Tweeting in echo chambers? Analyzing Twitter discourse between American Jewish interest groups

References

• Ackland, R., & O’ Neil, M. (2011). Online collective identity: The case of the environmental movement. Social Networks, 33(3), 177–190. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2011.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahrari, M. (1987). Ethnic groups and US foreign policy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132. doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barberá, P. (2015). Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Analysis, 23(1), 76–91. doi:10.1093/pan/mpu011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barberá, P., Jost, J., Nagler, J., Tucker, J., & Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychological Science, 26(10), 1531–1542. doi:10.1177/0956797615594620
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beattie, K. (2016). How congress shapes middle east policy and how AIPAC shapes congress. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 35(3), 15–19.
   Google Scholar
• Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and an assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(2000), 611–639. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611
   Google Scholar
• Bruns, A., & Highfield, T. (2018). Is Habermas on Twitter: Social media and the public sphere. In A. Bruns, G. Enli, E. Skogerbø, & C. Christensen (Eds.), The Routledge companion to social media and politics (pp. 56–73). New York, NY: Routledge
   Google Scholar
• Bruns, A., & Moe, H. (2014). Structural Layers of Communication on Twitter. Twitter and Society, 89, 15–28.
   Google Scholar
• Cammaerts, B. (2007). Citizenship, the Public Sphere, and Media. In C. Cammaerts & N. Carpentier (Eds.), Reclaiming the Media: Communication Rights and Democratic Media Roles (pp. 1–8). Bristol, UK: European Communication Research and Education series 3. Intellect.
   Google Scholar
• Castells, M. (2011). The Rise of the Network Society: The information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture (Vol. 1). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Castells, M. (2015). Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Chalmers, A., & Shotton, P. (2015). Changing the Face of Advocacy? Explaining Interest Organizations’ Use of Social Media Strategies. Political Communication, 33(3), 374–391. doi:10.1080/10584609.2015.1043477
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter using Big Data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 317–332. doi:10.1111/jcom.12084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conover, M. D., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Goncalves, B., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2011). Political Polarization on Twitter. 5th AAAI Conference on Weblogs & Social Media, Barcelona, Spain, July 17–21, 2011
   Google Scholar
• Couldry, N. Livingstone, S. and Markham, T. (2007). Media Consumption and Public Engagement: Beyond the Presumption of Attention. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Dashefsky, A., & Sheskin, I. (2014). 2014 Yearbook of American Jewish Organizations. Cham, Switzerland: Springer
   Google Scholar
• De Toqueville, A. (1956). Democracy in America. New York, NY: Mentor.
   Google Scholar
• Di Stefano, P., & Henaway, M. (2014). Boycotting Apartheid From South Africa to Palestine. Peace Review, 26(1), 19–27. doi:10.1080/10402659.2014.876304
   Google Scholar
• Driscoll, K., & Walker, S. (2014). Working Within a Black Box: Transparency in the Collection and Production of Big Twitter Data. Internaitonal Journal of Communication, 8, 1745–1764. http://ijoc.org
   Google Scholar
• Dür, A., & Mateo, G. (2014). The Europeanization of interest groups: group type, resources and policy area. European Union Politics, 15(4), 572–594. doi:10.1177/1465116514532556
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, H., & Hoefer, R. (2010). Are social work advocacy groups using web 2.0 effectively?”. Journal of Policy Practice, 9(3–4), 220–239. doi:10.1080/15588742.2010.489037
   Google Scholar
• Eyal, H. (2016). Digital fit as a leg-up for nongovernmental organizations’ media and political success. Political Communication, 33(1), 118–135. doi:10.1080/10584609.2015.1011294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feller, A., Kuhnert, M., Sprenger, T., & Welpel, I. (2011). Divided they Tweet: The Network Structure of Political Microbloggers and Discussion Topics. Fifth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. Barcelona, Spain. July 17–21, 2011
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, N. (2007). Transnationalizing the public sphere: On the legitimacy and efficacy of public opinion in a Post-Westphalian World. Theory, Culture, & Society, 24(4), 7–30. doi:10.1177/0263276407080090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gamson, W. A. (1995). Constructing Social Protest. In H. Johnston & B. Klandermas (Eds.), Social Movements and Culture (pp. 85–106). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gitlin, T. (1998). Public Sphere or Public Sphericules? In Media, Ritual, and Identity. In J. Curran & T. Liebes (Eds.), Media, Ritual, and Identity. London, UK: Routledge. 178–184
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg, D. (1990). Foreign Policy and Ethnic Interest Groups: American and Canadian Jews Lobby for Israel. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldkind, L., & McNutt, J. (2014). Social Media and Social Change: Nonprofits and Using Social Media. Social Media and Networking: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications 1(2), 11–27.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (1996). A Niche Theory of Interest Representation. The Journal of Politics, 58(1), 91–111. doi:10.2307/2960350
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross, J. H., & Johnson, K. T. (2016). Twitter Taunts and Tirades: Negative Campaigning in the Age of Trump. PS: Political Science, 49(4), 748–754.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo, C., & Saxton, G. (2014). Tweeting Social Change: How Social Media are Changing Nonprofit Advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 57–79. doi:10.1177/0899764012471585
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habermas, J., Lennox, S., & Lennox, F. (1974). The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article”. New German Critique, 3(3), 49–55. doi:10.2307/487737
   Google Scholar
• Hamilton, A., Madison, J., & Jay, J. (1961). The Federalist Papers. New York, NY: Mentor.
