CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14Social Media and PoliticsPopulism, Right-Wing MovementsElectoral Systems and Political Participation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Political social media use and its linkage to populist and postmaterialist attitudes and vote intention in the Netherlands

Jeroense, Thijmen, Luimers, Jorrit, Jacobs, Kristof, Spierings, Niels·2022·European Political Science
DOI 10.1057/s41304-020-00306-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study focuses on social media use of citizens from two groups that are often associated with the rise of social media: populist and postmaterialist citizens. Considering their ideological underpinnings, we theorize that they will make more political use of social media and that this further reifies their political attitudes into voting for populist and postmaterialist parties, respectively. Using unique survey data including the relatively new populist attitudes and political use of social media, we test this theory on the Dutch case. We find that both groups do not read political news or connect to politicians more, but both are more likely to react to political content. Moreover, social media use does not seem to lead to a retention in one’s own ideological funnel signified by populist or postmaterialist voting. Among more postmaterialist citizens, passive social media use even makes it more likely to vote for other parties.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1057/s41304-020-00306-6

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Akkerman, A., C. Mudde, and A. Zaslove. 2014. How Populist Are the People? Measuring Populist Attitudes in Voters. Comparative Political Studies 47(9): 1324–1353. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Blais, A. 2000. To Vote or Not to Vote? The Merits and Limits of Rational Choice Theory. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. · DOI
  3. Bossetta, M. 2018. The Digital Architectures of Social Media: Comparing Political Campaigning on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat in the 2016 US Election. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 95(2): 471–496. · DOI
  4. Boulianne, S. 2015. Social Media Use and Participation: A Meta-Analysis of Current Research. Information, Communication and Society 18(5): 524–538. · DOI
  5. Caiani, M., and L. Parenti. 2009. The Dark Side of the Web: Italian Right-Wing Extremist Groups and the Internet. South European Society and Politics 14(3): 273–294. · DOI
  6. Colleoni, E. 2014. Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Prediciting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data. Journal of Communication 64(2): 317–332. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Copeland, L. 2014. Value Change and Political Action: Postmaterialism, Political Consumerism, and Political Participation. American Politics Research 42(2): 257–282. · DOI
  8. Dimitrova, D., A. Shehata, J. Strömback, and L. Nord. 2014. The Effects of Digital Media on Political Knowledge and Participation in Election Campaigns: Evidence from Panel Data. Communication Research 41(1): 95–118. · DOI
  9. Engesser, S., N. Ernst, F. Esser, and F. Büchel. 2017a. Populism and Social Media: How Politcians Spread a Fragmented Ideology. Information, Communication and Society 20(8): 1109–1126. · DOI
  10. Engesser, S., N. Fawzi, and A. Larsson. 2017b. Populist Online Communication: Introduction to the Special Issue. Information Communication and Society 20(9): 1279–1292. · DOI
  11. Gibson, R., and I. McAllister. 2011. Do Online Election Campaigns Win Votes? The 2007 Australian “YouTube” Election. Political Communication 28: 227–244. · DOI
  12. Gil de Zúñiga, H., N. Jung, and S. Valenzuela. 2012. Social Media Use for News and Individuals’ Social Capital, Civic Engagement and Political Participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 17: 319–336. · DOI · Paper page
  13. Gil de Zúñiga, H., L. Molyneux, and P. Zheng. 2014. Social Media, Political Expression, and Political Participation: Panel Analysis of Lagged and Concurrent Relationships. Journal of Communication 64(4): 612–634. · DOI
  14. Groshek, J., and K. Koc-Michalska. 2017. Helping Populism Win? Social Media Use, Filter Bubbles, and Support for Populist Presidential Candidates in the 2016 Election Campaign. Information, Communication and Society 20(9): 1389–1407. · DOI
  15. Hameleers, M., L. Bos, and C. de Vreese. 2018. Selective Exposure to Populist Communication: How Attitudinal Congruence Drives the Effects of Populist Attributions of Blame. Journal of Communication 68(1): 51–74. · DOI
  16. Himelboim, I., S. McCreery, and M. Smith. 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): 154–174. · DOI
  17. Inglehart, R. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton UP: Princeton. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Inglehart, R. 2008. Changing Values Among Western Publics from 1970 to 2006. West European Politics 31(1–2): 130–146. · DOI
  19. Inglehart, R., and P. Abramson. 1999. Measuring Postmaterialism. American Political Science Review 93(3): 665–677. · DOI
  20. Jacobs, K., L. Sandberg, and N. Spierings. 2020. Twitter and Facebook: Populists’ Double-Barreled Gun? New Media and Society 22(4): 611–633. · DOI
  21. Jacobs, K., and N. Spierings. 2016. Social Media, Parties, and Political Inequalities. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. · DOI
  22. Jacobs, K., and N. Spierings. 2019. A Populist Paradise? Examining Populists. Twitter adoption and use’ Information Communication and Society 22(12): 1681–1696. · DOI
  23. Krämer, B. 2017. Populist Online Practices: The Function of the Internet in Right-Wing Populism. Information Communication and Society 20(9): 1293–1309. · DOI
  24. Kruikemeier, S., G. van Noort, R. Vliegenthart, and C. de Vreese. 2013. Getting Closer: The Effects of Personalized and Interactive Online Political Communication. European Journal of Communication 28(1): 53–66. · DOI
  25. Lawrence, E., J. Sides, and H. Farrel. 2010. Self-Segregation or Deliberation? Blog Readership, Participation, and Polarization in American Politics. Perspectives on Politics 8(1): 141–157. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Littler, M., and M. Feldman. 2017. Social Media and the Cordon Sanitaire: Populist Politics, the Online Space, and a Relationship that Just Isn’t There. Journal of Language and Politics 16(4): 510–522. · DOI
  27. Mazzoleni, G. 2008. Populism and the Media. In Twentyfirst Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy, ed. D. Albertazzi and D. McDonnell, 49–64. Basingstoke: Palgrave. · DOI
  28. Messing, S., and S. Westwood. 2014. Selective Exposure in the Age of Social Media: Endorsements Trump Partisan Source Affiliation When Selecting News Online. Communication Research 41(8): 1042–1063. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Mood, C. 2010. Logistic Regression: Why We Cannot Do What We Think We Can Do, and What We Can Do About It. European Sociological Review 26(1): 67–82. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Mudde, C. 2007. Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Norris, P. (ed.). 1999. Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford UP.
  32. Norris, P. 2001. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Informartion Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Salgado, S. 2018. Where’s Populism? Online Media and the Diffusion of Populist Discourses and Styles in Portugal. European Political Science 18: 53–65. · DOI
  34. Schaub, M., and D. Morisi. 2020. Voter Mobilisation in the Echo Chamber: Broadband Internet and the Rise of Populism in Europe. European Journal of Political Research 59(4): 752–773. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Schlozman, K., S. Verba, and H. Brady. 2012. The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy. Princeton: Princeton UP. · DOI
  36. Schulz, A. 2019. Where Populist Citizens Get the News: An Investigation of News Audience Polarization Along Populist Attitudes in 11 Countries. Communication Monographs 86(1): 88–111. · DOI
  37. Schulz, A., W. Wirth, and P. Müller. 2018. We are the People and You are Fake News: A Social Identity Approach to Populist Citizens’ False Consensus and Hostile Media Perceptions. Communication Research 12: 1–26.
  38. Segesten, A., and M. Bossetta. 2017. A Typology of Political Participation Online: How Citizens Used Twitter to Mobilize During the 2015 British General Elections. Information, Communication and Society 20(11): 1625–1643. · DOI
  39. Sotirovic, M., and J. McLeod. 2001. Values, Communication Behavior, and Political Participation. Political Communication 18(3): 273–300. · DOI
  40. Spierings, N., and K. Jacobs. 2014. Getting Personal? The Impact of Social Media on Preferential Voting. Political Behavior 36(1): 215–234. · DOI
  41. Spierings, N., and K. Jacobs. 2019. Political Parties and Social Media Campaigning: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Parties’ Professional Facebook and Twitter Use in the 2010 and 2012 Dutch Elections. Acta Politica 54(1): 145–173. · DOI
  42. Spierings, N., K. Jacobs, and N. Linders. 2019. Keeping an Eye on the People: Who has Access to MPs on Twitter? Social Science Computer Review 37(2): 160–177. · DOI
  43. Stier, S., N. Kirkizh, C. Froio, and R. Schroeder. 2020. Populist Attitudes and Selective Exposure to Online News: A Cross-Country Analysis Combining Web Tracking and Surveys. The International Journal of Press/Politics. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220907018. · DOI
  44. Stier, S., L. Posch, A. Bleier, and M. Strohmaier. 2017. When Populists Become Popular: Comparing Facebook Use by the Right-Wing Movement Pegida and German Political Parties. Information, Communication and Society 20(9): 1365–1388. · DOI
  45. Stroud, N. 2008. Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure. Political Behavior 30: 341–366. · DOI · Paper page
  46. Theocharis, Y., W. Lowe, J. van Deth, and G. Garcia-Albacete. 2015. Using Twitter to Mobilize Protest Action: Online Mobilisation Patterns and Action Repertoires in the Occupy Wall Street, Indignados, and Aganaktismenoi Movements. Information, Communication and Society 18(2): 202–220. · DOI · Paper page
  47. Trilling, D., and K. Schoenbach. 2015. Challenging Selective Exposure: Do Online News Users Choose Sites that Match Their Interests and Preferences? Digital Journalism 3(2): 140–157. · DOI
  48. Van Kessel, S., and R. Castelein. 2016. Shifting the Blame. Populist Politicians’ Use of Twitter as a Tool of Opposition. Journal of Contemporary European Research 12(2): 594–614. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Jeroense, T., Luimers, J., Jacobs, K., & Spierings, N.
Affiliations
Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Corresponding author
Jeroense, Thijmen
ORCID
Venue
European Political Science
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2022-06
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
193-215
ISSN
  • 1680-4333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1682-0983
DOI
10.1057/s41304-020-00306-6
OpenAlex
W3123671926
Cited by
14
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4
FWCI
4.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • European Political Science (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
populist attitudes, voting intention, political ideology, passive social media use, political news consumption, populist parties, Dutch voters

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review