skip to main content
10.1145/2441776.2441876acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

What's congress doing on twitter?

Published:23 February 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

As Twitter becomes a more common means for officials to communicate with their constituents, it becomes more important that we understand how officials use these communication tools. Using data from 380 members of Congress' Twitter activity during the winter of 2012, we find that officials frequently use Twitter to advertise their political positions and to provide information but rarely to request political action from their constituents or to recognize the good work of others. We highlight a number of differences in communication frequency between men and women, Senators and Representatives, Republicans and Democrats. We provide groundwork for future research examining the behavior of public officials online and testing the predictive power of officials' social media behavior.

References

  1. Adamic, L.A. and Glance, N. 2005. The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: Divided they blog. Proc. LinkKDD '05, 36--43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Austin, J.L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bach, K. 1998. Speech acts. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. E. Craig, ed. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakshy, E. et al. 2011. Everyone's an influencer: Quantifying influence on Twitter. Proc. WSDM'11, 65--74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Berkman, M.B. and O'Connor, R.E. 1993. Do Women Legislators Matter?: Female Legislators and State Abortion Policy. American Politics Research. 21, 1, 102--124.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Bertot, J. 2010. Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly. 27, 3, 264--271.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Bertot, J. and Jaeger, P. 2010. Social media technology and government transparency. Computer. 43, 11, 53--59. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Bertot, J.C. et al. 2010. Crowd-sourcing transparency: ICTs, social media, and government transparency initiatives. Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference on Public Administration Online: Challenges and Opportunities. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Bimber, B. 2003. Information and American democracy: Technology in the evolution of political power. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Blumler, J.G. and Kavanagh, D. 1999. The Third Age of political communication: influences and features. Political Communication. 16, 3, 209--230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Campbell, S.W. and Kwak, N. 2011. Political involvement in "mobilized" society: The interactive relationships among mobile communication, network characteristics, and political participation. Journal of Communication. 61, 6, 1005--1024.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Cha, M. et al. 2010. Measuring user influence in twitter: The million follower fallacy. Proc. ICWSM'10, 10--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 20, 1, 37--46.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Diakopoulos, N. and Shamma, D. 2010. Characterizing debate performance via aggregated Twitter sentiment. Proc. CHI '10, 1195--1198. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Druckman, J.N. et al. 2010. Issue engagement on congressional candidate web sites, 2002--2006. Social Science Computer Review. 28, 1, 3--23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Gaffney, D. 2010. #iranElection: Quantifying online activism. Proc. WebSci10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Garber, M. 2012. A year after the Egyptian revolution, 10% of its social media documentation is already gone. The Atlantic.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilmore, J. 2012. Ditching the pack: Digital media in the 2010 Brazilian congressional campaigns. New Media & Society. 14, 4, 617--633.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Glassman, M.E. et al. 2009. Social networking and constituent communication: Member use of Twitter during a two-week period in the 111th Congress (Report No. R40823).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Golbeck, J. et al. 2010. Twitter use by the U.S. Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61, 8, 1612-- 16 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Graf, J. 2008. New media-The cutting edge of campaign communications. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. R. Semiatin, ed. CQ Press. 48--68.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Green, A. 2011. Twitter database server (Beta 0.10), http://140dev.com/free-twitter-api-source-code- library/twitter-database-server/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Groeling, T. 2010. When Politicians Attack: Party Cohesion in the Media. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Gulati, G.J. and Williams, C.B. 2007. Closing the gap, raising the bar: Candidate web site communication in the 2006 campaigns for congress. Social Science Computer Review. 25, 4, 443--465. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Hemphill, L. 2011. Twitter-collectors (144e2f0f6), https://github.com/casmlab/Twitter-collectors.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Hemphill, L. and Otterbacher, J. 2012. Learning the lingo? Gender, prestige and linguistic adaptation in review communities. Proc. CSCW'12, 305--314. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Herring, S.C. 2003. Gender and power in online communication. The Handbook of Language and Gender. J. Holmes and M. Meyerhoff, eds. Blackwell Publishers. 202--2Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Howard, P.N. 2005. New media campaigns and the managed citizen. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Hsu, C. and Park, H.W. 2012. Mapping online social networks of Korean politicians. Government Information Quarterly. 29, 2, 169--181.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Jaeger, P.T. and Bertot, J.C. 2010. Transparency and technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information. Government Information Quarterly. 27, 4, 371--376.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Jenkins, H. 2006. Convergence culture. New York University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Kim, M. and 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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Klotz, R. 2007. Internet campaigning for grassroots and astroturf support. Social Science Computer Review. 25, 1, 3--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Krippendorff, K. 2004. Reliability in Content Analysis. Human Communication Research. 30, 3, 411--433.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Kwak, H. et al. 2010. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? Categories and subject descriptors. Proc. WWW'10, 591--600. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Lam, S.K. et al. 2011. WP: Clubhouse? An exploration of Wikipedia's gender imbalance. Proc. WikiSym'11, 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Livne, A. et al. 2011. The party is over here: Structure and content in the 2010 election. Proc. ICWSM'11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Lombard, M. et al. 2002. Content Analysis in Mass Communication: Assessment and Reporting of Intercoder Reliability. Human Communication Research. 28, 4, 587--604.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. McCallum, A.K. 2002. MALLET: A maching learning for language toolkit, http://mallet.cs.umass.edu/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. McClain, C. 2009. Debating restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Politics and the Life Sciences: The Journal of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences. 28, 2 , 48--68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. McCombs, M. 2004. Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Polity Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Mullainathan, S. and Shleifer, A. 2005. The market for news. American Economic Review. 95, 4, 1031--1053.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Ng, E.W.J. and Detenber, B.H. 2006. The impact of synchronicity and civility in online political discussions on perceptions and intentions to participate. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 10, 3.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Niven, D. and Zilber, J. 2001. Do Women and Men in Congress Cultivate Different Images? Evidence from Congressional Web Sites. Political Communication. 18, 4, 395--405.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Noveck, B.S. 2011. What's in a name? Open gov and good gov. Huffington Post.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Papacharissi, Z. 2004. Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society. 6, 2, 259--283.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Schneider, S.M. and Foot, K.A. 2006. Web campaigning by U.S. presidential primary candidates in 2000 and 2004. The Internet Election: Perspectives on the Web's Role in Campaign 2004. A. Williams and J. Tedesco, eds. Rowman & Littlefield. 21--36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Shamma, D. et al. 2009. Tweet the debates: Understanding community annotation of uncollected sources. Proc. ICWSM '09. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Southall, A. 2012. White House ethics hub goes live online. New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Trammell, K.D. et al. 2006. Evolution of Online Campaigning: Increasing Interactivity in Candidate Web Sites and Blogs Through Text and Technical Features. Mass Communication and Society. 9, 1, 21-- 44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Tumasjan, A. et al. 2011. Election forecasts with Twitter: How 140 characters reflect the political landscape. Social Science Computer Review. 29, 4, 402--418. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Weng, J. et al. 2010. TwitterRank: Finding topic- sensitive influential Twitterers. Proc. WSDM'10, 261 - 270. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Williams, C.B. and Gulati, G.J. 2011. Communicating with constituents in 140 characters or less: Twitter and the diffusion of technology innovation in the United States Congress. SSRN, http://ssrn.com/paper=1817053.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Xenos, M.A. and Foot, K.A. 2005. Politics as usual, or politics unusual? Position taking and dialogue on campaign websites in the 2002 U.S. Elections. Journal of Communication. 55, 1, 169--185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Xenos, M.A. and Moy, P. 2007. Direct and differential effects of the internet on political and civic engagement. Journal of Communication. 57, 4, 704-- 718.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. What's congress doing on twitter?

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CSCW '13: Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work
      February 2013
      1594 pages
      ISBN:9781450313315
      DOI:10.1145/2441776

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 23 February 2013

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

      Upcoming Conference

      CSCW '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader