The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Personalization of Politics A Critical Review and Agenda for Research
Abstract
In this chapter we develop an agenda for future research on the personalization of politics. To do so, we clarify the propositions of the personalization hypothesis, critically discuss the normative standard on which most studies base their evaluation of personalization, and systematically summarize empirical research findings. We show that the condemnation of personalization is based on a trivial logic and on a maximalist definition of democracy. The review of empirical studies leads us to question the assumption that personalization has steadily increased in all areas of politics. Finally, our normative considerations help us develop new research questions on how personalized politics affects democracy. Moreover, this review also makes clear that another weakness of today’s empirical research on the personalization of politics lies in methodological problems and a lack of analysis of the impacts of systemic and contextual variables. Consequently, we suggest methodological pathways and possible explanatory factors for the study of personalization.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Olson, M. (1965) · doi:10.4159/9780674041660 · Cited by 14,191
The Logic of Collective Action.
Golembiewski, R. T., & Olson, M. (1966) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2091298 · Cited by 11,364
Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics
Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790867 · Cited by 5,508
Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age
Bostaph, S., & Barber, B. R. (1985) · Southern Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/1059650 · Cited by 4,000
Galtung, J., & Ruge, M. H. (1965) · Journal of Peace Research · doi:10.1177/002234336500200104 · Cited by 3,428
(1965) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,109
The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns
Popkin, S. L. (1991) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226772875.001.0001 · Cited by 1,874
The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns.
Feld, S. L., & Popkin, S. L. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2075855 · Cited by 1,524
Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making
Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2669334 · Cited by 1,421
Patterson, T. E. (1993) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,293
Cited by
(2014) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/9781137275844 · Cited by 300
Personalization of national election campaigns
Kriesi, H. (2012) · Party Politics · doi:10.1177/1354068810389643 · Cited by 294
Mediatization of Politics : Towards a Theoretical Framework
Strömbäck, J., & Esser, F. (2014) · Mediatization of Politics · doi:10.1057/9781137275844_1 · Cited by 258
Metadata
- Authors
- Adam, S., & Maier, M.
- Venue
- Annals of the International Communication Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-01
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 213-257
- ISSN
- 2380-8977 (ISSN-L)
- 2380-8985
- OpenAlex
- W2504896247
- Cited by
- 313
- References
- 75
- FWCI
- 37.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Personalization of Politics A Critical Review and Agenda for Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/23808985.2010.11679101
- The paper
- Adam, S., & Maier, M. (2010). Personalization of Politics A Critical Review and Agenda for Research. Annals of the International Communication Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2010.11679101
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.