What do superdiffusers do when they want to persuade someone about politics on Facebook?

References

• Ahn, T. K., Huckfeldt, R., Mayer, D. A. K., & Ryan, J. B. (2013). Expertise and bias in political communication networks. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 357–373. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00625.x
   Google Scholar
• Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, P. A., Dalton, R. J., Greene, S., & Huckfeldt, R. (2002). The social calculus of voting: Interpersonal, media, and organizational influences on presidential choices. American Political Science Review, 96, 57–73. doi:10.1017/S0003055402004239
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boster, F. J., Carpenter, C. J., Andrews, K. R., & Mongeau, P. A. (2012). Employing interpersonal influence to promote behavioral change. Health Communication, 27, 399–407. doi:10.1080/10410236.2011.595771
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boster, F. J., Carpenter, C. J., & Kotowski, M. R. (2015). Validation studies of the maven scale. Social Influence, 10, 85–96. doi:10.1080/15534510.2014.939224
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boster, F. J., Kotowski, M. R., Andrews, K. R., & Serota, K. (2011). Identifying influence: Development and validation of the connectivity, persuasiveness, and maven scales. Journal of Communication, 61, 178–197. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01531.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryant, E. M., & Marmo, J. (2012). The rules of Facebook friendship: A two-stage examination of interaction rules in close, casual, and acquaintance friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 1013–1035. doi:10.1177/0265407512443616
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burt, R. S. (1999). The social capital of opinion leaders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566, 37–54. doi:10.1177/0002716299566001004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter, C. J., & Averbeck, J. M. (2018). Testing the motivations and persuasive abilities of superdiffusers in a seasonal flu vaccine word of mouth campaign. JCSTAND, 30, 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Carpenter, C. J., Boster, F. J., Kotowski, M. R., & Day, J. (2015). Evidence for the validity of a social connectedness scale: Connectors amass bridging social capital online and offline. Communication Quarterly, 63, 119–134. doi:10.1080/01463373.2015.1012217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter, C. J., Zhu, X., & Smith, R. A. (2017, May). Do people who identify as popular become popular in a new network? A 9-month longitudinal network analysis. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Convention, San Diego, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64, 658–679. doi:10.1111/jcom.12104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day, J., & Carpenter, C. J. (2016). The political superdiffuser. Illinois Political Science Review, 16, 3–28.
   Google Scholar
• Dubois, E., & Gaffney, D. (2014). The multiple facets of influence: Identifying political influential and opinion leaders on Twitter. American Behavioral Scientist, 58, 1260–1277. doi:10.1177/0002764214527088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eccleston, D., & Griseri, L. (2008). How does web 2.0 stretch traditional influencing patterns? International Journal of Market Research, 50, 591–616. doi:10.2501/s1470785308200055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flodgren, G., Parmelli, E., Doumit, G., Gattellari, M., O’Brien, M. A., Grimshaw, J., & Eccles, M. P. (2011). Local opinion leaders: Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 8. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000125.pub4
   Google Scholar
• Fogg, B. J. (2008). Mass interpersonal persuasion: An early view of a new phenomenon. In H. Oinas-Kukkonen, P. Hasle, M. Harjumaa, K. Segerståhl, & P. Øhrstrøm (Eds.), Persuasive technology (pp. 23–34). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Foulk, T., Woolum, A., & Erez, A. (2016). Catching rudeness is like catching a cold: The contagion effects of low-intensity negative behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 50–67. doi:10.1037/apl0000037
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, J., & McEwan, B. (2017). Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: The perceived social affordances of communication channels scale. Communication Monographs, 84, 298–318. doi:10.1080/03637751.2017.1332418
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goggins, S., & Petakovic, E. (2014). Connecting theory to social technology platforms: A framework for measuring influence in context. American Behavioral Scientist, 58, 1376–1392. doi:10.1177/0002764214527093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-of- mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet?. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18, 38–52. doi:10.1002/dir.10073
   Google Scholar
• Huffaker, D. (2010). Dimensions of leadership and social influence in online communities. Human Communication Research, 36, 593–617. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01390.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchens, M. J., Cicchirillo, V. J., & Hmielowski, J. D. (2015). How could you think that?!?!: Understanding intentions to engage in political flaming. New Media & Society, 17, 1201–1219. doi:10.1177/1461444814522947
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. New York, NY: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lapinski, M. K., & Rimal, R. N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory, 15, 127–147. doi:10.1093/ct/15.2.127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential election. New York, NY: Duell, Sloan, & Pearce.
   Google Scholar
• McEwan, B. (2013). Sharing, caring, and surveilling: An actor-partner interdependence model examination of Facebook relational maintenance strategies. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 863–869. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0717
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McEwan, B., Carpenter, C. J., & Hopke, J. E. (2018). Mediated skewed diffusion of issues information: A theory. Social Media + Society. doi:10.1177/2056305118800319
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neubaum, G., & Krämer, N. C. (2017). Opinion climates in social media: Blending mass and interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 43, 464–476. doi:10.1111/hcre.12118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., & Sundar, S. S. (2015). Posting, commenting, and tagging: Effects of sharing news stories on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 240–249. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price, V., & Cappella, J. N. (2002). Online deliberation and its influence: The electronic dialogue project in campaign 2000. IT & Society, 1, 303–329. doi:10.1080/105846002317246498
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi, M., & Wojnicki, A. C. (2014). Money talks … to opinion leaders: What motivates opinion leaders to make social-network referrals? Journal of Advertising Research, 54, 81–91. doi:10.2501/JAR-54-1-081-091
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, R. A., & Carpenter, C. J. (2018). Who persuades who? An analysis of persuasion choices related to antibiotic-free food. Health Communication, 33, 478–488. doi:10.1080/10410236.2016.1278498
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vraga, E. K., Anderson, A. A., Kotcher, J. E., & Maibach, E. W. (2015). Issue-specific engagement: How Facebook contributes to opinion leadership and efficacy on energy and climate issues. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12, 200–218. doi:10.1080/19331681.2015.1034910
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, M. Y., Hmielowski, J. D., Hutchens, M. J., & Beam, M. A. (2017). Extending the spiral of silence: Partisan media, perceived support, and sharing opinions online. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 14, 248–262. doi:10.1080/19331681.2017.1338980
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weeks, B. E., Ardèvol-Abreu, A., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2017). Online influence? Social media use, opinion leadership, and political persuasion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 29, 214–239. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edv050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weimann, G. (2017). Multistep flow of communication: Evolution of the paradigm. In P. Rössler (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of media effects(pp. 1308–1318). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0055
   Google Scholar
• Ziegele, M., Weber, M., Quiring, O., & Breiner, T. (2018). The dynamics of online news discussions: Effects of news articles and reader comments on users’ involvement, willingness to participate, and the civility of their contributions. Information, Communication & Society, 21, 1419–1435. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2017.1324505
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar