Effects of an issue-based microtargeting campaign: A small-scale field experiment in a multi-party setting

References

• Aaker, J. L. 1999. The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research 36 (1):45–57. doi: 10.2307/3151914.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anstead, N. 2017. Data-driven campaigning in the 2015 United Kingdom general election. The International Journal of Press/Politics 22 (3):294–313. doi: 10.1177/1940161217706163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bimber, B. 2014. Digital media in the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012: Adaptation to the personalized political communication environment. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 11 (2):130–50. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2014.895691.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, C. 2006. Seeing the small picture: AD-self versusad-culture congruency in international advertising. Journal of Business and Psychology 20 (3):445–65. doi: 10.1007/s10869-005-9011-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Coppock, A., S. J. Hill, and L. Vavreck. 2020. The small effects of political advertising are small regardless of context, message, sender, or receiver : Evidence from 59 real-time randomized experiments. Science Advances 6 (36):eabc4046. Accessed September 23, 2022. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abc4046.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobber, T., N. Metoui, D. Trilling, N. Helberger, and C. H. de Vreese. 2021. Do (microtargeted) deepfakes have real effects on political attitudes? The International Journal of Press/Politics 26 (1):69–91. doi: 10.1177/1940161220944364.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobber, T., D. Trilling, N. Helberger, and C. H. de Vreese. 2017. Two crates of beer and 40 pizzas: The adoption of innovative political behavioural targeting techniques. Internet Policy Review 6 (4):1–25. doi: 10.14763/2017.4.777.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dommett, K. 2019. Data-driven political campaigns in practice: Understanding and regulating diverse data-driven campaigns. Internet Policy Review 8 (4):1–18. doi: 10.14763/2019.4.1432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Endres, K. 2016. The accuracy of microtargeted policy positions. PS: Political Science & Politics 49 (04):771–4. doi: 10.1017/S1049096516001645.
   Google Scholar
• Endres, K. 2020. Targeted issue messages and voting behavior. American Politics Research 48 (2):317–28. doi: 10.1177/1532673X19875694.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerber, A. S., J. G. Gimpel, D. P. Green, and D. R. Shaw. 2011. How large and long-lasting are the persuasive effects of televised campaign ads? Results from a randomized field experiment. American Political Science Review 105 (1):135–50. doi: 10.1017/S000305541000047X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorton, W. A. 2016. Manipulating citizens: How political campaigns’ use of behavioral social science harms democracy. New Political Science 38 (1):61–80. doi: 10.1080/07393148.2015.1125119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haenschen, K., and J. Jennings. 2019. Mobilizing millennial voters with targeted Internet advertisements: A field experiment. Political Communication 36 (3):357–75. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2018.1548530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haenschen, K., and J. Jennings. 2020. Digital contagion: Measuring spillover in an Internet mobilization campaign. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 17 (4):376–91. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2020.1748786.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hersh, E. D. 2015. Hacking the electorate: How campaigns perceive voters. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781316212783.
   Google Scholar
• Hersh, E. D., and B. F. Schaffner. 2013. Targeted campaign appeals and the value of ambiguity. The Journal of Politics 75 (2):520–34. doi: 10.1017/S0022381613000182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, S. J., J. Lo, L. Vavreck, and J. Zaller. 2013. How quickly we forget: The duration of persuasion effects from mass communication. Political Communication 30 (4):521–47. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2013.828143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillygus, D. S., and T. G. Shields. 2009. The persuadable voter: Wedge issues in presidential campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kaal, H. 2016. Politics of place: Political representation and the culture of electioneering in the Netherlands, c.1848–1980s. European Review of History: Revue Européenne D’histoire 23 (3):486–507. doi: 10.1080/13507486.2015.1086314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreiss, D. 2012. Taking our country back: The crafting of networked politics from Howard Dean to Barack Obama. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kreiss, D. 2016. Prototype politics: Technology-intensive campaigning and the data of democracy. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:.Oso/9780199350247.003.0001.
