of incumbents’ competence and integrity in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 864–885.
49. Milburn, M. A. (1991). Persuasion and politics: The social psychology of public opinion. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
50. Miller, A. H., Wattenberg, M. P., & Malanchuk, O. (1986). Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review, 80(2), 521–540. doi:http://www.jstor.org/stable/1958272
51. Mondak, J. J. (1995). Competence, integrity and the electoral success of congressional incumbents. Journal of Politics, 57(4), 1043–1069. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2960401
52. Moore, D. L., Hausknecht, D., & Thamodaran, K. (1986). Time compression, response opportunity, and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 85–99.
53. Murthy, C. N. (2010). Imperatives of citizen-centric Web 2.0 political networks for an effective democracy: A case study of websites of southern Indian states. Journal of International Communication, 16(2), 25–41. doi:10.1080/13216597.2010.9674766
54. Ohanian, R. (1990) Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39–52. doi:10.1080/00913367.1990.10673191
55. Page, B. I. (1978). Choice and echoes in presidential elections: Rational man and electoral democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
56. Petty, R. E., Brinol, P., & Priester, J. R. (2009). Mass media attitude change: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 125–164). New York, NY: Routledge.
57. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In R. E. Petty & J. T. Cacioppo (Eds.), Communication and Persuasion (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Springer.
58. Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281.
59. Powell, L., Richmond, V. P., & Williams, G. C. (2011). Social networking and political campaigns: Perceptions of candidates as interpersonal constructs. North American Journal of Psychology, 13(2), 331–342.
60. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731. doi:10.3758/BF03206553
61. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
62. Qualman, E. (2011). Socialnomics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
63. Rane, H., & Salem, S. (2012). Social media, social movements and the diffusion of ideas in the Arab uprisings. Journal of International Communication, 18(1), 97–111. doi:10.1080/13216597.2012.662168
64. Sears, D. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 515–530. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.515
65. Smalley, R. L., & Stake, J. E. (1996). Evaluating sources of ego-threatening feedback: Self-esteem and narcissism effects. Journal of Research in Personality, 30(4), 483–495.
66. Sobel, M. E. (1987). Direct and indirect effects in linear structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 155–176.
67. Solis, B. (2010). Engage! The complete guide for brands and businesses to build, cultivate, and measure success in the new Web, revised and updated. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
68. Sweetser, K. D., Porter, L.V., Chung, D., Kim, E. (2008). Credibility and the uses of blogs among professionals in the information industry. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 169–185. doi:10.1177/107769900808500111
69. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.
70. Teven, J. J. (2008). An examination of perceived credibility of the 2008 presidential candidates: Relationships with believability, likability and deceptiveness. Human Communication, 11(4), 383–499.
71. Teven, J. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46(1), 1–9. doi:10.1080/03634529709379069
72. Till, B. D., & Busler, M. (1998). Matching products with endorsers: Attractiveness versus expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(6), 576–586. doi:10.1108/07363769810241445
73. Towner, T. L., & Dulio, D. A. (2011). An experiment of campaign effects during the YouTube election. New Media & Society, 13(4), 626–644.
74. Wang, Z., Walther, J. B., Pingree, S. C., & Hawkins, R. P. (2008). Health information, credibility, homophily, and influence via the Internet: Web sites versus discussion groups. Health Communication, 23(4), 358–368. doi:10.1080/10410230802229738
75. Wilson, E. J., & Sherrell, D. L. (1993). Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(2), 101–112.
76. Wright, K. (2000). Perceptions of on-line support providers: An examination of perceived homophily, source credibility, communication and social support within on-line support groups. Communication Quarterly, 48(1), 44–59. doi:10.1080/01463370009385579
77. Yoon, K., Pinkleton, B. E., & Ko, W. (2005). Effects of negative political advertising on voting intention: An exploration of the roles of involvement and source credibility in the development of voter cynicism. Journal of Marketing Communications, 11(2), 95–112. doi:10.1080/1352726042000315423