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.
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Austin, J.L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Bach, K. 1998. Speech acts. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. E. Craig, ed. Routledge.Google Scholar
- Bakshy, E. et al. 2011. Everyone's an influencer: Quantifying influence on Twitter. Proc. WSDM'11, 65--74. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- Bertot, J. and Jaeger, P. 2010. Social media technology and government transparency. Computer. 43, 11, 53--59. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Bimber, B. 2003. Information and American democracy: Technology in the evolution of political power. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Blumler, J.G. and Kavanagh, D. 1999. The Third Age of political communication: influences and features. Political Communication. 16, 3, 209--230.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- Cha, M. et al. 2010. Measuring user influence in twitter: The million follower fallacy. Proc. ICWSM'10, 10--17.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 20, 1, 37--46.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Diakopoulos, N. and Shamma, D. 2010. Characterizing debate performance via aggregated Twitter sentiment. Proc. CHI '10, 1195--1198. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Druckman, J.N. et al. 2010. Issue engagement on congressional candidate web sites, 2002--2006. Social Science Computer Review. 28, 1, 3--23. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gaffney, D. 2010. #iranElection: Quantifying online activism. Proc. WebSci10.Google Scholar
- Garber, M. 2012. A year after the Egyptian revolution, 10% of its social media documentation is already gone. The Atlantic.Google Scholar
- Gilmore, J. 2012. Ditching the pack: Digital media in the 2010 Brazilian congressional campaigns. New Media & Society. 14, 4, 617--633.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Graf, J. 2008. New media-The cutting edge of campaign communications. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. R. Semiatin, ed. CQ Press. 48--68.Google Scholar
- Green, A. 2011. Twitter database server (Beta 0.10), http://140dev.com/free-twitter-api-source-code- library/twitter-database-server/.Google Scholar
- Groeling, T. 2010. When Politicians Attack: Party Cohesion in the Media. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Hemphill, L. 2011. Twitter-collectors (144e2f0f6), https://github.com/casmlab/Twitter-collectors.Google Scholar
- Hemphill, L. and Otterbacher, J. 2012. Learning the lingo? Gender, prestige and linguistic adaptation in review communities. Proc. CSCW'12, 305--314. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- Howard, P.N. 2005. New media campaigns and the managed citizen. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Hsu, C. and Park, H.W. 2012. Mapping online social networks of Korean politicians. Government Information Quarterly. 29, 2, 169--181.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- Jenkins, H. 2006. Convergence culture. New York University Press.Google Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Klotz, R. 2007. Internet campaigning for grassroots and astroturf support. Social Science Computer Review. 25, 1, 3--12. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Krippendorff, K. 2004. Reliability in Content Analysis. Human Communication Research. 30, 3, 411--433.Google Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Lam, S.K. et al. 2011. WP: Clubhouse? An exploration of Wikipedia's gender imbalance. Proc. WikiSym'11, 1--10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Livne, A. et al. 2011. The party is over here: Structure and content in the 2010 election. Proc. ICWSM'11.Google Scholar
- Lombard, M. et al. 2002. Content Analysis in Mass Communication: Assessment and Reporting of Intercoder Reliability. Human Communication Research. 28, 4, 587--604.Google ScholarCross Ref
- McCallum, A.K. 2002. MALLET: A maching learning for language toolkit, http://mallet.cs.umass.edu/.Google Scholar
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- McCombs, M. 2004. Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Mullainathan, S. and Shleifer, A. 2005. The market for news. American Economic Review. 95, 4, 1031--1053.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- Noveck, B.S. 2011. What's in a name? Open gov and good gov. Huffington Post.Google Scholar
- Papacharissi, Z. 2004. Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society. 6, 2, 259--283.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- Shamma, D. et al. 2009. Tweet the debates: Understanding community annotation of uncollected sources. Proc. ICWSM '09. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Southall, A. 2012. White House ethics hub goes live online. New York Times.Google Scholar
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Weng, J. et al. 2010. TwitterRank: Finding topic- sensitive influential Twitterers. Proc. WSDM'10, 261 - 270. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
What's congress doing on twitter?
Recommendations
Tweet acts: how constituents lobby congress via Twitter
CSCW '14: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computingTwitter is increasingly becoming a medium through which constituents can lobby their elected representatives in Congress about issues that matter to them. Past research has focused on how citizens communicate with each other or how members of Congress (...
Twitter democracy: policy versus identity politics in three emerging African democracies
ICTD '15: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and DevelopmentSocial media offers new ways for citizens to discuss and debate politics and engage in the democratic process. These online systems could be places for rich policy relevant debate, which is favored by scholars of deliberative democracy. Alternatively, ...
The 2014 Indian elections on Twitter
The study examines Twitter political campaigns in the 2014 Indian general election.It also examines the role of internet and first time voters in electoral success.New-and-upcoming parties used Twitter for self-promotion and media validation.The winning ...
Comments