The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Campaigning on Twitter: Microblogging and Online Social Networking as Campaign Tools in the 2010 General Elections in the Netherlands
Open accessAbstract
The present study focuses on how candidates in the Dutch general elections of 2010 use Twitter, a popular microblogging and social networking service.Specifically the study focuses on explaining why some candidates are more likely to adopt Twitter, have larger networks, and show more reciprocation than other candidates.The innovation hypothesis, predicting that candidates from less established and smaller parties will use Twitter more extensively, is unsupported.This suggests that normalization of campaign practices is present on Twitter, not changing existing communication practices.The findings do show that being an early adopter of these new technologies is more effective than adoption shortly before Election Day.
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
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000) · doi:10.1002/0471722146 · Cited by 20,302
Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide
Norris, P. (2001) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139164887 · Cited by 2,921
Whose space? differences among users and non-users of social network sites
Hargittai, E. (2007) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00396.x · Cited by 1,286
Digital Inequality: Differences in Young Adults' Use of the Internet
Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650208321782 · Cited by 1,251
Comparing internet and mobile phone usage: digital divides of usage, adoption, and dropouts
Rice, R. E., & Katz, J. E. (2003) · Telecommunications Policy · doi:10.1016/s0308-5961(03)00068-5 · Cited by 593
Cited by
Bossetta, M. (2018) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1077699018763307 · Cited by 689
Theocharis, Y., Barberá, P., Fazekas, Z., Popa, S. A., & Parnet, O. (2016) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12259 · Cited by 237
Guerrero-Solé, F. (2018) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305118808776 · Cited by 75
Jung, A.-K., Stieglitz, S., Kissmer, T., Mirbabaie, M., & Kroll, T. (2022) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0266743 · Cited by 64
Twitter's Glass Ceiling: The Effect of Perceived Gender on Online Visibility
Nilizadeh, S., Groggel, A., Lista, P., Das, S., Ahn, Y.-Y., Kapadia, A., & Rojas, F. (2021) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v10i1.14711 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- Vergeer, M., & Hermans, L.
- Venue
- Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2013-06-11
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 399-419
- ISSN
- 1083-6101 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2007954160
- Cited by
- 232
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 60.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Campaigning on Twitter: Microblogging and Online Social Networking as Campaign Tools in the 2010 General Elections in the Netherlands. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/jcc4.12023
- The paper
- Vergeer, M., & Hermans, L. (2013). Campaigning on Twitter: Microblogging and Online Social Networking as Campaign Tools in the 2010 General Elections in the Netherlands. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12023
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.
