Is the equalization/normalization lens dead? Social media campaigning in US congressional elections
| Date | 10 September 2018 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-08-2017-0247 |
| Published date | 10 September 2018 |
| Pages | 718-731 |
| Author | Jason Gainous,Andrew Segal,Kevin Wagner |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Information behaviour & retrieval,Collection building & management,Bibliometrics,Databases,Information & knowledge management,Information & communications technology,Internet,Records management & preservation,Document management |
Is the equalization/normalization
lens dead? Social media
campaigning in US
congressional elections
Jason Gainous
Department of Political Science, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA
Andrew Segal
Department of Political Science, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, USA, and
Kevin Wagner
Department of Political Science, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton,
Florida, USA
Abstract
Purpose –Early information technology scholarship centered on the internet’s potential to be a
democratizing force was often framed using an equalization/normalization lens arguing that either the
internet was going to be an equalizing force bringing power to the masses, or it was going to be normalized
into the existing power structure. The purpose of this paper is to argue that considered over time the
equalization/normalization lens still sheds light on our understanding of how social media (SM) strategy can
shape electoral success asking if SM are an equalizing force balancing the resource gap between candidates or
are being normalized into the modern campaign.
Design/methodology/approach –SM metrics and electoral data were collected for US congressional
candidates in 2012 and 2016. A series of additive and interactive models are employed to test whether the
effects of SM reach on electoral success are conditional on levels of campaign spending.
Findings –The results suggest that those candidates who spend more actually get more utility for their SM
campaign than those who spend less in 2012. However, by 2016, spending inversely correlates with SM
campaign utility.
Research limitations/implications –The findings indicate that SM appeared to be normalizing into the
modern congressional campaign in 2012. However, with higher rates of penetration and greater levels of
usage in 2016, the SM campaign utility was not a result of higher spending. SM may be a greater equalizing
force now.
Practical implications –Campaigns that initia lly integrate digital and tradit ional strategies increase the
effectiveness of the SM ca mpaign because the non-digital strateg y both complements and draws attention
to the SM campaign. However, by 2016 the SM campaign was not driven by its relation to traditional
campaign spending.
Originality/value –This is the first large Nstudy to examine the interactive effects of SM reach and
campaign spending on electoral success.
Keywords Elections, Social media, Equalization/normalization, Political campaigns
Paper type Research paper
Since the introduction of the internet, scholars have debated the efficacy of this new
technology in altering that political landscape (Bimber and Davis, 2003; Chadwick, 2006).
Traditionally, politics had few easy entry points, and those often required significant
resources including access to existing political networks and financial means for mass
outreach. Even in the USA, where the press has been, and is, open and unrestricted, it is
rarely free. Obtaining significant media coverage to advocate for candidates or support a
policy position has been difficult and costly. Efforts to limit political influence of monied
interests have met both political and judicial limitations. The introduction of the internet
presented a possible new paradigm as it was a medium with great reach and relatively low
Online Information Review
Vol. 42 No. 5, 2018
pp. 718-731
© Emerald PublishingLimited
1468-4527
DOI 10.1108/OIR-08-2017-0247
Received 30 August 2017
Revised 14 March 2018
Accepted 3 April 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1468-4527.htm
718
OIR
42,5
To continue reading
Request your trial