CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 104Social Media and PoliticsElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationMedia Influence and Politics

Does Campaigning on Social Media Make a Difference? Evidence From Candidate Use of Twitter During the 2015 and 2017 U.K. Elections

Open access
Bright, Jonathan, Hale, Scott, Ganesh, Bharath, Bulovsky, Andrew, Margetts, Helen, Howard, Phil·2020·Communication Research
DOI 10.1177/0093650219872394
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Political campaigning on social media is a core feature of contemporary democracy. However, evidence of the effectiveness of this type of campaigning is thin. This study tests three theories linking social media to vote outcomes, using a novel 6,000 observation panel data set from two British elections. We find that Twitter-based campaigning does seem to help win votes. The impact of Twitter use is small, though comparable with campaign spending. Our data suggest that social media campaign effects are achieved through using Twitter as a broadcast mechanism. Despite much literature encouraging politicians to engage with social platforms in an interactive fashion, we find no evidence that this style of communication improves electoral outcomes. In light of our results, theories of how social media are changing processes of campaigns and elections are discussed and enhanced.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0093650219872394

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Bright et al. (2020) identify three mechanisms through which local campaigns influence electoral results: unilateral communication effects, interactivity effects, and name recognition effects.

    “Bright et al. (2020) identifican tres mecanismos a través de los cuales las campañas locales influyen en los resultados electorales.Los efectos de usar la plataforma para comunicar unilateralmente, mediante los cuales las comunicaciones de campaña del partido nacional se transmiten a nivel local; efectos de interactividad en la plataforma, mediante los cuales los usuarios construyen una intimidad”

    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 Bright et al., 2020

    Section 2, “Political Campaigning on Twitter: Mechanisms and moderators of influence” (page unavailable), discusses direct communication and candidate awareness, while the paper also examines broadcasting and interactivity. But it organizes electoral influence into two basic pathways—direct and indirect mobilisation—not the three named mechanisms attributed to it. The cited passages do not establish national-party messages being transmitted locally as a distinct mechanism. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 82

  1. Adi, A., Erickson, K., & Lilleker, D. (2014). Elite Tweets: Analyzing the Twitter Communication Patterns of Labour Party Peers in the House of Lords. Policy & Internet, 6(1), 1-27.
  2. Aldrich, J., Gibson, R., Cantijoch, M., & Konitzer, T. (2015). Getting out the vote in the social media era: Are digital tools changing the extent, nature and impact of party contacting in elections? Party Politics, 22(2), 165-178.
  3. Amirullah, F., Komp, S., & Nurhadryani, Y. (2013). Campaign 2.0: An analysis of the utilization social network sites of political parties in Indonesia. In: ICACSIS 2013: International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems
  4. Anstead, N., O'Loughlin, N. (2014). Social Media Analysis and Public Opinion: The 2010 UK General Election. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 204-220.
  5. Ausserhoffer, J. & Maireider, A. (2013). National politics on Twitter: Structures and topics of a networked public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 16(3), 291-314.
  6. Baxter, G., & Marcella, R. (2013). Do online election campaigns sway the vote? A Study of the 2011 Scottish parliamentary election. Libri, 63(3), 190-205
  7. Bimber, B. (2014). Digital media in the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012: Adaptation to the personalized political communication environment. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11(2), 130-150.
  8. Bastos, M. & Mercea, D. (2015). Serial activists: Political Twitter beyond influentials and the twittertariat. New Media & Society, 18(10), 2359-2378
  9. Bene, M. (2018). Post Shared, Vote Shared: Investigating the Link Between Facebook Performance and Electoral Success During the Hungarian General Election Campaign of 2014. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95 (2), 363-380.
  10. Bermudez, S., Bright, J., Pilet, J-B. & Soubiran, T. (2016). Power Users in Online Democracy: Their Origins and Impact. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2877706
  11. Blank, G. (2016). The Digital Divide Among Twitter Users and Its Implications for Social Research. Social Science Computer Review, doi: 10.1177/0894439316671698 · DOI
  12. Blank, G., Graham, M., Calvino, C. (2017). Local Geographies of Digital Inequality. Social Science Computer Review.
  13. Bode, L. & Epstein, B. (2015). Campaign Klout: Measuring Online Influence During the 2012 Election. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12(2), 133-148.
  14. Borge Bravo, R. & Esteve Del Valle, M. (2017) Opinion leadership in parliamentary Twitter networks: A matter of layers of interaction? Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 14(3), 263- 276
  15. Bright, J. (2016). The social news gap: how news reading and news sharing diverge. Journal of Communication 66 (3), 343-365
  16. Bright, J. (2016). Explaining the emergence of echo chambers on social media: the role of ideology and extremism. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05003 · arXiv
  17. Conway, B., Kenski, K., & Wang, D. (2015). The Rise of Twitter in the Political Campaign: Searching for Intermedia Agenda-Setting Effects in the Presidential Primary. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, 20(4), 363-380.
  18. Carpenter, C. A. (2010). The Obamamachine: Technopolitics 2.0. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7(2-3), 216-225.
  19. Chen, P. (2010). Adoption and use of digital media in election campaigns: Austria. Canada, New Zealand. Public Communication Review, 1: 3-26.
  20. Dimitrova, D. V. & Matthes, J. (2018). Social Media in Political Campaigning Around the World: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95 (2), 333-342
  21. Dimitrova, D. V., Shehata, A., Strömbäck, J., & Nord, L. W. (2014). The effects of digital media on political knowledge and participation in election campaigns: Evidence from panel data. Communication Research, 41(1), 95-118
  22. Dubois, E., & Gaffney, D. (2014). The Multiple Facets of Influence: Identifying Political Influentials and Opinion Leaders on Twitter. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(10), 1260-1277.
  23. Enli, G. & Skogerbø, E. (2013). Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 757-774.
  24. Enli, G. (2017). Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election. European Journal of Communication, 32(1), 50-61.
  25. van Erkel, P., Thijssen, P., and van Aelst, P. (2016). One for all or all for one: The electoral effects of personalized campaign strategies. Acta Politica, 52(3), 384-405.
  26. Garzia, D., Trechsel, A. & De Angelis, A. (2017) Voting Advice Applications and Electoral Participation: A Multi-Method Study. Political Communication, 34(3), 424-443.
  27. Gayo-Avello, D. (2013). A meta-analysis of state-of-the-art electoral prediction from Twitter data. Social Science Computer Review, 31(6), 649-679.
  28. Gibson, R., Römmele, A., & Williamson, A. (2014). Chasing the Digital Wave: International Perspectives on the Growth of Online Campaigning. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11(2), 123-129.
  29. Gillis, N. (2014) The Why and How of Nonnegative Matrix Factorization. In: J.A.K. Suykens, M. Signoretto and A. Argyriou (eds), Machine Learning and Pattern Recognition. Chapman & Hall/CRC, pp. 257-291
  30. Glassman, M., Straus, J., & Shogan, C. (2010). Social networking and constituent communications: member use of Twitter during a two-month period in the 111th congress. Journal of Communication Research, 2(2-3), 219-233.
  31. Golbeck, J., Grimes, J., & Rogers, A. (2010). Twitter use by the US Congress. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1612-1621.
  32. Gottfried, J. A., Hardy, B. W., Holbert, R. L., Winneg, K. M., & Jamieson, K. H. (2017). The Changing Nature of Political Debate Consumption: Social Media, Multitasking, and Knowledge Acquisition. Political Communication, 34(2), 172-199.
  33. Graham, T., Broersma, M., Hazelhoff, K., & van't Haar, G. (2013). Between broadcasting political messages and interacting with voters. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 692- 716.
  34. Graham, T., Jackson, D., and Broersma, M. (2014). New platform, old habits? Candidates' use of Twitter during the 2010 British and Dutch general election campaigns. New Media & Society, 18(5), 765-783.
  35. Graham, M., Hale, S.A., & Gaffney, D. (2014). Where in the World Are You? Geolocation and Language Identification in Twitter. The Professional Geographer, 66(4), 568-578
  36. Grusell, M., & Nord, L. (2016). Setting the Trend or Changing the Game? Professionalization and Digitalization of Election Campaigns in Sweden. Journal of Political Marketing [online], doi: 10.1080/15377857.2016.1228555. · DOI
  37. Gulati, J., & Williams, C. B. (2010). Communicating with Constituents in 140 Characters or Less: Twitter and the Diffusion of Technology Innovation in the United States Congress (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1628247). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1628247
  38. Gulati, J., & Williams, C. B. (2011). Diffusion of Innovations and Online Campaigns: Social Media Adoption in the 2010 U.S. Congressional Elections (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1925585). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1925585
  39. Gurevitch, M., Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. G. (2009). Political Communication -Old and New Media Relationships. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 625(1), 164-181.
  40. Haenshcen, K. (2016). Social Pressure on Social Media: Using Facebook Status Updates to Increase Voter Turnout. Journal of Communication 66(4), 542-563.
  41. Hecht, B. & Stephens, M. (2014). A tale of cities: Urban biases in volunteered geographic information. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, ICWSM, 197-205.
  42. Hoffman, C. & Suphan, A. (2017). Stuck with 'electronic brochures'? How boundary management strategies shape politicians' social media use. Information, Communication & Society, 20(4), 551-569.
  43. Howard, P. (2005). New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  44. Jackson, N. & Lilleker, D. (2009). Building an architecture of participation? Political parties and Web 2.0 in Britain. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6(3/4), 232-250.
  45. Jackson, N. (2003). MPs and web technologies: an untapped opportunity?. Journal of Public Affairs, 3(2), 124-137.
  46. Jungherr, A. (2016). Twitter use in election campaigns: a systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(1), 72-91.
  47. Jungherr, A., Schoen, H., Posegga, O. & Jürgens, P. (2016). Digital Trace Data in the Study of Public Opinion: An Indicator of Attention Toward Politics Rather Than Political Support. Social Science Computer Review, 35(3), 336-356.
  48. Karpf, D. (2017). Digital politics after Trump. Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(2), 198-207.
  49. Koc-Michalska, K., Lilleker, D., Smith, A., and Weissmann D. (2016). The normalization of online campaigning in the web 2.0 era. European Journal of Communication, 31(3), 331-350.
  50. Kreiss, D. (2016). Prototype Politics: Technology-Intensive Campaigning and the Data of Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  51. Kreiss, D., Lawrence, R. & McGregor, S. (2018) In Their Own Words: Political Practitioner Accounts of Candidates, Audiences, Affordances, Genres, and Timing in Strategic Social Media Use, Political Communication, 35(1), 8-31
  52. Krueger, B. (2006). A Comparison of Conventional and Internet Political Mobilization. American Politics Research, 34(6), 759-776.
  53. LaMarre, H. L., & Suzuki-Lambrecht, Y. (2013). Tweeting democracy? Examining Twitter as an online public relations strategy for congressional campaigns. Public Relations Review, 39(4)
  54. Larsson, A. (2014). Online, all the time? A quantitative assessment of the permanent campaign on Facebook. New Media and Society, 18(2), 274-292.
  55. Larsson, A. & Moe, H. (2012). Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign, New Media and Society, 14(5), 2012, 729-747.
  56. Lee, E. & Shin, S. (2012) Are they talking to me? cognitive and affective effects of interactivity in politicians' twitter communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(10), 515-535.
  57. Levitt, S. (1994) Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes in the U.S. House. Journal of Political Economy, 102(4), pp. 777-798
  58. Lilleker, D., Koc-Michalska, K., and Schweitzer, E. (2011) Informing, engaging, mobilizing or interacting: Searching for a European model of web campaigning. European Journal of Communication, 26(3), 195-213.
  59. Lilleker, D., Tenscher, J., & Štětka, V. (2015). Towards hypermedia campaigning? Perceptions of new media's importance for campaigning by party strategists in comparative perspective. Information, Communication & Society, 18(7), 747-765.
  60. Magin, M., Podschuweit, N., Haßler, J., & Russmann, U. Campaigning in the fourth age of political communication. A multi-method study on the use of Facebook by German and Austrian parties in the 2013 national election campaigns. Information, Communication & Society, 20(11), 1698-1719.
  61. Malik, M., Lamba, H., Nakos, C. & Pfeffer, J. (2015). Population Bias in Geotagged Tweets. Ninth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media.
  62. McGregor, S., Mourão, R., & Molyneux, L. (2017). Twitter as a tool for and object of political and electoral activity: Considering electoral context and variance among actors. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 14(2), 154-167.
  63. Murthy, D. (2015). Twitter and elections: are tweets, predictive, reactive, or a form of buzz? Information, Communication and Society, 18(7), 816-831.
  64. Oberholzer, L. & Daniel, W. (2016). An online electoral connection? How electoral systems condition representatives' social media use. European Union Politics, 17(3), 387-407.
  65. Quercia, D., Capra, L., & Crowcroft, J. (2012). The social world of Twitter: topics, geography, and emotions. Proceedings of the 6th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media [online]. Retrieved from http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~dq209/publications/quercia12socialworld.pdf
  66. Quinlan, S., Gummer, T., Roßmann, J., & Wolf, C. (2017). 'Show me the money and the party!' - variation in Facebook and Twitter adoption by politicians. Information, Communication & Society [online], doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2017.1301521 · DOI
  67. Ramos-Serrano, M., Gómez, J., & Pineda, A. (2016). 'Follow the closing of the campaign on streaming': The use of Twitter by Spanish political parties during the 2014 European elections. New Media & Society [online], doi: 10.1177/1461444816660730 · DOI
  68. Ross, K. & Bürger, T. (2014). Face to face(book): Social media, political campaigning and the unbearable lightness of being there. Political Science, 66 (1), 46-62
  69. Stier, S., Posch, L., Bleier, A. & Strohmaier, M. (2017) When populists become popular: comparing Facebook use by the right-wing movement Pegida and German political parties, Information, Communication & Society, 20(9), 1365-1388
  70. Stier, S., Bleier, A., Lietz, H. & Strohmaier, M. (2018) Election Campaigning on Social Media: Politicians, Audiences, and the Mediation of Political Communication on Facebook and Twitter, Political Communication, 35(1), 50-74
  71. Štětka, V., Lilleker, D., Tenscher, J., & Jalali, C. Professional Campaigning Online: The Role of New Media as Campaign Platforms. Paper presented at the ECPR General conference. Retrieved from https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/0efb0c25-1e10-469c-ac50-2898eccc2848.pdf
  72. Stromer-Galley, J. (2014). Presidential Campaigning in the Internet Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  73. Suárez, S. 2006. Mobile Democracy: Text Messages, Voter Turnout and the 2004 Spanish General Election. Representation, 42(2), 117-128.
  74. Sunstein, C. (2002). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  75. Tan, T. H., Tng, Y. H., & Yeo, A. (2016). Normalization versus Equalization Effects of the Internet for Political Parties: Singapore's General Election 2015 as a Case Study. 2016 Conference for E- Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM), 84-95.
  76. Tolbert, C. & McNeal, R. (2003). Unraveling the Effects of the Internet on Political Participation? Political Research Quarterly, 56(2), 175-185.
  77. Tromble, R. (2016). Thanks for (actually) responding! How citizen demand shapes politicians' interactive practices on Twitter. New Media & Society [online], doi: 10.1177/1461444816669158 · DOI
  78. Tromble, R. (2016). "The great leveler? Comparing citizen-politician Twitter engagement across three Western democracies". European Political Science [online], doi: 10.1057/s41304-016- 0022-6 · DOI
  79. Vaccari, C. & Nielsen, R. (2013). What Drives Politicians' Online Popularity? An Analysis of the 2010 U.S. Midterm Elections. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10(2), 208-222.
  80. Vaccari, C. (2017). Online Mobilization in Comparative Perspective: Digital Appeals and Political Engagement in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Political Communication, 34(1), 69- 88.
  81. Van Noort, G., Vliegenthart, R., & Kruikemeier, S. (2016) Return on interactivity? The characteristics and effectiveness of Web sites during the 2010 Dutch local elections. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(4), 352-364.
  82. Ward, S., & Lusoli, W. (2005). From Weird to Wired? MPs, the Internet and Representative Politics in the UK. Journal of Legislative Studies, 11(1), 57-81.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bright, J., Hale, S., Ganesh, B., Bulovsky, A., Margetts, H., & Howard, P.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Bright, Jonathan
ORCID
Venue
Communication Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2019-09-11
Volume
47
Issue
7
Pages
988-1009
ISSN
  • 0093-6502 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3810
DOI
10.1177/0093650219872394
OpenAlex
W2766730299
Cited by
104
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
FWCI
24.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Communication Research (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Sage Journals Data (cc-by)
Funders
  • Economic and Social Research Council (RES-051-27-0331)
  • European Research Consortium
  • Luminate Group
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
Keywords
social media campaigning, Twitter, political campaigns, election results, vote choice, campaign spending, broadcast communication, candidate engagement, 2015 UK general election, 2017 UK general election, British elections

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