KEY WORDS: Internet, election campaigns, candidates, quantitative survey. Introduction. Obama's 2008 campaign is often described as unprecedented in its ...
Policy & Internet, Vol. 4, No. 3-4, 2012
Strategic, Structural, and Individual Determinants of Online Campaigning in German Elections Julia Metag and Frank Marcinkowski This article analyzes various strategic, structural, and individual factors that explain the use of online campaigning in Germany, comparing their relative importance as explanatory variables in national, state, and local elections. Based on candidate surveys of three German elections (at national, state, and local levels) in 2009 and 2010, the results show that strategic and structural variables, such as party membership or the perceived share of indecisive voters, do most to explain online campaigning. Internet-related perceptions are explanatory in a few cases at the state and local levels; if candidates think that other candidates campaign online they feel obliged to use online media during the election campaign. However, genuine political predictors are still very significant at all federal levels. KEY WORDS: Internet, election campaigns, candidates, quantitative survey
Introduction Obama’s 2008 campaign is often described as unprecedented in its use of online campaigning (e.g., Brauckmann, 2009; Lilleker & Jackson, 2011a). Since then, and indeed before, political candidates have been advised by campaign managers to implement online campaign strategies. A growing number of studies from different European countries indicate that online media have become a wellestablished means of campaigning, although their use varies significantly between ˚ stro¨m & Karlsson, 2011; Kluver, countries and different kinds of elections (A Jankowski, Foot, and Schneider, 2007; Schweitzer, 2005, 2008; Utz, 2009). With the increasing use of the Internet during elections, this article considers which structural, strategic, and individual factors determine the use of online campaigning by candidates during election campaigns in Germany and compares the significance of these factors at three federal levels: local elections, state elections, and national elections. In addition to the variables that have been proven to be influential by other studies, the present one suggests that mediarelated attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions relating to media effects on voters or the use of the Internet by opponents might also influence the use of online campaigns by candidates. We expect candidates who are convinced of the advantages of the
136 1944-2866 # 2012 Policy Studies Organization Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX42 DQ.
Metag/Marcinkowski: Determinants of Online Campaigns in Germany
137
Internet and its effects on voters to use it more intensively during election campaigns. We consider whether there are behavioral consequences of individual cognition of the candidates in the context of election campaigns and compare them to other predictors of online campaigning. The analysis is based on three different candidate surveys that were conducted in Germany during the 2009 national elections, the 2010 North Rhine-Westphalia state elections, and the 2009 North Rhine-Westphalia local elections. Election Campaigns and the Internet The United States has always led the way in use of the Internet, both by candidates and by voters, during election campaigns (Howard, 2006), but it was not long before other countries showed similar developments (Gibson & Ro¨mmele, 2004; Lev-On, 2011; Norris, 2001). According to Schweitzer and Albrecht (2011, pp. 28–32), the most important tools in online campaigns are personal websites (as the classic form of online communication), online surveys, wikis, blogs, Twitter, video platforms like YouTube, and social networks. Research on online campaigning has studied the supply of political information online during elections through content analyses of websites and other online applications (e.g., Lilleker & Jackson, 2011a, 2011b; Schweitzer, 2011). Despite the growing significance of the Internet for elections, studies that have analyzed the characteristics of online campaigning have yielded different results. Two assumptions can be derived from these results; one of which has become known as the “equalization” hypothesis (Coleman & Blumler, 2009) and the other being the “normalization” hypothesis (Margolis & Resnick, 2000, p. 2). Advocates of the idea of equalization believe that through the Internet and later through the emergence of Web 2.0, the resources of political parties are less significant and a more inclusive and ideal democratic discourse is possible (Castells, 2007, 2009; Chadwick, 2009; Coleman & Blumler, 2009; Gibson, Lusoli, & Ward, 2008; Schweitzer, 2008). This assumption is supported by empirical research showing that small parties could benefit from online campaigning despite their more limited resources (Gibson & Ward, 2007). This idea is challenged by the normalization hypothesis, which argues that real-world differences between political parties and candidates are simply replicated on the Internet. This means that the Internet is used mainly for its information function, and differences in professionalism, resources, and visibility between major and minor parties and organizations in the real world are reflected in their Internet presence (Gibson et al., 2008; Schweitzer, 2005, 2008). The effect of online campaigning on citizens, mostly voters, has also been researched. The most striking finding is that the use of the Internet for political information by the voters is still relatively low. In Germany in 2009, only 18.8 percent of the respondents of a representative German-wide survey used the Internet at least once a week for political information (Faas & Partheymu¨ller, 2011, p. 124). Data for Britain yield a similar number, with only 15 percent of Internet users looking for information about a politician or a member of the
138
Policy & Internet, 4:3-4
parliament in 2011 (Dutton & Blank, 2011, p. 27). In Australia about 20 percent of the voters used the Internet for electoral information in the 2007 election (Gibson & McAllister, 2011, p. 233). Despite the low number of voters using the Internet to gather political information, online campaigning is widely prominent among political candidates and parties (Davis, Baumgartner, Francia, and Morris, 2009). The use of Web 1.0 applications and top-down strategies like personal websites is constantly developing and increasing (Gulati & Williams, 2007) whereas political candidates and parties are more hesitant regarding the use and development of more interactive and participatory Web 2.0 applications (Kluver et al., 2007; Ward, Owen, Davis, & Taras, 2008). Lately, a slight tendency toward more interaction between parties and voters was found in the U.K. 2010 General Election (Lilleker & Jackson, 2010). Some studies found that the use of online campaign techniques had positive effects on the candidates’ electoral performance (Gibson & McAllister, 2006, 2011; Sudulich & Wall, 2010). However, results regarding the electoral impact of online campaigning are mixed and differ between different campaign techniques, such as reliance on either predominantly Web 1.0 or Web 2.0 applications (Rackaway, 2007; Wagner & Gainous, 2009). Determinants of Online Campaigning If the use of online campaigning varies between countries and between different online applications, and if there is uncertainty about whether online campaigning results in better electoral performance the question arises as to why candidates and political parties rely on the Internet (as well as specific applications) during election campaigns. Studies dealing with online campaigning identify different structural, strategic, and individual predictors regarding the use of the Internet during elections. Various structural variables influence the extent to which the Internet is used in election campaigns. Norris (2001) looks at the technological development of different countries and identifies socioeconomic development, technological diffusion, and the extent of democratization as variables explaining the level of Internet use in campaigns. Foot, Xenos, Schneider, Kluver, and Jankowski (2009) also demonstrate for 19 countries that held elections in 2004 that the political development and political culture of a country influences how and to what extent the Internet is used. Political development is defined as the differences in political institutions and political structures of the countries, and political culture relates to “factors associated with the citizenry itself” (Foot et al., 2009, p. 44), measured through the sets of values held by a country’s citizens. Political development and political culture were both found to affect web practices in various countries. Structural factors influencing the use of online campaigning also include characteristics of the campaign district, for example the age and education levels of voters. If the constituents are younger and better educated, the candidates tend to use the Internet more intensively (Herrnson, Stokes-Brown, & Hindman, 2007; Lev-On, 2011; Zittel, 2009). The education level of constituents does not just affect
Metag/Marcinkowski: Determinants of Online Campaigns in Germany
139
the implementation of websites, but also the use of video platforms like YouTube (Gulati & Williams, 2010). The technological profile of the electorate, that is, the proportion of households with Internet access, was included in a study about cyber-campaigning in Ireland but it did not yield any significant effect on a candidate’s website presence (Sudulich & Wall, 2009). At the same time, Internet penetration was a significant predictor of candidate website presence in Britain and Australia (Gibson et al., 2008). Likewise, the specific party to which the candidates belong influences online campaigning, because this affects the resources at their disposal. Usually, larger parties have a more substantial campaign budget, and the larger the budget, the more likely it is that a candidate will use a personal website (Zittel, 2009) or a YouTube channel (Gulati & Williams, 2010). Sudulich and Wall (2009) find that candidate expenses (as well as party expenses) affect the likelihood of the candidate having a website; generally, more financial resources increase the likelihood for campaigning online in the Irish case (Sudulich & Wall, 2009). Other predictors of online campaigning can be summed up as strategic variables (Schweitzer & Albrecht, 2011, p. 35). Use of online campaigning is related to incumbency; newcomers usually make more frequent use of websites or other instruments of online campaigning than incumbents (Lev-On, 2011; Zittel, 2009). However, in Australia in 2004 and in Britain in 2005 incumbents were more likely to have a website (Gibson et al., 2008). Another strategic variable is the competitiveness of the race or chance of winning in a candidate’s constituency, which has been found to be significant for the choice of online campaigning (Gibson