Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T09:11:18.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Communicating in 140 Characters or Less: Congressional Adoption of Twitter in the 111th Congress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2013

Jacob R. Straus ,
Matthew Eric Glassman ,
Colleen J. Shogan  and
Susan Navarro Smelcer
Jacob R. Straus
Affiliation:
Congressional Research Service
Matthew Eric Glassman
Affiliation:
Congressional Research Service
Colleen J. Shogan
Affiliation:
Congressional Research Service
Susan Navarro Smelcer
Affiliation:
Emory University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recently, new electronic technologies have supplemented older mechanisms of communication between members of Congress and their constituents. These technologies have enhanced members' options for communication, both with constituents and other interested parties. This research examines member use of one specific electronic communication medium: Twitter. Using original data to examine patterns of use, two models predict the probability of a member adopting Twitter based on political, personal, and district-level variables.

Type
Features
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 60 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnold, Douglas R. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Biblioteca del Congreso National de Chile. 2010. “Twitter se toma la política chilena.” Video. February 18. http://www.bcn.cl/video-testimonio/twitter-se-toma-la-politica-chilena.Google Scholar
Brown, Sherrod. 2000. Congress from the Inside: Observations from the Majority and the Minority. 2nd edition. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, Royce, Lewis, Jeff, Lo, James, McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 2010. “‘Common Space’ DW-NOMINATE Scores with Bootstrapped Standard Errors (Joint House and Senate Scaling).” Updated January 16, 2010. http://www.voteview.com.Google Scholar
Cook, Timothy E. 1989. Making Laws and Making News: Media Strategies in the U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Dalsgaard, Steffen. 2008. “Facework on Facebook: The Presentation of Self in Virtual Life and Its Role in the US Elections.” Anthropology Today 24 (6): 8–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davisson, Amber. 2009. “‘I'm In!’ Hillary Clinton's 2008 Democratic Primary Campaign on YouTube.” Journal of Visual Literacy 28 (1): 70–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drutman, Lee. 2012. “How House Operating Budget Cuts Are Paving the Way for More Special Interest Influence.” Sunlight Foundation Blog, January 17. http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/01/17/house-budget-cuts-special-interest-influence.Google Scholar
Duman, Steve, and Locher, Miriam A.. 2008. “‘So Let's Talk. Let's Chat. Let's Start a Dialog:’ An Analysis of the Conversation Metaphor Employed in Clinton's and Obama's YouTube Campaign Clips.” Multilingua 27 (3): 193–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Homestyle: House Members in Their Districts. New York: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
Glassman, Matthew Eric, Straus, Jacob R., and Shogan, Colleen J.. 2010. “Social Networking and Constituent Communications: Member Use of Twitter during a Two-Month Period in the 111th Congress.” Congressional Research Service. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Golbeck, Jennifer, Grimes, Justin M., and Rogers, Anthony. 2010. “Twitter Use by the U.S. Congress.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61 (8): 1612–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulati, Girish J., and Williams, Christine B.. 2007. “Closing the Gap, Raising the Bar: Candidate Web Site Communication in the 2006 Campaigns for Congress.” Social Science Computer Review 25 (4): 443–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulati, Girish J., and Williams, Christine B.. 2010. “Congressional Candidates' Use of YouTube in 2008: Its Frequency and Rationale.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7 (2-3): 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, Susan. 1996. “Public Expression outside the Mainstream.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 546: 120–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, Stephen. 1986. The Ultimate Insiders: U.S. Senators in National Media. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Jackson, Nigel. 2008. “MPs and their e-Newsletters: Winning Votes by Promoting Constituency Service.” Journal of Legislative Studies 14 (4): 488–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Nigel, and Lilleker, Darren. 2011. “Microblogging, Constituency Service and Impression Management: UK MPs and the Use of Twitter.” Journal of Legislative Studies 17 (1): 86–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Thomas J., and Perlmutter, David D.. 2010. “Introduction: The Facebook Election.” Mass Communications and Society 13 (5): 554–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael, and Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. “Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (2): 347–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Ezra. 2011. “A Techno-History of Congress.” Washington Post.com. June 13. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/a-techno-history-of-congress/2011/06/13/AGwLBlTH_story.html.Google Scholar
Kuklinski, James H., and Sigelman, Lee. 1992. “When Objectivity is Not Objective: Network Television News Coverage of U.S. Senators and the ‘Paradox of Objectivity.’” Journal of Politics 54 (3): 810–33.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review 97 (4): 515–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1975. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Missingham, Roxanne. 2010. “The Australian Parliament in the Twitterverse.” Australasian Parliamentary Review 25 (1): 3–16.Google Scholar
Norton, Phillip. 2007. “Four Models of Political Representation: British MPs and the Use of ICT.” Journal of Legislative Studies 13 (3): 354–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. [1967] 1972. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porro, Alfred A., and Ascher, Stuart A.. 1974. “The Case for the Congressional Franking Privilege.” University of Toledo Law Review 5: 280–81.Google Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2006. “Towards a General Theory of Political Representation.” Journal of Politics 68 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2009. “Representation Rethought: On Trustees, Delegates, and Gyroscopes in the Study of Political Representation and Democracy.” American Political Science Review 103 (2): 214–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, Scott P., Vatrapu, Ravi K., and Medina, Michale. 2010. “Off the Wall Political Discourse: Facebook Use in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election.” Information Polity 15 (1-2): 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, Brian F., and Gadson, Mark. 2004. “Reinforcing Stereotypes? Race and Local Television News Coverage of Congress.” Social Science Quarterly 85 (3): 604–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, Brian F., and Sellers, Patrick J.. 2003. “The Structural Determinants of Local Congressional News Coverage.” Political Communication 20 (1): 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellers, Patrick J., and Schaffner, Brian F.. 2007. “Winning Coverage in the U.S. Senate.” Political Communication 24 (4): 377–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senak, Mark. 2010. “Twongress: The Power of Twitter in Congress,” January. http://www.eyeonfda.com/files/twongress-white-paper-final-1-14-10.pdf.Google Scholar
Swers, Michele. 2002. The Difference Women Make. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Sue. 1991. “The Impact of Women on State Legislative Policies.” The Journal of Politics 53 (4): 958–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael, Wittenberg, Jason, and King, Gary. 2001. CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. Version 2.0. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, June 1. http://gking.harvard.edu.Google Scholar
University of Plymouth. 2009. “Liberal Democrats and Labor out in Front in the Twitter polls.” http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/pages/view.asp?%20page=27507.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress. Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards. 1998. Regulation on the Use of the Congressional Frank by Members of the House of Representatives and Rules of Practice in Proceedings Before the House Commission on Mailing Standards. 105th Cong., 2nd sess.http://cha.house.gov/PDFs/franking/franking2.pdf.Google Scholar
Williams, Christine B., and Gulati, Grish J.. 2009. “Explaining Facebook Support in the 2008 Congressional Election Cycle.” Political Networks Paper Archive: Working Papershttp://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/pn_wp/26.Google Scholar
Williamson, Andy. 2010. “MPs Online Connecting with Constituents: A Study into How MPs Use Digital Media to Communicate with Their Constituents.” http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/files/folders/1688/download.aspx.Google Scholar