Interaction (Election Campaigning Communication)

Interaction is described as a way to persuade citizens through direct contact allowing for a dialogical encounter between political actors and citizens (Magin, Podschuweit, Haßler, & Russmann, 2017). Although the new online environment can facilitate direct communication between politicians and citizens, empirical findings indicate that, to date, a unidirectional communication style between voters and politicians predominates (Jackson & Lilleker, 2010; Lilleker & Koc-Michalska, 2013; Stromer-Galley, 2000). To a large extent, politicians still employ the broadcasting style for campaign communication (Graham, Broersma, Hazelhoff, & van 't Haar, 2013) and retain communication strategies from the mass media era (Margolis & Resnick, 2000), as few voters visit their websites on a regular basis (Gibson & McAllister, 2011) or follow politicians' profiles on social media (Vaccari & Nielsen, 2013). However, research in campaign communication also shows that the Web 2.0 provide new opportunities for politicians to address an expanded, new electorate and engage them. As an example, studies show that posts that are frequently liked, commented, or shared can reach a much wider circle of users known as secondary audience or second-degree followers (Jacobs & Spierings, 2016; Vaccari & Valeriani, 2015). Interaction through social media channels furthermore enables face-to-face-like communication with individual voters, with whom politicians can also exchange ideas and negotiate campaign strategies (Magin et al., 2017). Field of application/theoretical foundation: In recent years, interaction has been recognized as a central aspect of dialogical communication in the field of public relations (Sweetser & Lariscy, 2008; Taylor & Kent, 2004). The theory states that symmetrical and dialogical two-way communication between an organization and its audience can sustainably support relationship building and their maintenance (Zhang & Seltzer, 2010). By applying this approach to the field of online political communication, it is possible to understand the interactions between politicians and citizens as a form of strategic communication and how they attract and persuade voters. References/combination with other methods of data collection Interaction in the last twenty years has been mostly studied in the context of the online environment either by looking at structural features of candidates’ online tools that enable interactions with users (e.g., Druckman, Kifer, & Parkin, 2007, 2009; Schweitzer, 2008); or by studying actual interactions between candidates and citizens on social media (e.g., Graham et al., 2013; Klinger, 2013). Both quantitative manual and automated content analyses thereof have been employed to in research on social media interactions). Quantitative content analysis have been also been combined and compared with qualitative interviews with campaign managers (e.g., Magin et al., 2017). Example studies Table 1: Overview exemplary studies measuring interaction, discussion, participation, and related constructs Study Medium Constructs Operationalization Coding Druckman et al. (2007); Druckman et al. (2009) Candidate websites Interactivity Web sites were scrutinized in light of their ability to create someform of interaction by e.g.enabling users to personalize information, arrange information, add information, and/or communicate with other voters and/or the candidate Additive index Schweitzer (2008) Candidate websites Interactivity provision strategies Possibility to comment on news; Agenda can be updated by visitors; A channel on video sharing websites; Possibility to comment (a video sharing website); Life webcam; Online photo gallery; Possibility to comment (online photo gallery); Easy contact; Online polls; Profile on SNS; Online forum or chat (among visitors); Online forum or chat (with politicians); Possibility to share content of the website; Possibility to share content on social media; Information about political program (interactive format) Additive index Magin et al. (2017) Facebook posts Interaction Index including (1) number of parties’ comments, (2) the number of users’ comments per 1,000,000 eligible voters, and (3) the share of posts in which the parties encourage the voters to discuss politics on the parties’ Facebook page (reciprocity). Combined index Graham et al. (2013), Graham, Jackson, & Broersma (2016) Twitter posts Interaction Tweets including: Debating/position taking; Acknowledging; Organizing/mobilizing; Advice giving/helping; and/or Consulting Furthermore @Tweets were scrutinized with whom politicians interacted: Public; Politician/candidate; journalist/media; Party activist; Lobbyist; Expert; Celebrity; Industry; and/or Authority (0) Not present (1) Present Lukamto & Carson (2016) Twitter comments, @mentions, and retweets (RTs) Discussion Measures quantity of one-way and two-way messages between members of parliament (MPs) and citizens and who they interact with: ‘citizen to politician’; ‘politician to citizen’; or ‘politician to politician’ Count variable Bene (2017) Facebook posts Engagement Engagement content is coded if the post contains either requests for likes, comments, and/or sharing or whether it poses a question. All of these individual elements were also coded on their own and analyzed in specified models with all dependent variables (0) Not present (1) Present Klinger (2013) Facebook & Twitter posts Participation Posts including calls for discussion, appeals to collect signatures and mobilize other people to participate and to vote as well as general community-building (0) Not present (1) Present Keller & Kleinen-von Königslöw (2018) Facebook & Twitter posts Pseudo discursive style (0) Not present (1) Present Graham et al. (2013), Graham et al. (2016) Twitter posts Interaction Tweets including: Debating/position taking; Acknowledging; Organizing/mobilizing; Advice giving/helping; and/or Consulting @Tweets were also scrutinized with whom politicians interacted: Public; Politician/candidate; journalist/media; Party activist; Lobbyist; Expert; Celebrity; Industry; and/or Authority (0) Not present (1) Present References Bene, M. (2017). Go Viral on the Facebook! Interactions between Candidates and Followers on Facebook during the Hungarian General Election Campaign of 2014. Information, Communication & Society, 20(4), 513–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1198411 Druckman, J. N., Kifer, M. J., & Parkin, M. (2007). The Technological Development of Congressional Candidate Web Sites. Social Science Computer Review, 25(4), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439307305623 Druckman, J. N., Kifer, M. J., & Parkin, M. (2009). Campaign Communications in U.S. Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review, 103(3), 343–366. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055409990037 Gibson, R. K., & McAllister, I. (2011). Do online election campaigns win votes? The 2007 Australian “YouTube” election. Political Communication, 28(2), 227–244. Graham, T., Broersma, M., Hazelhoff, K., & van 't Haar, G. (2013). Between Broadcasting Political Messages and Interacting with Voters. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 692–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.785581 Graham, T., Jackson, D., & Broersma, M. (2016). New Platform, Old Habits? Candidates’ Use of Twitter during the 2010 British and Dutch General Election Campaigns. New Media & Society, 18(5), 765–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814546728 Jackson, N., & Lilleker, D. G. (2010). Tentative Steps towards Interaction. Internet Research, 20(5), 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241011084103 Jacobs, K., & Spierings, N. (2016). Social Media, Parties, and Political Inequalities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137533906 Keller, T. R., & Kleinen-von Königslöw, K. (2018). Pseudo-Discursive, Mobilizing, Emotional, and Entertaining: Identifying Four Successful Communication Styles of Political Actors on Social Media during the 2015 Swiss National Elections. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 15(4), 358–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2018.1510355 Klinger, U. (2013). Mastering the Art of Social Media. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 717–736. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.782329 Lilleker, D. G., & Koc-Michalska, K. (2013). Online Political Communication Strategies: MEPs, E-Representation, and Self-Representation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10(2), 190–