1. Social media in election campaigns: Different channels, different patterns? Stephen Quinlan, Tobias Gummer, Joss Roßmann, and Christof Wolf GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences General Online Research Conference GOR 15 18-20 March 2015, Cologne University of Applied Sciences, Germany

2. Social media and its revolutionizing impact  Social media has contributed to revolutionizing communication:  Facebook: 25,332,440 German Facebook accounts, 71% of German Internet users have an account (World Internet Stats, 2012 & German Digitalization Consumer report 2014);  Twitter: 12% of German Internet users have an account (German Digitalization Consumer report 2014);  Consumers are more likely to trust online recommendations made by like minded people than newspaper review/advert (Everitt, YouTube, & Ipsos MORI 2011).

3. Social media and politics  Opportunity for politicians to engage with voters and promote their message and candidature.  Chance to interact with young people in particular.  Agenda & news setting potential.  Potential behavioral impacts (Bond et al. 2012) – although the exact nature of these effects is debated.  Potential to facilitate knowledge & discussion exchange – deliberative and educative possibilities.

4. Relevance & Research Question  Social media are now considered a key component of a modern election campaign.  But still relatively new. Many things we don’t know.  Research questions: (1)Which politicians are adopting social media:  Do Candidate attitudes and characteristics matter?  What is the influence of the party? (2)Do the patterns of use differ depending on the social media channel?

5. Hypotheses I  4 Hypotheses on the adoption of social media by the candidates.  H1: Resources  The resource argument can actually be argued both ways with the literature not being clear:  Equalization hypothesis: Social media is an opportunity to level the playing field, and therefore likely benefits smaller and less resourced parties and candidates.  Normalization hypothesis: Social media simply reinforces existing patterns.  H2: Party  Newer parties (AfD, PIRATES) and parties of the left (SPD, LEFT party, GREEN party) are more likely to use social media than older parties.

6. Hypotheses II  H3a: Candidate personality traits  Candidates who are extrovert and open are more likely to adopt social media.  H3b: Candidate attitudes on policy  According to previous research conservative candidates are less likely to use social media.  H4: Candidate region of residency  We hypothesize that candidates who live in areas with a bigger population (i.e., city) are more likely to adopt social media.

7. Hypotheses III  1 Hypothesis on differences in adoption of Facebook and Twitter.  H5: Different social media channels  We assume that both channels differ in regard to technological possibilities and, hence, how much resources are needed to use the channel effectively.  Additionally, we assume each channel to have its own audience (i.e., the user bases comprise different strata of the population).  Hence, we hypothesize that there are differences in patterns of use between Facebook and Twitter.

8. Data & Methods I  Analyses are based on a combination of two datasets on candidates of the major parties (CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP, GREEN party, LEFT party, PIRATES, AfD) that ran in the 2013 German election: (1)Unique data gathered by GESIS on the Facebook and Twitter use of all candidates (N=2,707) (2)Data from the candidate survey of the German Longitudinal Election Study 2013 (N=1,130)  Combining these two sets of data allows us to append socio-demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral data with social media data and provide a unique insight into politicians’ use of social media.

9. Data & Methods II  Systematic nonresponse to the candidate survey might limit the generalizability of the findings.  Analyses showed that incumbents of the German Bundestag were less likely (p < 0.001) while district (p < 0.001) as well as district and list candidates (p < 0.001) were more likely to participate in the survey.  Yet, the model showed only a marginal degree of systematic nonresponse (McFadden´s R²=0.047).  To explore the determinants and the differences in the patterns of Facebook and Twitter use by the candidates we devised a series of logistic regressions.

10. Results I  Candidates believe that Facebook is one of the more important campaign activities.  Facebook is mentioned as important activity more often than Twitter.

11. Results II  The higher perceived importance of Facebook in comparison to Twitter is also visible in the actual use of the social media channels.  The use of Facebook and Twitter is even higher than they are rated as very or most important campaign activities. Use of social media channel All candidates (N=2,707) Candidate survey (N=1,130) Facebook63.6%64.3% Twitter38.5%39.1%

12. Results III FacebookTwitter Place of residence: Small or medium sized city (Ref.: Rural area)0.0020.048 Place of residence: Suburban area0.0220.055 Place of residence: Big city0.0490.083 * Party: SPD (Ref.: CDU/CSU)0.089-0.097 Party: FDP-0.063-0.017 Party: GREEN party-0.137 * 0.069 Party: LEFT party-0.134 + -0.097 Party: PIRATE party-0.288 *** 0.343 *** Party: AfD-0.126 + -0.097 Budget: 1-5k Euro (Ref.: 0-1k Euro)0.0600.048 Budget: 5-15k Euro0.123 * 0.047 Budget: >15k Euro0.177 ** 0.101 + Campaign: Interviews/press releases-0.0080.014 Campaign: Campaign stand0.0110.010 Campaign: Web page0.057 *** 0.046 *** Campaign: Blog/Youtube0.059 *** 0.042 ** Attitudes: Pro welfare state0.0100.011 Attitudes: Contra Immigration0.011-0.009 Personality: Extraversion0.0090.010 Personality: Openness0.0470.146 * N881 McFadden´s R 2 0.2290.251 Note: Cell entries are average marginal effects (AME). Significance levels: + p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. The following variables were controlled for but omitted from the table: Age, gender, incumbency, and type of candidature.

13. Results V  H1: Resources  Our results show that the more resources at a candidate’s disposal, the more likely they were to actually use social media.  Maintaining a Facebook account does seem to involve spending more – perhaps not surprising given that Facebook, arguably provides more technical opportunities.  This would seem to suggest that social media usage is the purview of well-funded candidates, which means it certainly is not a panacea for smaller or minor parties.  H2: Party  Twitter is primarily a PIRATES and GREEN party phenomenon whereas Facebook is used more by the more established parties (CDU/CSU and SPD).  There is a very strong difference in the profile of parties using different forms of social media – Facebook is used by the establishment, Twitter is much more niche.

14. Results VI  H3a: Candidate personality traits  Candidates who are more open are more likely to use Twitter but not Facebook.  Personality traits matter to an extent, although the effect is quite small.  H3b: Candidate attitudes on policy  Candidate attitudes on policy do not have any effects on the use of Facebook and Twitter.  H4: Candidate region of residency  Candidates who live in areas with a bigger population (i.e., city) are more likely to use Twitter but not Facebook.

15.  H5: Different social media channels  We find similar patterns in the use of Facebook and Twitter but also differences.  There are characteristics that explain using social media in general.  Yet, social media is split in different channels – similar to different ways of traditional campaigning – that are used by groups of candidates. Results V

16. Conclusions I  Facebook is more widely-used, while Twitter is used by a highly selective subgroup of candidates.  Politicians affiliated to the AfD tend to use social media the least, while PIRATE party candidates are strongly predisposed to use Twitter in particular.  Adoption of social media is driven by political and resource factors.  Provides more support for the hypothesis of normalization and reinforcement of existing political patterns.  Candidate attitudes have little or no effect! It’s more about money and which party you are standing for.

17. Conclusions II  Some similarities but also differences in the motivations for use between Facebook and Twitter:  Resources matter for both.  The main difference between both is party – Twitter is niche, Facebook is a more established form of campaigning.  Twitter use in particular more associated with personality openness and living in a bigger city.  There is variation between the different social media channels. Thus, our findings suggest that social media cannot be talked about as one.

18. Quinlan, S., T. Gummer, J. Roßmann, and C. Wolf. 2015. “Social media in election campaigns: Different channels, different patterns?” Presentation at the General Online Research Conference (GOR 15), 18-20 March, Cologne University of Applied Sciences, Germany. Presenting author: Joss Roßmann - joss.rossmann@gesis.orgjoss.rossmann@gesis.org

19. Facebook & Twitter use over parties