   Google Scholar
• Kruschinski, S., and A. Haller. 2017. Restrictions on data-driven political microtargeting in Germany. Internet Policy Review 6 (4):1–23. doi: 10.14763/2017.4.780.
   Google Scholar
• Lavigne, M. 2021. Strengthening ties: The influence of microtargeting on partisan attitudes and the vote. Party Politics 27 (5):965–76. doi: 10.1177/1354068820918387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lefevere, J., and P. Van Aelst. 2014. First-order, second-order or third-rate? A comparison of turnout in European, local and national elections in the Netherlands. Electoral Studies 35:159–70. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2014.06.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margolis, M., and D. C. N. Resnick. 2000. Politics as usual: The cyberspace “revolution”. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• McCombs, M. E., and D. L. Shaw. 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. The Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (2):176–87. doi: 10.1086/267990.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, M., and D. Tambini, eds. 2018. Digital dominance : The power of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Municipality of Utrecht. 2019. Utrecht monitor. Accessed October 4, 2022. https://www.utrecht-monitor.nl/bevolking-bestuur/burgerparticipatie/verkiezingen
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, R. K. 2012. Ground wars: Personalized communication in political campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2013.749620.
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19:123–205. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2.
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., C. P. Haugtvedt, and S. M. Smith. 1995. Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior. In Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences, ed. R. E. Petty and J. A. Krosnick, 93–130. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Reiman, J. H. 1995. Driving to the panopticon: A philosophical exploration of the risks to privacy posed by the highway technology of the future. Computer & High Technology Law Journal 11 (1):27–44.
   Google Scholar
• Rekker, R., and M. Rosema. 2019. How (often) do voters change their consideration sets? Electoral Studies 57:284–93. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2018.08.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Remkes, J. W., C. C. van Baalen, E. E. Janse de Jonge, J. Kohnstamm, R. A. Koole, E. F. Lagerwerf-Vergunst, T. W. G. van der Meer, and A. C. Quik-Schuijt. 2018. Lage Drempels, Hoge Dijken: Democratie en Rechtsstaat in Balans, Eindrapport van de staatscommissie parlementair stelsel. Amsterdam: Boom Uitgevers.
   Google Scholar
• Richards, N. M. 2015. Intellectual privacy: Rethinking civil liberties in the digital age. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rubinstein, I. R. 2014. Voter privacy in the age of big data. Wisconsin Law Review 2014 (5):861–936.
   Google Scholar
• Tufekci, Z. 2014. Engineering the public: Big data, surveillance and computational politics. First Monday 19 (7):1–14. doi: 10.5210/fm.v19i7.4901.
   Google Scholar
• Valkenburg, P. M., and J. Peter. 2013. The differential susceptibility to media effects model. Journal of Communication 63 (2):221–43. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Meer, T. 2020. Microtargeting en de bescherming van de publieke sfeer. In Doen, durven of de waarheid?: Democratie in digitale tijden, eds. J. de Ridder, R. Vliegenthart, & J. Zuure, pp. 237–287. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wheeler, S. C., K. G. DeMarree, and R. E. Petty. 2008. A match made in the laboratory: Persuasion and matches to primed traits and stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44 (4):1035–47. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheeler, S. C., R. E. Petty, and G. Y. Bizer. 2005. Self‐schema matching and attitude change: Situational and dispositional determinants of message elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research 31 (4):787–97. doi: 10.1086/426613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zarouali, B., T. Dobber, G. de Pauw, C. de Vreese. 2020. Using a personality-profiling algorithm to investigate political microtargeting: Assessing the Persuasion effects of personality-tailored ads on social media. Communication Research 1–26. doi: 10.1177/0093650220961965.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J., J. Möller, S. Kruikemeier, R. Ó Fathaigh, K. Irion, T. Dobber, B. Bodo, and C. H. de Vreese. 2018. Online political microtargeting: Promises and threats for democracy. Utrecht Law Review 14 (1):82–96. doi: 10.18352/ulr.420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar