The mere exposure effect of tweets on vote choice

References

• Baker, W. E. (1999). When can affective conditioning and mere exposure directly influence brand choice? Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 31–36. doi:10.1080/00913367.1999.10673594
   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
• Bimber, B., Cunill, M. C., Copeland, L., & Gibson, R. (2015). Digital media and political participation: The moderating role of political interest across acts and over time. Social Science Computer Review, 33(1), 21–42. doi:10.1177/0894439314526559
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 265–288. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, H., & Boster, F. J. (2005). Development and validation of value-, outcome-, and impression-relevant involvement scales. Communication Research, 32(2), 235–264. doi:10.1177/0093650204273764
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, S., & Park, H. (2014). An exploratory approach to a Twitter-based community centered on a political goal in South Korea: Who organized it, what they shared, and how they acted. New Media & Society, 16(1), 129–148. doi:10.1177/1461444813487956
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dostal, J. M. (2017). South Korean presidential politics turns liberal: Transformative change or business as usual? The Political Quarterly, 88(3), 480–491. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.12394
   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(5), 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., Habib, J., Litzen, D., San Jose, B., & Ziegenbein, A. (2019). Awkward independents: What are third-party candidates doing on twitter? PS, Political Science & Politics, 52(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096518001087
   Google Scholar
• Frame, A., Mercier, A., Brachotte, G., & Thimm, C. (Eds.). (2016). Tweets from the campaign trail: Researching candidates' use of twitter during the European parliamentary elections. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang AG. Retrieved March 12, 2020 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2t4cr7
   Google Scholar
• Francia, P. L. (2018). Free media and Twitter in the 2016 Presidential election: The unconventional campaign of Donald Trump. Social Science Computer Review, 36(4), 440–455. doi:10.1177/0894439317730302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedman, J. L. (1964). Involvement, discrepancy, and change. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69(3), 290–295. doi:10.8080/10.1037/h0042717
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garzia, D. (2017). Personalization of politics between television and the Internet: Leader effects in the 2013 Italian Parliamentary Election. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 14(4), 403–416. doi:10.1080/19331681.2017.1365265
   Web of Science ®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
• Graham, T., Broersma, M., Hazelhoff, K., & Van’t Haar, G. (2013). Between broadcasting political messages and interacting with voters. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 692–716. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.785581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hermanns, H. (2009). Political parties in South Korea and Taiwan after twenty years of democratization. Pacific Focus, 24, 205–224. doi:10.1111/j.1976-5118.2009.01023.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, C. P., & Suphan, A. (2017). Stuck with ‘electronic brochures’? How boundary management strategies shape politicians’ social media use. Information, Communication & Society, 20(4), 551–569. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2016.1200646
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horton, D., & Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. doi:10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (2015). Causal inference for statistics, social, and biomedical sciences: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139025751
   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
• Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 290–314. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.290
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung, D. (2018). Political polarization among South Korean citizens after the 2018 local elections: The rise of partisan sorting and negative partisanship. Oughtopia, 33(3), 143–180. doi:10.32355/OUGHTOPIA.2018.11.33.3.143
   Google Scholar
• Jungherr, A. (2016). Twitter use in election campaigns: A systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(1), 72–91. doi:10.1080/19331681.2015.1132401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keele, L., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2015). Identifying mechanisms behind policy interventions via causal mediation analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(4), 937–963. doi:10.1002/pam.21853
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kobayashi, T., & Ichifuji, Y. (2015). Tweets that matter: Evidence from a randomized field experiment in Japan. Political Communication, 32(4), 574–593. doi:10.1080/10584609.2014.986696
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koo, S., & Kim, Y. (2019). The effects of political ideology on voting and campaign activities: A study of the 7th local elections in South Korea. Journal of Korean Politics, 28(1), 217–245. doi:10.35656/JKP.28.1.8
   Google Scholar
• Korea Internet & Security Agency (2018). 2018 Korea Internet white paper. Retrieved from https://www.kisa.or.kr/eng/main.jsp
   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
• Ladd, S. L., Toscano, T., Cowings, C., & Gabrieli, G. (2014). Cardiovascular change during encoding predicts the nonconscious mere exposure effect. The American Journal of Psychology, 127(2), 157–182. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.127.2.0157
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lassen, D. S., & Brown, A. R. (2011). Twitter: The electoral connection? Social Science Computer Review, 29(4), 419–436. doi:10.1177/0894439310382749
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, C., Shin, J., & Hong, A. (2018). Does social media use really make people politically polarized? Direct and indirect effects of social media use on political polarization in South Korea. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), 245–254. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.11.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, E. J. (2013). Effectiveness of politicians’ soft campaign on Twitter versus TV: Cognitive and experiential routes. Journal of Communication, 63, 953–974. doi:10.1111/jcom.12049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, E.-J., & Jang, J.-W. (2013). Not so imaginary interpersonal contact with public figures on social network sites: How affiliative tendency moderates its effects. Communication Research, 40(1), 27–51. doi:10.1177/0093650211431579
   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(6), 932–949. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01681.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, E.-J., & Shin, S. Y. (2014). When the medium is the message: How transportability moderates the effects of politicians’ Twitter communication. Communication Research, 41(8), 1088–1110. doi:10.1177/0093650212466407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leynes, P., & Addante, R. (2016). Neurophysiological evidence that perceptions of fluency produce mere exposure effects. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 16(4), 754–767. doi:10.3758/s13415-016-0428-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGregor, S. C., Lawrence, R. G., & Cardona, A. (2017). Personalization, gender, and social media: Gubernatorial candidates’ social media strategies. Information, Communication & Society, 20(2), 264–283. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2016.1167228
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meeks, L. (2017). Getting personal: Effects of twitter personalization on candidate evaluations. Politics & Gender, 13(01), 1–25. doi:10.1017/S1743923X16000696
   Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. (2007). Effects of` “in-your-face” television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 621–635. doi:10.1017/S000305540707044X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nowak, K. L., & Biocca, F. (2003). The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 12(5), 481–494. doi:10.1162/105474603322761289
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1915–1926. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1915
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rivers, D. (1988). Heterogeneity in models of electoral choice. American Journal of Political Science, 32(3), 737–757. doi:10.2307/2111244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothschild, M. L., & Ray, M. L. (1974). Involvement and political advertising effect: An exploratory experiment. Communication Research, 1(3), 264–285. doi:10.1177/009365027400100302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shin, Y. (2012). Is party identification responsible in Korea? An explanation of unstable party identification in terms of voters’ evaluations. Korea Observer, 43, 233–252.
   Web of Science ®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(2), 203–220. doi:10.1177/1464884911427802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.2), 1–7. 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