Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Communications

The European Journal of Communication Research

Ed. by Averbeck-Lietz, Stefanie / d'Haenens, Leen

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.744
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.147

CiteScore 2017: 1.49

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.703
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.736

Online
ISSN
1613-4087
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Ahead of print

Issues

Personalization 2.0? – Testing the personalization hypothesis in citizens’, journalists’, and politicians’ campaign Twitter communication

Lukas P. Otto
  • Corresponding author
  • Amsterdam School of Communication Research ASCoR Department of Communication Science University of Amsterdam Amsterdam Netherlands
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Isabella Glogger / Michaela Maier
Published Online: 2018-07-25 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2018-2005

Abstract

This paper advances the research on personalization of political communication by investigating whether this process of focusing on politicians instead of political issues plays a role on Twitter. Results of a content analysis of 5,530 tweets posted in the run-up to the German federal election provide evidence that Twitter communication refers more often to politicians than to issues. However, tweets containing personal characteristics about political leaders play only a marginal role. When distinguishing among different groups of actors on Twitter (journalists, politicians, citizens), we find that citizens focus more on candidates than do journalists or politicians. Investigating the impact of a televised debate on Twitter communication, we observe that this person-centered event puts the focus on individual politicians instead of issues.

Keywords: political communication; personalization; Twitter; televised debate

References

  • Adam, S., & Maier, M. (2010). Personalization of politics: A Critical review and agenda for research. Communication Yearbook, 34, 213–257.Google Scholar

  • Anstead, N., & O’Loughlin, B. (2011). The emerging viewertariat and BBC Question Time television debate and real-time commenting online. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(4), 440–462.Google Scholar

  • Bachl, M., & Brettschneider, F. (2011). The German national election campaign and the mass media. German Politics, 20(1), 51–74.Google Scholar

  • Balmas, M., & Sheafer, T. (2013). Leaders first, countries after: Mediated political personalization in the international arena. Journal of Communication, 63(3), 454–475.Google Scholar

  • Benoit, W., Hansen, G., & Verser, R. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 70(4), 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363775032000179133Google Scholar

  • Bentivegna, S., & Marchetti, R. (2014). Tweeting and watching television. New forms of media hybridization. Comunicazione politica, 14(1), 61–78.Google Scholar

  • Brettschneider, F. (2002). Kanzlerkandidaten im Fernsehen [Chancellor candidates on TV]. Media Perspektiven, 6, 263–276.Google Scholar

  • Brettschneider, F. (2008). Personalization of campaigning. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication (pp. 3583–3585). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Brettschneider, F., Neller, K., & Anderson, C. J. (2006). Candidate images in the 2005 German national election. German Politics, 15(4), 481–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644000601062667Google Scholar

  • Conway, B. A., Kenski, K., & Wang, D. (2015). The rise of Twitter in the political campaign: Searching for intermedia agenda-setting effects in the presidential primary. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(4), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12124Google Scholar

  • Donsbach, W. (2002). Sechs Gründe gegen Fernsehduelle: Zur politischen Bewertung einer medialen Inszenierung [Six reasons against televised debates: About a political evaluation of a media staging]. Die politische Meinung, 396, 19–25.Google Scholar

  • Donsbach, W., & Jandura, O. (2005). Urteile mit Verfallsdatum: Einflüsse auf die Wahrnehmung des ersten TV-Duells [Evaluation with expiry dates: Influences on the perception of the first televised debate]. In E. Noelle-Neumann, W. Donsbach & H. M. Kepplinger (Eds.), Wählerstimmungen in der Mediendemokratie: Analysen auf der Basis des Bundestagswahlkampfs 2002 (pp. 141–163). Freiburg: Alber.Google Scholar

  • Druckman, J. N. (2003). The power of television images: The first Kennedy-Nixon debate revisited. Journal of Politics, 65(2), 559–571.Google Scholar

  • Elter, A. (2013). Interaktion und Dialog? Eine quantitative Inhaltsanalyse der Aktivitäten deutscher Parteien bei Twitter und Facebook während der Landtagswahlkämpfe 2011 [Interaction and dialogue? A quantitative content analysis of the German parties’ activities on Twitter and Facebook in the run-up to the federal state elections 2011]. Publizistik, 58(2), 201–220.Google Scholar

  • GESIS (2011). GLES 2009 Codierschema: Agendafragen [Coding scheme: Agenda questions]. Retrieved on 4-23-2018 from https://dbk.gesis.org/dbksearch/download.asp?id=20305.Google Scholar

  • Gilens, M., Vavreck, L., & Cohen, M. (2007). The mass media and the public’s assessments of presidential candidates, 1952–2000. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1160–1175.Google Scholar

