Tweets That Matter: Evidence From a Randomized Field Experiment in Japan

Although election campaigns are increasingly utilizing social media, only a few studies have investigated their effects experimentally. To fill this gap in the literature, we conducted a field experiment to examine the effects of a campaign that used Twitter during the 2013 House of Councillors election in Japan. The treatment was exposure to tweets from Tōru Hashimoto, the mayor of Osaka and co-leader of the Japan Restoration Party, who has the largest number of Twitter followers among Japanese politicians. Participants assigned to the treatment group followed Hashimoto and the two placebos, whereas those assigned to the control condition followed only the two placebos. They followed the politicians continuously for approximately one month. Pre- and posttreatment measures were collected using online surveys, and treatment compliance was continuously checked via Twitter application programming interface (API). Following Hashimoto on Twitter during the election campaign had a positive impact on feelings toward Hashimoto. This effect was not mediated by issue knowledge or the evaluation of Hashimoto’s personal traits, and no effects were observed on voting. These findings suggest that repeated exposure to a politician’s messages on Twitter may only result in a mere exposure effect, which nevertheless generates favorable overall attitudes about the politician.

[1]  R. Petty,et al.  The need to evaluate. , 1996 .

[2]  A. Halpern,et al.  Implicit memory for music in Alzheimer's disease. , 2000, Neuropsychology.

[3]  Isabelle Peretz,et al.  Implicit and explicit memory for music in old and young adults. , 1999 .

[4]  S. Iyengar Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. , 1991 .

[5]  Cindy D. Kam,et al.  Name Recognition and Candidate Support , 2013 .

[6]  Kathleen M. McGraw,et al.  An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation , 1989, American Political Science Review.

[7]  C. Funk The impact of scandal on candidate evaluations: An experimental test of the role of candidate traits , 1996 .

[8]  R. Moreland,et al.  Is stimulus recognition a necessary condition for the occurrence of exposure effects? , 1977, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

[10]  H. E. Krugman THE IMPACT OF TELEVISION ADVERTISING: LEARNING WITHOUT INVOLVEMENT , 1965 .

[11]  Larry M. Bartels Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice , 1988 .

[12]  David J. Stang,et al.  Methodological factors in mere exposure research. , 1974 .

[13]  Michaela Maier,et al.  Personalization of Politics A Critical Review and Agenda for Research , 2010 .

[14]  R. P. McGlynn,et al.  Perception of cartoon humor as a function of familiarity and anxiety level. , 1972, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[15]  Brian Newman Integrity and Presidential Approval, 1980–2000 , 2003 .

[16]  John G. Seamon,et al.  The mere exposure effect is based on implicit memory: Effects of stimulus type, encoding conditions, and number of exposures on recognition and affect judgments. , 1995 .

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

[18]  Dean S. Karlan,et al.  Does the Media Matter? A Field Experiment Measuring the Effect of Newspapers on Voting Behavior and Political Opinions , 2006 .

[19]  D. Fortin,et al.  Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web-based advertisement , 2005 .

[20]  Yusaku Horiuchi,et al.  Should Candidates Smile to Win Elections? An Application of Automated Face Recognition Technology , 2011 .

[21]  J. Hamilton All the News That's Fit to Sell: How the Market Transforms Information into News , 2003 .

[22]  R. Zajonc Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , 1968 .

[23]  Raymond W. Preiss,et al.  Mass Media Effects Research , 2006 .

[24]  James G. Gimpel,et al.  How Large and Long-lasting Are the Persuasive Effects of Televised Campaign Ads? Results from a Randomized Field Experiment , 2011, American Political Science Review.

[25]  Larry M. Bartels Issue Voting Under Uncertainty: An Empirical Test , 1986 .

[26]  A. Todorov,et al.  Inferences of Competence from Faces Predict Election Outcomes , 2005, Science.

[27]  Kathleen M. McGraw,et al.  Political judgment : structure and process , 1995 .

[28]  Kyu S. Hahn,et al.  Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use , 2009 .

[29]  M. Schudson The objectivity norm in American journalism* , 2001 .

[30]  R. Bornstein Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. , 1989 .

[31]  S. Iyengar,et al.  Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink and Polarize the Electorate , 1995 .

[32]  S. Iyengar Media Politics: A Citizen's Guide , 2006 .

[33]  M W Matlin,et al.  Response competition, recognition, and affect. , 1971, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[34]  Kyu S. Hahn,et al.  Consumer Demand for Election News: The Horserace Sells , 2004, The Journal of Politics.

[35]  D. Hallin Sound Bite News: Television Coverage of Elections, 1968–1988 , 1992 .

[36]  Daniela V. Dimitrova,et al.  The Effects of Digital Media on Political Knowledge and Participation in Election Campaigns , 2014, Commun. Res..

[37]  Petra Kaufmann,et al.  Experimental And Quasi Experimental Designs For Research , 2016 .

[38]  M. Lodge,et al.  The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation , 1995, American Political Science Review.

[39]  M. Lyons Presidential Character Revisited , 1997 .

[40]  A. Downs An Economic Theory of Democracy , 1957 .

[41]  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..

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

[43]  S. Rosenberg,et al.  The Image and the Vote: The Effect of Candidate Presentation on Jfbter Preference , 1986 .

[44]  H. E. Krugman,et al.  PASSIVE LEARNING FROM TELEVISION , 1970 .

[45]  R. Bornstein,et al.  Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[46]  Diana C. Mutz Effects of “In-Your-Face” Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition , 2007, American Political Science Review.

[47]  J. Strömbäck,et al.  Interpretive journalism: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings , 2012 .

[48]  Dennis F. Kinsey,et al.  The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns , 1993 .

[49]  Scott Keeter,et al.  Natural Treatment and Control Settings for Research on the Effects of Television. , 1986 .

[50]  Justin Grimmer,et al.  How Words and Money Cultivate a Personal Vote: The Effect of Legislator Credit Claiming on Constituent Credit Allocation , 2012, American Political Science Review.

[51]  Eszter Hargittai,et al.  The tweet smell of celebrity success: Explaining variation in Twitter adoption among a diverse group of young adults , 2011, New Media Soc..

[52]  Pablo Barberá Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data , 2015, Political Analysis.

[53]  David E. Broockman,et al.  Do Online Advertisements Increase Political Candidates’ Name Recognition or Favorability? Evidence from Randomized Field Experiments , 2014 .

[54]  L. Keele,et al.  Identification, Inference and Sensitivity Analysis for Causal Mediation Effects , 2010, 1011.1079.

[55]  J. Zaller,et al.  WHO GETS THE NEWS? ALTERNATIVE MEASURES OF NEWS RECEPTION AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH , 1993 .

[56]  C. F. Kao,et al.  The efficient assessment of need for cognition. , 1984, Journal of personality assessment.

[57]  Tamir Sheafer,et al.  The Personalization(s) of Politics: Israel, 1949–2003 , 2007 .

[58]  S. Chaiken,et al.  The generality of the automatic attitude activation effect. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[59]  Cliff Zukin,et al.  Passive Learning: When the Media Environment Is the Message , 1984 .

[60]  Martin Johnson,et al.  Polarized Political Communication, Oppositional Media Hostility, and Selective Exposure , 2012 .

[61]  N. Brody,et al.  Affective discrimination of stimuli that are not recognized: II. Effect of delay between study and test , 1983 .

[62]  Kyu S. Hahn,et al.  Cross‐National versus Individual‐Level Differences in Political Information: A Media Systems Perspective , 2010 .

[63]  W. Bennett,et al.  A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication , 2008 .

[64]  Scott Clifford,et al.  Comparing Contemporaneous Laboratory and Field Experiments on Media Effects , 2013 .

[65]  Charles K. Atkin,et al.  Effects of Political Advertising , 1976 .

[66]  Patrick A. Pierce Political Sophistication and the Use of Candidate Traits in Candidate Evaluation , 1993 .

[67]  Michael Boss Economic theory of democracy , 1974 .

[68]  Donald P. Green,et al.  Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation , 2012 .

[69]  Larry M. Bartels,et al.  Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Votes Are So Predictable ? , 2004 .

[70]  David Tewksbury,et al.  Accidentally Informed: Incidental News Exposure on the World Wide Web , 2001 .

[71]  Ann N. Crigler,et al.  Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning. , 1993 .

[72]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[73]  R. Kronauer,et al.  Affective Discrimination of Stimuli That Cannot Be Recognized , 2022 .

[74]  Thomas J. Leeper,et al.  Learning More from Political Communication Experiments: Pretreatment and Its Effects , 2012 .

[75]  Kevin Arceneaux,et al.  Communication, Persuasion, and the Conditioning Value of Selective Exposure: Like Minds May Unite and Divide but They Mostly Tune Out , 2013 .

[76]  Soo Youn Oh,et al.  Seek and You Shall Find? How Need for Orientation Moderates Knowledge Gain from Twitter Use , 2013 .

[77]  M. Wattenberg,et al.  Schematic Assessments of Presidential Candidates , 1986, American Political Science Review.

[78]  Itai Himelboim,et al.  Birds of a Feather Tweet Together: Integrating Network and Content Analyses to Examine Cross-Ideology Exposure on Twitter , 2013, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..