New http://nms.sagepub.

com/ Media & Society

Social networks in political campaigns: Facebook and the congressional elections of 2006 and 2008
Christine B. Williams and Girish J. 'Jeff' Gulati New Media Society 2013 15: 52 originally published online 13 September 2012 DOI: 10.1177/1461444812457332 The online version of this article can be found at: http://nms.sagepub.com/content/15/1/52

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for New Media & Society can be found at: Email Alerts: http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://nms.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Feb 20, 2013 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Sep 13, 2012 What is This?

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on March 26, 2013

457332

NMS15110.1177/1461444812457332new media & societyWilliams and Gulati

12

Article

Social networks in political campaigns: Facebook and the congressional elections of 2006 and 2008
Christine B. Williams and Girish J. Jeff Gulati
Bentley University, USA

new media & society 15(1) 5271 The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1461444812457332 nms.sagepub.com

Abstract This study examines the early adoption and dissemination of emerging technology tools in campaigns by analyzing which candidates were the most likely to adopt and use Facebook in the 2006 and 2008 elections to the US House of Representatives. The research hypotheses draw primarily from the diffusion of innovation literature. Our analysis of 802 candidates in 2006 and 816 candidates in 2008 indicates that Facebook adoption diffused rapidly between 2006 and 2008, with party (Democrats), competition, money and the level of education in the district explaining both adoption and implementation. Challengers and candidates for open seats were more likely to be early adopters, but incumbents used Facebook more extensively. Both higher adoption rates by peers or competitors in the candidates own state and a propensity to adopt earlier campaign technologies are strong positive motivators for early adoption, but irrelevant to usage. Keywords Campaign strategy, congressional elections, diffusion of innovations, online campaigns, social media The 2006 congressional elections marked another milestone in online campaigning. In that year, the percentage of candidates with a campaign website reached 96 percent of major party candidates for the US Senate and 86 percent of candidates for the House (Gulati and Williams, 2007). As the campaign website became a standard communication and
Corresponding author: Christine B. Williams, Department of Global Studies, Bentley University, 175 Forest Street, Waltham, MA 02452-4705, USA. Email: cwilliams@bentley.edu

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on March 26, 2013

Williams and Gulati

53

fundraising tool, candidates and other online political activists sought to differentiate themselves through online tools that offered potential electoral benefits. Led by Facebook, social networking sites emerged as an online tool that could effectively mobilize voters (Williams and Gulati, 2007). With one cycle of experimentation complete and two crowded and competitive presidential nominating contests on the horizon, social networking sites were poised to play a significant role in the 2008 cycle of congressional elections. This article investigates who adopts new campaign technologies and to what extent. Its focus is on candidates use of Facebook in the 2006 and 2008 congressional elections. The diffusion of innovation literature informs our research hypotheses, model specification, analysis and interpretation of our data. The study of these emerging technology tools is important because of their potential to change both the conduct of campaigns and the relationship between candidates and voters. Online media accelerate the transmission of content and are accessible to large numbers of people. Content is disseminated at the initiative of users through their connections to social networks or via email exchanges by acquaintances. This viral property makes it an attractive, inexpensive means of conducting voter outreach, and given the popularity of online communication with younger voters, a means of targeting that demographic. Below, we analyze which congressional candidates were more likely to use Facebook in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles. We supplement our 2008 empirical analysis with interviews of candidates and staffers from over 50 congressional campaigns to ascertain their perspective on its role.

Profiles of early adopters: diffusion of innovation literature

Rogers (2003) describes diffusion as the process by which members of a social system come to know, persuade, decide, implement and confirm their adoption of an innovation. When a new technology is introduced, innovators are the first to embrace it, followed by early adopters, early majority, late majority, and finally laggards. The empirical literature has studied the characteristics of early adopters and also the timing and extent of the adoptions for both individuals and organizations (Fichman, 1992; Frambach and Schillewaert, 2002). Adoption decisions are thought to depend not only on the characteristics of the adopter, but also on characteristics of the innovation or technology and of the environment. For example, Kwon and Zmud (1987) identify five categories of these contextual factors: characteristics of the adopting organization, the user community, the innovation or technology, the task, and the environment. Robertson and Gatignon (1986) describe a large set of factors related to what they call the competitive supply-side and adopter environments that affect the diffusion of new technologies. The former include factors such as the degree of competition, standardization of the technology, research and development resources. The competitive adopter environment includes both structural attributes of the adopter industry such as its homogeneity and uncertainty of demand (customer needs) and communication attributes such as the professionalism and cosmopolitanism (external orientation) of the adopter industry. Political science studies of the diffusion of campaign websites have examined fewer categories and a more limited number of contextual factors. Most draw upon the same

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on March 26, 2013

54

new media & society 15(1)

finite set that is divided between constituency (the user community) and political (the environment) factors. Constituencies are described demographically by median income and percentage of urban, white, college-educated, and elderly (Foot and Schneider, 2006). The political environment is described by characteristics of the electoral contest and candidate: level of office, competitiveness of the race, party identification of the candidate, party status (major or minor party), status of the seat (incumbent, challenger, open seat), and amount of campaign funds raised. The constituency attributes selected to explain campaign website adoption are those that have been shown to correlate with citizens access to and use of the Internet (Chadwick, 2006; Klotz, 2004; Mossberger et al., 2003). Higher levels of education make people more comfortable with and skilled in the use of technology, while higher levels of income make computers easier to afford. Although whites use the Internet at higher rates than blacks, racial differences have diminished over time and seem to be a reflection of disparities in education and income (Marriott, 2006). The age gap persists, however: Internet use declines with each advancing age group. Urban areas have greater Internet use than rural areas, but the difference has declined substantially. These constituency demographics in turn influence candidates Internet use (Herrnson et al., 2007). The diffusion of innovation literature suggests an additional reason why constituency factors should lead candidates to adopt new technologies. Organizations are mindful of the degree to which an innovation is compatible and incompatible with expectations (existing norms and values), as well as the needs and capacities of its users or customers (Tornatzky and Klein, 1982; Ward and Gibson, 2009). Our interviews with staff and consultants from the 2008 campaigns seemed to support this view. For example, one campaign aide told us that Our campaign did not utilize Facebook or other social networking sites as part of our campaign. We have an all-volunteer campaign and our outreach efforts focused largely on grassroots methods such as door-to-door campaigning and other personal interaction with voters.1 Another noted that Facebook is more of a national election tool right now.2 In the early days of web campaigning, incumbents were less likely than challengers to campaign on the web, but a competitive race increased its use by incumbents and challengers alike (Foot and Schneider, 2006; Herrnson et al., 2007; Kamarck, 2002; Xenos and Foot, 2005). Financially disadvantaged candidates also were less likely to have a campaign website in those early days (Gibson et al., 2003), but this has proved less of a barrier subsequently. Financial resources and major party status still differentiate which campaigns incorporate the latest technology and features, however (Foot and Schneider, 2006; Strandberg, 2009). Electoral attributes are less important today in differentiating which campaigns have a website, but remain important determinants of the degree to which they provide more sophisticated content and use their website to engage and mobilize supporters (Gulati and Williams, 2007). Internet diffusion depends on characteristics of the technology, including its relative advantage, compatibility, versatility and visibility. A fifth characteristic, trialability, refers to the ease of experimenting with an innovation as it is adopted (see Rogers, 2003). Social networks in particular benefit from a large number of members or from serving a specific niche, and they require technical expertise and specialized knowledge to be designed and leveraged effectively. Campaign staff members recognized some clear

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on March 26, 2013

Williams and Gulati

55

advantages social networks hold over traditional campaign tools. They often referenced the importance of Facebooks niche: We are trying to reach younger voters, college students, and young professionals who have graduated in the last five years Most of the people who use Facebook are younger students aged 1822.3 Other campaigns were drawn by low cost: The biggest benefit of Facebook is that it is free. So in terms of value, it is probably one of the best things that we can use to connect to voters.4 That social networks are experiencing trialability is also evident in staff members assessments. Right now the campaign is not ready to jump into the Facebook phenomenon. Were taking a conservative approach and watching closely what other campaigns are doing to make changes in the next election.5
New features are going to always come up, new programs will be developed for it. It was six degrees, then Friendster, MySpace, now Facebook. I think we are going to see this trend continue to grow, whether or not its with Facebook or something else I cant say, but it will definitely be around. I think with more projects and more media attention, campaigns will have no choice but to use this type of technology in their strategies.6

Media attention has given social networks enormous visibility (see, e.g., Vascellaro, 2006). For example, early press accounts generated significant coverage of MySpace (e.g. Keen, 2006; Kelly, 2006; Lovley, 2006), YouTube (e.g. Fairbanks, 2006; Wasserman, 2006), and Facebook (e.g. Grynbaum, 2006; Yahr, 2006). And campaigns have taken note: Nationwide this year social media networking has been huge, and that is becoming obvious to ignore that is foolish quite frankly.7

Research hypotheses
We hypothesize that the constituency and electoral variables predicting which candidates updated their Facebook page in 2008 will mirror those that predicted web presence in the early days of Internet campaigning. Hypothesis 1 reflects the diffusion of innovation expectation that early adoption will be more common among organizations whose competitive environment offers incentives to innovate, costs not to do so, or is uncertain. Hypothesis 1 more explicitly recognizes the influence that characteristics of the user community (i.e. potential voters) have on early technology adoption decisions. In contrast with party-centered, proportional representation systems (Anstead and Chadwick, 2009; Carey and Shugart, 1995; Swanson and Mancini, 1996), US campaigns operate under a candidate-centered (Wattenberg, 1991), winner-take-all system. As a result, the affinity voters feel for individual candidates and how they relate to those personal characteristics matter in their voting decisions, and thereby become a factor in election campaign strategies and outcomes (e.g. Manzano and Sanchez, 2010; Ragsdale, 1980). H1: (a) Democrats, (b) challengers, (c) well-financed candidates, and (d) candidates running in competitive races are more likely to have a Facebook page. H1: Candidates from districts with (e) a low percentage of constituents who reside in rural areas, (f) a high percentage of constituents who are white, (g) a high percentage of constituents who have college degrees, and (h) a low percentage of constituents 65 years or older are more likely to have a Facebook page.

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on March 26, 2013

56

new media & society 15(1)

Finally, the diffusion of innovation literature suggests four interrelated hypotheses based on the profiles of adopter (or adopting organization) categories. The first is that those who have already demonstrated a propensity to adopt other recent technologies will be among the early adopters of the latest ones. The second recognizes that information, professional networks (Howard, 2006) and other exposure to a new technology will expedite adoption. In addition to positive peer influence, adoption by competitors constitutes a potential threat that will create pressure on candidates to copy what their rivals are doing. For purposes of this analysis, we operationalize such proximity contagion effects using the state as the geographically relevant peer/ competitor group. Finally, the decision to adopt and the extent of adoption or implementation differ, with the latter more dependent on internal, organization-specific factors (Fichman, 2004). H2: (a) Candidates who used other online technologies in the campaign (i.e. created a campaign website) will be more likely to have a Facebook page. H2: (b) Candidates whose (geographic) peers and competitors have a Facebook page will be more likely to have a page themselves. H2: (c) Previous online technology adoption and geographic network adoption rate will not increase the extent to which candidates use the new technology. H2: (d) Organization-specific factors such as relative advantage and compatibility will influence the extent of implementation and use; but the user community will be less important.

Online social networking, 2006, 2008

For the 2006 elections, Facebook carved out a special space US Politics on its network for all US congressional and gubernatorial candidates. Facebook initiated these profiles by designing a standard template with only the candidates name, office being sought, and basic contact information. Passwords that allowed the candidates to assume responsibility for personalizing their profiles were forwarded to the offices of the Republican and Democratic national committees, who then distributed them to their candidates.8 After assuming control of their profile, candidates could initiate a discussion topic, post comments on their wall, and post notes, event information and videos and photographs. Facebook users who friended a candidate as a way to show their support on their own profile could also post materials and comments. A candidate did not need to activate the profile for users to register their support and post content. Facebook made some modifications for the 2008 elections. Political candidates were given pages instead of profiles. These pages were similar to personal profiles but offered the candidates greater capability to post various kinds of campaign material (e.g. announcements, links to other pages, YouTube links, notes, photo albums, and event information) and allowed their supporters to post their own materials (see Figure 1). A second change was to eliminate the US Politics section and place all the candidates pages within a Politicians sub-section of fan pages. Thus politicians were clustered near celebrities and other public figures, sports teams, films, restaurants, bars and clubs,

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on March 26, 2013

Williams and Gulati

57

Figure 1. An example of Facebooks fan pages for politicians.

products, non-profits, and other organizations. In addition, current elected officials and candidates for all levels of office in any country were eligible for Politicians pages as long as an official representative of the politician created the page (see Figure 2).

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on March 26, 2013

58

new media & society 15(1)

Figure 2. Facebooks Politicians section.

While the new format stood to increase the visibility of the candidates on Facebook, only 8 percent of Americans reported that they had used social networking sites (although not Facebook specifically) to learn about the campaigns during the 2008 cycle (Smith and Rainie, 2008). Our analysis in this paper examines how extensively congressional candidates in 2006 and 2008 used Facebook and offers insights into how this new tool was integrated into their overall campaign strategy, given their limited, albeit everincreasing, reach with the American public.

Data and methods Identifying candidates pages and activity

We began our examination of how campaigns are using Facebook by first identifying all the Democratic and Republican nominees for every election for the US House of Representatives in 2006 and 2008.9 We further differentiated candidates by their status as an incumbent, a challenger, or contesting an open seat. In 2006, we coded a candidate as

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on March 26, 2013

Williams and Gulati

59

having a profile only if his or her campaign activated it by making some addition to the standard template that Facebook provided to every candidate. To identify the candidates who had their own Facebook page in 2008, we entered the candidates name into Facebooks internal search engine within the Politicians section during the final week in October. Second, we determined which of those major party candidates who established a page updated their profiles as of 28 October, indicating at least some minimal level of usage. We also conducted a content analysis on a sample of 200 candidate profiles to ascertain the extent to which they were using various features on their pages. The coded features reported in this paper are: posting of campaign event information and campaign videos; number of wall posts; and number of fan photos.10 The extent to which candidates employed these various features is indicative of a more extensive implementation of the innovation. Lastly, we conducted interviews with representatives from 53 different campaigns who had first-hand knowledge of the campaigns Internet strategy and operations between 13 October and 10 December 2008. The potential respondents for our interviews came from a list of 192 contests that we had selected to monitor closely throughout the fall campaign season. Although our objective for conducting these interviews was to understand why (and how) some campaigns chose to use Facebook and complement the statistical analysis rather than make generalizations, we did strive to obtain as representative a sample as possible. We selected our sample by first identifying the races that were deemed competitive in the Cook Political Report on 25 September 2008. This procedure provided us with 96 contests and 192 candidates. We then randomly selected 96 contests out of the remaining non-competitive contests to complete our sample. Of the 384 candidates in our sample, 55 percent were Democrats, 34 percent were incumbents, 30 percent were competitive, 26 percent were women, and 10 percent were members of a minority ethnic group. On the whole, therefore, we have a rich set of data for exploring our diffusion of innovation hypotheses in 2008.

Explanatory models for Facebook activity

To test our remaining research hypotheses and explain why some candidates were more likely than others to activate their Facebook-created profiles in 2006, and to create, update and extensively use their Facebook pages in 2008, we estimated four multivariate models. For 2006, the dependent variable Facebook activation was coded 1 if the candidate assumed control of and accessed his or her profile, and coded 0 if s/he did not. We designated a profile as accessed if any additions were made to the standard template that Facebook provided to every candidate.11 This yielded 802 cases for a multivariate logistic regression (Model 1). For 2008, we estimated two logistic regression models of Facebook activation for the major party House candidates. Model 2 analyzes which candidates were more likely to assume control of their pages by updating it in some way. The dependent variable page creation was coded 1 if the candidate had a profile created in the Politicians section of Facebook. This yielded 816 cases to analyze. The third model analyzes only those candidates who had a page in the Politicians section of Facebook, n = 591), that is, those who were coded 1 for page creation. The dependent variable in Model 3 Facebook activation was coded 1 if the candidate updated or simply accessed his or her page in any way and coded 0 if s/he did not.

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on March 26, 2013

60

new media & society 15(1)

The fourth and final model employs OLS regression to analyze the extent to which candidates Facebook pages were used in 2008. The dependent variable is an index comprised of four activity indicators. Although making the effort to update their Facebook pages is simple, it may be the most important activity that candidates pursue in utilizing online social networking sites. Moreover, supporters are more likely to interact with candidates and leave with a more favorable impression the more candidates seem to be engaged in their sites. Thus, some candidates may go further than simply updating their profile with a picture and additional contact and biographical information. And Facebook pages will have a greater potential impact when visitors are likewise engaged in these sites. To capture a broader range of Facebook activity by both candidates and supporters, we constructed our four-item index from the candidates posting of event information and videos and supporters posting of photographs and wall posts for the 200 candidates randomly selected for our more detailed analysis of candidate profiles. Each of these items was normalized and then averaged into a single index of Facebook activity. For each model, the independent variables are the same. The predictors for which candidates would update their profiles in 2006 and create, update and evidence more extensive use of them in 2008 include both electoral and constituency characteristics. Our four electoral characteristics and three indicators of constituency demand have been linked both theoretically and empirically to the presence of campaign websites in previous studies, as noted above (e.g. Gulati and Williams, 2007; Herrnson et al., 2007; Williams and Gulati, 2007). Dummy variables were constructed for Democrats, challengers and candidates to open seats, with Republicans and incumbents serving as the reference categories. Our indicator for the campaigns financial resources is the natural log of total net receipts collected between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2008.12 Our fourth electoral variable is the competitiveness of the race. A race was coded as competitive if it had been designated as a toss-up, leaning toward one party, or likely for one party by the Cook Political Report on 3 November 2008.13 The indicators that we used to account for constituency demand were: (1) the percentage of residents over 24 with a college degree, (2) the percentage of residents classified as white, (3) the percentage of residents living in rural areas, and (3) the percentage of residents over age 64.14 The final two independent variables in our predictive models derive from the diffusion of innovation literature and represent a refinement over past studies of campaign website innovation adoption. We operationalized organizational propensity to adopt new technologies according to whether the campaign has a website presence in the current election (1) or not (0).15 Proximity contagion effects are measured as the candidates geographic network (in this case, their state) adoption rate. For each candidate, proximity is calculated as the ratio of all the other Republican and Democratic candidates running for the House in the same state who had a Facebook page to the total number of candidates minus one. All candidates in a state with a Facebook page receive the same score as each other. And all those without a page also receive the same score. But in both cases their scores differ from the scores of candidates in other states with the same adoption characteristic who we are treating in this model as more distant. Proximity in a contagion effects model refers not simply to physical geography, but also to a cultural mindset or values in ways analogous to the state political culture

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on March 26, 2013

Williams and Gulati

61

variables (Johnson, 1976) researchers have examined in state policy innovation studies (e.g. Gray, 1973). It has also been used to refer to social network proximity (Welch and Thompson, 1980), which would be difficult to operationalize for congressional candidates (though easier to do for incumbents because of their co-sponsorship of legislation or committee assignments, for example). Our purpose here is more limited: to demonstrate the potential utility of these types of diffusion of innovation variables, and thus caution readers to recognize the limitations of our own and existing datasets for constructing ideal measures.

Analysis and findings

In 2006, only 16 percent of major party candidates running for the House personalized their Facebook profile in some way. By 2008, a large majority of both Democratic and Republican candidates had a presence on Facebook. Among major party House candidates, 72 percent (591 out of 816) had a Politicians page, and about half of those candidates updated it (406 of 816, or 49.8 percent), or a threefold increase from the previous election cycle. Turning to Hypotheses 1 and 2, Table 1 presents the results of the multivariate logistic regression analyses of profile activation in 2006 and page creation by House candidates in 2008 (see Table 1, Model 1, Activation 2006 and Model 2, Page creation 2008). These results show that Democrats, challengers, better-financed candidates, and candidates running in competitive races were the most likely to update their Facebook profile. There is also evidence that candidates for open seat contests were more likely than incumbents to activate their profile in 2006 and create a page in 2008 (the coefficients in Models 1 and 2 have a positive sign), although the coefficients for Model 1 are not significant. The data presented in the third column of Table 1 include only the 2008 candidates who created a Facebook page and then updated it in some way (n = 591). Among those candidates who had a profile present in Facebooks Politicians section, Democrats, challengers, better-financed candidates and candidates running in competitive races were the most likely to update their Facebook profile. The effects for all of these variables are significant. The Democrats greater enthusiasm for this social network seems to reflect differences in mobilization strategies that find Democrats more eager than Republicans to use the Internet as a way to communicate with their supporters, and is consistent with their larger number of supporters in the youth demographic. Although Republicans were early pioneers in using recent new technologies to identify Republican voters, Republican strategists and activists typically have worked within a top-down organizational structure and, as the party in power, tended to rely on communication and mobilization strategies that they pursued and successfully implemented in the past (see, e.g., Rasiej and Sifry, 2008; Sifry, 2006; Stirland, 2007; Thompson, 2008). Other campaigns that are the most likely to embrace social networking sites are those that view this new communication medium as an additional tool for winning votes within specific blocs or the general electorate that constitute their user community. Challengers must find a way to overcome the advantages of incumbency, which allows members of Congress to draw upon an established network of supporters and contacts.

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on March 26, 2013

62

new media & society 15(1)

Table 1. Multivariate logit analysis of Facebook presence in 2006 and 2008 House races. Independent variables Model 1: Activation 2006 Model 2: Page creation 2008 0.436 *** 0.166 0.778 *** 0.254 0.599 * 0.322 0.315 *** 0.077 0.757 *** 0.231 0.003 0.006 0.018 *** 0.006 0.034 *** 0.012 0.052 * 0.028 0.399 0.538 0.616 ** 0.293 6.229 1.165 815 69.5 50.1 0.245 Model 3: Page update 2008 0.629 ** 0.245 4.752 *** 0.784 3.803 *** 1.108 0.507 *** 0.177 0.948 *** 0.334 0.004 0.008 0.018** 0.008 0.036** 0.017 0.034 0.039 0.697 0.76 0.608* 0.336 9.013*** 2.502 591 79.2 68.7 0.476

Party (Republicans = reference category) Democrats 0.208 0.213 Incumbency status (incumbents = reference category) Challengers 0.56 ** 0.261 Open seat candidates 0.266 0.368 Contributions received 0.133 ** (natural log) 0.057 Competitive seat 0.677 ** 0.289 Constituency variables Percentage rural 0.000 0.008 Percentage white 0.009 0.008  Percentage with college 0.018 degrees 0.014  Percentage age 65 and older 0.012 0.034 State average presence 1.713 ** 0.678 Campaign website presence 0.753 * 0.449 Intercept 5.776 *** 0.985 n 802 Percentage correctly 84.2 predicted Mode 84.0 Pseudo R2 0.127

Note: Bold entries are unstandardized logit coefficients; standard errors are in italics. * p < .10, ** p < .05, *** p < .01; two-sided tests of significance.

Our interviews revealed that challengers in 2008 were looking to capitalize on every resource that could give their campaign an advantage or net them additional votes. But since over three-fourths of incumbents already have to maintain both an office and a campaign website, there is even less of a need to dedicate staff time to a third presence online. When the race is more competitive, however, all candidates, regardless of incumbency status, may try to exploit every available technological resource to help them

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on March 26, 2013

Williams and Gulati

63

expand their electoral base and maximize turnout among their supporters. Since the cost of updating profiles and posting content is extremely low, we believe that better-financed candidates were more likely to activate a profile (2006) or create a Politicians page (2008) on Facebook because campaigns with the most money also tend to have the most sophisticated and professional organizations, i.e. where professionalism and cosmopolitanism allow them to leverage the competitive environment to their advantage. In this setting, these are the campaigns that first see the Internet as a fundamental component of any communication and mobilization strategy (cf. Howard, 2006). The data presented in the lower half of the first two columns of Table 1 are mixed and therefore only partially support Hypothesis 1(eh). These results show that candidates running in districts with a higher percentage of college graduates were also the most likely to have used Facebook in both 2006 and 2008, even though the effect in 2006 was not statistically significant. Since Facebooks membership was originally open only to those associated with colleges and universities, and continues to have a strong foothold in that demographic, it is no surprise that candidates running in districts with a high proportion of college graduates would want to experiment with Facebook as a way to communicate their message. We see a similar result with respect to ethnic diversity, which also increased the likelihood of creating or updating a page in 2008, but had no statistically significant effect in 2006. It is not clear whether candidates running in districts with a younger population were more likely to update their profiles or not. The coefficients for age are statistically significant in only one of the models. In 2008, the presence of more senior citizens decreases Facebook page creation (see Model 2) but had no effect on updating (see Model 3). There was also no relationship between age and adoption in 2006.16 The level of urbanization in the district had no effect in any of the three models. While there is evidence linking Internet use and broadband adoption to place of residence (Horrigan, 2009), candidates from rural areas may not have been deterred from activating a page, since simply viewing basic information on a page does not require the user to have a high-speed connection. The last two variables in Table 1, Models 1 and 2, present the tests of two new categories of predictive variables suggested by the diffusion of innovation literature that political scientists who study campaign technology adoption have hitherto ignored. In 2006 and 2008, past experience with technology has large, positive and significant coefficients, and thus provides strong support for Hypotheses 2(a) and 2(b). The coefficients for geographic network are positive and statistically significant only in 2006, however. This suggests that while early adopters are making decisions more on peer influence and probably personal qualities and biases we are unable to measure, later adopters become more strategic and take other factors into account such as the expectations of voters in their geographic constituency.

Which campaigns use Facebook most extensively?

Turning to Hypotheses 2(c) and 2(d), Model 3 presents the first, lower-effort measure of the extent to which campaigns are implementing and using Facebook by analyzing those

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on March 26, 2013

64

new media & society 15(1)

Table 2. OLS regression analysis of Facebook activity in the 2008 House races. Independent variables Party (Republicans = reference category) Democrats Incumbency status (incumbents = reference category) Challengers Open seat candidates Contributions received (natural log) Competitive seat Constituency variables Percentage rural Percentage white Percentage with college degrees Percentage age 65 and over State average presence Campaign website presence Intercept n R2 Standard error Standard deviation of dependent variable Model 4 0.142 * 0.086 0.086 0.115 0.293 ** 0.136 0.108 *** 0.042 0.152 0.113 0.006 * 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.024 *** 0.007 0.014 0.011 0.273 0.258 0.066 0.178 0.793 0.618 152 0.192 0.533 0.606

Note: Bold entries are unstandardized OLS regression coefficients; standard errors are in italics. * p < .10, ** p < .05, *** p < .01; two-sided tests of significance.

who have taken the step of posting some form of additional content to their pages after initially creating the page (n =591). Table 2 presents the results of our second high-effort measure of usage, Facebook activity, which counts the combined usage of four candidate- and supporter-generated features. We collected these data for only a subsample of House candidates who created pages, which accounts for the much smaller n of 152 after accounting for missing data.

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on March 26, 2013

Williams and Gulati

65

The first finding of note is that the results for Model 3, page update mirror those for page creation in 2008. This indicates that merely undertaking to add one (or more) type of content to the page is indeed a very modest effort and low-bar criterion for extent of usage. If a campaign takes the more important step of creating a Facebook presence, they almost certainly return at some point to extend its content. Given that this third model achieves the highest explained variance, .48, it suggests that actually updating the page is likely a better indicator of what the concept adopting an innovation signifies. We also believe it confirms that our summated index is a more stringent test of extent of usage and conclude that it is probably also a more appropriate one for capturing this diffusion of innovation concept in what we measure. As a comparison of Table 1 with Table 2 shows, while there are some similarities across the sets of results, the differences between them strike us as the more important finding. The amount of contributions received is the only variable that is statistically significant across all four models. For the three 2008 models, only the coefficients for Democrats and the percentage of the college graduates living in the district are significant and have a positive sign. Neither the geographic proximity network nor a propensity to adopt other technology innovations influences the degree to which campaigns implement and use its features. Consistent with the way the literature differentiates these and Hypothesis 2(c), our data substantiate that the two are clearly different decisions and subject to different processes. In retrospect, it suggests an explanation for the low explained variance reported in 2006 by Foot and Schneider (between .09 and .20) and also here in Model 4. Like ours, their dependent variables are features connoting extent of usage (in campaign websites through informing, connecting, involving and mobilizing). Political science research has not captured the constructs most related to extent of usage. We suspect that is because researchers have not hitherto correctly differentiated these two decisions in a way that would lead us away from simply appropriating the same conventionally employed independent variables for both research questions. The second striking difference across models is the direction of influence of incumbency status. In the previous three models, which we now reconceptualize as the technology innovation adoption decision, challengers and open seat candidates were the early adopters. In Model 4, the technology innovation implementation decisions about how extensively it will be used, those coefficients now show incumbents to be the most active Facebook users in 2008. It is a finding that is consistent with a recent study of YouTube usage in 2008 (Gulati and Williams, 2010) and another study of campaign websites (Druckman et al., 2009). The diffusion of innovation literature and empirical studies suggest that organization contingent factors such as compatibility are what matter here. Incumbents have more capacity (organizational and resource wherewithal) to generate the content that constitutes (campaign postings) or creates (supporter postings) usage. As earlier comments of staff members illustrated, among House candidates, nonincumbents campaigns are heavily dependent on volunteers, have trouble keeping up, or do not have much happening from day to day about which to post. The predictive power of the percentage of college-educated residents within House districts and the percentage of residents living in rural areas are two more interesting findings. It is the one instance where our findings are not wholly consistent with Hypothesis 2(d).

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on March 26, 2013

66

new media & society 15(1)

Education could be viewed as corroborating the justifications and interpretations applied to it in the campaign website studies, which tie it to Internet usage behavior. Yet age and race/ethnicity continue to demarcate an important, albeit diminishing, digital divide in social networks more generally, and much more so in Facebook specifically. The diffusion of innovation literature suggests a new way of conceptualizing this result with respect to the question of usage. College education is an attribute of this technology in the sense that it was among those with a college education that Facebook originated and who comprise its most significant user base. Choosing between a diminishing digital divide (a maturation or developmental explanation) and this technology attribute explanation would require testing the same model with another differently constituted social network such as MySpace and across another type of technology innovation such as YouTube or Twitter.

