Suchergebnisse

Facebook has been credited with expanding political activity by simultaneously lowering barriers to participation and creating new ways to engage. However, many of these findings rely on subjects' abilities to accurately report their Facebook use and political activity on the platform. This study combines survey responses and digital trace data from 828 American adults to determine whether subjects over- or underreport a range of political activities on Facebook, including whether they like political pages or share news links. The results show that individuals underestimate their frequency of status posting and overestimate their frequency of sharing news links on Facebook. Political interest is associated with a decrease in underreporting several political activities, while increasing the likelihood of overreporting the frequency of sharing news links. Furthermore, political interest serves a moderating effect, improving self-reports for high-volume users. The findings suggest that political interest not only predicts political activity but also shapes awareness of that activity and improves self-reports among heavy users.

The American youth-led movement for gun violence prevention (YMGVP) that emerged after the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, has received tremendous media attention. To assess the potential effect of this coverage on readers' efficacy, we conduct a two-wave population-based survey experiment on members of Generation Z, the Millennial generation, and Generation X that frames the movement as a success or failure in terms of achieving its political goals. Results show that emphasis framing impacts readers' perceptions of the movement's likely success in line with the manipulation. Furthermore, framing the YMGVP as unsuccessful suppresses readers' own external and collective efficacy regardless of generation. Subjects' support for gun control moderates the effect of treatment, such that individuals low in support express a decline in internal and information efficacy when presented with the success framing. Thus, we extend the effects of news framing beyond attitudes toward the subjects of reporting to readers' own perceptions of themselves as capable of political action.

Digital analytics in contemporary politics receives tremendous attention from the media and has been the focus of a great deal of research over the last two decades. However, the actual practices that characterize work in the field often fail to receive sufficient attention. This paper presents the results of a quantitative content analysis describing the contents of 39 digital analytics case studies reporting the results of 68 individual A/B tests to learn about testing practices as they exist at high levels in contemporary U.S. politics. We find an emphasis on email and website testing, predominantly focused on fundraising and engagement outcomes. Our findings illuminate the mundane but substantive impacts of testing, which are predominantly focused on improving fundraising and email performance. Since firms made these case studies publicly available on their website, they also serve as marketing materials. In this manner we can understand how the practice of analytics is sold to political organizations looking to engage in digital testing.

Facebook was a major conduit to fake news exposure during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. This article explores factors that predict liking pages for "fake news" websites on the Facebook platform. Leveraging paired survey and digital trace data from 806 American Facebook users, we determine that 18.4% of subjects liked at least one page for a website that published fake news. A substantial share of fake news page likes (23.9%) came from lifestyle sites that also published misinformation. Regression analyses determine that age, male sex, Trump support, and political participation are associated with liking fake news pages. A network analysis based on audience overlap finds three page clusters of fake news content—two right-leaning and one left-leaning—that also contain a majority of political and news pages. Results add nuance to our understanding of fake news by illustrating the role of non-political sources in providing potential exposure to misinformation on Facebook.

AbstractObjectiveWe explore whether Americans' attitudes about the role of money spent on political campaigns and separately their attitudes about the influence of corporations impact their external political efficacy (EE) or perception that the government is responsive to them.MethodsWe conduct three independent sample surveys (total N = 2789) to measure individuals' attitudes toward the role of money in politics (ARMP), attitudes toward corporations, and EE. We also measure political partisanship to test for moderating effects.ResultsARMP are strongly and positively associated with EE: those who are more favorable of the role money plays in politics view government as more responsive to them. This finding is specific to ARMP and does not extend to corporations, suggesting that public awareness of campaign spending is shaping individuals' views of government responsiveness. We find no evidence that this relationship is moderated by partisanship, despite differing views of money in politics between Democrats and Republicans.ConclusionOur results are normatively troubling and suggest that as campaign spending continues to rise, individuals will increasingly feel that the government is less responsive to their concerns.

The Trump-era political environment in the United States is characterized by changes to our information environment, specifically discourse surrounding so-called "fake news," and knowledge of political scandals. We explore whether news trust or knowledge of Trump administration scandals impact individuals' levels of internal, information, and external political efficacy. We find significant and surprising relationships between these measures and political efficacy outcomes. Results contribute to our understanding of how political efficacy is responsive to changes in the political environment.

Typeface use by political campaigns is itself a form of political communication intended to convey meaning. Through interviews with graphic design practitioners and a content analysis of 908 candidate logos used in the 2018 U.S. Midterm Elections, we demonstrate that typeface selection expresses information about candidates. Interviews explore the processes by which designers choose typefaces to convey personality traits while adhering to standards of legibility and consistency. A content analysis affirms the qualitative findings, demonstrating that partisanship, competitiveness, sex, and incumbency all predict variance in typeface family selection, with significant differences more common in first names. Republicans are likelier to use serif typefaces than sans serifs relative to Democrats, particularly as race competitiveness increases. Female candidates are likelier to use script or handwriting, and males are likelier to use slab serifs. Together, our findings offer empirical evidence of contemporary practices in political typography and graphic design activities.

This book examines issues such as fake news, media bias, visual meme depictions of the candidates, and social media as news during the 2016 presidential campaign. The contributors offer insights into how the campaign coverage affected the health of the American republic.