Brute force effects of mass media presence and social media activity on electoral outcome

References

• Alford, J. R., & Hibbing, J. R. (1981). Increased incumbency advantage in the house. The Journal of Politics, 43(4), 1042–1061. doi:10.2307/2130188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansolabehere, S., & Snyder, J. M. (2002). The incumbency advantage in U.S. elections: An analysis of state and federal offices, 1942–2000. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 1(3), 315–338. doi:10.1089/153312902760137578
   Google Scholar
• Anstead, N., & O’Loughlin, B. (2015). Social media analysis and public opinion: The 2010 UK general election. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 204–220. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, R., Brick, J. M., Bates, N. A., Battaglia, M., Couper, M. P., Dever, J. A., … Tourangeau, R. (2013). Summary report of the AAPOR task force on non-probability sampling. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 1(2), 90–143. doi:10.1093/jssam/smt008
   Google Scholar
• Bar-Hillel, M. (1980). The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychologica, 44(3), 211–233. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(80)90046-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707–731. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bessi, A., & Ferrara, E. (2016). Social bots distort the 2016 U.S. presidential election online discussion. First Monday, 21(11). Retrieved from http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/7090
   Google Scholar
• Black, D. (1948). On the rationale of group decision-making. Journal of Political Economy, 56(1), 23–34. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1825026 doi:10.1086/256633
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browne, W. J., & Draper, D. (2006). A comparison of Bayesian and likelihood-based methods for fitting multilevel models. Bayesian Analysis, 1(3), 473–514. doi:10.1214/06-BA117
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryan, M. L., & Jenkins, S. P. (2016). Multilevel modelling of country effects: A cautionary tale. European Sociological Review, 32(1), 3–22. doi:10.1093/esr/jcv059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bürkner, P.-C. (2017). brms: Bayesian regression models using stan. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/brms/index.html
   Google Scholar
• Carpenter, B., Gelman, A., Hoffman, M., Lee, D., Goodrich, B., Betancourt, M., … Riddell, A. (2017). Stan: A probabilistic programming language. Journal of Statistical Software, 76(1), 1–32. doi:10.18637/jss.v076.i01
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiGrazia, J., McKelvey, K., Bollen, J., & Rojas, F. (2013). More tweets, more votes: Social media as a quantitative indicator of political behavior. Plos One, 8(11), e79449. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079449
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan, K. (2008). Is there a “gender affinity effect” in American politics? Information, affect, and candidate sex in U.S. House elections. Political Research Quarterly, 61(1), 79–89. doi:10.1177/1065912907307518
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 65(2), 135–150. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1827369 doi:10.1086/257897
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erikson, R. S. (1971). The advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. Polity, 3(3), 395–405. doi:10.2307/3234117
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez, R., & Rodrik, D. (1991). Resistance to reform: Status quo bias in the presence of individual-specific uncertainty. The American Economic Review, 81(5), 1146–1155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferree, M. M. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse: Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Communication, society and politics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• fög-Forschungsbereich Öffentlichkeit und Gesellschaft. (2015). Jahrbuch 2015 Qualität der Medien. Basel, Switzerland: Schwabe Basel.
