Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Political Behavior
Published in: Political Behavior 1/2016

08-04-2015 | Original Paper

When Treatments are Tweets: A Network Mobilization Experiment over Twitter

Authors: Alexander Coppock, Andrew Guess, John Ternovski

Published in: Political Behavior | Issue 1/2016

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This study rigorously compares the effectiveness of online mobilization appeals via two randomized field experiments conducted over the social microblogging service Twitter. In the process, we demonstrate a methodological innovation designed to capture social effects by exogenously inducing network behavior. In both experiments, we find that direct, private messages to followers of a nonprofit advocacy organization’s Twitter account are highly effective at increasing support for an online petition. Surprisingly, public tweets have no effect at all. We additionally randomize the private messages to prime subjects with either a “follower” or an “organizer” identity but find no evidence that this affects the likelihood of signing the petition. Finally, in the second experiment, followers of subjects induced to tweet a link to the petition are more likely to sign it—evidence of a campaign gone “viral.” In presenting these results, we contribute to a nascent body of experimental literature exploring political behavior in online social media.
previous article Schools or Pools of Democracy? A Longitudinal Test of the Relation Between Civic Participation and Political Socialization
next article Finding Partisanship Where We Least Expect it: Evidence of Partisan Bias in a New African Democracy

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Sharing private information with third parties is now an ingrained part of online behavior, with potential benefits for both traditional advocacy groups and networked movements.
 
2
The organization-centered design also addresses any concern about our lack of covariates for these traditional predictors of participation, although Sect. 8 analyzes differential effects by factors that we were able to capture, gender and organizational status.
 
3
Contrast this with the case in which the organization is sending the public tweets—all of their followers are potentially exposed. When a random subset of users tweet the link, however, only a portion of the organization’s followers are exposed, allowing for experimental differences to be observed.
 
5
“Follower” condition: “You’re one of our most valuable followers! Please RT this petition to your friends to stop tax breaks to Big Oil (URL to petition)”; “organizer” petition: “You’re one of our most valuable organizers! Please RT this petition to your friends to stop tax breaks to Big Oil (URL to petition)”
 
6
Twitter’s API limits the number of DMs that an application can send to 250 per day. Subjects were randomly selected into batches.
 
7
This was done by using two different versions of the petition. See Fig. A1 in Online Appendix 4 for a screen shot of the encouragement, and Fig. A2 for the tweet window that popped up if a user clicked on the tweet encouragement.
 
8
By “scraping” we mean continually querying the Twitter API in order to capture tweets containing the URLs to either version of the petition. We used this approach because Twitter data is much easier to collect in real time than after the fact.
 
9
See Sect. 8 for the details of this procedure.
 
10
“Follower” condition: “You’re one of our most valuable followers! Help fight climate change by signing the petition & tweet to your friends! (URL)”; “organizer” condition: “You’re one of our most valuable organizers! Help fight climate change by signing the petition & tweet to your friends! (URL)”
 
11
Suppose that the true treatment effect is that a public tweet generates a single click per 10,000 followers exposed. With a sample size of 6687, we would expect to observe zero clicks about 51 % of the time.
 
12
These also seemed like plausible results ex ante; during a pilot study in which one of the authors sent automated direct messages to a subset of his followers, several recipients warned about “spam” or a possible virus.
 
13
See Online Appendix 1 for a full discussion of this assumption and its plausibility in this application.
 
14
We did not find any evidence of balance problems as in Study 1.
 
15
This could reflect the fact that the campaign was more timely and related to a current political dispute, in addition to the seasonality observed in other types of participation (Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993).
 
16
Online Appendix 2 presents randomization checks using these covariates.
 
Literature
Aaker, J., & Akutsu, S. (2009). Why do people give?. The role of identity in giving: Stanford University Graduate School of Business Research Paper.
Barr, D., & Drury, J. (2009). Activist identity as a motivational resource: Dynamics of (dis)empowerment at the G8 direct actions, Gleneagles, 2005. Social Movement Studies, 8(3), 243–260.CrossRef
Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768.CrossRef
Bimber, B., Flanagin, A. J., & Stohl, C. (2005). Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment. Communication Theory, 15(4), 365–388.CrossRef
Bowers, J., Fredrickson, M. M., & Panagopoulos, C. (2013). Reasoning about interference between units: A general framework. Political Analysis, 21(1), 97–124.CrossRef
Bryan, CJ., Walton, GM., Rogers, T., Dweck, CS. (2011). Motivating voter turnout by invoking the sel. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (vol 108(31), pp. 12,653–12,656).
Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and Discontent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Coppock, A. (2014). Information spillovers: Another look at experimental estimates of legislator responsiveness. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1(02), 159–169.CrossRef
Drury, J., Cocking, C., Beale, J., Hanson, C., & Rapley, F. (2005). The phenomenology of empowerment in collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(3), 309–328.CrossRef
Farrell, H. (2012). The consequences of the internet for politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 35–52.CrossRef
Fowler, J. H., Heaney, M. T., Nickerson, D. W., Padgett, J. F., & Sinclair, B. (2011). Causality in political networks. American Politics Research, 39(2), 437–480.CrossRef
Gaby, S., & Caren, N. (2012). Occupy online: How cute old men and malcolm X recruited 400,000 US users to OWS on Facebook. Social Movement Studies, 11, 367–374.CrossRef
Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2000). The effects of personal canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94, 653–663.CrossRef
Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2012). Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton.
Gladwell, M. (2010). Small change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted. The New Yorker.
Gong, S., Zhang, J., Zhao, P., Jiang, X. (2014). Tweets and sales. Retrived from SSRN Working Paper.
Karpf, D. (2010). Online political mobilization from the advocacy group’s perspective: Looking beyond clicktivism. Policy & Internet, 2(4), 7–41.CrossRef
Kobayashi, T., Ichifuji, Y. (2014). Tweets that matter: Evidence from a randomized field experiment in Japan. In Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association.
Krueger, B. S. (2006). A comparison of conventional and internet political mobilization. American Politics Research, 34(6), 759–776.CrossRef
Lupia, A., & Sin, G. (2003). Which public goods are endangered?: How evolving communication technologies affect the logic of collective action. Public Choice, 117(3–4), 315–331.CrossRef
Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133.CrossRef
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.CrossRef
Morozov, E. (2009). Iran: Downside to the ‘Twitter revolution’. Dissent.
Nickerson, D. W. (2007). The ineffectiveness of e-vites to democracy: Field experiments testing the role of e-mail on voter turnout. Social Science Computer Review, 25(4), 494–503.CrossRef
Obar, J., Zube, P., & Lampe, C. (2012). Advocacy 2.0: An analysis of how advocacy groups in the United States perceive and use social media as tools for facilitating civic engagement and collective action. Journal of Information Policy, 2, 1–25.CrossRef
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2003). The impact of contact type on web survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63, 579–588.CrossRef
Rosenstone, S., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America. New York: MacMillan Publishing.
Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. New York: Penguin Group.
Shulman, S. W. (2009). The case against mass e-mails: Perverse incentives and low quality public participation in US federal rulemaking. Policy & Internet, 1(1), 23–53.CrossRef
Sinclair, B., McConnell, M., & Green, D. P. (2012). Detecting spillover effects: Design and analysis of multilevel experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 1055–1069.CrossRef
Taylor, S.J., Muchnik, L., Aral, S. (2014). Identity and opinion: A randomized experiment. Retrieved from SSRN.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 434.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
When Treatments are Tweets: A Network Mobilization Experiment over Twitter
Authors
Alexander Coppock
Andrew Guess
John Ternovski
Publication date
08-04-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Political Behavior / Issue 1/2016
Print ISSN: 0190-9320
Electronic ISSN: 1573-6687
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9308-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Political Behavior 1/2016 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Trusting the State, Trusting Each Other? The Effect of Institutional Trust on Social Trust

Original Paper

How Disgust Influences Health Purity Attitudes

Original Paper

Schools or Pools of Democracy? A Longitudinal Test of the Relation Between Civic Participation and Political Socialization

Original Paper

The Rich are Different: The Effect of Wealth on Partisanship

Original Paper

Public Attitudes Toward Immigration Policy Across the Legal/Illegal Divide: The Role of Categorical and Attribute-Based Decision-Making

Original Paper

Finding Partisanship Where We Least Expect it: Evidence of Partisan Bias in a New African Democracy