The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
On-Line Interaction and Why Candidates Avoid It
Abstract
The Internet has properties that make possible increased interaction between citizens and political leaders. Interviews of campaign staff and analysis of U.S. candidate websites in 1996 and 1998, however, indicate that most political campaigns are resistant to using human-interactive features. I conceptualize interaction, offering that there are two kinds: human interaction and media interaction. More democratizing components of the medium, human interaction, are avoided in favor of media interaction because of the potential for a loss of control and ambiguity of campaign communication.
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
Cited by
Interactivity: a concept explication
Kiousis, S. (2002) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/146144480200400303 · Cited by 666
Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth
(2009) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684520910969998 · Cited by 522
Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Ramirez, A., Dunbar, N. E., Kam, K., & Fischer, J. (2002) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02567.x · Cited by 400
New media campaigns and the managed citizen
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-6172 · Cited by 324
Theocharis, Y., Barberá, P., Fazekas, Z., Popa, S. A., & Parnet, O. (2016) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12259 · Cited by 237
Metadata
- Authors
- Stromer‐Galley, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Communication
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2000-12-01
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 111-132
- ISSN
- 0021-9916 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2038693800
- Cited by
- 499
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 26.32
- 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: On-Line Interaction and Why Candidates Avoid It. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/joc/50.4.111
- The paper
- Stromer‐Galley, J. (2000). On-Line Interaction and Why Candidates Avoid It. Journal of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/50.4.111
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.
