The Impact of Twitter Adoption on Lawmakers’ Voting Orientations
Abstract
Social media has been found to be influential in a variety of contexts. From mobilizing the crowd in social movements to helping refugees settle into a new country, social media has had a significant impact. This study examines the role of social media in Congressional representation in a democratic political system. The authors study the impact of U.S. Representatives’ Twitter adoption on their voting orientations in the 111th U.S. Congress. The authors find that Representatives’ adoption of Twitter causes them to vote more in line with their constituents. Furthermore, the effect of Twitter adoption is more salient when a Representative’s party differs from the party affiliation of the constituent or when the Representative represents a Twitter-savvy state. The results also indicate that the volume of tweets directed at Representatives signals the importance of certain bills to constituents. When Representatives vote on bills that are the focus of a large volume of constituents’ tweets, Representatives vote in a manner more aligned with their constituents’ opinions. Interestingly, the opinions the tweets express do not significantly influence their votes, suggesting that Representatives are aware of the potential bias in opinions cascaded in tweets.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Common causal inference techniques used in the sample include instrumental variable designs, matching approaches, and panel designs.
“Common causal inference techniques that were used in our sample include instrumental variable designs that introduce exogenous variation in the treatment variable59–63, matching approaches to explicitly balance treatment and control groups64–66, and panel designs that account for unobserved confounders with unit and/or time-fixed effects67,68.”
From A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy (2022) · cites this paper as [64]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy
Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2022) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01460-1 · Cited by 348 · see citing works
Unveiling the Cost of Free: How an Ad-Sponsored Model Affects Serialized Digital Content Creation
Zhang, K., Wang, Q., Qiu, L., & Wang, N. (2024) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4880861 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mousavi, R., & Gu, B.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Charlotte (US)
- Arizona State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mousavi, Reza
- ORCID
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 2019-03
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 133-153
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- OpenAlex
- W3126028348
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 7.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Information Systems Research (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of Mental Health
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
- Keywords
- legislators, voting behavior, constituent influence, social media and politics, congressional representation, United States Congress, 111th Congress, partisanship
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