   Google Scholar
• Heaney, M. (2004). Outside the Issue Niche. American Politics Research, 32(6), 611–651. doi:10.1177/1532673X04267681
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heaney, M., & Strickland, J. (2016). A Network Approach to Interest Group Politics”. In J. Victor, M. Lubell, & A. Montgomery (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 433–452
   Google Scholar
• Himelboim, I., McCreery, S., & Smith, M. (2013). Birds of a Feather Tweet Together: Integrating Network and Content Analyses to Examine Cross-Ideology Exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(2), 40–60. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, S., & Nadler, D. (2016). The Unheavenly Chorus: Political Voices of Organized Interests on Social Media. Policy & Internet, 8(1), 91–106. doi:10.1002/poi3.110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt, S., Benford, R., & Snow, D. (1994). Identity Fields: Framing Processes and Social Construction of Movement Identities. In E. Larana, H. Johnston, & J. Gusfield (Eds.), New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. 185-208
   Google Scholar
• Jasny, L., Waggle, J., & Fisher, D. (2015). An Empirical Examination of Echo Chambers in US Climate Policy Networks. Nature Climate Change, 5(8), 782–786. doi:10.1038/nclimate2666
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2013). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Handbook of the Fundamentals of Financial Decision Making: Part I, 47(2), 99–127.
   Google Scholar
• Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In Proceedings of the 19th international world wide web conference, Raleigh, NC, April 26–30, 591–600. doi:10.1145/1772690
   Google Scholar
• LeVine, R., & Campbell, D. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. Oxford, England: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. (2012). Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 17(3), 337–353. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01576.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazon, P. R., Morer, I., Um Amel, V. J., & Lotan, G. (2012). #12m15m Twitter archive experiment. http://numerotecha.org/12m15m
   Google Scholar
• McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. (2001). Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mearsheimer, J., & Walt, S. (2006). The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. London Review of Books, 28(6).
   Google Scholar
• Merry, M. (2014). Broadcast versus Interaction: Environmental Groups’ Use of Twitter. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11(3), 329–344. doi:10.1080/19331681.2014.933723
   Google Scholar
• Obar, J., Zube, P., & Lampe, C. (2012). Advocacy 2.0: An Analysis of How Advocacy Groups in the United States Perceive and Use Social Media as Tools for Facilitating Civic Engagement and Collective Action. Journal of Information Policy, 2, 1–25. doi:10.5325/jinfopoli.2.2012.0001
   Google Scholar
• Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press
   Google Scholar
• Osterbur, M., & Kiel, C. (2017). A Hegemon Fighting For Equal Rights: The Dominant Role of COC Nederlands in the LGBT Transnational Advocacy Network. Global Networks, 17(2), 234–254. doi:10.1111/glob.12126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parmelee, J., & Bichard, S. (2012). Politics and the Twitter Revolution: How Tweets Influence the Relationship between Political Leaders and the Public. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Paßmann, J., Boeschoten, T., & Schäfer, M. T. (2014). The Gift of the Gab. Retweet Cartels and Gift Economies on Twitter. In Weller, K., Bruns, A., Burgess, J., Mahrt, M., & Puschmann, C. (Eds.), Twitter and Society, 331–344. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2013). A Portrait of Jewish Americans: Findings of a Pew Research Center Survey of U.S. Jews October 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Quattrone, G., & Tversky, A. (1988). Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses of Political Choice. American Political Science Review, 82(3), 719–736. doi:10.2307/1962487
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubenzer, T. (2016). Examining the Political Use of Social Media by Ethnic Identity Groups in the United States. Politics, 26(2), 153–168. doi:10.1111/1467-9256.12091
   Google Scholar
• Schattschneider, E. (1960). The Semisovereign People. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Snow, D. A., Benford, R. D., McCammon, H. J., Hewitt, L., & Fitzgerald, S. (2014). The emergence, development, and future of the framing perspective: 25+ years since ‘frame alignment’. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 19(1), 23–45. doi:10.17813/maiq.19.1.x74278226830m69l
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Jr., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464–481. doi:10.2307/2095581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Summer, W. (1906). Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of usage, manners, customs, mores and morals. Boston, MA: Ginn and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Trenz, H. (2009). Digital media and the return of the representative public sphere. ARENA Working Paper No. 6. http://www.arena.uio.no
   Google Scholar
• Truman, D. (1951). The Governmental Process. New York, NY: Alfred Knopf.
   Google Scholar
• Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T., Sandner, P., & Welpe, I. (2010). Predicting Elections with Twitter: What 140 Characters Reveal About Political Sentiment. ICWSM, 10(1), 178–185.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Graaf, A., Otjes, S., & Rasmussen, A. (2016). ”Weapon of the Weak? The Social Media Landscape of Interest Groups. European Journal of Communication, 31(2), 120–135. doi:10.1177/0267323115612210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, J. (1991). Mobilizing Interest Groups in America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waxman, D. (2016). Trouble in the Tribe: The American Jewish Conflict over Israel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• West, D., & Francis, R. (1996). Electronic advocacy: Interest groups and public policy making. PS, Political Science & Politics, 29(1), 25–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, J. (1973). Political organizations. New York, NY: Basic Books
   Google Scholar