  • Golbeck, J., Grimes, J. M., & Rogers, A. (2010). Twitter use by the US congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1612–1621.Google Scholar

  • Graham, T., Jackson, D., & Broersma, M. (2014). New platform, old habits? Candidates’ use of Twitter during the 2010 British and Dutch general election campaigns. New Media & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814546728Google Scholar

  • Hayes, D. (2009). Has television personalized voting behavior? Political Behavior, 31(2), 231–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9070-0Google Scholar

  • Hayes, D., Houston, J. B., & McKinney, M. S. (2013). Live-Tweeting a presidential primary debate: Exploring new political conversations. Social Science Computer Review, 31(5), 552–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313490643Google Scholar

  • Hermans, L., & Vergeer, M. (2013). Personalization in e-campaigning: A cross-national comparison of personalization strategies used on candidate websites of 17 countries in EP elections 2009. New Media & Society, 15(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812457333Google Scholar

  • Hodess, R., Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L. (2000). British party election broadcasts: A comparison of 1992 and 1997. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 5(4), 55–70.Google Scholar

  • Holtz-Bacha, C. (2000). Wahlwerbung als politische Kultur: Parteienspots im Fernsehen 1957–1998 (1st ed.) [TV ads as political culture. Party ads on TV 1957–1998]. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Holtz-Bacha, C. (2004). Germany: How the private life of politicians got into the media. Parliamentary Affairs, 57(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsh004.Google Scholar

  • Holtz-Bacha, C., Langer, A. I., & Merkle, S. (2014). The personalization of politics in comparative perspective: Campaign coverage in Germany and the United Kingdom. European Journal of Communication, 29(2), 153–170.Google Scholar

  • Holtz-Bacha, C., Lessinger, E.-M., & Hettesheimer, M. (1998). Personalisierung als Strategie der Wahlwerbung [Personalization as election campaign stratgegy]. In K. Imhof (Ed.), Die Veröffentlichung des Privaten – die Privatisierung des Öffentlichen (pp. 240–250). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Johnston, A., & Kaid, L. L. (2002). Image ads and issue ads in US presidential advertising: Using videostyle to explore stylistic differences in televised political ads from 1952 to 2000. Journal of Communication, 52(2), 281–300.Google Scholar

  • Kaid, L. L. (2004). Measuring candidate images with semantic differentials. In K. L. Hacker (Ed.), Presidential candidate images (pp. 231–236). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar

  • Kriesi, H. (2012). Personalization of national election campaigns. Party Politics, 18(6), 825–844. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068810389643Google Scholar

  • Kruikemeier, S. (2014). How political candidates use Twitter and the impact on votes. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.025.Google Scholar

  • Kruikemeier, S., van Noort, G., Vliegenthart, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2013). Getting closer: The effects of personalized and interactive online political communication. European Journal of Communication, 28(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323112464837Google Scholar

  • Langer, A. I. (2007). A historical exploration of the personalisation of politics in the print media: The British Prime Ministers (1945–1999). Parliamentary Affairs, 60(3), 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsm028Google Scholar

  • Larsson, A. O. (2014). Everyday elites, citizens or extremists? Assessing the use and users of non-election political hashtags. MedieKultur, Journal of Media and Communication Research, 30(56).Google Scholar

  • Lee, E., & Oh, S. Y. (2012). To personalize or depersonalize? When and how politicians’ personalized Tweets affect the public’s reactions. Journal of Communication, 62(6), 932–949.Google Scholar

  • Leidecker, M., & Wilke, J. (2015). Langweilig? Wieso langweilig? Die Presseberichterstattung zur Bundestagswahl 2013 im Langzeitvergleich [Boring? Why Boring? Media coverage of the German national elections in 2013 compared over time]. In C. Holtz-Bacha (Ed.), Die Massenmedien im Wahlkampf: Die Bundestagswahl 2013 (pp. 145–172). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar

  • Magdy, W., & Elsayed, T. (2014). Adaptive method for following dynamic topics on Twitter. In Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (Ed.), Proceedings of the eighth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media (pp. 335–345).Google Scholar

  • Maier, J., & Faas, T. (2011). ‘Miniature campaigns’ in comparison: The German televised debates, 2002-09. German Politics, 20(1), 75–91.Google Scholar

  • Maier, J., & Maier, M. (2007). Das TV-Duell 2005: Katalysator für die Personalisierung des Wahlverhaltens? [The televised debate of 2005: Catalyst for the personalization of voting behavior?]. In F. Brettschneider, O. Niedermayer & B. Wessels (Eds.), Die Bundestagswahl 2005: Analysen des Wahlkampfes und der Wahlergebnisse (vol. 12, pp. 219–232). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90536-5_10Google Scholar

  • Maier, M., Retzbach, J., Glogger, I., & Stengel, K. (2018). Nachrichtenwerttheorie [Theory of news values]. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar

  • Maurer, M., & Reinemann, C. (2007). Personalisierung durch Priming: Die Wirkungen des TV-Duells auf die Urteilkriterien der Wähler [Personalization through priming: The effects of the televised debate on voters’ evaluation criteria]. In M. Maurer, C. Reinemann, J. Maier & M. Maier (Eds.), Schröder gegen Merkel: Wahrnehmung und Wirkung des TV-Duells 2005 im Ost-West-Vergleich (1st ed.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar

  • McGraw, K. M., & Dolan, T. M. (2007). Personifying the state: Consequences for attitude formation. Political Psychology, 28(3), 299–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00570.xGoogle Scholar

  • McKinney, M. S., Houston, J. B., & Hawthorne, J. (2014). Social watching a 2012 Republican presidential primary debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(4), 556–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213506211Google Scholar

  • Merkle, S. (2015). Personalisierung und genderspezifische Berichterstattung im Bundestagswahlkampf 2013 – ‘Ausnahmefall’ Angela Merkel oder typisch Frau? [Personalization and gender-specific media coverage of the German national election campaign 2013 – Exceptional case Angela Merkel or typically female?] In C. Holtz-Bacha (Ed.), Die Massenmedien im Wahlkampf: Die Bundestagswahl 2013 (pp. 217–247). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar

  • Neuberger, C., Nuernbergk, C., & vom Hofe, H. (2011). Twitter und Journalismus: Der Einfluss des ‘Social Web’ auf die Nachrichten [Twitter and journalism: The influence of the social web on the news]. Düsseldorf: Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen.Google Scholar

  • Parmelee, J. (2013). Political journalists and Twitter: Influences on norms and practices. Journal of Media Practice, 14(4), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmpr.14.4.291_1Google Scholar

  • Radunski, P. (1980). Wahlkämpfe: Moderne Wahlkampfführung als politische Kommunikation [Election campaigns: Modern election campaign strategies as political communication]. Munich: Olzog.Google Scholar

  • Rainie, L., Smith, A., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H., & Verba, S. (2012). Social media and political engagement. Pew Research Center.Google Scholar

  • Reinemann, C. (2007). Völlig anderer Ansicht. Die Medienberichterstattung über das TV-Duell [Completely different point of view. Media coverage of the televised debate]. In M. Maurer, C. Reinemann, J. Maier, & M. Maier (Eds.), Schröder gegen Merkel: Wahrnehmung und Wirkung des TV-Duells 2005 im Ost-West-Vergleich (1st ed., pp. 167–194). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar

  • Shamma, D., Kennedy, L., & Churchill, E. (2010). Conversational shadows: Describing live media events using short messages. In Proceedings of the Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 331–334).Google Scholar

  • Sommer, D., Fretwurst, B., Sommer, K., & Gehrau, V. (2012). Nachrichtenwert und Gespräche über Medienthemen [News values and conversations about media content]. Publizistik, 57(4), 381–401.Google Scholar

  • Thimm, C., Anastasiadis, M., Bürger, T., & Einspänner, J. (2014). Der Bundestagswahlkampf 2013 auf Twitter [National election campaigns 2013 on Twitter]. Bonn.Google Scholar

  • Thimm, C., Einspänner, J., & Dang-Anh, M. (2012). Politische Deliberation online – Twitter als Element des politischen Diskurses [Political deliberation online – Twitter as element of political discourse]. In F. Krotz & A. Hepp (Eds.), Mediatisierte Welten (pp. 283–305). Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar

  • van Aelst, P., Sheafer, T., & Stanyer, J. (2012). The personalization of mediated political communication: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911427802Google Scholar

  • van Santen, R., & van Zoonen, L. (2010). The personal in political television biographies. Biography, 33(1), 46–67. https://doi.org/10.1353/bio.0.0157Google Scholar

  • van Zoonen, L., & Holtz-Bacha, C. (2000). Personalisation in Dutch and German politics: The case of talk show. The Public, 7(2), 45–56.Google Scholar

  • Vergeer, M., Hermans, L., & Sams, S. (2013). Online social networks and micro-blogging in political campaigning: The exploration of a new campaign tool and a new campaign style. Party Politics, 19(3), 477–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068811407580Google Scholar

  • Voss, K. (2013). Bundestagswahl 2013 im Netz [National elections 2013 online]. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, (48–49), 34–39.Google Scholar

  • Weaver, D. H., & Willnat, L. (2016). Changes in U.S. journalism. Journalism Practice, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2016.1171162Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-07-25


Citation Information: Communications, ISSN (Online) 1613-4087, ISSN (Print) 0341-2059, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2018-2005.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in