BETWEEN BROADCASTING POLITICAL MESSAGES AND INTERACTING WITH VOTERS: The use of Twitter during the 2010 UK general election campaign
Open accessAbstract
Politicians across Western democracies are increasingly adopting and experimenting with Twitter, particularly during election time. The purpose of this article is to investigate how candidates are using it during an election campaign. The aim is to create a typology of the various ways in which candidates behaved on Twitter. Our research, which included a content analysis of tweets (n = 26,282) from all twittering Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat candidates (n = 416) during the 2010 UK General Election campaign, focused on four aspects of tweets: type, interaction, function and topic. By examining candidates' twittering behaviour, the authors show that British politicians mainly used Twitter as a unidirectional form of communication. However, there were a group of candidates who used it to interact with voters by, for example, mobilizing, helping and consulting them, thus tapping into the potential Twitter offers for facilitating a closer relationship with citizens.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Other studies also used content analysis for the same purpose.
“Otros estudios (Baquerizo-Neira, Luzuriaga-Uribe & Rovayo-Gonzalez, 2020; Aragón et al., 2013;Graham et al., 2013;Bruns & Highfield, 2013) también utilizaron esta herramienta para el mismo fin.”
From Twitter/X en la campaña presidencial de 2021 en Ecuador: interacciones digitales y su proyección en la polarización política de las siguientes campañas (2025) · cites this paper as Graham et al., 2013
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Song, Y., Dai, X.-Y., & Wang, J. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.086 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Darius, P. (2022) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-022-00958-w · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Luzuriaga Uribe, E., & Baquerizo-Neira, G. (2025) · Perspectivas de la comunicación · doi:10.56754/0718-4867.2025.3765
- Authors
- Graham, T., Broersma, M., Hazelhoff, K., & van 't Haar, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Groningen (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Graham, Todd
- Venue
- Information, Communication & Society
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-06
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 692-716
- ISSN
- 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
- 1468-4462
- OpenAlex
- W1632728959
- Cited by
- 363
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 15
- FWCI
- 75.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- research.rug.nl
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Information Communication & Society (publishedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Sight Research UK
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
- Keywords
- Twitter, political communication, political campaigns, politicians, 2010 UK general election, Conservative Party, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, one-way communication, political mobilization
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