Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T19:11:39.160Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tweeting for Hearts and Minds? Measuring Candidates’ Use of Anxiety in Tweets During the 2018 Midterm Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2020

Bryan T. Gervais Open the ORCID record for Bryan T. Gervais [Opens in a new window] ,
Heather K. Evans Open the ORCID record for Heather K. Evans [Opens in a new window]  and
Annelise Russell Open the ORCID record for Annelise Russell [Opens in a new window]
Bryan T. Gervais
Affiliation:
University of Texas at San Antonio
Heather K. Evans
Affiliation:
University of Virginia’s College at Wise
Annelise Russell
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article considers whether candidates strategically use emotional rhetoric in social media messages similar to the way that fear appeals are used strategically in televised campaign advertisements. We use a dataset of tweets issued by the campaign accounts of candidates for the US House of Representatives during the last two months of the 2018 midterm elections to determine whether candidate vulnerability predicts the presence of certain emotions in social media messages. Contrary to theoretical expectations, we find that vulnerability does not appear to inspire candidates to use more anxious language in their tweets. However, we do find evidence of a surprising relationship between sad rhetoric and vulnerability and that campaign context influences the use of other forms of negative rhetoric in tweets.

Type
Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , October 2020 , pp. 652 - 656
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

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

REFERENCES

Albertson, Bethany, and Gadarian, Shana Kushner. 2015. Anxious Politics: Democratic Citizenship in a Threatening World. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brader, Ted. 2006. Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Heather K., Cordova, Victoria, and Sipole, Savannah. 2014. “Twitter Style: An Analysis of How House Candidates Used Twitter in Their 2012 Campaigns.” PS: Political Science & Politics 47 (2): 454–62.Google Scholar
Evans, Heather K., Smith, Sean, Gonzales, Alexis, and Strouse, Kayla. 2017. “Mudslinging on Twitter During the 2014 Election.” Social Media and Society 3 (2): 1–9.Google Scholar
Gervais, Bryan T., Evans, Heather K., and Russell, Annelise. 2019. “Fear and Loathing on Twitter: Exploring Negative Rhetoric in Tweets During the 2018 Midterm Election.” In The Roads to Congress 2018: American Elections in the Trump Era, ed. Foreman, Sean D., Godwin, Marcia L., and Wilson, Walter Clark, 31–52. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19819-0_3 (accessed May 17, 2020).Google Scholar
Gervais, Bryan T., and Morris, Irwin L.. 2018. Reactionary Republicanism: How the Tea Party in the House Paved the Way for Trump’s Victory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kaid, Lynda Lee, and Johnston, Anne. 2000. Videostyle in Presidential Campaigns: Style and Content of Televised Political Advertising. Portsmouth, NH: Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Ladd, Jonathan McDonald, and Lenz, Gabriel S.. 2011. “Does Anxiety Improve Voters’ Decision Making?” Political Psychology 32 (2): 347–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Taber, Charles S.. 2005. “The Automaticity of Affect for Political Leaders, Groups, and Issues: An Experimental Test of the Hot Cognition Hypothesis.” Political Psychology 26 (3): 455–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, George E., MacKuen, Michael, and Neuman, W. Russell. 2011. “Parsimony and Complexity: Developing and Testing Theories of Affective Intelligence.” Political Psychology 32 (2): 323–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nulty, Paul, Theocharis, Yannis, Popa, Sebastian Adrian, Parnet, Olivier, and Benoit, Kenneth. 2016. “Social Media and Political Communication in the 2014 Elections to the European Parliament.” Electoral Studies 44:429–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Kim, Morin, Rich, and Horowitz, Juliana Menasce. 2019. “Public Sees America’s Future in Decline on Many Fronts.” Pew Research Center. Available at www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/03/21/public-sees-an-america-in-decline-on-many-fronts.Google Scholar
Tausczik, Yla R., and Pennebaker, James W.. 2010. “The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text-Analysis Methods.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29 (1): 24–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentino, Nicholas A., Brader, Ted, Groenendyk, Eric W., Gregorowicz, Krysha, and Hutchings, Vincent L.. 2011. “Election Night’s Alright for Fighting: The Role of Emotions in Political Participation.” Journal of Politics 73 (1): 156–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentino, Nicholas A., Hutchings, Vincent L., Banks, Antoine J., and Davis, Anne K.. 2008. “Is a Worried Citizen a Good Citizen? Emotions, Political Information Seeking, and Learning via the Internet.” Political Psychology 29 (2): 247–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Gervais et al. supplementary material

Gervais et al. supplementary material

Download Gervais et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 184.7 KB