Tweets That Matter: Evidence From a Randomized Field Experiment in Japan

References

• Adam, S., & Maier, M. (2010). Personalization of politics: A critical review and agenda for research. In C. Salmon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 34 (pp. 213–257). London, England: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How political advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Atkin, C., & Heald, G. (1976). Effects of political advertising. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 216–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartels, L. M. (1986). Issue voting under uncertainty: An empirical test. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 709–728.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartels, L. M. (1988). Presidential primaries and the dynamics of public choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58, 707–731.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265–289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornstein, R. F., & D’Agostino, P. R. (1992). Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 545–552.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broockman, D. E., & Green, D. P. (2013). Do online advertisements increase political candidates’ name recognition or favorability? Evidence from randomized field experiments. Political Behavior. doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9239-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
   Google Scholar
• Downs, A. (1957). Economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., Jacobs, L. R., & Ostermeier, E. (2004). Candidate strategies to prime issues and image. Journal of Politics, 66, 1180–1202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., & Leeper, T. J. (2012). Learning more from political communication experiments: Pretreatment and its effects. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 875–896.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enli, G. S., & Skogerbø, E. (2013). Personalized campaigns in party-centered politics: Twitter and Facebook as arenas for political communication. Information, Communication & Society, 16, 757–774.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fortin, D. R., & Dholakia, R. R. (2005). Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a Web-based advertisement. Journal of Business Research, 58, 387–396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Funk, C. L. (1996). The impact of scandal on candidate evaluations: An experimental test of the role of candidate traits. Political Behavior, 18, 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Gaudreau, D., & Peretz, I. (1999). Implicit and explicit memory for music in old and young adults. Brain and Cognition, 40, 126–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman, A., & King, G. (1993). Why are American presidential election campaign polls so variable when votes are so predictable? British Journal of Political Science, 23, 409–451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallin, D. C. (1992). Sound bite news: Television coverage of elections, 1968–1988. Journal of Communication, 42, 5–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halpern, A. R., & O’Connor, M. G. (2000). Implicit memory for music in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychology, 14, 391–397.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hargittai, E., & Litt, E. (2011). The tweet smell of celebrity success: Explaining variation in Twitter adoption among a diverse group of young adults. New Media & Society, 13, 824–842.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horiuchi, Y., Komatsu, T., & Nakaya, F. (2012). Should candidates smile to win elections? An application of automated face recognition technology. Political Psychology, 33, 925–933.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imai, K., Keele, L., & Yamamoto, T. (2010). Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Statistical Science, 25, 51–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S. (1994). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S. (2011). Media politics: A citizen’s guide. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Kam, C. D., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2013). Name recognition and candidate support. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 971–986.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeter, S., & Wilson, H. (1986). Natural treatment and control settings for research on the effects of television. Communication Research, 13, 37–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinder, D. (1986). Presidential character revisited. In R. R. Lau & D. O. Sears (Eds.), Political cognition (pp. 233–255). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Krugman, H. E., & Hartley, E. L. (1970). Passive learning from television. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 184–190. doi:10.1086/267788
   Web of Science ®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, 53–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunst-Wilson, W. R., & Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science, 207, 557–558.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, E. J., & Oh, S. Y. (2012). To personalize or depersonalize? When and how politicians’ personalized Tweets affect the public’s reactions. Journal of Communication, 62, 932–949.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, E. J., & Oh, S. Y. (2013). Seek and you shall find? How need for orientation moderates knowledge gain from Twitter use. Journal of Communication, 63, 745–765.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, E. J., & Shin, S. Y. (2012). Are they talking to me? Cognitive and affective effects of interactivity in politicians’ Twitter communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 515–520.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lodge, M. (1995). Toward a procedural model of candidate evaluation. In M. Lodge & K. McGraw (Eds.), Political judgment: Structure and process (pp. 111–140). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M., & Stroh, P. (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 83, 399–419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M. R., & Brau, S. (1995). The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 89, 309–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matlin, M. W. (1971). Response competition, recognition, and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 295–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, A. M., Wattenberg, M., & Malanchuk, O. (1986). Schematic assessments of political candidates. American Political Science Review, 80, 521–540.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreland, R. L., & Zajonc, R. B. (1977). Is stimulus recognition a necessary condition for the occurrence of exposure effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 191–199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. (2007). Effects of` “in-your-face” television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition. American Political Science Review, 101, 621–635.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuman, R. W., Just, M. R., & Crigler, A. N. (1992). Common knowledge: News and the construction of political meaning. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, B. (2003). Integrity and presidential approval, 1980–2000. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 335–367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierce, P. (1993). Political sophistication and the use of candidate traits in candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 14, 21–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price, V., & Zaller, J. (1993). Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 133–164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahat, G., & Sheafer, T. (2007). The personalization (s) of politics: Israel, 1949–2003. Political Communication, 24, 65–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg, S. W., Bohan, L., McCafferty, P., & Harris, K. (1986). The image and the vote: The effect of candidate presentation on voter preference. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 108–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., Klinger, M., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, B. (2007). Media priming. In R. W. Preiss, B. M. Gayle, N. Burrell, M. Allen, & J. B. Bryant (Eds.), Mass media effects research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 53–80). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Salgado, S., & Strömbäck, J. (2012). Interpretive journalism: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13, 144–161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schick, C., McGlynn, R. P., & Woolam, D. (1972). Perception of cartoon humor as a function of familiarity and anxiety level. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 22–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seamon, J. G., Brody, N., & Kauff, D. M. (1983). Affective discrimination of stimuli that are not recognized: II. Effect of delay between study and test. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 21, 187–189.
   Google Scholar
• Seamon, J. G., Williams, P. C., Crowley, M. J., Kim, I. J., Langer, S. A., Orne, P. J., & Wishengrad, D. L. (1995). The mere exposure effect is based on implicit memory: Effects of stimulus type, encoding conditions, and number of exposures on recognition and affect judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 711–721.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shoemaker, P. J., & Vos, T. (2009). Gatekeeping theory. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Stang, D. J. (1974). Methodological factors in mere exposure research. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1014–1025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tewksbury, D., Weaver, A. J., & Maddex, B. D. (2001). Accidentally informed: Incidental news exposure on the World Wide Web. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 533–554.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623–1626.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zukin, C., & Snyder, R. (1984). Passive learning: When the media environment is the message. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 629–638. doi:10.1086/268864
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar