Seton Hall University
Abstract
Introduction
Politics has been a major driving force in the US economy and arguably all other economies in the world. It is therefore of little surprise that much of what is covered in the media and by journalists revolves around politics. The mainstream media has been the main means of communication between politicians and their supporters. For years on end, politicians have been using print, visual, and audio media to send messages and agendas to the people. These forms of media became instrumental especially during elections periods. They were the main means of reaching out to a large population conveniently. Other forms of media such as billboards were also used although these became popular after the audio and visual media had been existent for years. The 21st century has, however, revolutionized and personalized the means of communication between politicians and their followers together with subjects.
American political campaigns are regarded as one of the most costly and most aggressive in the world. The reason is all clear to see. The United States of America is the world superpower and whoever has control of the country or at least contributes to the running of the country has an impact on the world at large. The stakes are higher and American politicians have always looked to come up with ways that increase their popularity and therefore chance of winning. Political candidates have been looking for and adopting ways that can enable them get in touch with their supporters more conveniently. As a result, physical campaigns, audio and print messages have become just a tip of the iceberg. New forms of campaign methods have been adopted to woo potential supporters (West, 2013). This has been necessitated by the fact that Americans usually vote in blocs and with a certain pattern. American politics is usually divided along political party affiliations. Even today, there are states that are widely considered to back the policies and principles of certain parties. This phenomenon pits states against each other. Of more importance is the tussle that exists between politicians affiliated to these parties. Americans have always voted in a particular format with certain states deemed to be strongholds and adherents to given political parties. This is created by a mentality of belonging. To break this barrier, politicians have been adopting more personalized strategies other than physical campaigns in order to communicate with voters and supporters.
Political campaigns do not only take road show events and door-to-door campaigns. There is also the aspect of interviews and television debates that have become very popular in the recent past. These are not only used to gauge and evaluate the manifestos presented by candidates; they are also platforms in which the candidates interact with the voters. In these debates, the politicians face off in organized debates in which questions regarding their manifestos and the situation of the country are posed. The purpose of the questions is to find out how best they politicians can answer them and therefore their opinion on certain issues and how they will address them if elected to office. Viewers and listeners are usually given the opportunity to participate in the debates and interviews by posing questions and presenting solutions to matters. This is an important platform for interaction for both politicians and citizens. It is personal and objective. Nevertheless, it is not as objective as the use of social media which has taken centre stage in the recent past.
Past few years, a new way to communicate to the public was born: the internet. It gave plenty of options for the politicians in attempt to communicate with the public (Avidar, 2011). Most internet activities only one-way to release the information about candidates, and this is through the candidates website or by sending e-mails (Bekhit, 2009). Many studies focused on analyzing the content of these websites. Therefore, one-way communication was not close enough from the public. For example, several studies urged to do a bigger effort in order to engage public in organization's websites by creating a platform for dialogs and establish interaction (Vorvoreanu, 2009).
Social media has become an important tool in this era which students for many purposes. Social media is the outcome of the tremendous growth and development in the technology sector, a factor that has improved communication considerably. There are different platforms of social media and they all posses’ different means of communication. Most such as Twitter and Facebook are avenues for exchanging messages, tweets and posts. There are also some for sharing videos such as YouTube and Vimeo. Yet, others such as Instagram and Snapchat are for exchanging pictures and images. Many political campaigns have used social media because students use social media constantly, and also politicians use social media to inform students about election campaigns and encourage them to participate. Many political elections have adopted social media platforms to reach a large segment of society. Some scholars have observed that social media increased the involvement of young adults in the 2008 election by creating political content (Hesseldahl, MacMillan, & Kharif, 2008; Smith, 2009). Many studies have proven the large presence of young people in social media. Recent studies have indicated that there is a high percentage of young adults between ages 18-29 who use social networking sites (Park, & Lee, 2014). Also, specifically, 97% of college students use Facebook daily to communicate and entertain (Park, & Lee, 2014).
Differences between Websites and Social Media
Although both websites and social media play a significant role in political campaigns, they have differences that are important to be understood by the politicians. For example, politician’s website is the entity that enables him to post any relevant information pertaining to the group. These may include pieces of information about who is he, the things he have done, achievements, activities, contributions, and policies, if applicable. In other words, politicians build relationships with public by presenting themselves through their websites. On the other hand, social media hold a different function and purpose. Individualism is the main purpose on Facebook because it gives the green light to obtain private profile. It provides a real-time knowledge to the people who want to be updated of the current news and activities of a politicians. In addition, social media offers interaction and connections system between the users (Vorvoreanu & Mihaela, 2009). De Zuniga, Puig-i-Abril and Rojas (2009) have proved the importance of the political blogs in online election communication, where their investigation included 2,200 respondents over 18 years old. They found that 1,324 had use the internet to access the candidate’s blogs (Aparaschivei, 2011). From the aspect of using campaign for the purpose of raising the electoral funds. The use of the internet also has an effect in donation in electoral events. A prime example is Howard Dean's campaign, where he was raising almost 500,000 per day from their donation because the powerful of his existence on Internet (Aparaschivei, 2011).
Functionalist Approach
In the last three decades, communications processes were focusing mainly in achieving the political campaigns goals by the communicative attempts. The function of public relations efforts in the political campaigns is limited. For example, Media relations, information subsidy, agenda-setting, and persuasion are main theories of the functionalist approach that public relations use to help the candidates gain more supporters. Therefore, the flow of information was one-way, coming from the public relations to the public. It only sends messages rather than actively communicating with the public (Avidar, 2011).
Co-creational Perspective
Just like the functionalist approach, in the recent year, co-creation approach became a significant aspect in the activities of political campaigns. Political campaigns in this approach help politicians in understanding the public, because the flow of information is two-way communication. Also, the component of interaction in the two-way communication facilitated many tasks for the political campaigns, such as observing the attitudes and the feedback of the public about some political issues. Co-creational approach has the main role in changing the focus of public relations in managing public and opinion leaders to make relationships and maintain those relationships (Avidar, 2011).
The Research Problem
Social media has been increasing wildly among students. Also, the inventors of social networks have become interested in adding a certain element in the social media. For example, recently inventors began creating different forms of platforms that is similar with Facebook, such as Snapchat and Vine, which called today the art of short form storytelling. In previous election in 2008, these forms of social media did not exist and the majority of young adults were using Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. These new forms of social media might influence the student’s choices in receiving political information.
The Purpose of the Research
The research is necessary because social media has become a very important aspect in the social lives of students, and most of the community in general (Vorvoreanu, 2009). Therefore, it is important to understand how each of the platforms works and which can be used to relay political information to students. This study stand on the media dependency theory, and media reliance considered as interchangeable, which means that voters in 2008 election might change their reliance on certain platform during the recent election of 2016 (Kaye, 2013). many studied indicated that an Internet user's demographic profile, the level of political interest, social relations and use of offline media are factors that might influence the social media platforms choices. For instance, a study have done by Johnson et al., 2007; Kaye & Johnson, 2006, they found that the use of internet by men is more favored, and men like to gain political information more through non-traditional sites. Also, the social media platforms has been increased in recent years, such as Snap Chat, Instagram, and Vine. Many studies also indicated that an Internet user's demographic profile, the level of political interest, social relations and use of offline media are factors that might influence the social media platforms choices. For instance, a study have done by Johnson et al., 2007; Kaye & Johnson, 2006, they found that the use of internet by men is more favored, and men like to gain political information more through non-traditional sites.
Also, the social media has new forms in recent years, such as Snap Chat, Instagram, and Vine, which called today the art of short form storytelling. These new forms have major change in the way students receive the political information.
Research Questions (subject might be changed)
GQ: How College Students Use Social Media and Traditional Media during the Presidential Election of 2016?
RQ1: what is the motivation graduate students use social media?
RQ2: what is the motivation female and male use social media?
RQ3: what is the primary platform used by college students during the presidential election of 2016?
RQ4: what is the new forms of social media students use?
RQ5: do students trust social media platforms more than traditional media sites regarding presidential election of 2016?
Definition of Terms
Social media : Websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking.
Traditional media: Traditional media covers the medium that was the means of communication and expression before the digital era - advent of the Internet.Traditional media include Print Media, Broadcast Media, and OOH media.
Traditional media sites: is the sites on the Internet that belong to the traditional media, such as online newspapers and online TV station on Internet.
Platforms: A raised floor or stage used by public speakers or performers so that they can be seen by their audience. It is also a term used for the social media forms, such as Facebook platform.
Election: the process of choosing a person or a group of people for a position, especially a political position, by voting.
Objectives and Limitation
The purpose of this research is to investigate if social media or traditional media sites are used by college students during the presidential election of 2016, which technological platform of social media is used more by college students, and the motivation of social media use. This research targeted undergraduate and graduate students of Seton Hall University at United States of America.
Literature Review
The need for politicians to create social media accounts during campaign periods is real. Research studies indicate that social media sites get more traffic than campaign websites during the campaign. They are also important because, unlike campaign websites that are only activated in the advent of an election, social media sites remain active beyond the election period. Thus, they can be used well after the election process is finished. For the candidate who loses, it can be a platform for keeping in touch with the subjects, supporters, and followers while for the losers it can be a platform for strategizing for the next electoral process. Analysts point out that politicians rarely reply to comments made by their followers on their wall. The reason is simple; it is a time-consuming process. Rather, most politicians liaise with social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter to create a Question and Answer (Q&A) session, which acts as a mini debate. This is seen as more effective than replying to everyone who reaches out to the politician.
The use of social media by Americans is at an all time high; research studies indicate that 66% of Americans use social media. Studies further indicate that 39% of American adults have engaged in 1 out of 8 political activities using social media. Twenty percent of Americans have used social media platforms such as Twitter to follow their leaders. Those interviewed state that it is an easy way of keeping tabs with the activities of their leaders such as development projects. A whopping 35% of those interviewed stated that they have used social media to encourage other people to vote. Essentially, they have used social media to mobilize voters during voting exercises. Further, 34% stated that they have used social media to post their thoughts and opinions about political and social issues. This can be an important source of discussion for political candidates as they can use the platform to address concerns and thoughts posted by the voters.
The use of online sources to gather political election information is not an old method. The first use of internet in the political field to gather sources of election information was in 1996 by 4% of U.S adults (Smith, 2009). In 2000, the percentage of voters using online sources for political information has increased by 18% . 43% stated that Internet content influenced their vote (Pew Research Center, 2000: Smith, 2009). In 2012, 27% of registered voters used their mobile phones to follow up on proceedings in the political scene. They used these to keep updated with election news and political issues at large. Further, 19% used texts to share with others matters relating to political campaigns. Further, 5% had signed up to get texts and other information from their favorite candidates. During the election of 2004, the use of blogs as a source for political information started by Howard Dean, who was the first presidential candidate to communicate with public through blogging (Stromer-Galley & Baker, 2006). By the 2008 presidential election, the emergence of social media had reinforced the distribution methods for politics and become a significant source of political knowledge. However, social media increased the public’s participation in the electoral process through social media (Heffernan, 2009). These platforms of social media helped U.S adults obtain online political information. The percentage of voters influenced by social media rose from 29% in 2004 to 74% in 2008 (Smith,2009). In 2008, history was made when America voted in the first African American president. President Barrack Obama was largely voted in on the backdrop of stiff competition from the Republican candidate. However, the 2008 election was not only unique because an African American president occupied the White House for the first time in American history; it was also the first time a president used social media as a campaign strategy and succeeded with great measure. Since then, analysts have looked at social media as a tool for political campaign in different light. It is no longer an option for politicians but rather a necessity (McChesney, 2015). In the subsequent election in 2012, 30% of the voters were encouraged to vote for their presidential candidates through posts on social media. The two presidential hopefuls were Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney. In addition, 22% of voters shared with their family and friends about the candidate they had voted for. This not only encouraged those who had not voted to do so but also influenced the presidential candidate they voted for. Such is the difference that social media has made in the political scene.
Social media is itself a campaign tool and not just a means to an end. The political candidate who learns how to use it effectively will get the best results out of it. President Barrack Obama won the presidency largely because he knew how to manage his affairs on social media better than his opponent, McCain. He understood that social media was not only the emerging platform but also the future of communication and campaigns. The art of use of social media for campaigns can be compared to the first televised presidential debate in American history. The year was 1960 and the debate was between presidential hopefuls John F Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Analysts opine that John F Kennedy knew how to handle the televised debate and this gave him an upper hand over Richard Nixon. He knew how to smile and how to remain elegant and composed in front of the camera. This sort of aura and appeal went well with the cameras. In the same way, social media required and requires some knack from politicians to strike a connection with the voters.
Individuals tend to use different online media in order to gather political information, gather with like-minded others, influence and inspire peers, and discuss issues. As a result, the desired goal is to attract the potential voters (Smith,2009). As mentioned in many different studies, this phenomenon called media reliance, which is similar to media dependency theory. Baldwin, Barrett, & Bates, 1992, defined media dependence as a "concept that demonstrates that people develop a reliance on certain channels to satisfy certain needs” (Baldwin, Barrett, & Bates, 1992, p. 226). This theory applied to the internet is “a relation reflecting one’s reliance on the Internet to achieve goals” (Sun, Rubin, & Haridakis, 2008, p. 412).
A study investigated the influence of political party affiliation on internet use for election information. The result highlighted that one half of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents relied on online sources to obtain political information (Smith & Rainie, 2008). But there were significant differences between Democrats and Republicans in terms of which online resources were relied on most. The result showed that 70% of Obama voters, which is the Democratic party, watched online political videos. In contrast, 56% of the Republican Party used full-texts of speeches, unedited videos, e-mail, text messaging, SNS, and Twitter (Smith, 2009).
The media has often formed an integral part of national politics and development. It has been the main means by which politicians are kept on their feet and the citizens reminded of their rights and duties. One of the roles of the media as already mentioned is keeping politicians on their toes. This can be achieved through interviews, questioning, criticizing, and highlighting. Through such avenues, the media and journalists manage to give citizens a preview of what they expect of their next leader.
Another study focused on the reliance of online media in 2008 presidential elections between two candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain. The study also showed on which online media outlets Barack Obama and John McCain were preferred. The results indicated that Barack Obama voters relied more on social network sites, broadcast television, online newspapers, online news magazines, online radio and candidate blogs. Conversely, McCain supporters relied more on political blogs and political sites. Also, the dependence on social network sites by Obama supporters was stronger, while the dependence on social media by McCain supporters was lower. The result indicated that Barack Obama used the Internet successfully to talk about political issues in attempts to reach the undecided on social media, while McCain was too late in establishing his campaign on the internet (Kaye, B. K. 2013).
An important lesson that can be learnt in the 2008 elections is the revolution that social media has brought on the political scenes. Previously, political candidates had to make advertisements, which had to be run on television or radio (Williams & Girish, 2012). To say the least, the advertisements took a considerable amount of time to create. As a result, it was not easy to respond to emerging issues immediately. However, the onslaught of social media campaigns completely changed that. With these platforms, politicians could respond to emerging or trending issues almost instantly. A simple post be it a picture or a caption was enough to elicit reactions from voters and garner publicity. This was and continues to be effective when politicians are keeping tabs with what is going on in the country. For example, it is common to see tweets by President Barrack Obama on events that are trending in the country and abroad. One example is with regard to 14-year old Ahmed Mohamed, the Texas boy who went to school with a homemade clock and it was thought that it was a bomb only to be discovered that it was actually a clock. President Obama tweeted about it requesting the boy to go with the watch to White House. The reaction from Americans and the world in general was phenomenal. This is an example of what social media can help to achieve.
Studies from a few years ago indicated that traditional media sites which were once essential sources for political information received little use during 2000-2003. During the 2008 election, the use of non-traditional sites increased dramatically. Many studies indicated that the traditional media sites seek to dominate diverse views online. For example, Simmons (2010) found that the most Web news pages and entertainment pages are controlled by companies in an attempt to be the dominant.
Parmelee, Davies, & McMahan, (2011) stated that patterns of traditional and non-traditional site use are complicated regarding how political information is gathered online these days. They also pointed out that during the 2008 campaign, 78% of online political information was collected through non-traditional sites such as Weblogs or different news sites, while 98% visited one traditional site that provided news, such as TV news and newspapers (Parmelee, Davies, & McMahan, 2011)
A study investigated the use of non-traditional sites over traditional online political information. Results showed that 24% of people use the Web sites of traditional media to obtain political information. These Web sites of traditional media include newspapers, TV news stations, or radio stations. 31% of respondents use Web sites of nontraditional media, such as weblogs, chat rooms, comedy Web sites, Web sites that release news and official web sites of candidates.
A more recent trend in the social media scene is the used of videos to advance agendas. This has led to the revelation of YouTube and more recently Instagram as platforms for sharing videos. There are other numerous applications and platforms and the two mentioned above are by no means exhaustive. Since many Americans use the internet today, it is easier and more convenient for them to access videos (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012). Research studies indicate that 55% of all registered voters regularly use the internet. Of these, 66% watched campaign videos and related political videos during the 2012 elections. They watched videos for an array of reasons, with some of the respondents indicating that they watched the videos to follow on news reports about elections or voting. Others indicated that they watched videos that explained political issues while others watched political advertisements online. Even though a mere 1% of these internet users have created their own videos, users have helped further the idea of social media with regard to videos by encouraging others to watch and recommending videos to friends and family. The use of videos is by far very effective and engaging. For example, politicians have realized that voters deduce a lot when they see them engaging in actual community projects in videos compared to reading about them. Thus, politicians will have everything they do videotaped ranging from the political rallies they attend to the people they meet and the development projects they participate in. These videos are then downloaded in their social media sites and their YouTube channels where they create a longer lasting effect that it would if their followers only read about these occurrences.
Social media and websites are not just used for publicity campaigns. They are also used to advance the political agendas of candidates through donations. Studies reveal that in the 2012 elections, 13% of adults made donations to their preferred political candidates. Fifty percent of these made the donations online or through email while 67% made the donations either in person or via telephone or email. Another 10% donated through their cell phones and related apps. The same study indicated that Democrats are more likely to use mobile phones to make their contributions compared to Republicans. They are also more likely to make use of online methods. These statistics point to the importance that social media and mobile telephony continue to play in daily events throughout the world.
In the wake of all this, most politicians realize that social media can as much create you as it can destroy your career. An irrelevant post on Facebook or a misplaced tweet could cost a politician an election. In the same way, an uncouth video or one that presents the politician doing or saying something stupid could mark the end of his or her political career. Thus, despite all the advantages that come with using social media for campaigns, it is a two-edged sword that should be used carefully.
Prime Example of Using Facebook for Election Campaigns
Facebook is seen as the most attractive tool for Americans during the past years. They spend more time on Facebook more than any other social media (Williams, 2014).Many studies highlighted that Facebook is capable of reinforcing political activities and observing the public opinion. This powerful social media tool, contribute to the increase of voter groups (Morin, & Flynn, 2014). In fact, this has been proven during the 1998 elections. According to Dutta and Fraser (2008), Barack Obama gained two million supporters for his Facebook page while McCain only had 600,000. Obama actively connects with people through Facebook, because the young generation is the primary users of social media platform, it is not surprising to know that 70% of the votes that Obama had come from Americans who are under the age of 25 (Dutta and Fraser 2008).
Given the positive results of the 2008 election in favor of Obama, Facebook remained as one of his campaign strategies in order to win the 2012 presidential elections. This made him known as the first social media president (Rutledge 2013). Because he has been using Facebook during the 2008 campaign, his team already had the social media expertise they needed to gain the trust of more voters. Based on a two-step model of communication formulated by sociologists Lazersfeld and Katz, opinions are formed through the interaction with opinion leaders within the same demographics that also share the same interests and it is not directly formed through information provided by the mass media (Rutledge, 2013). This allowed President Obama to gain more supporters as he actively used Facebook in gaining trust, which created a ripple-effect from one family member or one friend to another.
For instance, he gained twice as many Facebook followers than his 2012 opponent, Romney (Rutledge,2013). Although the latter also used Facebook to connect with the voters, their efforts were not as effective as what Obama and his team exerted. According to Rutledge (2013), “Obama dominated the social media space because his team got how networks work.” He adds that “Romney’s campaign was hurt by their lack of understanding of both this phenomenon and the ease of Internet media channels” (Rutledge,2013, para 4)
A study investigated the use of social media as tool in political field in Romania. The study observed and analyses to which extent the Romanian politicians have used their blogs, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube in the presidential election. The results showed that no candidates during the 2009 Romanian presidential election had managed proactive plans to appear on all platforms on this study, which are blogs, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube (Aparaschivei, 2011)
A survey was distributed on 6330 of young adult from Belgium to investigate if they have participated in political content or political discuss on internet. They found that 88% of the respondents who spent more time on internet stated that they had not contributed in sharing emails of political content. Therefore, the study concluded that despite the negative results of politics participation on internet, the political content on internet can influence the participation of people offline.
Many studies have indicated that the use of social media measured with the overall time spent on social media sites. Also, it can be measured by social media use of news (Park, 2015). Measuring social networking sites broadly cannot lead us to examine the nuanced effects of SNS. There is a significant behavioral difference between highly information seekers and those who have a low level of motivation. The effects of media on participation rely on individuals' motivations for using media.(Lin & Lu, 2011; Smock, Ellison, Lampe, & Wohn, 2011).
Many studies have employs the uses and gratifications approach as a framework in order to understand how user needs and motivations compose media use and other outcomes (Park, 2015). For traditional mass media, there are some many reasons for using media: Satisfying the needs for information, entertainment social interaction and personal identity (Park, 2015). With the emergence of internet-based media, scholars have broaden the uses and gratifications framework. For example, Cheung, Chiu, & Lee, (2011) highlighted that individual’s use the internet to meet social, instrumental and entertainment needs.
As same with other media, the major purposes for using social media include, social, instrumental, and entertainment dimensions (Park, 2015). Papacharissi and Mendelson (2011) examined the motivations of using Facebook. They found nine motives which are, relaxing entertainment, habitual pass time, information sharing, escapism, fellowship, social interaction, and meeting new friends.
Another study recommended two motives of using social media, which are the perceived usefulness and enjoyment (Lin and Lu, 2011). In a study have done by Joinson, (2008), he determined seven patterns of using Facebook: shared identities, social connection, social experience, status updating social network surfing.
Method
Simple
The method used in this study is an online questionnaire tool distributed among college students at Seton Hall University. Both undergraduate and graduate students participated in the online Survey. The first section of the survey included demographic information about the students. This section asked about ages, year of study, gender, and ethnicity. The students' e-mail addresses were provided by the office of communication at Seton Hall University. The survey's URL was sent via e-mail to 200 students and a reminder email was sent 20 days later. (Park, 2015).
Measurement
The questions about social media addressed the three most popular social media platforms in U.S, which are Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Also, new platforms of social media were included, such as Snap Chat, Vine, and Instagram. The measuring strategy was a 4 point scale, where 1 is never, and 4 always. Questions about the motivation of social media use were drawn from a research study (Park, 2015). These items included two aspects; to obtain election information and to keep up with important social issues. The measurement system used here was a 5 point system (1 D strongly disagree; 5 D strongly agree). For the social media interaction; News, entertainment, connect with friends, connect with family and to feel connected with others (Park, 2015). And the measurement included 5 points answers (1 D strongly disagree; 5 D strongly agree) (Park, 2015).
References
Avidar, R. (2011). Israeli public relations and the Internet. Israel Affairs, 17(3), 401–421. doi:10.1080/13537121.2011.584668.
Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739-768.
Dutta, S. & Fraser, M. (2008). Barrack Obama and the Facebook elections. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/11/19/barack-obama-and-the-facebook-election
Heffernan, V. (2009, April 12). The YouTube presidency. The New York Times Sunday Magazine, pp. 15–17. Hwang, H., Dillon, W. R., & Takane, Y. (2010). Fuzzy cluster multiple correspondence analysis. Behaviormetrika, 37(2), 111–133.
Hesseldahl, A., MacMillan, D., & Kharif, O. (2008, November 5). The vote: A victory for social media, too. Business Week. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2008/tc2008115_988160.htm
Kaye, B. K. (2013). I Can Choose Clearly Now: The Influence of Online Source Reliance on Candidate Preference During the 2008 Presidential Election. Atlantic Journal Of Communication, 21(5), 294-311. doi:10.1080/15456870.2013.842572
McChesney, R. W. (2015). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. New Press, The.
Morin, D. T., & Flynn, M. A. (2014). We are the tea party!: The use of Facebook as an online political forum for the construction and maintenance of in-group identification during the “GOTV” weekend. Communication Quarterly, 62(1), 115-133. doi:10.1080/01463373.2013.861500
Park, C. S. (2015). Pathways to Expressive and Collective Participation: Usage Patterns, Political Efficacy, and Political Participation in Social Networking Sites. Journal Of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 698-716. doi:10.1080/08838151.2015.1093480
Park, N., & Lee, S. (2014). College Students' Motivations for Facebook Use and Psychological Outcomes. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(4), 601-620. doi:10.1080/08838151.2014.966355
Parmelee, J. H., Davies, J., & McMahan, C. A. (2011). The Rise of Non-Traditional Site Use for Online Political Information.Communication Quarterly, 59(5), 625-640. doi:10.1080/01463373.2011.614211
Rutledege, P. (2013). How Obama won the social media battle in the 2012 presidential campaign. Media Psychology Research Center. Retrieved from http://mprcenter.org/blog/2013/01/how-obama-won-the-social-media-battle-in-the-2012-presidential-campaign/
Simmons, C. (2010). Weaving a web within the Web: Corporate consolidation of the Web 1999–2008. Communication Review, 13, 105–119. doi: 10.1080=10714421003795493
Smith, A. (2009). The Internet’s role in campaign 2008. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/∼/media//Files/Reports/2009/ The_Internets_Role_in_Campaign_2008.pdf
Stromer-Galley, J., & Baker, A. B. (2006). Joy and sorrow of interactivity on the campaign trail: Blogs in the primary campaign of Howard Dean. In A. P. Williams & J. C. Tedesco (Eds.), The Internet election: Perspectives on the web in campaign 2006 (pp. 111–131). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Sun, S., Rubin, A., & Haridakis, P. M. (2008). The role of motivation and media involvement in explaining Internet dependency. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52, 408–431.
Vorvoreanu, M. (2009). Perceptions of Corporations on Facebook: An Analysis of Facebook Social Norms. Journal Of New Communications Research, 4(1), 67-86.
Williams, J. (2014). Four tactics your campaign should take advantage of In 2014. Campaigns & Elections (2010), (322), 16.
Yamamoto, M., & Kushin, M. J. (2014). More Harm than Good? Online Media Use and Political Disaffection among College Students in the 2008 Election. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 430-445. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12046
Cheung, C. M., Chiu, P., & Lee, M. K. (2011). Online social networks: Why do students use facebook?.Computers In Human Behavior, 27(4), 1337-1343. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.028
Papacharissi, Z., & Mendeson, A. (2011). Toward a new(er) sociability: Uses, gratifications
and social capital on Facebook. In S. Papathanassopoulos (Ed.), Media perspectives for the 21st century (pp. 212–231). London, UK: Routledge
Lin, K., & Lu, H. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers In Human Behavior, 27(3), 1152-1161. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.009
Joinson, A. N. (2008). Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people? Motives and use
of Facebook. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, 1027–1036.
Aparaschivei, P. A. (2011). The Use of New Media in Electoral Campaigns: Analysis on the Use of Blogs, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube in the 2009 Romanian Presidential Campaign. Journal Of Media Research, 4(2), 39-60.
West, D. M. (2013). Air Wars: Television Advertising and Social Media in Election Campaigns, 1952-2012: Television Advertising and Social Media in Election Campaigns, 1952-2012. Sage.
Williams, C. B., & Girish, J. (2012). Social networks in political campaigns: Facebook and the congressional elections of 2006 and 2008. New Media & Society, 1461444812457332.
