Gendered styles, gendered differences: Candidates’ use of personalization and interactivity on Twitter

References

• Arnold, M., & Nesbitt, M. (2006). Women in media 2006: Finding the leader in you. Evanston, IL: Media Management Center at Northwestern University.
   Google Scholar
• Banwart, M., & Kelly, W. (2013). Running on the web: Online self-presentation strategies in mixed-gender races. Social Science Computer Review, 31, 614–624. doi:10.1177/0894439313490390
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banwart, M., & McKinney, M. (2005). A gendered influence in campaign debates? Analysis of mixed-gender United States Senate and gubernatorial debates. Communication Studies, 56, 353–373. doi:10.1080/10510970500319443
   Google Scholar
• Braden, M. (1996). Women politicians and the media. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journal, 40, 519–531. doi:10.2307/3207893
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bystrom, D. (2006). Gender and campaign communication: TV ads, web sites, and media coverage. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Bystrom, D., Robertson, T., Banwart, M., & Kaid, L. (2004). Gender and candidate communication: Videostyle, webstyle, newsstyle. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, K. (1989). Man cannot speak for her. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
   Google Scholar
• Childs, S. (2004). A feminised style of politics? Women MPs in the house of commons. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 6, 3–19. doi:10.1111/bjpi.2004.6.issue-1
   Google Scholar
• Chozick, A., & Martin, J. (2015, February 24). Clinton ’16 would give gender more of a role than Clinton ’08 did. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/us/politics/to-break-highest-glass-ceiling-clinton-gives-nod-to-gender.html?_r=0
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. (2009). The Internet and democratic citizenship: Theory, practice and policy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davisson, A. (2009). ‘I’m in!’: Hillary Clinton’s 2008 democratic primary campaign on YouTube. Journal of Visual Literacy, 28, 70–91. http://www.ohio.edu/visualliteracy/
   Google Scholar
• De Beauvoir, S. (1949). The Second Sex. New York, NY: Knopf.
   Google Scholar
• Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in self-disclosure: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 106–124. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan, K. (2006, April). Women candidates in American politics: What we know, what we want to know. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Eagly, A., & Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enli, G. S., & Skogerbø, E. (2013). Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics: Twitter and Facebook as arenas for political communication. Information, Communication & Society, 16, 757–774. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.782330
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, H. K., Cordova, V., & Sipole, S. (2014). Twitter style: An analysis of how House candidates used Twitter in their 2012 campaigns. PS: Political Science & Politics, 47, 454–462. doi:10.1017/S1049096514000389
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, H. K., Ovalle, J., & Green, S. (2015). Rockin’ robins: Do congresswomen rule the roost in the Twittersphere? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/asi.23383
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golbeck, J., Grimes, J., & Rogers, A. (2010). Twitter use by the US Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 1612–1621. doi:10.1002/asi.21344
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graber, D. A. (2009). Mass media and American politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, T., Broersma, M., & Hazelhoff, K. (2013). Closing the gap? Twitter as an instrument for connected representation. In R. Scullion, J. Gerodimos, & D. Lilleker (Eds.), The media, political participation and empowerment (pp. 71–88). London, England: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Guimond, S., Chatard, A., Martinot, D., Crisp, R., & Redersdorff, S. (2006). Social comparison, self-stereotyping, and gender differences in self-construals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 221–242. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.221
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, R. P. (1999). Seducing America: How television charms the modern voter. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Herrnson, P., Lay, J., & Stokes, A. (2003). Women running “as women”: Candidate gender, campaign issues, and voter-targeting strategies. The Journal of Politics, 65, 244–255. doi:10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 119–147. doi:10.2307/2111526
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamieson, K. (1988). Eloquence in an electronic age: The transformation of political speechmaking. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jamieson, K. (1995). Beyond the double bind: Women and leadership. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Kruikemeier, S. (2014). How political candidates use Twitter and the impact on votes. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 131–139. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.025
   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. doi:10.1177/0267323112464837
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson, A. O. (2013). “Rejected bits of program code”: Why notions of “Politics 2.0” remain (mostly) unfulfilled. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10, 72–85. doi:10.1080/19331681.2012.719727
   Google Scholar
• Larsson, A. O., & Ihlen, O. (2015). Birds of a feather flock together? Party leaders on Twitter during the 2013 Norwegian elections. European Journal of Communication, 30, 666–681. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0267323115595525
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, E., & Oh, S. (2012). To personalize or depersonalize? When and how politicians’ personalized tweets affect the public’s reactions. Journal of Communication, 62, 932–949. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01681.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, E., & Shin, S. (2012). Are they talking to me? Cognitive and affective effects of interactivity in politicians’ Twitter communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 515–520. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0228
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGraw, K. (2003). Political impressions: Formation and management. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 394–432). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meeks, L. (2014, November). Let’s get personal: Examining the effects of personalization in candidates’ online self-presentations. Paper presented at the National Communication Association annual meeting, Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Meeks, L., & Domke, D. (2015). When politics is a woman’s game: Party and gender ownership in woman-versus-woman elections. Communication Research Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650215581369
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2015). Millennials and political news. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/files/2015/06/Millennials-and-News-FINAL.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (2005). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovation. New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, S. (2014). What fuels a tweet’s engagement? [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://blog.twitter.com/2014/what-fuels-a-tweets-engagement
   Google Scholar
• Sharp, A. (2012). A new barometer for the election [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://blog.twitter.com/2012/a-new-barometer-for-the-election
   Google Scholar
• Stalsburg, B., & Kleinberg, M. (2015). “A mom first and a candidate second”: Gender differences in candidates’ self-presentation of family. Journal of Political Marketing. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/15377857.2014.959684
   Google Scholar
• Steenland, S. (2013). Faith in values: Women senators prove collaboration is better than conflict. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/
   Google Scholar
• Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42, 73–93. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J. (2014). Presidential campaigning in the Internet age. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
   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, 203–220. doi:10.1177/1464884911427802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Volden, C., Wiseman, A., & Wittmer, D. (2013). When are women more effective lawmakers than men? American Journal of Political Science, 57, 326–341. doi:10.1111/ajps.12010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walton, S., & Rice, R. (2013). Mediated disclosure on Twitter: The roles of gender and identity in boundary impermeability, valence, disclosure, and stage. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1465–1474. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wasburn, P. C., & Wasburn, M. H. (2011). Media coverage of women in politics: The curious case of Sarah Palin. Media, Culture & Society, 33, 1027–1041. doi:10.1177/0163443711415744
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar