Cited by 38Social Media and PoliticsElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationE-Government and Public Services

The Impact of Twitter Adoption on Lawmakers’ Voting Orientations

Mousavi, Reza, Gu, Bin·2019·Information Systems Research

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

Crossref · 10.1287/isre.2018.0791

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mousavi, R., & Gu, B.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Charlotte (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Mousavi, Reza
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