Cover not available

Article published In: The Agenda Setting Journal
Vol. 1:1 (2017) ► pp.44–62

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Election-related talk and agenda-setting effects on Twitter

A big data analysis of salience transfer at different levels of user participation

 | The University of Texas at Austin
 | University of Colorado Boulder
Published online: 2 March 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/asj.1.1.05mcg
Abstract
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 outline
  • Agenda setting and online media
  • Homophilous information environments
  • Method
    • Data capture: The Twitter API
    • Media selection: left-leaning, right-leaning and center media
    • Issue selection
    • Activity groups
    • Daily issue counts by groups
    • ARIMA analysis
  • Results
  • Discussion
    • When considering all Twitter users as a whole
    • Considering Twitter users by levels of activity
    • The partisan nature of Twitter news agendas
    • Limitations
  • Notes
  • References
References (52)
References
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ausserhofer, J., & Maireder, A. (2013). National politics on Twitter: Structures and topics of a networked public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 16(3), 291–314. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.
Bélanger, É., & Meguid, B. M. (2008). Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote choice. Electoral Studies, 27(3), 477–491. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bennett, M. (2013, October 25). Twitter looks to introduce Facebook-style “Like” option. V3..Retrieved from [URL]
Brown, J. J., & Reingen, P. H. (1987). Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 350–362. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Ceron, A. (2014). Twitter and the traditional media: Who is the real agenda setter? In APSA 2014 Annual Meeting Paper.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M. R., Gonçalves, B., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2011). Political polarization on twitter. ICWSM, 1331, 89–96.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dichter, E. (1966). How word-of-mouth advertising works. Harvard Business Review, 44(6), 147–160.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drezner, D., & Farrell, H. (2004). The power and politics of blogs. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 from [URL].
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jungherr, A. (2014). The logic of political coverage on Twitter: Temporal dynamics and content. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 239–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
McCombs, M. E. (2014). Setting the agenda. Malden. MA: Polity Press, 2014.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 271, 415–444. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parmelee, J. H. (2013). The agenda-building function of political tweets. New Media & Society, 16(3), 434–450. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 401, 825–850. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petrocik, J. R., Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. J. (2003). Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952–2000. Political Science Quarterly, 118(4), 599–626. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scharkow, M., & Vogelgesang, J. (2011). Measuring the public agenda using search engine queries. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23(1), 104–113.
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Schudson, M. (2001). The objectivity norm in American journalism. Journalism, 2(2), 149–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, M. A., Rainie, L., Shneiderman, B. & Himelboim, I. (2014). Mapping Twitter topic networks: From polarized crowds to community clusters. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from [URL].
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 the 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, 3500–3509.
Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556–576. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Twitter. (2013). API Documentation. Twitter.com. Retrieved from [URL].
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.
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, 91, 215–239. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woodly, D. (2008). New competencies in democratic communication? Blogs, agenda setting and political participation. Public Choice, 1341(1–2), 109–123.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Arceneaux, Phillip, Osama Albishri, Joshua Anderson & Spiro Kiousis
2024. Dynamics of Campaign, Press, and Public Discourse in Electoral Politics. Journalism Studies 25:2 ► pp. 117 ff. DOI logo
Duche-Pérez, Aleixandre Brian , Cintya Yadira Vera-Revilla, Anthony Rolando Medina Rivas Plata, Olger Albino Gutiérrez-Aguilar, Manuel Edmundo Hillpa-Zuñiga & Antonio Miguel Escobar Juárez
2023. Agenda Setting in Social Networks and the Media during Presidential Elections. HUMAN REVIEW. International Humanities Review / Revista Internacional de Humanidades 21:1 ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Duche-Pérez, Aleixandre Brian , Cintya Yadira Vera-Revilla, Anthony Rolando Medina Rivas Plata, Olger Albino Gutiérrez-Aguilar, Manuel Edmundo Hillpa-Zuñiga & Antonio Miguel Escobar Juárez
2023. Agenda Setting in Social Networks and the Media during Presidential Elections. HUMAN REVIEW. International Humanities Review / Revista Internacional De Humanidades 21:1 ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Russell, Annelise, Maggie Macdonald & Whitney Hua
2023. Sit Still, Talk Pretty: Partisan Differences Among Women Candidates’ Campaign Appeals. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 44:3 ► pp. 354 ff. DOI logo
Sharma, Neelam & Gayathri Sivakumar
2023. Social media, political discourse and the 2019 elections in India: Journalists’ perspectives on the changing role of the mainstream media in setting the political agenda. Global Media and Communication 19:2 ► pp. 185 ff. DOI logo
Tanihara, Tsukasa
2022. The bias of Twitter as an agenda-setter on COVID-19: An empirical research using log data and survey data in Japan. Communication and the Public 7:2 ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo
Yum, Seungil
2022. How do people get information for COVID‐19 according to age groups?. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management 37:5 ► pp. 2752 ff. DOI logo
Ceron, Andrea & Sergio Splendore
2019. ‘Cheap Talk’? Second screening and the irrelevance of TV political debates. Journalism 20:8 ► pp. 1108 ff. DOI logo
Minooie, Milad
2019. Agendamelding. The Agenda Setting Journal 3:2 ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
Minooie, Milad
2021. Agendamelding. The Agenda Setting Journal 5:2 ► pp. 177 ff. DOI logo
Hedding, Kylah J. & Kevin Ripka
2018. What’s political Twitter talking about?. The Agenda Setting Journal 2:2 ► pp. 168 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue