CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING

Volume 19, Number 1, 2016

ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2015.0319

How (Not) to Talk on Twitter:

Effects of Politicians’ Tweets on Perceptions
of the Twitter Environment

Benjamin A. Lyons1 and Aaron S. Veenstra2

Abstract

Politicians’ Twitter habits can vary considerably. Those who choose to use may do so as part of a broad discussion
community or as a one-to-many broadcaster. Because each user sees a different mix of tweets, a politician seen by
one user as interacting with the public may be seen by another as engaging in one-way communication, potentially
prompting different evaluations of the politician, the ongoing discussion, or even Twitter itself. This study uses an
experiment to test the effects of different engagement and framing styles in politician tweets on evaluations of the
politician, other discussants, and Twitter itself. Findings suggest that politicians who use Twitter to broadcast,
rather than engage with other users, not only receive worse evaluations themselves but that the negative evaluation
carries over to other users discussing the same topics, as well as to evaluations of the utility of Twitter as an
information source. This effect is attributed to intramedium interaction, in which reactions to one aspect of a
multimedia object carry over to other aspects of the same object.

T witter has become a prominent channel for elected

officials to communicate with the press and the public.1
It is used disproportionately for news and political informa-
Engagement

In interpersonal communication more broadly, engaged

tion compared with most social network services,2,3 holding
the potential to reach those most likely to vote and share
information with others.4 Politicians (or their campaigns)
may see Twitter as combining benefits of broadcast media
and face-to-face communication. Through its unique mix of
affordances, politicians can engage an unconstrained audi-
ence of voters in an instantaneous, direct, and personal
way.1,5,6 But while Twitter allows for discussion, it can easily
be used as a one-way broadcast platform.
While elected officials’ affinity for Twitter is well known,
benefits to politicians at a more granular level are less ap-
parent. How do different Twitter communication styles af-
fect evaluations and vote considerations? Few studies5–7
have investigated the psychological effects of Twitter-based
communication involving elected officials. Moreover, those
studies have examined behavior while largely ignoring
content. In this study, we reexamine politician engagement
and framing along with respondent partisanship. Through the
lens of a timely and contentious policy issue, we examine
effects on evaluations of the politician and attendant effects
on evaluations of other discussants and of Twitter as a
platform for political communication.
communication indicates involvement and focuses on the
same content as the other participant, in contrast to a disen-
gaged style that is distant and lacks authenticity.8 In the case
of social network platforms, where messages can be addressed
to broad audiences, engaged communication can be signaled
by sustained direct conversation—unambiguously reciprocal
responses. Underlying the impact of engagement are the
psychological phenomena of social presence and, for those
reading others’ interactions, parasocial interaction (PSI).
Social presence, ‘‘the degree of salience of the other person
in the interaction and the consequent salience of the inter-
personal relationships,’’9(p65) may be increased through en-
gaged communication that creates the feeling of direct face-to-
face conversation with a politician.6 While some studies6
suggest computer-mediated communication weakens the sa-
lience of the interactant’s presence,10 engaged communication
includes more cues that should reverse this by heightening the
perception of social presence—interactants should feel part of
a nonmediated, or at least less mediated, conversation.11–13
This also should hold true for those not directly being ad-
dressed but reading such an interaction as a third party. PSI is
‘‘intimacy at a distance,’’ that is, the pseudo-relationships

1
College of Mass Communication & Media Arts, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois.
2
School of Journalism, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois.

8
POLITICIAN EVALUATIONS ON TWITTER
audiences develop with mediated personalities.14(p215) Like
social presence, PSI is facilitated by direct address15 and fosters
imagined intimacy and emotional closeness.16 Mediated per-
sonalities can achieve this intimacy using ‘‘the gestures, con-
versational style, and milieu of an informal face-to-face
gathering.’’14(p216) Lee and Shin7 argue that Twitter specifi-
cally may help foster PSI by displaying conversation threads
that have unfolded in real time, which positions readers as
potential participants. Those reading a ‘‘conversational give-
and-take between the candidate and other Twitter users might
be able to vicariously participate in the virtual interaction.’’7(p3)
Studies have found that elected officials broadcast far
more than they interact.17–19 While not pursuing interaction
may be rationale,20 direct address creates a more ‘‘real’’
experience of conversation for followers and can help voters
form a deeper more human picture of politicians. Perceived
presence has been shown to induce positive evaluations
generally16,21,22 and, more specifically, improve overall
candidate evaluations and vote intention.6,7,23
Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects
However, party affiliation might interact with engage-
ment.6 The social identity model of deindividuation effects
(SIDE) suggests that personalization can weaken in-group
support by undercutting the salience of group identity.24
At the same time, it can reduce the impersonal out-group
prejudice of those in the opposing party. Conversely, an
unengaged communicator would produce a larger support
gap between in- and outgroups as those messages are more
likely to activate partisan heuristics.25
Lee and Oh found that those with strong party affiliations
responded more negatively to personalization in both in- and
out-party Twitter messages.6 Lower ratings for a personal-
ized in-group candidate fit with the SIDE model, but those
for the out-group figure were unexpected. Additionally, their
study found that among low identifiers, personalization in-
creased positive evaluation, but only of same-party candi-
dates. While interaction effects are likely, the literature lacks
a clear picture of which or why they are likely to occur.
Framing
In contrast to the traditional mass media, which use frames
beyond political actors’ control,26 Twitter (like other new
media) can deliver messages in frames politicians or parties
deem most favorable. Numerous studies have shown that news
frames guide audience judgments, especially when they acti-
vate and resonate with existing schema.27,28 To take advan-
tage of this, political elites often paint issue positions in terms
of universal values.29 Value framing has been shown to affect
voting decisions and evaluations of political candidates.28
However, news stories are also frequently framed by their
strategy implications for politicians and parties. Although
consistently linked with responses of cynicism, disengagement,
and reduced trust in government,30–32 some research suggests
that interested partisans may experience strategic framing much
differently than the average citizen does.33,34 Value frames are
typically able to prompt greater affect and interest because their
activation spreads to many other nodes in memory, while
strategic concepts are relatively isolated.33,34 For those with a
high interest in politics or a stake in the strategy, however, those
nodes may be just as densely connected—those individuals may
9
respond to strategic frames the way a typical person would
respond to value frames, for the same reasons. Discussion of
strategy that explicitly favors one party may only have the effect
for one side.
Intramedium Interaction
Twitter’s mixed-media setting might also mean individual
components of the screen influence perceptions of one an-
other. Holbert argued that as a variety of different media are
consumed, they produce indirect, cumulative, and comple-
mentary effects, a process called ‘‘intramedia mediation.’’35
Other studies provide evidence of such contingent additive
effects of news consumption.36 Veenstra et al. focused this
concept on a single mixed-media environment encompassing
multiple elements, calling the process in this scenario ‘‘in-
tramedium interaction.’’33
In intramedium interaction, responses to one component
prime reactions to components viewed later on the same
screen. For example, our research team previously found that
responses to partisan attack ads on YouTube carried over to
evaluations of the comments section, despite comments’
constancy.37 A similar priming process underlies the ‘‘nasty
effect’’: incivility in comments sections can alter perceptions
of constant news content.38 Likewise, participants’ responses
to varied levels of engagement, or to different frame use,
may color evaluations of other users to whom the politician
does or does not respond.
Hypotheses and Research Questions
Based on the existing literature about politicians’ en-
gagement with the public and social media, as well as liter-
ature on response to value and strategic frames, we present
the following hypotheses and research questions:
H1: Evaluations of a Congressional representative will be
more positive when the representative (a) frames tweets in
terms of values rather than strategy and (b) engages person-
ally with other Twitter users.
RQ1: How, if at all, do (a) tweet frame and engagement
style and (b) frame, engagement, and party affilia-
tion interact to influence evaluations of the repre-
sentative?
As a result of intramedium interaction, we expect that
evaluations of the representative will subsequently affect
evaluations of others discussing the topic in the same space.
H2: Evaluations of other users in a discussion with a rep-
resentative will be more positive when the representative
(a) frames tweets in terms of values rather than strategy and
(b) engages personally with other Twitter users.
RQ2: How, if at all, do (a) the representative’s tweet
frame and engagement style and (b) frame, en-
gagement, and party affiliation interact to influ-
ence evaluations of other users?
Finally, intramedium interaction suggests that effects will
be felt by the entire enclosing medium. Thus, we present this
final set of hypotheses and a last research question:
10
H3: Evaluations of Twitter as a platform will be more
positive when the representative (a) frames the conversa-
tion in terms of values rather than strategy and (b) engages
personally with other Twitter users.
RQ3: How, if at all, do (a) the representative’s tweet frame
and engagement style and (b) frame, engagement,
and party affiliation interact to influence evalua-
tions of Twitter?
Methods
Data for this study were collected using an online survey
experiment with an embedded Twitter stimulus. Participants
were exposed to a series of manipulated tweets that were
based on real tweets sent by members of the Congress and
the general Twitter public regarding the 2014 Farm Bill. This
topic was selected both because the public would likely have
a range of familiarity with it and because it provided real
tweets that fit well with the study’s manipulations. Nine
tweets were presented in a basic Twitter page template,
which participants were told was a conversation captured
from Twitter, with some of the page elements removed or
disabled. The series began with a tweet from fictional Re-
presentative Mike Donald praising the passage of the Farm
Bill, followed by responses from the public and further
tweets from Rep. Donald.
Two factors were manipulated. First, the Representative’s
original tweet was framed in terms of either values (calling
the Farm Bill ‘‘a big win for farmers, consumers, commu-
nities, and all of America’’) or electoral strategy (calling it
‘‘a big win for Democratic candidates across America in
2014’’). A manipulation check verified that participants had
noticed the frame (t(344) = -4.10, p < 0.001). Another factor
manipulated engagement. In one condition, the politician
used @-replies and second-person pronouns to respond di-
rectly to tweets and included #FarmBill in his tweets. In the
other, he made substantively equal tweets, but did not use
others’ @names or hashtags, and linked to press releases on
house.gov. Other users’ tweets were held constant. The full-
page template and manipulated text can be seen in Appendix 1.
Manipulations were fully crossed for a 2 · 2 (value–strategy ·
engaged–unengaged) experimental design.a
Participants were recruited through mturk.com. Partici-
pants were paid $0.50, providing a total number of 344.
Limited to American residents, the sample was 29.8 percent
female and 78.1 percent white, with a mean age of 30.37
years (SD = 9.42), a median education of a Bachelor’s, and a
median household income of $40,000–60,000. The study
was fielded on March 19, 2014.
Variable construction
Evaluations of candidate and other Twitter users. Several
statements were presented on a five-point agree (5)–disagree
(1) scale to assess feelings toward Rep. Donald and the other
Twitter discussants. Five items focused on Rep. Donald, such
as ‘‘He is interested in his constituents’ concerns.’’ These items
were averaged to create an index of positive assessments of
Rep. Donald (Cronbach’s a = 0.78, M = 3.56, SD = 0.64). Two
items measured views of the other users: ‘‘They are open to
other viewpoints,’’ and ‘‘They use Twitter to engage in good
LYONS AND VEENSTRA
faith political discussion.’’ These items were averaged to cre-
ate an index (r = 0.41, M = 3.21, SD = 0.73).
Twitter platform evaluations. Evaluations of Twitter were
measured by agreement with 10 statements. Five items re-
lated to Twitter’s utility for discussion, such as ‘‘It provides a
place for meaningful political discussion,’’ and ‘‘It’s a good
place to interact with public officials.’’ These items were av-
eraged to create an index of positive assessments of Twitter as
a discussion platform (a = 0.81, M = 3.26, SD = 0.80). Another
five items related to Twitter’s utility as an information source,
such as ‘‘It’s a good source of news about politics.’’ These
items were averaged to create an index of positive assessments
of Twitter as an information source (a = 0.86, M = 2.49,
SD = 0.81). Full question wording and factor loading can be
found in Appendix 2.
Party affiliation. Because Rep. Donald is a Democrat and
makes a specific note of President Obama signing the Farm
Bill, Democratic Party affiliation is included as a factor in the
analysis. One item asking for participants’ party affiliation was
collapsed to Democrats (40.2 percent) versus non-Democrats.
Results
Candidate evaluations
A series of analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were used to
address the hypotheses and research questions, each including
frame manipulation, engagement manipulation, and Demo-
cratic affiliation as factors (for full ANOVA results, see Ta-
ble 1). The first model tested influence on evaluations of Rep.
Donald. Main effects were found for engagement (F(1, 336)
= 15.14, p < 0.001) and Democratic affiliation (F(1, 336) =
4.92, p = 0.027) but not for frame (F(1, 336) = 1.37, p = 0.243).
Engagement prompted a more positive evaluation than did
nonengagement (3.70, SD = 0.58 vs. 3.42, SD = 0.69), sup-
porting H1b but not H1a. Additionally, frame and Democratic
affiliation interacted (F(1, 336) = 4.05, p = 0.045), with non-
Democrats exposed to the strategic frame giving significantly
lower evaluations (M = 3.37, SD = 0.69) than did all other
groups (non-Democrat–value frame, M = 3.60, SD = 0.63;
Democrat–value, M = 3.61, SD = 0.68; and Democrat–strategy,
M = 3.67, SD = 0.57). No other significant interactions were
found.
Evaluations of other users
Next, we modeled evaluation of other users as the depen-
dent variable. Engagement again significantly influenced the
outcome (F(1, 336) = 13.74, p < 0.001), with a higher mean
than nonengagement (3.36, SD = 0.69 vs. 3.05, SD = 0.76),
supporting H2b. However, no other significant main or in-
teractive effects were found.
Evaluations of Twitter
H3 was tested in two ANOVAs, with evaluations of Twitter
as a discussion platform and as an information source as the
dependent variables. There were no significant main or inter-
active effects on evaluations of Twitter as a discussion plat-
form. However, evaluations of Twitter as an information
source were subject to a main effect of Democratic affiliation
(F(1, 334) = 5.44, p = 0.020), as well as a three-way interaction
POLITICIAN EVALUATIONS ON TWITTER 11

Table 1. Analysis Of Variance Results

Rep. User Twitter for Twitter for
evaluations evaluations discussion information
F p F p F p F p
Corrected model 5.092 0.000 2.903 0.006 1.784 0.090 2.590 0.013
Intercept 9685.693 0.000 5974.667 0.000 5377.645 0.000 2897.818 0.000
Engagement 15.142 0.000 13.736 0.000 2.131 0.145 0.964 0.327
Frame 1.369 0.243 0.129 0.720 0.923 0.337 0.707 0.401
Democrat 4.921 0.027 2.777 0.097 2.741 0.099 5.440 0.020
Engagement · frame 0.087 0.769 0.398 0.528 0.078 0.780 3.087 0.080
Engagement · Democrat 1.360 0.244 0.625 0.430 0.542 0.462 0.185 0.668
Frame · Democrat 4.046 0.045 0.548 0.460 2.851 0.092 3.256 0.072
Engagement · frame · Democrat 0.356 0.551 0.178 0.673 0.327 0.568 4.213 0.041

of frame, engagement, and affiliation (F(1, 334) = 4.21, Discussion

p = 0.041). In this interaction (Fig. 1), Democrats, but not non-
Democrats, experienced a transverse interaction between frame
and engagement, in which the value–engagement (M = 2.80,
SD = 0.83) and strategy–nonengagement (M = 2.76, SD = 0.58)
conditions elicited the highest evaluations (M = 2.32, SD = 0.77,
for value–nonengagement, and M = 2.54, SD = 0.84, for
strategy–engagement). Non-Democrats experienced no ef-
fects of the manipulations. These findings fail to support H3
but, in answering RQ3, point toward contextualized partisan
effects.
These findings have some immediate practical implica-
tions. Compared to an unengaging politician—or campaign—
one who includes conversational cues is likely to be viewed
more positively overall. Moreover, political actors who use
Twitter as a framing tool should be wary of strategic frames,
which may have a dampening effect on out-party evaluations.
Although Twitter may be a space for ‘‘preaching to the
converted,’’ its networked structure means tweets often reach
unexpected audiences. Therefore, highlighting strategic

FIG. 1. Interaction of frame and engagement

by party.
12
consequences of political events seems to be a less strate-
gically wise communication approach.
The results also suggest that individuals evaluate Twitter’s
potential benefits as a platform through a partisan lens. Re-
acting to our fictional Democratic representative, Democrats
viewed Twitter as a more useful information source than did
Republicans or Independents. Democrats evaluated the
platform’s merit highest when the Congressman used either
an initial value frame coupled with subsequent engagement
or a strategic frame paired with unengaged followups. Non-
Democrats were not affected by these distinctions. These
findings indicate that for in-party message recipients, a frame
choice might induce expectations of an acceptable accom-
panying communication style choice, suggesting evaluations
may be highly contextual.
This study also found an intramedium interaction where
the Congressman’s degree of engagement with other users
affected evaluations of those others. This finding suggests
the conversation-thread structure of Twitter and similar
communication channels may be subject to corrosive ef-
fects by way of priming: If the original message is viewed
unsympathetically, the entire conversation can be dragged
down. This deleterious outcome could cause Twitter to be
seen as a poor discussion medium by those reading, but not
participating (‘‘lurkers’’), and might reduce future will-
ingness to take part in political deliberation through this
venue.
This study operates under several limitations. Our stimuli
presented a relatively weak frame manipulation, partly to keep
the engagement manipulation clean and partly to maintain
external validity. In spite of a successful manipulation, our
frames may have been overwhelmed by the amount of un-
framed content included on the page. A larger sample may
have allowed us to better detect effects, particularly with party
affiliation in the analysis. We are also limited by having only a
Democratic representative to evaluate and one topic through
which to do it. The Farm Bill topic was in the news shortly
before this study was fielded but was not a major controversy,
meaning that our sample likely had some, but not extensive,
familiarity with it. Topics with generally more or less famil-
iarity among the public might produce different results because
partisans would be more or less reliant on elite cuing to form
opinions. This also may help explain why the SIDE phenom-
enon was not observed; a topic with less existing familiarity
might allow more room for partisanship to drive responses
in the nonengagement condition, while letting such cues be
weaker in the presence of an engaged politician. More exten-
sive stimulus selection and development in followup studies
could help separate the more fundamental processes from
idiosyncratic ones.
Future study should also further explore the connection
of Twitter to other social media. The logic of intramedium
interaction holds within the multifaceted space of a single
Web page but also has something to offer hyperlinked
media consumption, particularly when it comes to news that
is received and reshared in a social setting. The tendency for
strong reactions to occur within a venue like Twitter, and
the potential of those reactions to color subsequent media
intake, could have significant effects on how heavy news
consumers interpret, respond to, and evaluate the informa-
tion they receive.
LYONS AND VEENSTRA
Note
a
ANOVA was used to check random assignment for age,
race, gender, education, income, ideology, party, Twitter use,
familiarity, and interest (all n.s.).
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
References
1. Lassen, DS, Brown, AR. Twitter: the electoral connection?
Social Science Computer Review 2011; 29:419–436.
2. Holcomb J, Gottfried J, Mitchell A. (2013) News use across
social media platforms. Washington, DC: Pew Research
Center.
3. Mitchell A, Guskin E. (2013) Twitter news consumers:
young, mobile and educated. Washington, DC: Pew Re-
search Journalism Project.
4. Bekafigo MA, McBride A. Who tweets about politics?
Political participation of Twitter users during the 2011
gubernatorial elections. Social Science Computer Review
2013; 31:625–643.
5. Enli GS, Skogerbø E. Personalized campaigns in party-
centered politics: twitter and Facebook as arenas for political
communication. Information, Communication & Society
2013; 16:757–774.
6. Lee EJ, Oh SY. To personalize or depersonalize? When and
how politicians’ personalized tweets affect the public’s
reactions. Journal of Communication 2012; 62:932–949.
7. Lee EJ, Shin SY. Are they talking to me? Cognitive and
affective effects of interactivity in politicians’ Twitter
communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking 2012; 15:515–520.
8. Hammond DC, Hepworth DH, Smith VG. (1979) Improv-
ing therapeutic communications. Washington, DC: Jossey-
Bass Publishers.
9. Short JA, Williams E, Christie B. (1976) The social psy-
chology of telecommunication. New York, NY: John Wiley.
10. Walther JB, Parks MR. (2002) Cues filtered out, cues fil-
tered in: computer-mediated communication and relation-
ships. In: Knapp ML, Daly JA, eds. Handbook of
interpersonal communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc, pp. 529–563.
11. Biocca F, Harms C, Burgoon JK. Toward a more robust
theory and measure of social presence: review and sug-
gested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual En-
vironments 2003; 12:456–480.
12. Lee K-M, Nass C. Social-psychological origins of feelings
of presence: creating social presence with machine-
generated voices. Media Psychology 2005; 7:31–45.
13. Nowak KL, Biocca F. The effect of the agency and an-
thropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence,
and social presence in virtual environments. Presence 2003;
12:481–494.
14. Horton D, Wohl RR. Mass communication and para-social
interaction: observations on intimacy at a distance. Psy-
chiatry 1956; 19:215–229.
15. Auter PJ, Davis DM. When characters speak directly to
viewers: breaking the fourth wall in television. Journalism
& Mass Communication Quarterly 1991; 68:165–171.
16. Lee EJ, Jang JW. Not so imaginary interpersonal contact
with public figures on social network sites: how affiliative
POLITICIAN EVALUATIONS ON TWITTER
tendency moderates its effects. Communication Research
2013; 40:27–51.
17. Graham T, Broersma M, Hazelhoff K, et al. Between
broadcasting political messages and interacting with voters:
the use of Twitter during the 2010 UK General Election
campaign. Information, Communication & Society 2013;
16:692–716.
18. Graham T, Jackson D, Broersma M. New platform, old
habits? Candidates’ use of twitter during the 2010 British
and Dutch General Election campaigns. New Media &
Society 2014; DOI: 10.1177/1461444814546728.
19. Waters RD, Williams JM. Squawking, tweeting, cooing,
and hooting: analyzing the communication patterns of
government agencies on Twitter. Journal of Public Affairs
2011; 11:353–363.
20. Stromer-Galley J. On-line interaction and why candidates
avoid it. Journal of Communication 2000; 50:111–132.
21. Bente G, Rüggenberg S, Krämer NC, et al. Avatar-mediated
networking: increasing social presence and interpersonal trust
in net-based collaborations. Human Communication Research
2008; 34:287–318.
22. Skalski P, Tamborini R. The role of social presence in in-
teractive agent-based persuasion. Media Psychology 2007;
10:385–413.
23. Thorson KS, Rodgers S. Relationships between blogs as
eWOM and interactivity, perceived interactivity, and para-
social interaction. Journal of Interactive Advertising 2006;
6:34–44.
24. Spears R, Postmes T, Lea M, et al. When are net effects
gross products? The power of influence and the influence of
power in computer-mediated communication. Journal of
Social Issues 2002; 58:91–107.
25. Postmes T, Spears R. Behavior online: does anonymous
computer communication reduce gender inequality? Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2002; 28:1073–1083.
26. Hopmann DN, Van Aelst P, Legnante G. Political balance
in the news: a review of concepts, operationalizations and
key findings. Journalism 2012; 13:240–257.
27. Schemer C, Wirth W, Matthes J. Value resonance and value
framing effects on voting intentions in direct-democratic
campaigns. American Behavioral Scientist 2012; 56:334–352.
28. Shah DV, Domke D, Wackman, DB. ‘‘To thine own self be
true’’: values, framing and voter decision-making strate-
gies. Communication Research 1996; 23:509–560.
13
29. Ball-Rokeach SJ, Loges WE. (1996) Making choices: me-
dia roles in the construction of value-choices. In: Seligman
C, Olson JM, Zanna MP, eds. The psychology of values: the
Ontario Symposium. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Jamieson KH. (1992) Dirty politics: deception, distraction,
and democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31. Lawrence RG. Game-framing the issues: tracking the
strategy frame in public policy news. Political Commu-
nication 2000; 17:93–114.
32. Patterson TE. (1994) Out of order. New York, NY: Vintage
Books.
33. Veenstra AS, Sayre B, Shah DV, et al. Frames and
knowledge in mixed media: how activation changes in-
formation intake. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2008;
11:443–450.
34. Scholl RM, Pingree RJ, Gotlieb MR, et al. Here’s what
you’ll learn from this news story: prior framing and
learning reasons from news. Electronic News (in press).
35. Holbert RL. Intramedia mediation: the cumulative and
complementary effects of news media use. Political Com-
munication 2005; 22:447–461.
36. Shen F, Eveland WP. Testing the intramedia interaction
hypothesis: the contingent effects of news. Journal of
Communication 2010; 60:364–387.
37. Veenstra AS, Park CS, Lyons BA, Kang CS, Iyer N. In-
tramedium interaction and the third-person effect: how
partisans respond to youtube ads and comments. Cyberp-
sychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2015; 18:
406–410.
38. Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, et al. The ‘‘nasty
effect’’: online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging
technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communica-
tion 2014; 19:373–387.
Address correspondence to:
Benjamin A. Lyons
College of Mass Communication & Media Arts
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
1100 Lincoln Drive
Mailcode 6601
Carbondale, IL 62901
E-mail: lyonsb@siu.edu
(Appendix follows /)
14 LYONS AND VEENSTRA

