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

ABSTRACT Historically, a “feminine communication style” has not been a welcomed addition to the masculinized arena of American campaigning. But this style’s personalized and interactive elements have started to gain a foothold in digital campaigning because it mimics the intimacy of retail politics and face-to-face campaigning. To examine whether candidates are incorporating a feminine communication style in a mediated campaign setting, this study features a content analysis of U.S. Senate candidates’ campaign Twitter feeds during the 2012 election cycle, and explores the differences across candidate gender and electoral success for personalization and interactivity. Results revealed that men and women were similar in their incorporation of personalization, and women were more interactive than men. Further, the type of personalization and interactivity contributed differently to electoral success for women and men.

[1]  M. Wasburn,et al.  Media coverage of women in politics: The curious case of Sarah Palin , 2011 .

[2]  Soo Youn Oh,et al.  To Personalize or Depersonalize? When and How Politicians' Personalized Tweets Affect the Public's Reactions , 2012 .

[3]  Dianne G. Bystrom.  Gender and Campaign Communication: TV Ads, Web Sites, and Media Coverage , 2006 .

[4]  Gary R. Orren,et al.  Eloquence in an Electronic Age: The Transformation of Political Speechmaking@@@The Electronic Commonwealth: The Impact of New Media Technologies on Democratic Politics , 1988 .

[5]  A. Larsson.  “Rejected Bits of Program Code”: Why Notions of “Politics 2.0” Remain (Mostly) Unfulfilled , 2013 .

[6]  L. Huddy,et al.  Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates , 1993 .

[7]  Kathleen Hall Jamieson,et al.  Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership , 1995 .

[8]  Dianne G. Bystrom,et al.  Gender and Candidate Communication: VideoStyle, WebStyle, NewStyle , 2004 .

[9]  S. Cross,et al.  Models of the self: self-construals and gender. , 1997, Psychological bulletin.

[10]  Christine L. Oravec.  Man Cannot Speak for Her , 1991 .

[11]  C. Anthony Di Benedetto,et al.  Diffusion of Innovation , 2015 .

[12]  Serge Guimond,et al.  Social comparison, self-stereotyping, and gender differences in self-construals. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[13]  Amber Davisson.  “I’m In!”: Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Democratic Primary Campaign on You Tube , 2009 .

[14]  David Domke,et al.  When Politics Is a Woman’s Game , 2016, Commun. Res..

[15]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Mediated disclosure on Twitter: The roles of gender and identity in boundary impermeability, valence, disclosure, and stage , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[16]  Maria Braden.  Women Politicians and the Media , 1996 .

[17]  J. Butler.  PERFORMATIVE ACTS AND GENDER CONSTITUTION: AN ESSAY IN PHENOMENOLOGY AND FEMINIST THEORY , 1988 .

[18]  M. Allen,et al.  Sex differences in self-disclosure: a meta-analysis. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[19]  I. Fischer.  You Just Don T Understand Women And Men In Conversation , 2016 .

[20]  Paul S. Herrnson,et al.  Women Running “as Women”: Candidate Gender, Campaign Issues, and Voter-Targeting Strategies , 2003, The Journal of Politics.

[21]  Jonathan Steuer,et al.  Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence , 1992 .

[22]  M. Kleinberg,et al.  “A Mom First and a Candidate Second”: Gender Differences in Candidates' Self-Presentation of Family , 2016 .

[23]  Peter Van Aelst,et al.  The personalization of mediated political communication: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings , 2012 .

[24]  A. Weil,et al.  Diffusion of Innovation , 2020, The International Encyclopedia of Media Psychology.

[25]  Heather K. Evans,et al.  Twitter Style: An Analysis of How House Candidates Used Twitter in Their 2012 Campaigns , 2014, PS: Political Science & Politics.

[26]  D. Graber,et al.  Mass media and American politics , 1980 .

[27]  Rens Vliegenthart,et al.  Getting closer: The effects of personalized and interactive online political communication , 2013 .

[28]  D. Lilleker.  Presidential Campaigning in the Internet Age , 2014 .

[29]  Sarah Childs.  A Feminised Style of Politics? Women MPs in the House of Commons , 2004 .

[30]  Sanne Kruikemeier,et al.  How political candidates use Twitter and the impact on votes , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[31]  Kathleen Dolan.  Women Candidates in American Politics: What We Know, What We Want to Know , 2006 .

[32]  R. Hart.  Seducing America: How Television Charms the Modern Voter , 1994 .

[33]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology , 1980 .

[34]  M. Banwart,et al.  Running on the Web , 2013 .

[35]  Alan E. Wiseman,et al.  When Are Women More Effective Lawmakers Than Men , 2013 .

[36]  G. May.  Second sex? , 1994, Nature.

[37]  S. Karau,et al.  Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. , 2002, Psychological review.

[38]  Marcel Broersma,et al.  Closing the gap? : Twitter as an instrument for connected representation , 2013 .

[39]  Eun-Ju Lee,et al.  Are They Talking to Me? Cognitive and Affective Effects of Interactivity in Politicians' Twitter Communication , 2012, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[40]  Stephen Green,et al.  Rockin' robins: Do congresswomen rule the roost in the Twittersphere? , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[41]  J. Hoff.  The Internet and Democratic Citizenship: Theory, Practice and Policy , 2010 .

[42]  M. McKinney,et al.  A Gendered Influence in Campaign Debates? Analysis of Mixed‐gender United States Senate and Gubernatorial Debates , 2005 .

[43]  Ø. Ihlen,et al.  Birds of a feather flock together? Party leaders on Twitter during the 2013 Norwegian elections , 2015 .

[44]  Brendan R. Watson,et al.  Analyzing Media Messages , 2023 .

[45]  G. Enli,et al.  PERSONALIZED CAMPAIGNS IN PARTY-CENTRED POLITICS , 2013 .