   Google Scholar
• Gayo-Avello, D. (2012). “I wanted to predict elections with Twitter and all I got was this lousy paper”—A balanced survey on election prediction using Twitter data. arXiv:1204.6441 [physics]
   Google Scholar
• Gayo-Avello, D. (2013). A meta-analysis of state-of-the-art electoral prediction from Twitter data. Social Science Computer Review, 31(6), 649–679. doi:10.1177/0894439313493979
   Google Scholar
• Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2006). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   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(4), 409–451. doi:10.1017/S0007123400006682
   Google Scholar
• Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science, 7(4), 457–472. doi:10.1214/ss/1177011136
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, R. K., & McAllister, I. (2011). Do online election campaigns win votes? The 2007 Australian “YouTube” election. Political Communication, 28(2), 227–244. doi:10.1080/10584609.2011.568042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, D. P., & Gerber, A. S. (2015). Get out the vote: How to increase voter turnout (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Green-Pedersen, C., Mortensen, P. B., & Thesen, G. (2015). The incumbency bonus revisited: Causes and consequences of media dominance. British Journal of Political Science, FirstView, 1–18. doi:10.1017/S0007123415000022
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–426. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2009). Liking what’s familiar: The importance of unconscious familiarity in the mere-exposure effect. Social Cognition, 27(2), 161–182. doi:10.1521/soco.2009.27.2.161
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen, K. M., & Kosiara-Pedersen, K. (2014). Cyber-campaigning in Denmark: Application and effects of candidate campaigning. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11(2), 206–219. doi:10.1080/19331681.2014.895476
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, K. M., & Pedersen, R. T. (2014). Campaigns matter: How voters become knowledgeable and efficacious during election campaigns. Political Communication, 31(2), 303–324. doi:10.1080/10584609.2013.815296
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harmon-Jones, E., & Allen, J. J. B. (2001). The role of affect in the mere exposure effect: Evidence from psychophysiological and individual differences approaches. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(7), 889–898. doi:10.1177/0146167201277011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho, D. E., & Imai, K. (2008). Estimating causal effects of ballot order from a randomized natural experiment: The California alphabet lottery, 1978–2002. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 216–240. doi:10.1093/poq/nfn018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoekstra, R., Morey, R. D., Rouder, J. N., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2014). Robust misinterpretation of confidence intervals. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(5), 1157–1164. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0572-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogan, R. E. (2004). Challenger emergence, incumbent success, and electoral accountability in state legislative elections. The Journal of Politics, 66(4), 1283–1303. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3816.2004.00300.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopmann, D. N., De Vreese, C. H., & Albæk, E. (2011). Incumbency bonus in election news coverage explained: The logics of political power and the media market. Journal of Communication, 61(2), 264–282. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01540.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopmann, D. N., Vliegenthart, R., Vreese, C. D., & Albæk, E. (2010). Effects of election news coverage: How visibility and tone influence party choice. Political Communication, 27(4), 389–405. doi:10.1080/10584609.2010.516798
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., Norpoth, H., & Hahn, K. S. (2004). Consumer demand for election news: The horserace sells. The Journal of Politics, 66(1), 157–175. doi:10.1046/j.1468-2508.2004.00146.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, K., & Spierings, N. (2016). Saturation or maturation? The diffusion of Twitter and its impact on preference voting in the Dutch general elections of 2010 and 2012. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(1), 1–21. doi:10.1080/19331681.2015.1131652
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, B. D. (1999). Bounded rationality. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 297–321. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.297
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juárez, M. A., & Steel, M. F. J. (2010). Model-based clustering of non-Gaussian panel data based on skew-t distributions. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 28(1), 52–66. doi:10.1198/jbes.2009.07145
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jungherr, A. (2013). Tweets and votes, a special relationship: The 2009 federal election in Germany. In PLEAD ’13, Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Politics, Elections and Data (pp. 5–14). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2508436.2508437
   Google Scholar
• Jungherr, A. (2016). Twitter use in election campaigns: A systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, ed. Ingmar Weber, Ana-Maria Popescu, Marco Pennacchiotti, 13(1), 72–91. doi:10.1080/19331681.2015.1132401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koppell, J. G. S., & Steen, J. A. (2004). The effects of ballot position on election outcomes. The Journal of Politics, 66(1), 267–281. doi:10.1046/j.1468-2508.2004.00151.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreiss, D. (2015). Digital campaigning. In S. Coleman & D. Freelon (Eds.), Handbook of digital politics (pp. 118–135). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
   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
• Kruschke, J. K. (2013). Bayesian estimation supersedes the t test. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 142(2), 573–603. doi:10.1037/a0029146
   Google Scholar
• Lange, K. L., Little, R. J. A., & Taylor, J. M. G. (1989). Robust statistical modeling using the t distribution. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84(408), 881–896. doi:10.1080/01621459.1989.10478852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcinkowski, F., & Metag, J. (2013). Lassen sich mit dem Internet Wählerstimmen gewinnen? Publizistik, 58(1), 23–44. doi:10.1007/s11616-013-0168-y
   Google Scholar
• McDermott, M. L. (1998). Race and gender cues in low-information elections. Political Research Quarterly, 51(4), 895–918. doi:10.1177/106591299805100403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metaxas, P. T., Mustafaraj, E., & Gayo-Avello, D. (2011). How (Not) to Predict Elections. In Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (Ed.), IEEE Third International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT), 2011 and 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom). 9 – 11 Oct. 2011, Boston, Massachusetts, USA (pp. 165–171). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (1998). The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(3), 291–330. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2749662 doi:10.1086/297848
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morey, R. D., Hoekstra, R., Rouder, J. N., Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2016). The fallacy of placing confidence in confidence intervals. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(1), 103–123. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0947-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullainathan, S., & Thaler, R. H. (2000). Behavioral Economics (NBER Working Paper No. 7948). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
   Google Scholar
• Nadeau, R., Nevitte, N., Gidengil, E., & Blais, A. (2008). Election campaigns as information campaigns: Who learns what and does it matter? Political Communication, 25(3), 229–248. doi:10.1080/10584600802197269
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nickerson, D. W. (2006). Volunteer phone calls can increase turnout evidence from eight field experiments. American Politics Research, 34(3), 271–292. doi:10.1177/1532673X05275923
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nickerson, D. W. (2007). Quality is job one: Professional and volunteer voter mobilization calls. American Journal of Political Science, 51(2), 269–282. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00250.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nimmo, D. D. (2001). The political persuaders: The techniques of modern election campaigns. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 825–850. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111797 doi:10.2307/2111797
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piliavin, J. A. (1987). Age, race, and sex similarity to candidates and voting preference. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17(4), 351–368. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1987.tb00318.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rohrschneider, R. (2002). Mobilizing versus chasing: How do parties target voters in election campaigns? Electoral Studies, 21(3), 367–382. doi:10.1016/S0261-3794(00)00044-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59. doi:10.1007/BF00055564
   Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9–20. Retrieved from. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seidman, S. A. (2008). Posters, propaganda, and persuasion in election campaigns around the world and through history. Peter Lang. New York.
   Google Scholar
• Shepsle, K. A. (2010). Analyzing politics: Rationality, behavior, and instititutions. W. W. Norton & Company. New York.
   Google Scholar
• Sigelman, L., & Sigelman, C. K. (1982). Sexism, racism, and ageism in voting behavior: An experimental analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45(4), 263–269. doi:10.2307/3033922
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. doi:10.2307/1884852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, T. H. (2013). Are you sitting comfortably? Estimating incumbency advantage in the UK: 1983–2010—A research note. Electoral Studies, 32(1), 167–173. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2012.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spierings, N., & Jacobs, K. (2014). Getting personal? The impact of social media on preferential voting. Political Behavior, 36(1), 215–234. doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9228-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Statista, GmbH (2007). Social Media in der Schweiz - Statista-Dossier. Retrieved from HYPERLINK. https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/rx4mBRUOvg38fa?domain=marketing.ch”http://www.marketing.ch/Portals/0/social-media-in-der-schweiz-statista-dossier.pdf?ver=2016-08-02-141729-547
   Google Scholar
• Statista GmbH. (2017). Social Media in der Schweiz - Statista-Dossier. Retrieved from HYPERLINK “https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/rx4mBRUOvg38fa?domain=marketing.ch“http://www.marketing.ch/Portals/0/social-media-in-der-schweiz-statista-dossier.pdf?ver=2016-08-02-141729-547
   Google Scholar
• Stegmueller, D. (2013). How many countries for multilevel modeling? A comparison of frequentist and Bayesian approaches. American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 748–761. doi:10.1111/ajps.12001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. (2014). Why nudge?: The politics of Libertarian paternalism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness (Revised and expanded ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Verhulst, B., Lodge, M., & Lavine, H. (2010). The attractiveness halo: Why some candidates are perceived more favorably than others. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34(2), 111–117. doi:10.1007/s10919-009-0084-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WEMF AG für Werbemedienforschung. (2015). WEMF Auflgebulletin 2015. Zurich: WEMF AG.
   Google Scholar
• Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt. 2), 1–27. doi:10.1037/h0025848
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 224–228. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, Z., Lai, K., Lu, Z., & Tong, X. (2013). Bayesian inference and application of robust growth curve models using student’s t distribution. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(1), 47–78. doi:10.1080/10705511.2013.742382
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar