Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2452-0063
  • E-ISSN: 2452-0071
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This study explores frequency of election-related chatter as an antecedent to agenda setting. In this study, we conducted a longitudinal analysis of 38 million tweets from the 2012 election. Users who participate more in election talk align more with partisan media than less active users. Users who participate less align less with partisan media and more with mainstream media. Overall, agenda-setting relationships differ by participation in election-related talk, with more active users exhibiting a greater agenda-setting effect across all media types. This study provides evidence that as Twitter users talk more about the election, they appear to do so in more homophilous information environments. These environments can alter their perceived importance of issues to match more partisan media. This study echoes previous research that has shown large conversations on Twitter to be more akin to partisan information.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Althaus, S. L. , & Tewksbury, D.
    (2002) Agenda setting and the “new” news patterns of issue importance among readers of the paper and online versions of the New York Times. Communication Research, 29(2), 180–207. doi: 10.1177/0093650202029002004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202029002004 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ausserhofer, J. , & Maireder, A.
    (2013) National politics on Twitter: Structures and topics of a networked public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 16(3), 291–314. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2012.756050
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.756050 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bakshy, E. , Rosenn, I. , Marlow, C. , & Adamic, L.
    (2012, April). The role of social networks in information diffusion. Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web, New York, 519–528. doi: 10.1145/2187836.2187907
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2187836.2187907 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bélanger, É. , & Meguid, B. M.
    (2008) Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote choice. Electoral Studies, 27(3), 477–491. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2008.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2008.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bennett, M.
    (2013, October 25). Twitter looks to introduce Facebook-style “Like” option. V3..Retrieved fromwww.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2220029/twitter-looks-to-introduce-facebookstyle-like-option
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, J. J. , & Reingen, P. H.
    (1987) Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 350–362. doi: 10.1086/209118
    https://doi.org/10.1086/209118 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, J. , Broderick, A. J. , & Lee, N.
    (2007) Word of mouth communication within online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(3), 2–20. doi: 10.1002/dir.20082
    https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20082 [Google Scholar]
  8. Budge, I. , & Farlie, D.
    (1983) Explaining and predicting elections: Issue effects and party strategies in twenty-three democracies. London: George Allen & Unwin: Taylor & Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Ceron, A.
    (2014) Twitter and the traditional media: Who is the real agenda setter?InAPSA 2014 Annual Meeting Paper.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen, G. M.
    (2011) Tweet this: A uses and gratifications perspective on how active Twitter use gratifies a need to connect with others. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 755–762. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.023
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.023 [Google Scholar]
  11. Conover, M. , Ratkiewicz, J. , Francisco, M. R. , Gonçalves, B. , Menczer, F. , & Flammini, A.
    (2011) Political polarization on twitter. ICWSM, 133, 89–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dichter, E.
    (1966) How word-of-mouth advertising works. Harvard Business Review, 44(6), 147–160.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Drezner, D. , & Farrell, H.
    (2004) The power and politics of blogs. Paper presented atthe meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Garrett, R. K. , & Stroud, N. J.
    (2014) Partisan paths to exposure diversity: Differences in pro‐and counterattitudinal news consumption. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 680–701. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12105
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12105 [Google Scholar]
  15. Graeff, E. , Stempeck, M. , & Zuckerman, E.
    (2014) The battle for ‘Trayvon Martin’: Mapping a media controversy online and off-line. First Monday, 19(2). Retrieved fromfirstmonday.org/article/view/4947/3821. doi: 10.5210/fm.v19i2.4947
    https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i2.4947 [Google Scholar]
  16. Guo, L. , & Vargo, C.
    (2015) The power of message networks: A big-data analysis of the network agenda setting model and issue ownership. Mass Communication and Society, 18(5), 557–576. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2015.1045300
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1045300 [Google Scholar]
  17. Han, S. , Min, J. , & Lee, H.
    (2015) Antecedents of social presence and gratification of social connection needs in SNS: A study of Twitter users and their mobile and non-mobile usage. International Journal of Information Management, 35(4), 459–471. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  18. 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
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hollander, B. A.
    (2008) Tuning out or tuning elsewhere? Partisanship, polarization, and media migration from 1998 to 2006 Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(1), 23–40. doi: 10.1177/107769900808500103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900808500103 [Google Scholar]
  20. Iyengar, S. , & Hahn, K. S.
    (2009) Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2008.01402.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Jungherr, A.
    (2014) The logic of political coverage on Twitter: Temporal dynamics and content. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 239–259. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12087
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12087 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee, J. K.
    (2007) The effect of the Internet on homogeneity of the media agenda: A test of the fragmentation thesis. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(4), 745–760. doi: 10.1177/107769900708400406
    https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900708400406 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lewis, S. C.
    (2010) Citizen journalism: Motivations, methods, and momentum. In M. E. McCombs , A. W. Hinsley , K. Kaufhold and S. C. Lewis (Eds,), The future of news: An agenda of perspectives (pp.59–76), San Diego: Cognella.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. McCombs, M. E.
    (2014) Setting the agenda. Malden. MA: Polity Press 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. McPherson, M. , Smith-Lovin, L. , & Cook, J. M.
    (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415 [Google Scholar]
  26. Meraz, S.
    (2009) Is there an elite hold? Traditional media to social media agenda setting influence in blog networks. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 14(3), 682–707. doi: 10.1111/j.1083‑6101.2009.01458.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01458.x [Google Scholar]
  27. Mutz, D. C. & Martin, P. S.
    (2001) Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95 (1), 97–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Neuman, R. W. , Guggenheim, L. , Mo Jang, S. , & Bae, S. Y.
    (2014) The dynamics of public attention: Agenda‐setting theory meets big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 193–214. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12088
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12088 [Google Scholar]
  29. Parmelee, J. H.
    (2013) The agenda-building function of political tweets. New Media & Society, 16(3), 434–450. doi: 10.1177/1461444813487955
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487955 [Google Scholar]
  30. Parmelee, J. H. , & Bichard, S. L.
    (2011) Politics and the Twitter revolution: How tweets influence the relationship between political leaders and the public. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Petrocik, J. R.
    (1996) Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825–850. doi: 10.2307/2111797
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2111797 [Google Scholar]
  32. Petrocik, J. R. , Benoit, W. L. , & Hansen, G. J.
    (2003) Issue ownership and presidential campaigning 1952–2000 Political Science Quarterly, 118(4), 599–626. doi: 10.1002/j.1538‑165X.2003.tb00407.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2003.tb00407.x [Google Scholar]
  33. Scharkow, M. , & Vogelgesang, J.
    (2011) Measuring the public agenda using search engine queries. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23(1), 104–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Schoenbach, K. , & Weaver, D. H.
    (1985) Finding the unexpected: Cognitive bonding in a political campaign. In S. Kraus and R. M. Perloff (Eds.). Mass media and political thought (pp.157–176).
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Schudson, M.
    (2001) The objectivity norm in American journalism. Journalism, 2(2), 149–170. doi: 10.1177/146488490100200201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/146488490100200201 [Google Scholar]
  36. Scheufele, D. A. , & Tewksbury, D.
    (2007) Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of communication, 57(1), 9–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Shaw, D. L. & D. H. Weaver.
    (2014) Media agenda-setting and audience agenda-melding.” In M. E. McCombs (Ed.), Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion, (pp.145–150). Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Smith, M. A. , Rainie, L. , Shneiderman, B. & Himelboim, I.
    (2014) Mapping Twitter topic networks: From polarized crowds to community clusters. Pew Research Center. Retrieved fromwww.pewinternet.org/2014/02/20/mapping-twitter-topic-networks-from-polarized-crowds-to-community-clusters/.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Stieglitz, S. , & Dang-Xuan, L.
    (2012, January). Political communication and influence through microblogging–An empirical analysis of sentiment in Twitter messages and retweet behavior. Proceedings of the2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, 3500–3509. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2012.43
    https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2012.43 [Google Scholar]
  40. Stroud, N. J.
    (2010) Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556–576. doi: 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2010.01497.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x [Google Scholar]
  41. (2011) Niche news: The politics of news choice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755509.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755509.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  42. Twitter
    Twitter (2013) API Documentation. Twitter.com. Retrieved fromdev.twitter.com/docs/streaming-apis/streams/public.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Vargo, C. J. , Guo, L. , McCombs, M. , & Shaw, D. L.
    (2014) Network issue agendas on Twitter during the 2012 US presidential election. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 296–316.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Vargo, C. J. , Basilaia, E. , & Shaw, D. L.
    (2015) Event versus issue: Twitter reflections of major news, a case study. Communication and Information Technologies Annual – Studies in Media and Communications, 9, 215–239. doi: 10.1108/S2050‑206020150000009009
    https://doi.org/10.1108/S2050-206020150000009009 [Google Scholar]
  45. Wallsten, K.
    (2007) Agenda setting and the blogosphere: An analysis of the relationship between mainstream media and political blogs. Review of Policy Research, 24(6), 567–587. doi: 10.1111/j.1541‑1338.2007.00300.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2007.00300.x [Google Scholar]
  46. Wanta W. & Ghanem, S.
    (2007) The effects of agenda setting in Raymond Preiss, Barbara Gayle , Nancy Burrel , Midle Allen , & Jennings Bryant (Eds.) Mass media effects research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp.37–52). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Weeks, B. E. , & Southwell, B.
    (2010) The symbiosis of news coverage and aggregate online search behavior: Obama, rumors, and Presidential politics. Mass Communication and Society, 13(4), 341–360. doi: 10.1080/15205430903470532
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15205430903470532 [Google Scholar]
  48. Weeks, B. E. , & Holbert, R. L.
    (2013) Predicting dissemination of news content in social media a focus on reception, friending, and partisanship. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90(2), 212–232. doi: 10.1177/1077699013482906
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699013482906 [Google Scholar]
  49. Westlund, O. , & Färdigh, M. A.
    (2011) Displacing and complementing effects of news sites on newspapers 1998–2009 International Journal on Media Management, 13(3), 177–194. doi: 10.1080/14241277.2011.595020
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14241277.2011.595020 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2015) Accessing the news in an age of mobile media: Tracing displacing and complementary effects of mobile news on newspapers and online news. Mobile Media & Communication, 3(1), 53–74. doi: 10.1177/2050157914549039
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157914549039 [Google Scholar]
  51. Woodly, D.
    (2008) New competencies in democratic communication? Blogs, agenda setting and political participation. Public Choice, 134(1–2), 109–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Yoo, J. , Choi, S. , Choi, M. , & Rho, J.
    (2014) Why people use Twitter: social conformity and social value perspectives. Online Information Review, 38(2), 265–283. doi: 10.1108/OIR‑11‑2012‑0210
    https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-11-2012-0210 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error