et al., 2008; Zittel, 2009). Ideology plays an equally strategic role in online campaigning during elections; parties that are more left-wing and less conservative seem to encourage candidates more to campaign online (Gibson & McAllister, 2006; Sudulich, 2009). However, this does not apply to all countries. A study of the 2010 Swedish elections demonstrated that right-wing candidates ˚ stro¨m & Karlsson, 2011). The authors reason that leftwere more likely to blog (A wing candidates and their parties focus more on collectivistic organization and tend to oppose individualistic strategies, such as blogging. In the 2010 British General Election, the Conservatives put slightly more effort into maintaining a website than the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats, and the British National Party’s websites were also more interactive (Lilleker & Jackson, 2011b). The results are also mixed for use of online tools other than personal websites; use of YouTube by candidates in the 2008 U.S. Congressional elections was not influenced by their party membership (Gulati & Williams, 2010). Regarding individual or demographic variables of parties and candidates, studies so far have demonstrated that age and gender affect Internet use. Younger candidates are more familiar with the Internet and make greater use of its ˚ stro¨m and potential (Gibson & McAllister, 2006; Zittel, 2009). Regarding gender, A Karlsson (2011) found, with respect to the use of blogging in Swedish election campaigns, that 60 percent of blogging candidates were male. Being male was also a significant predictor of the candidates’ use of YouTube in a Finnish study (Carlson & Strandberg, 2008). In the 2004 Australian election, however, gender
140
Policy & Internet, 4:3-4
did not yield any effect regarding the use of a website (Gibson & McAllister, 2006). Herrnson et al. (2007) conducted a candidate survey in 2001 and discovered that the length of candidates’ political careers had an impact on their use of online campaigning; the longer the career, the less likely they were to campaign online. However, they did not control for age at the same time. Gibson and McAllister (2006), on the contrary, did not find the length of party membership and legislative experience to be significant predictors of the likelihood of maintaining a website while they were controlling for age. Wolling, Schmolinsky, and Emmer (2010) indicate another important variable for use of the Internet during campaigns, namely the individual’s social environment. This comprises a candidate’s social groups such as their employees, their party, the voters, journalists, and friends. If candidates believe that their social peers perceive the Internet as important they are more likely to use it during their campaign. This relates to the general rationale that political candidates use the Internet during campaigns, because they believe it is expected of them or because their opponents do the same. This concept was first mentioned by Selnow (1998) who claimes that parties looked at what their opponents did when they considered launching a website. Sudulich and Wall (2009, p. 468) find strong evidence that candidates campaign online in order not to fall behind if there is a high number of opponents with online campaigns. This “me too” effect points to the notion that candidates may use the Internet during their campaign irrespective of whether they think online campaigning has an effect on voters and improves their electoral performance. However, we believe that the opposing idea—that candidates are actually convinced of the electoral impact of online campaigning—should also affect the extent and nature of their online campaign. We therefore investigate in this article whether in addition to the individual factors mentioned above, candidate perceptions related to media effects on voters also explain why candidates campaign online. We assume that political candidates expect certain media effects during election campaigns, and that they both behave and campaign accordingly. This notion is based on research on third-person perceptions and the influence of presumed media influence (Davison, 1983; Gunther & Storey, 2003; Tal-Or, Tsfati, & Gunther, 2009). During online campaigns, specific perceptions of the influence of the Internet play a role; we expect candidates who are convinced of the advantages of the Internet and its effects on voters to use it more intensively during election campaigns. The Case Study: National, State, and Local Elections in Germany German politics are based on a federal system in which multiple parties operate, leading to a high frequency of elections. In 2009, for example, six elections at the state level were held, accompanied by elections for the European Parliament and the Federal Parliament (Deutscher Bundestag) at the national level. Germany has a hybrid electoral system of personalized proportional representation. In most of the states and in a Bundestag election each voter casts two ballots. The first vote
Metag/Marcinkowski: Determinants of Online Campaigns in Germany
141
is given to a candidate running for a particular district, with the candidate receiving the majority of votes elected as the district representative. The second vote is cast for a party list. It determines each party’s share of the popular vote. Usually half of the members of a parliament are elected directly in the districts, the other half are taken from party lists according to their vote share. There are substantial differences in the German electoral system at the local level; although the local elections in North-Rhine Westphalia (studied in this article) follow basically the same logic as state and federal elections, in local elections each voter casts only one ballot for a district candidate and a closed party list. The first German party websites were launched in the mid-1990s and online campaign instruments were first used during the 1998 national elections (Schweitzer & Albrecht, 2011, p. 19). Schweitzer and Albrecht (2011) demonstrate in an overview of campaigns since 1998 that innovative use of new online campaigning instruments was mostly initiated in national elections and later state elections, while the political online presence remained more or less static during nonelection periods. Regarding the current situation, Lilleker and Jackson (2011b) found for the last national elections in 2009 that the Internet presence of the biggest German parties was highly standardized and that some Web 2.0 features were included. However, they also state that these features “remained more or less aesthetic tools” (Lilleker & Jackson, 2011b, p. 107) and did not facilitate interactive political discussions. The 2009 national election also supported the overall trend that the share of voters using the Internet for political information during the campaign is still small (Faas & Partheymu¨ller, 2011); only 19 percent of citizens were using the Internet during the campaign to gather political information. The intensity of use remained at 2005 levels, at an average of three days per week (Faas & Partheymu¨ller, 2011, p. 124). This article contributes to ongoing research in this area by considering the German case and comparing predictors of use of online campaigning in elections at different federal levels. In addition, we suggest the inclusion of measures of a candidate’s Internet-related beliefs and perceptions for studying the determinants of online campaigns. Our first research question therefore considers which of the various variables described above explain the use of online campaigning during election campaigns in Germany. RQ1: Which variables predict the use of online campaigning during election campaigns in Germany? We do not just investigate which variables generally influence online campaigning in Germany, but also the differences between different federal levels. While a large body of literature on online campaigning has focused on the predictors of online campaigning during national elections (e.g., Carlson & Strandberg, 2008; Gibson & McAllister, 2006, 2011; Gibson et al., 2008; Gulati & Williams, 2010; Sudulich & Wall, 2009) we extend the analysis to state and local elections. Whether a candidate runs for office in a local, state, or national election implies certain conditions for the candidate and their campaign. This applies mostly to the resources at the candidate’s disposal. For example, candidates in
142
Policy & Internet, 4:3-4
local elections usually have a lower campaign budget than candidates in national elections. This poses the question of the extent to which different budget amounts influences the extent of online campaigning at different federal levels. By comparing different federal levels, we hope to shed some light on contradictory results regarding the determinants of online campaigns. We therefore ask whether strategic, structural, and individual factors have different impacts on the use of online campaigning, depending on the federal level of the election. RQ2: Are there any differences in variables predicting online campaigning in national, state, and local elections? Methods and Data The research questions are addressed here by means of three different candidate surveys undertaken during elections at different federal levels in Germany, specifically the 2009 national elections, the 2010 North Rhine-Westphalia state elections, and the 2009 North Rhine-Westphalia local elections.1 The national sample is the largest with 790 respondents (response rate: 38 percent), followed by the state sample with 366 respondents (response rate: 54 percent), and the local sample with 99 respondents (response rate: 26 percent; see Table 1). The local and state surveys were conducted during the eight weeks preceding election day; the national survey was undertaken after the national election from October 2009 onward. Paper and pencil surveys were used for the national and state elections, whereas local election candidates completed an online questionnaire. Use of an online questionnaire for the local election may have introduced a certain bias that might be related to the low response rate for that survey, that is, the online questionnaire could have led to more candidates participating in the survey who were more familiar with being online generally. However, the questionnaire was not emailed to the candidates directly, but was distributed via the party head offices; candidates may therefore have felt more obliged to participate in the survey, possibly counteracting the bias of the survey’s being conducted online. The population for each survey, that is, national, state, and Table 1. Survey Data Election
Survey Method
National Election 2009
Paper and Pencil After the Survey election Paper and Pencil Before the Survey election
State Election: North Rhine-Westphalia 2010 Local Election: North Rhine-Westphalia 2009
Online Survey
Time of Survey
Before the election
Candidates (n)
Respondents (n)
Response Rate (%)
2077
790
38
679
366
54
383
99
26
Note: Surveys were sent to all candidates standing in all three elections.
Metag/Marcinkowski: Determinants of Online Campaigns in Germany
143
local survey, consisted of the candidates of the five largest German parties, that is, the Conservatives (the two conservative and related parties CDU and CSU, taken together), the Social Democrats (SPD), the Liberals (FDP), the Green Party (Bu¨ndnis 90/Die Gru¨nen), and the Left Party (Die Linke). In addition to the survey data, the authors conducted a content analysis of the candidates’ online campaigns during the state election. This included measuring if candidates actually had a website, a Facebook account, and other online applications. This analysis is based on the assumption that candidates could indicate in the survey prior to the election day that they were planning to use certain online campaign applications, but in the end perhaps not use them because of financial constraints or lack of time. The content analysis was conducted during the last three days before the state election in order to measure if the candidates had actually used online campaigning the way they had indicated in the survey. For the local and national election no online content data were gathered. We strived for a parallel measurement of all independent and dependent variables in each survey (see Appendix). As we conducted a secondary analysis of the data for the national election we could not determine the measures for this survey but tried to use similar measures for the state and local elections. In terms of structural factors, the age distribution and average level of education in the candidates’ electoral districts, the perceived number of indecisive voters, and their campaign budget were measured. The official number of swing voters is only available after the election, so we based the measurement of the number of indecisive voters on the candidate’s individual perception. Even if this perception is not correct it should be relevant for his or her actual behavior during the campaign. The budget variable was logged to control for outliers. Party membership and marginality were used as strategic variables. Marginality is often measured ex post by using the election results for a candidate (Sudulich & Wall, 2009). We tried to directly capture the candidates’ perception of their chances of winning by asking them in the state and local survey show likely they thought it was that they would to win. Incumbency was measured as the candidate having been a member of the parliament in the previous legislative period (local and state election) or whether they had ever been a member of the parliament (national election). Regarding individual variables, age, gender, and political experience were included in all surveys. Additionally, one of the study’s objectives was to add variables tapping the candidates’ individual media-related perceptions, specifically about the influence of the Internet. These Internet-related perceptions were included as three variables in the state and local election (see Table 2), two of them addressing the so-called “me too” variable (Selnow, 1998; Sudulich & Wall, 2009). Following Selnow (1998), these two variables intend to measure whether the candidates only use online campaigning because other candidates do so, or because their party wants them to do so. Sudulich and Wall (2009) measure this “me too” variable as the ratio of opponents in a constituency with a campaign website to the total number of opponents. In contrast, we sought a more individual measurement based on the perceptions of the candidates as to
144
Policy & Internet, 4:3-4 Table 2. Perceived Influence of the Internet State Election 2010
“Me too”: Influence of Internet on party “Me too”: Influence of Internet on other candidates Persuasion of voters through Internet
Local Election 2009
M
SD
M
SD
3.65 3.55 3.72
0.79 0.75 0.64
3.47 3.19 3.35
0.73 0.75 0.67
Note: Survey Question: “What do you think, to what extent do the media influence … your party/other candidates/voters?”—“And what media are particularly influential?” (1 ¼ no influence, 5 ¼ very strong influence).
whether they felt that the Internet influences other candidates or their party. The two “me too” variables were compiled by calculating the mean of the item of perceived influence of the media on other candidates and the item asking specifically for the perceived influence of the Internet. The variable of the perceived influence of the Internet on the candidates’ party was calculated in the same manner (see Table 2). On the contrary, the variable measuring persuasion implies that the candidates perceive online campaigning as actually affecting voters. Thus, the candidate does not only use the Internet because others do but because they are convinced that it has an effect on voters during the campaign. The variable is compiled as the mean of two questions addressing whether the candidates perceive their own voters as influenced by the Internet and whether the Internet is influential on voters who usually vote for other parties. Then the mean of this variable and the item of how influential candidates perceived the Internet to be was calculated. The national survey did not ask which media were perceived as particularly influential; therefore no Internet-specific perceptions were measured, but only assumed effects of mass media on voters and politicians in general (see Appendix). As we are attempting here to reveal the determinants of online campaigning, we employ three different sets of measures of the candidates’ use of the Internet as dependent variables. First, in the national and state elections, the use of specific online applications was measured. In the state election, the candidates were asked which specific online applications they were planning to use during the campaign (a personal website, social networks, and YouTube). The national survey asked which online applications they used during their campaign because this survey was done after the election day. The first set of dependent variables, thus, measures the (planned) use of online campaigning. During the state election campaign, we were able to measure the actual use of online media by conducting a content analysis of the candidates’ online activities, measuring items such as having a Facebook or Twitter account. This constitutes the second set of dependent variables, the actual use of online campaigning. The effect of the various predictors on the actual use of a personal website as dependent variable was also calculated, but it did not reveal a sufficient model fit to enable a meaningful interpretation. The local election survey did not include the question on the candidates’ use of specific online tools. The dependent variable that was used
Metag/Marcinkowski: Determinants of Online Campaigns in Germany
145
here asked how important a personal website was to the candidates. The third dependent variable measures the perceived importance of having a website. There are other small differences between the surveys. Information about the structure of a candidate’s electoral district, regarding age and education, was only available for the national election. For the national survey, the perceived number of indecisive voters was not measured. Results We first present a descriptive analysis of candidate online campaigning during the three election campaigns and then consider explanations for the extent and strategy of online campaigning at the different federal levels. Online Campaigning in German Election Campaigns With respect to the planned use of online media, candidates in the national and the state elections are quite similar in their application of certain online tools (see Table 3). About two-thirds of the candidates in 2009–2010 planned to have or had their own websites during the election campaign and about half planned to use social networks such as Facebook. A personal website and a social network site appear to be the online media which the candidates have become accustomed to, and use of other online media such as blogs or video platforms was less widely planned to be used, and was rather an exception. When asked how important certain campaign strategies were for their campaigns, only a quarter of the candidates in the local election cited online campaigning to be among the most important (see Table 4). At the local level, traditional campaign strategies such as public meetings (58.6 percent), leaflets (51.5 percent), and election posters (48.5 percent) were still perceived as more relevant, a result which is confirmed in other studies (e.g., Lev-On, 2011, p. 10). Online Campaigning at Three Federal Levels As we can see from the descriptive data, online campaigning plays a major role in German national and state elections and also constitutes an essential Table 3. (Planned) Use of Online Media by Candidates During National and State Election Campaigns
Website (supervised by party) (%) Website (supervised by candidate) (%) Chats (%) Blogs (%) Social networks (%) Twitter (%) YouTube (%) Total (N)
National Election 2009
State Election 2010
14.9 69.4 14.3 20.3 51.4 Not measured 26.8 582
23.2 61.2 21.9 25.7 55.7 21.9 27.3 366
Note: (Planned) use of online media was not measured for the local election because items on detailed use of online campaigning were not included in the survey.
146
Policy & Internet, 4:3-4 Table 4. Perceived Importance of Campaign Instruments (Considered “Very Important” by Candidates) Local Election 2009
Personal website (%) Personal election posters (%) Personal campaign leaflets (%) Attending public meetings (%) Ads in the local press (%) Ads on the radio, TV, or in the cinema (%) Total (N)
24.2 48.5 51.5 58.6 7.1 3.0 99
campaign strategy at the local level. However, what explains the use of online campaigning at the three different federal levels? The planned and the actual use of online media are binary variables, so logistic regressions were run for these variables in the national and state elections. We ran ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models for the local election, with the individual importance of a personal website as the dependent variable. The regression models reveal how much of the variance is explained by the various factors and which variables most influence which election campaign. German National Elections 2009. According to the use of a personal website and of social networks (see Table 5), candidates of the Social Democratic Party were more inclined toward online campaigning. Likewise, candidates of the Liberal party were more likely to have a personal website. At least regarding social networks, at the national level, the tendency of left-wing parties being more inclined to use online media, is supported. Generally, strategic factors, meaning party membership and its associated ideology, have the greatest impact on online campaigning during a national election. Regarding the use of YouTube, incumbency appears to be a significant explanatory variable, with incumbents being less inclined to use the online video platform compared with challengers. Perhaps because YouTube was a relatively new online campaigning instrument, experienced incumbents in the national election were relying more on campaigning strategies they were familiar with whereas challengers had the opportunity to try new kinds of online campaigning. The perception of the candidate that he or she is likely to win the election increases the likelihood of use of a personal website. Compared to these strategic variables, the campaign budget is very important in explaining the planned use of each of the different online campaigning instruments; the higher the budget, the more the candidates make use of online campaigning. Online campaigning, thus, is highly dependent on the candidates’ resources. With respect to individual variables, only age can add further explanatory power, especially regarding the newer forms of online media such as social networks and video platforms. Perceptions of the influence of the media on voters or the political system during the campaign do not influence the likelihood of using online campaigning in the national election.
Metag/Marcinkowski: Determinants of Online Campaigns in Germany
147
Table 5. Use of Online Campaigning at the National Level Use Personal Website Est. Structural factors Budget Citizens with high-school diploma in electoral district Citizens aged 18–24 in electoral district Strategic factors Incumbency Close race Party: Conservatives Party: Social Democrats Party: Liberals Party: Green Party Individual factors Perceived media influence on politicians Perceived media influence on voters Age Gender (male) Experience Constant Total Nagelkerke R2 N
SE
0.47*** 0.02
0.11 0.02
0.14
0.17
0.73 0.44* 0.18 1.59** 0.83* 0.60
0.45 0.18 0.63 0.61 0.37 0.33
0.05 0.02 0.02 0.28 0.01 4.90* 0.34 464
Use Social Web Est. 0.32** 0.03 0.12
SE 0.11 0.02
Use YouTube Est. 0.43** 0.02
SE 0.13 0.02
0.16
0.28
0.17
0.08 0.13 0.04 1.24* 0.01 0.53
0.33 0.13 0.54 0.48 0.37 0.35
1.04** 0.19 0.33 0.34 0.18 0.12
0.33 0.13 0.58 0.50 0.42 0.41
0.12 0.14 0.01 0.28 0.02
0.04 0.13 0.10*** 0.12 0.01
0.11 0.13 0.01 0.25 0.01
0.03 0.03 0.06*** 0.07 0.01
0.12 0.14 0.01 0.27 0.02
1.89
1.86 0.34 464
1.69
0.54 0.22 464
1.88
Note: Logistic regression results showing parameter estimates and standard errors predicting reporting a personal website, a social network account, and using YouTube (*p 0.05, **p 0.01, ***p 0.001). For party membership, the excluded category is Left Party candidates.
North Rhine-Westphalia State Elections 2010. In the state election, the planned use of YouTube which the candidates indicated in the survey is influenced negatively by candidates belonging to the Conservative party (see Table 6a). Nonetheless, if the actual use of Facebook or Twitter is considered, no party effects can be detected (see Table 6b). The planned as well as the actual use of online media, however, are also determined by structural and individual factors (see Tables 6a and 6b). An influential variable that was not measured in the national election is the perceived share of indecisive voters. This indicator of the perceived structure of a candidate’s constituency influences the planned and actual use of online media significantly for the state election. The greater the perceived share of indecisive voters, the more the candidates rely on online campaigning. This applies to the newer forms of online campaigning, the social web and video platforms, as well as to personal websites. If the candidates think that many voters have not yet decided for whom to vote, they believe they can reach them and collect their votes through online campaigning. Regarding the individual variables, age is again significant for the planned use of social networks and YouTube, as well as for the actual use of Facebook and Twitter. Similar to what we found in the national election, the candidate being a favorite in the electoral race determined planning to use the social web
148
Policy & Internet, 4:3-4 Table 6a. Planned Use of Online Campaigning at State Level
Structural factors Budget Perceived share of indecisive voters Strategic factors Incumbency Close race Party: Conservatives Party: Social Democrats Party: Liberals Party: Green Party Individual factors “Me too”: Influence of Internet on party “Me too”: Influence of Internet on other candidates Persuasion of voters through Internet Age Gender (male) Experience Constant Total Nagelkerke R2 N
Use Personal Website
Use Social Networks
Est.
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
0.04 0.05**
0.24 0.02
87* 0.04*
0.34 0.02
0.71 0.63* 1.28 2.36 0.06 0.84
0.48 0.27 1.31 1.27 0.91 0.86
0.73 0.63* 3.25* 1.71 0.52 0.14
0.49 0.27 1.50 1.30 0.97 0.92
0.08 0.03*
SE 0.23 0.02
Use YouTube
0.59 0.53 2.03 21.20 0.55 0.38
0.50 0.29 1.28 6225.5 0.81 0.77
0.37 0.05
0.46 0.43
0.28 0.04
0.45 0.42
0.47 1.07*
0.46 0.49
0.43 0.03 0.62 0.03
0.47 0.02 0.65 0.03
0.46 0.10*** 0.11 0.01
0.43 0.02 0.55 0.03
0.40 0.07** 0.30 0.01
0.46 0.02 0.51 0.03
0.69 0.44 155
2.52
2.33 0.47 157
2.6
7.78* 0.38 156
3.15
Note: Logistic regression results showing parameter estimates and standard errors predicting the probability of reporting a personal website, a social network account or using YouTube (*p 0.05, **p 0.01, ***p 0.001). For party membership, the excluded category is Left Party candidates.
and YouTube and actually using Twitter. Also, incumbents are more likely to use Twitter during their state campaign. During the election campaign at state level, it seems that YouTube constitutes a campaign technique that is only used if the budget allows for it, and is not part of the usual set of campaigning instruments. The candidates’ perceptions of the influence of the Internet on voters, though, do not have any effect on their use of online campaigning; it is therefore unclear if the candidates make use of online campaigning at the state level because they are convinced of its effects in improving their electoral performance. At the same time, we only find one significant “me too” effect, indicating that they plan to use YouTube during their campaign because other candidates do so. This underscores the particular character of the use of YouTube; it appears to be an exception in online election campaigns and seems to be used only if there are sufficient resources and competitors using it. For every other dependent variable, the “me too” effect does not yield any significant effects in our data. North Rhine-Westphalia Local Elections 2009. The results for the local election differ from those of the national and state elections. However, the results are more limited, because only the OLS regression model, with the importance of a personal website as dependent variable, could be tested (see Table 7).2 Strategic
Metag/Marcinkowski: Determinants of Online Campaigns in Germany
149
Table 6b. Actual Use of Online Campaigning at State Level Actual Use of Facebook
Actual Use of Twitter
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
0.09 0.04**
0.22 0.01
0.39 0.06**
0.30 0.02
Structural factors Budget Perceived share of indecisive voters Strategic factors Incumbency Close race Party: Conservatives Party: Social Democrats Party: Liberals Party: Green Party Individual factors “Me too”: Influence of Internet on party “Me too”: Influence of Internet on other candidates Persuasion of voters through Internet Age Gender (male) Experience
0.29 0.09 0.11 0.76 0.44 0.69
0.43 0.22 1.13 1.09 0.86 0.85
1.07* 0.57* 1.69 1.10 2.62 0.58
0.51 0.29 1.68 1.66 1.48 1.47
0.26 0.17 0.14 0.05* 0.31 0.00
0.40 0.39 0.41 0.02 0.50 0.03
0.11 0.14 0.33 0.13*** 0.33 0.05
0.53 0.47 0.52 0.03 0.63 0.03
Constant Total Nagelkerke R2 N
1.99 0.19 155
2.63
3.11 0.52 155
3.72
Note: Logistic regression results showing parameter estimates and standard errors predicting actually having a social network account or using YouTube (*p 0.05, **p 0.01, ***p 0.001). For party membership, the excluded category is Left Party candidates.
factors, in contrast to the other surveys, do not yield any significant effect on the use of online campaigning at the local level. Likewise, structural predictors do not play a role. Surprisingly, the budget, which has been an explanatory variable for some online techniques during national and state elections, does not have an effect at the local level. This is unexpected as particularly at local level, the candidates’ budget is smaller so that online campaigning should only be possible if the budget allows for it. This may be the case, however, for other online instruments such as the social web or YouTube, which depend on the budget at national and state level but which could not be analyzed at the local level. What is striking though is that the candidates’ perception of their opponents’ online campaign is more effective at the local level than at the national or state levels. The more the candidates think that other candidates are using the Internet during their election campaigns, the more important a personal website appears to them. The candidates actually being convinced of the potential of online campaigning to persuade voters explains the importance of a personal website less. However, the effect of persuading their voters is only slightly not significant (p ¼ 0.066). It is possible that political candidates also believe personal websites can win voters but they are mainly influenced by the behavior of other candidates. These individual predictors explain the importance of a personal website at the local
150
Policy & Internet, 4:3-4 Table 7. Regression Predicting the Importance of a Personal Website at the Local Level
Predictors
Importance of a Personal Website b
Structural factors Budget Perceived share of indecisive voters Strategic factors Incumbency Close race Party: Conservatives Party: Social Democrats Individual factors “Me too”: Influence of Internet on party “Me too”: Influence of Internet on other candidates Persuasion of voters through Internet Age Gender (male) Experience
Beta
0.17 0.06
0.18 0.07
0.05 0.07 0.17 0.03
0.03 0.10 0.09 0.02
0.25 0.51** 0.31 0.01 0.26 0.01
0.22 0.18 0.24 0.10 0.13 0.06
0.08 0.21** 94
Constant Total adjusted R2 N
Note: OLS regression estimates showing partial (b) and standardized (beta) coefficients predicting the importance of a personal website (p 0.05, **p 0.01, ***p 0.001). For party membership, the excluded variable is Liberal Party candidates.
level even better than strategic or structural predictors. However, the validity of the model is limited, due to the smaller sample. Discussion The aim of this study was to analyze which variables influence the extent and character of online campaigning in Germany, and whether there are any differences between national, state, and local elections. Descriptive data reveal that each federal level election is penetrated by online media during election campaigns, but the scope of online media is restricted mainly to websites and social network sites as standard tools. The national and state levels are more affected by online campaigning than the local level. National Level At the national level, strategic variables strongly influence the extent of online campaigning. Party membership is a significant predictor; in particular the Social Democratic Party appears to expect and encourage their candidates to use online media during their campaigns, but there are also effects for the Liberals. Being a member of the Conservatives does not yield any effects on online campaigning and the results rather indicate that Conservatives are more hesitant in using online media during their campaign. Also, candidates self-reporting being likely
Metag/Marcinkowski: Determinants of Online Campaigns in Germany
151
to win the election make more use of a website at the national level, correlating with the observation that the Internet is mostly used by candidates who are favorites during a campaign or who have a front-runner status. Those who are likely to win are given the opportunity by their party to reach voters in every possible way—including online media. Incumbency, which is often an explanatory variable particularly during national elections, only shows an effect on the use of YouTube and it reveals a negative correlation. This result supports the findings from another study conducted for the German case (Zittel, 2009). Among the structural factors, the use of online campaigning techniques depends also very much on the campaign budget. Regarding individual predictors, age continues to make a difference when online campaigning during national elections is considered. The younger the candidates, the more inclined they are to use social networks or YouTube during their campaign. Gender and political experience on the other hand hardly have an effect; online communication has already become widely adopted during national elections, regardless of candidate gender or experience. Another aim of our study was to analyze whether individual perceptions of the influence of the Internet exert any effect on the campaign strategy. We tested this for the perceived media influence on politicians as well as on voters. Overall, the data indicates that both perceptions do not have any influence on the candidates’ constituency campaigns at national level. This may be due to the fact that the candidates know that the majority of citizens do not use the Internet to acquire political information (Faas & Partheymu¨ller, 2011) and thus do not see any potential in reaching or persuading them via the Internet. Instead, genuine political factors influence the campaign strategy stronger than perceptions of media influence. Nonetheless, another reason for this result could be that media perceptions were not measured as Internet-specific perceptions in the national survey. Therefore, we cannot entirely rule out effects of Internet-related perceptions in national elections. State Level At the state level, with respect to the strategic variables, the perceived likelihood of winning is the most important predictor for use of online campaigning. Incumbency explains the actual use of Twitter with incumbents being more likely to use it. Here, the study reveals a difference between the different federal levels as incumbents are less likely to report an intention to use YouTube at the national level. However, we could not measure the actual use of YouTube during the national elections. Among the structural factors at the state level, the perceived number of indecisive voters was most significant for the use of online media, including Web 1.0 media, social network sites, Twitter and video platforms. This indicates that candidates in the state election at least see the Web’s potential for persuading indecisive voters. This variable was not measured at the national level, so we cannot make any valid statements about effects during national elections. The budget, on the contrary, only explains the planned use of YouTube at the state level and none of the other dependent variables. At the
152
Policy & Internet, 4:3-4
same time, as individual predictors, perceptions of the effects of the Internet on voters are not significant. Although the candidates intensify their use of Web 2.0 applications if they perceive a high share of indecisive voters this does not mean that they are convinced that voters can be persuaded through their online campaign. With respect to YouTube, candidates mainly make use of this tool if they think that other candidates use it, too. This indicator of the “me too” effect may reveal that candidates are not convinced of the potential of YouTube in winning voters and only use it if they think that their competitors do so. During the state election, age was only a significant predictor for the use of Web 2.0 applications; personal websites appear to be as prominent among older candidates as for younger ones. This supports the result from the national survey where the use of a personal website was not determined by a candidate’s age. The measurement of the planned and actual use of certain campaign techniques during the state elections also reveals differences regarding the explanatory variables. For example, the perceived likelihood of winning makes a great difference when candidates are asked in the survey about their planned use of social networks but it does not yield any explanatory power in terms of whether the candidates actually had a Facebook account.3 This difference of the explanatory power of chances of winning between planned and actual use could indicate that some candidates specify in the survey that they want to use the social web but do not actually do so according to our measurement. In the survey, 57 percent of the candidates claimed that they were planning to use social networks whereas the online investigation only found Facebook sites for 30 percent of the candidates. Anyhow, the predictor coefficients still point into the same direction regardless of the planned or actual use. Local Elections In the local election, the “me too” variable was the strongest and only significant predictor. If local candidates are convinced that online campaigning is important to other candidates the more important they perceive online campaigning, measured here as the importance of having a personal website. One could argue that local elections are yet comparatively less penetrated by online campaigning than the other elections so that candidates really only think about using online campaigning if their competitors also campaign online. The other strategic, structural, and individual predictors do not yield any significant effects although most of the coefficients, such as for age or close race, show the same tendency as in the other elections. Regarding party membership, it seems that the parties are very much similar in their use of online media at local level. Predictors for using Web 2.0 applications like Facebook or YouTube could not be analyzed at local level. We cannot rule out that strategic and structural variables can explain the use of these applications during local elections, keeping in mind that these are even less frequently used than a personal website. Also the budget, which does not affect the importance of having a website, may presumably influence the use of other online campaigning techniques.
Metag/Marcinkowski: Determinants of Online Campaigns in Germany
153
Overall, the candidate surveys from three elections reveal that different variables explain, at least in part, the use of online campaigning. During national and state elections, strategic variables such as party membership and the likelihood of winning are the driving forces behind the use of a personal website or Web 2.0 applications. This is consistent with patterns of online campaigning observed in other countries in which the chances of success and party membership (Carlson & Strandberg, 2008; Sudulich & Wall, 2009) play a role. It also supports the significance of party membership that Gibson and Roemmele (2005) find in their study about the German national election in 2002 and of chances of winning, which was significant in a study of the German national election in 2005 (Zittel, 2009). We can rule out that the chances of winning are a proxy for financial resources as we controlled for the budget at the same time. We can now extend the significance of these predictors to use of Web 2.0 applications during German state elections. The significance of the budget for the use of online campaigning was also supported at the national level (Gulati & Williams, 2010). In contrast to what is usually expected, the budget was mostly not significant at the state level, and the perceived share of indecisive voters appears to be more important than financial resources at this level. Another aim of our study was to analyze whether individual perceptions of media influence exert an effect on the campaign strategy. Overall, the data indicates that both perceptions under study have only a minor influence on the candidates’ constituency campaigns. There are some effects at state and local level, indicating that candidates use online media if they believe that other candidates are doing the same. Regarding the use of YouTube at state level and the importance of websites at local level, the candidates only feel the pressure to use the campaign instruments if their opponents are campaigning online. At the same time, the candidates do not campaign online because they actually believe that the Internet is able to persuade voters. It seems surprising or even incomprehensible that candidates use the Internet during election campaigns, despite not being convinced of its benefits. One explanation that can be offered here is that they are influenced by what they perceive the other candidates to be doing, and that they feel obliged then to also campaign online. We find some support for this explanation, however, this “me too” effect is only significant in two of our models. Another explanation is that they only use the Internet because they think they need to show that they are capable of using it. Also, persuading the voter may not be what a candidate intends to do when he or she uses online media. It is possible that they campaign online to interact with voters. However, this explanation seems less likely bearing in mind that most campaign websites do not have many interactive or participatory features (Druckman, Kifer, & Parkin, 2007; Vaccari, 2008). It appears more likely that candidates just campaign online because they do not want to risk missing out on a possibility of reaching voters, despite their lack of conviction—resonating with the idea of “the message well I hear, my faith alone is weak.” In this study, we tried to measure the “me too” effect from a more individual perspective by measuring what the candidates think about how much the Internet
154
Policy & Internet, 4:3-4
influences the campaigns of other candidates. Moreover, we also included the perceived influence on their party as it may put pressure on them if their party favors online campaigning. In other studies, the effect was measured in a less individual way and yielded more significant effects (Sudulich & Wall, 2009). We still believe that our individual measures capture the “me too” concept well because it relates to the candidates’ perceptions and shows that their attitudes regarding online campaigning are mostly not influenced by the behavior of other candidates. Alternatively, it could be the case that the variable capturing the candidates’ chances to win already captures the pressure to campaign online because front-runner candidates know that the media may want to follow them during their campaign (D’Alessio, 1997; Gibson & McAllister, 2006). Thus, the peer pressure is not significant any more. This result is a first indicator that Internet-related perceptions such as the “me too” effect should be further developed in German candidate studies and that such studies should not only include the “me too” perception but also candidates’ individual perceptions of the influence of online campaigning on voters. In future studies, this perceived influence on voters should be measured more specifically during national elections, as online campaigning constitutes a crucial campaign strategy at the national level, and it should also be extended to the use of Web 2.0 applications during local elections. However, online campaign strategies cannot exclusively and sufficiently be explained by these individual perceptions of the effects of the Internet; genuine political factors still play a significant role. At this point, the study extends research that has revealed differing effects of variables such as incumbency. The analysis of different federal levels demonstrates that predictors not only vary across countries and political systems, but also within one country and between federal levels. Julia Metag is a doctoral candidate in communication sciences and research assistant at the University of Muenster. Her research focuses on political communication, science communication, and media effects. Frank Marcinkowski holds a chair in communications at the University of Muenster, Germany. He published widely in the fields of political communication, media theory, and science communication. Notes The authors wish to thank the anonymous referees for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article and the researchers of the German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES) for the possibility to use the data of their candidate survey. 1. The state and local election surveys were conducted by the authors. National election data were provided by GESIS–Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. It was gathered for the German Longitudinal Election Study (Component 6: Candidate Survey) by Prof. Dr Hans Rattinger (GESIS and University of Mannheim), Prof. Dr Sigrid Roßteutscher (University of Frankfurt), Prof. Dr Ru¨diger Schmitt-Beck (University of Mannheim), and PD Dr Bernhard Weßels (WZB Social Science Research Center Berlin). They were edited and documented by GESIS for further analysis. The authors wish to thank the researchers for the possibility to use the data; the analysis and interpretation of the data in this article is the responsibility of the authors.
Metag/Marcinkowski: Determinants of Online Campaigns in Germany
155
2. Only data for Conservatives, Social Democrats, and Liberals are included for the local election, because no candidate from the Left party took part in the survey and only two candidates from the Green party did so, which does not allow for any valid analysis. 3. The term “social networks” was used only for sites such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter were treated separately (see Table 3). In the surveys the question was “Do you plan on using social networks, such as Facebook?” and the question was asked separately for Twitter and YouTube.
References ˚ stro¨m, Joachim, and Martin Karlsson. 2011. “Blogging in the Shadow of Parties: Collectivism and A Individualism in the Swedish 2010 Election.” Presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions, April 12–17, St. Gallen. Brauckmann, Patrick. 2009. “Der US-Pra¨sidentschaftswahlkampf 2008. Winning the Web War [The US Presidential Elections 2008. Winning the Web War].” In Wahlkampf im Internet. Handbuch fu¨r die politische Onlinekampagne, eds. Manuel Merz and Stefan Rhein. Berlin, Muenster: LIT Verlag, 167–236. Carlson, Tom, and Kim Strandberg. 2008. “Riding the Web 2.0 Wave: Candidates on YouTube in the 2007 Finnish National Elections.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 5: 159–74. Castells, Manuel. 2007. “Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society.” International Journal of Communication 1: 238–66. ———. 2009. Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chadwick, Andrew. 2009. “Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of e-Democracy in an Era of Informational Exuberance.” I/S: Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 5: 9–41. Coleman, Stephen, and Jay G. Blumler. 2009. The Internet and Democratic Citizenship. Theory, Practice and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. D’Alessio, Dave. 1997. “Use of the World Wide Web in the 1996 US Election.” Electoral Studies 16: 489–500. Davis, Richard, Jody C. Baumgartner,Peter L. Francia, and Jonathan S. Morris. 2009. “The Internet in U.S. Election Campaigns.” In Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, eds. Andrew Chadwick and Philip N. Howard. London: Routledge, 13–24. Davison, W. Phillips. 1983. “The Third-Person Effect in Communication.” Public Opinion Quarterly 47: 1–15. Druckman, James N., Martin Kifer, and Michael Parkin. 2007. “The Technological Development of Congressional Candidate Web Sites: How and Why Candidates Use Web Innovations.” Social Science Computer Review 25: 425–42. Dutton, William H., and Grant Blank. 2011. Next Generation Users: The Internet in Britain. Oxford Internet Survey 2011 Report. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute. Faas, Thorsten, and Julia Partheymu¨ller. 2011. “Aber Jetzt?! Politische Internetnutzung in den Bundestagswahlka¨mpfen 2005 und 2009, [Finally? Political Internet Use in National Elections 2005 and 2009].” In Das Internet im Wahlkampf. Analysen zur Bundestagswahl 2009 [The Internet in Election Campaigns. Analyses of the German National Election 2009], eds. Eva Johanna Schweitzer and Stefan Albrecht. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fu¨r Sozialwissenschaften, 119–35. Fisher, Justin, David Cutts, and Edward Fieldhouse. 2010. “Constituency Campaigning in the 2010 British General Election.” Presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Conference, September 2–5, Washington, DC. Foot, Kirsten A., Michael Xenos,Steven M. Schneider,Randolph Kluver, and Nicholas W. Jankowski. 2009. “Electoral Web Production Practices in Cross-National Perspective: The Relative Influence of National Development, Political Culture, and Web Genre.” In Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, eds. Andrew Chadwick and Philip N. Howard. London: Routledge, 40–55. ———. 2005. “‘Down Periscope’: The Search for High-Tech Campaigning at the Local Level in the 2002 German Federal Election.” Journal of E-Government 2: 85–109.
156
Policy & Internet, 4:3-4
Gibson, Rachel K., Wainer Lusoli, and Stephen Ward. 2008. “Nationalizing and Normalization the Local? A Comparative Analysis of Online Candidate Campaigning in Australia and Britain.” Journal of Information Technology and Politics 4: 15–30. Gibson, Rachel K., and Ian McAllister. 2006. “Does Cyber-Campaigning Win Votes? Online Communication in the 2004 Australian Election.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 16: 243–63. ———. 2011. “Do Online Election Campaigns Win Votes? The 2007 Australian YouTube Election.” Political Communication 28: 227–44. Gibson, Rachel K., and Andrea Ro¨mmele. 2004. “Internet Campaigning Around the World.” Campaign and Elections 25: 38–42. Gibson, Rachel K., and Stephen J. Ward. 2007. “UK Political Parties and the Internet: Prospects for Democracy.” The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 3: 14–38. Gulati, Girish J., and Christine B. Williams. 2007. “Closing the Gap, Raising the Bar. Candidate Web Site Communication in the 2006 Campaigns for Congress.” Social Science Computer Review 25: 443–65. ———. 2010. “Congressional Candidates’ Use of Youtube in 2008: Its Frequency and Rationale.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7: 93–109. Gunther, Albert C., and J. Douglas Storey. 2003. “The Influence of Presumed Influence.” Journal of Communication 53: 199–215. Herrnson, Pauk S., Atiya K. Stokes-Brown, and Matthew Hindman. 2007. “Campaign Politics and the Digital Divide: Constituency Characteristics, Strategic Considerations, and Candidate Internet Use in State Legislative Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 60: 31–42. Howard, Philip N. 2006. New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kluver, Randolph, Nicholas W. Jankowski,Kirsten A. Foot, and Steven M. Schneider. 2007. The Internet and National Elections. A Comparative Study of Web Campaigning. New York: Routledge. Lev-On, Azi. 2011. “Campaigning Online: Use of the Internet by Parties, Candidates and Voters in National and Local Election Campaigns in Israel.” Policy & Internet 3: 1–28. Lilleker, Darren G., and Nigel A. Jackson. 2010. “Toward a More Participatory Style of Election Campaigning: The Impact of Web 2.0 on the UK 2010 General Election.” Policy & Internet 3: 69–98. ———. 2011a. Political Campaigning, Elections and the Internet. Comparing the US, UK, France and Germany. London, New York: Routledge. ———. 2011b. “Elections 2.0: Comparing E-Campaigns in France, Germany, Great Britain and the United States.” In Das Internet im Wahlkampf. Analysen zur Bundestagswahl 2009 [The Internet in Election Campaigns. Analyses of the German National Election 2009], eds. Eva Johanna Schweitzer and Stefan Albrecht. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fu¨r Sozialwissenschaften, 96–118. Margolis, Michael, and David Resnick. 2000. Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace “Revolution.” Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Norris, Pippa. 2001. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rackaway, Chapman. 2007. “Trickle-Down Technology? The Use of Computing and Network Technology Instate Legislative Campaigns.” Social Science Computer Review 25: 466–83. Schweitzer, Eva Johanna. 2005. “Election Campaigning Online. German Party Websites in the 2002 National Elections.” European Journal of Communication 20: 327–51. ———. 2008. “Innovation or Normalization in e-Campaigning? A Longitudinal Content and Structural Analysis of German Party Websites in the 2002 and 2005 National Elections.” European Journal of Communication 23: 449–70. ———. 2011. “Mediatisierung im Online-Wahlkampf. Befunde einer vergleichenden Inhaltsanalyse deutscher Partei-Websites zu den Wahljahren 2002–2009 [Mediatization in Online Campaigns. Results of a Comparative Content Analysis of German Party Websites in the Election Years 2002– 2009].” In Das Internet im Wahlkampf. Analysen zur Bundestagswahl 2009 [The Internet in Election Campaigns. Analyses of the German National Election 2009], eds. Eva Johanna Schweitzer and Stefan Albrecht. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fu¨r Sozialwissenschaften, 267–96.
Metag/Marcinkowski: Determinants of Online Campaigns in Germany
157
Schweitzer, Eva Johanna, and Stefan Albrecht. 2011. “Das Internet im Wahlkampf: Eine Einfu¨hrung [The Internet in Election Campaigns. An Introduction].” In Das Internet im Wahlkampf. Analysen zur Bundestagswahl 2009 [The Internet in Election Campaigns. Analyses of the German National Election 2009], eds. Eva Johanna Schweitzer and Stefan Albrecht. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fu¨r Sozialwissenschaften, 9–65. Selnow, Gary W. 1998. Electronic Whistle-Stops: The Impact of the Internet on American Politics. Westport: Praeger. Sudulich, Maria L. 2009. “Do Ethos, Ideology, Country and Electoral Strength Make a Difference in Cyberspace? Testing an Explanatory Model of Parties’ Websites.” Presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions, April 14–19, Lisbon. Sudulich, Maria L., and Matthew Wall. 2009. “Keeping Up with the Murphys? Candidate CyberCampaigning in the 2007 Irish General Election.” Parliamentary Affairs 62: 456–75. ———. 2010. “‘Every Little Helps’: Cyber-Campaigning in the 2007 Irish General Election.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7: 340–55. Tal-Or, Nurit, Yariv Tsfati, and Albert C. Gunther. 2009. “The Influence of Presumed Media Influence. Origins and Implications of the Third-Person Perception.” In The SAGE Handbook of Media Processes and Effects, eds. Robin L. Nabi and Mary B. Oliver. Los Angeles: SAGE, 99–112. Utz, Sonja. 2009. “The (Potential) Benefits of Campaigning via Social Network Sites.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14: 221–43. Vaccari, Christian. 2008. “Research Note: Italian Parties’ Web Sites in the 2006 Elections.” European Journal of Communication 23: 69–77. Wagner, Kevin M., and Jason Gainous. 2009. “Electronic Grassroots: Does Online Campaigning Work?” The Journal of Legislative Studies 15: 502–20. Ward, Stephen, Diana Owen, Richard Davis, and David Taras, eds. 2008. “Making a Difference: A Comparative View of the Role of the Internet in Election Politics.” Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Wolling, Jens, Anja Schmolisnky, and Martin Emmer. 2010. “Politiker vernetzt: Wie und warum sich Landtagsabgeordnete online pra¨sentieren [Politicians Connected. How and Why State Politicians Present Themselves Online].” In Politik 2.0? Die Wirkung computervermittelter Kommunikation auf den politischen Prozess [Politics 2.0? The Effect of Computer-Mediated Communication on the Political Process], eds. Jens Wolling, Markus Seifert, and Martin Emmer. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 59–83. Zittel, Thomas. 2009. “Lost in Technology? Political Parties and the Online Campaigns of Constituency Candidates in Germany’s Mixed Member Electoral System.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 6: 298–311.
Appendix: Overview of Independent and Dependent Variables
Independent variables Structural variables Age distribution in electoral district
Educational attainment in electoral district
Perceived number of indecisive voters
German National Election 2009
State Election North Rhine-Westphalia 2010
Local Election North Rhine-Westphalia 2009
For each district, the share of citizens aged 18–24 in percent was inserted (M ¼ 8.32, SD ¼ 0.36) For each district, the share of citizens with high-school diploma in percent was inserted (M ¼ 26.64, SD ¼ 4.9) Not measured
Not measured
Not measured
Not measured
Not measured
“How high do you believe the number of indecisive voters in your electoral district to be?” (in %) (M ¼ 34.73, SD ¼ 13.2)
“How high do you believe the number of indecisive voters in your electoral district to be?—none, less than 10%, 10–20%, 20–30%, more than 30%” (M ¼ 3.16, SD ¼0.94)
(Continued)
158
Campaign budget (logged)
Strategic variables Incumbency
Party membership
Closeness of race
Individual variables Persuasion of voters through internet
Policy & Internet, 4:3-4 German National Election 2009
State Election North Rhine-Westphalia 2010
Local Election North Rhine-Westphalia 2009
“How big is your campaign budget (including party resources, donations, and private funds)?” (M ¼ 13416.91s, SD ¼ 19943.48s)
“How big is your campaign budget (including party resources, donations, and private funds)?” (M ¼ 8537.97s, SD ¼ 8800.59s)
“How big is your campaign budget (including party resources, donations, and private funds)?” (M ¼ 2528.09s, SD ¼ 2057.82s)
“For how many years have you been a member of the national parliament?” (binary variable; 16% have been a member before) “Which party do you belong to?” (Conservatives 22.2%, Social Democrats 20%, Liberals 18.7%, Green Party 20.0%, Left Party 17.8%) “If you think about the election campaign and the election, what do you think about the chances of winning in your electoral district? (1 ¼ I think I cannot win, 5 ¼ I think cannot lose; M ¼ 1.89, SD ¼ 1.2)
“Have you been a member of the state parliament in the previous legislative period?” (binary variable; yes 38%) “Which party do you belong to?” (Conservatives 15.6%, Social Democrats 21%, Liberals 21.6%, Green Party 23.8%, Left Party 18%) “If you think about the election campaign and the election, what do you think about the chances of winning in your electoral district? (1 ¼ I think I cannot win, 5 ¼ I think cannot lose; M ¼ 2.17, SD ¼ 1.13)
“Have you been a member of the city council in the previous legislative period?” (binary variable; yes 43%) “Which party do you belong to?” (Conservatives 24.2%, Social Democrats 37.4%, Liberals 35.4%, Green Party 2.0%) “If you think about the election campaign and the election, what do you think about the chances of winning in your electoral district? (1 ¼ I think I cannot win, 5 ¼ I think cannot lose; M ¼ 2.43, SD ¼ 1.13)
“What do you think, to what extent do the media influence the voting behavior of voters?” (1 ¼ no influence, 5 ¼ very strong influence; M ¼ 4.2, SD ¼ 0.82)
“What do you think, to what extent do the media influence during an election campaign your voters/ voters of other parties?”—“Which media are particularly influential? —Internet” (1 ¼ no influence, 5 ¼ very strong influence) (see Table 2) “What do you think, to what extent do the media influence the election campaign of your party/the other candidates?”—“Which media are particularly influential?—Internet” (1 ¼ no influence, 5 ¼ very strong influence) (see Table 2) “In what year were you born?” (M ¼ 47.3, SD ¼ 12.02) “Are you male or female?” (73% male) “When did you become a member of your party?” (M ¼ 16.7; SD ¼ 12.1)
“What do you think, to what extent do the media influence during an election campaign your voters/ voters of other parties?”—“Which media are particularly influential? —Internet” (1 ¼ no influence, 5 ¼ very strong influence) (see Table 2) “What do you think, to what extent do the media influence the election campaign of… yourself/ your party/other candidates/other parties?”—“Which media are particularly influential? —Internet” (1 ¼ no influence, 5 ¼ very strong influence) (see Table 2) “In what year were you born?” (M ¼ 46.7, SD ¼ 11.5) “Are you male or female? (75.8% male)” “When did you become a member of your party?” (M ¼ 18.6; SD ¼ 11.5)
How important are the following campaign instruments to you?— Personal website (1 ¼ not all important, 5 ¼ very important; M ¼ 4.1; SD ¼ 1.01) Which of the following online media did you use during your election campaign? (binary variable; see Table 3) Content analysis of websites and social networks (binary variable)
How important are the following campaign instruments to you?— Personal website (1 ¼ not all important, 5 ¼ very important; M ¼ 2.87; SD ¼ 0.84) Not measured
“Me too” effect
“What do you think, to what extent do the media influence the election campaign of political candidates?” (1 ¼ no influence, 5 ¼ very strong influence; M ¼ 3.52, SD ¼ 1.03)
Age
“In what year were you born?” (M ¼ 46.4, SD ¼ 11.4) “Are you male or female?” (68% male) “When did you become a member of your party?” (M ¼ 14.8; SD ¼ 11.04)
Gender Political experience in years Dependent variables Importance of personal website
(Planned) use of online media
Actual use of online media
How important are the following campaign instruments to you?— Personal website (1 ¼ not all important, 4 ¼ very important; M ¼ 3.28; SD ¼ 0.77) Which of the following online media did you use during your election campaign (binary variable; see Table 3) Not measured
Not measured