Appendix 1. Stimulus
POLITICIAN EVALUATIONS ON TWITTER 15

Value · engagement condition

Rep. Donald’s manipulated tweets (strategy condition in bold, nonengagement condition in italics):
 Pres. Obama signing #FarmBill is a big win for [farmers, consumers, communities, and all of America/Democratic
candidates across America in 2014]. donald.house.gov/2014/02/07/.
 [@northernrye I hear your point, I struggled with the vote. Not in favor of cutting SNAP at any level. #FarmBill was an
imperfect compromise./Bill was an imperfect compromise, vote a struggle because of SNAP cuts. donald.house.gov/
2014/02/08/.]
 [@northernrye @senojyrrehs You’re right, but while I regret not doing more, I doubt either section of #FarmBill could
pass as a standalone; difficult to get enough support./Difficult to get support for bill’s sub-sections on their own.
donald.house.gov/2014/02/08/.]
 [@senojyrrehs @northernrye You raise a key issue, & in future, #FarmBill spending on agriculture should be split from
SNAP authorization to reduce competition between interests./In future, spending on agriculture and food stamps
should be separate. donald.house.gov/2014/02/08/.]
Appendix 2. Question wording and factor loading
Twitter use frequency (never, hardly ever, sometimes, or regularly):
 Check Twitter
 Post tweets
 Use Twitter to find news
 Use Twitter to communicate with political figures
 Use Twitter to communicate with other celebrities
 Read news that you just happen to find on Twitter
Rep. Donald evaluation (agree–disagree):
 He is engaged with the public
 He is interested in his constituents’ concerns
 If he were in my district, I would consider voting for him
 He wants to make his thoughts on Farm Bill clear to the public
 He is interested in making good public policy
Other users’ evaluation (agree–disagree):
 They are open to other viewpoints
 They use Twitter to engage in good faith political discussion
Evaluation of Twitter as a discussion platform (agree–disagree):
 It provides a space for meaningful political discussion
 It helps people find out about issues that traditional news doesn’t cover
 It’s a good place to interact with public officials
 It provides a way to see how public officials really think
 It’s a place where public officials will actually hear people’s concerns
Evaluation of Twitter as an information source (agree–disagree):
 It’s a good source of news about politics
 It’s helpful in making voting decisions
 It provides complete information about news stories
 It provides accurate information about news stories
 It provides unbiased information about news stories
Twitter platform evaluations factor loading

Twitter for discussion Twitter for information

Good source of news about politics 0.647 0.449
Helpful in making voting decisions 0.681 0.366
Provides space for meaningful political discussion 0.482 0.620
Helps people find out about issues that traditional news doesn’t cover 0.271 0.627
Provides complete information about news stories 0.830 0.109
Provides accurate information about news stories 0.812 0.214
Provides unbiased information about news stories 0.826 0.091
Good place to interact with public officials 0.153 0.793
Provides a way to see how public officials really think 0.152 0.746
Place where public officials will actually hear people’s concerns 0.106 0.783
Copyright of CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking is the property of Mary Ann
Liebert, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.