Discussion and future directions

The diffusion of innovation literature served to inform our research hypotheses, model specification, analysis and interpretation of our data on who adopts new campaign technologies and to what extent. Our findings demonstrate the importance of differentiating between the decision to become an early adopter and the extensive implementation and use of the technology once it has been adopted. We anticipate that examination of the next step assessing how well the technology performs, i.e. the quality and/or degree of its success will likewise benefit from attending to these constructs in refining the measures, and for the identification of additional or different variables in specifying our models. We should not be using the same conventional variables for all three research questions. In addition to the point that the selection of independent variables should be made in relation to the dependent variable under investigation, diffusion of innovation literature and our findings underscore that the interrelationships between these two will change depending on whether we are examining adoption, usage or performance. What competition means and why it is important or not in the decision to be an early adopter or extensive implementer may change because our measures are only surrogates or imperfect operationalizations of their underlying constructs. In other words, and taking the example of financial resources, we may be capturing one kind of motivator in the adoption decision (e.g. an external one like norms and expectations surrounding high-visibility, high level of office campaigns) and the consultants who comingle among them or are historically associated with that state or district. In the innovations implementation, however, that same measure of financial resources may be capturing quite a different driver, namely an internal organization-specific facilitator or constraint in ways analogous to the findings and reasons that large firms (Rogers, 2003) or states (Hage and Aiken, 1967; Mohr, 1969; Walker, 1969) innovate more and better than smaller ones in the same industry. Our results also demonstrate that the same independent variable may be a significant influence on one decision (adoption) and not the other (implementation), or work in the opposite direction, as we saw with competitiveness of the race. This study has identified two new independent variables that are important to early adoption: geographic proximity contagion and propensity to adopt campaign innovation

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on March 26, 2013

Williams and Gulati

67

technologies. Both measures could be expanded or refined in ways that the limitations of our data did not allow. For example, geographic proximity defined in terms of state borders may not be as appropriate or finely measured as a physical proximity distance measure. And it may be that social interaction networks are additionally or more important. Furthermore, the low percentage of variance explained in this and similar studies of campaign websites underscores the point that we have a long way to go in identifying variables that appropriately and fully specify our extent of usage models. As Fichman (2004: 54) observes, Research that goes beyond the dominant paradigm holds more promise to tell us things about the IT innovation phenomenon that we do not already know. Part of the reason is that internal organization-specific attributes are difficult for political scientists to observe directly or publically and to measure quantitatively. Campaigns are reluctant or unwilling and too busy to reveal this information, and it is difficult to convert their responses and data into standardized measures comparable across campaigns. Our interviews of staff members offer tantalizing insights that enrich the interpretation of the findings in this study, but require more systematic and extensive replication before they can be employed to adequately test our explanatory models. Social networking sites like Facebook go beyond simply communicating the campaigns theme and providing information on how to participate in it. Active engagement by the candidate and a well-maintained site can make the candidate more accessible and seem more authentic. It also can encourage a more professional discussion among supporters.17 In addition to personalizing the candidate, Facebook puts a face on the other supporters and facilitates interpersonal connections around activities other than politics. And because Facebook organizes members by regional and organizational networks and gives greater access to profiles in ones own networks, offline meetings and connections are possible. Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes
1. Bob Reilly, campaign of Republican Todd Platts (R-PA), email correspondence, 10 December 2008. 2. Melissa Smith, campaign of Christine Jennings (D-FL), telephone interview, 28 October 2008. 3. Ryan, campaign of Senator John Sununu (R-NH), telephone interview, 28 October 2008. Some of our interview respondents preferred that their last names not be used. In these cases, we provide only their first names. 4. Ryan Anniston, campaign staff of Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), telephone interview, 27 October 2008. 5. Peter, campaign staff of Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL) telephone interview, 27 October 2008. 6. Shawn, campaign staff of Parker Griffith (D-AL), telephone interview, 20 October 2008. 7. Ryan Anniston, campaign of Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), telephone interview, 27 October 2008. 8. Ezra Calahan and Chris Hughes, telephone interview, 24 October 2006.

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on March 26, 2013

68

new media & society 15(1)

9. Candidates were identified initially by monitoring several political websites (i.e. Politics1. com, The DC Political Report, and Project Vote Smart) that maintained candidate lists. We later cross-referenced our list with the official list produced by the Clerk of the House. 10. Other coded features not reported in this paper were: posting of personal information, contact information; use of mini feeds, external links, and candidate photo albums. Summaries of these data are available from the authors on request. 11. We also performed a content analysis of profiles for 108 randomly selected candidates. In most cases (83 percent), campaigns that replaced the profile picture from the default American flag to a photo of the candidate also posted additional photos and other materials such as messages to their wall and links to additional content. For 17 percent of the campaigns, therefore, their only activity on Facebook was to upload a photo of the candidate. 12. Data on campaign contributions were obtained from the Federal Election Commission: www. fec.gov/finance/disclosure/ftpsum.shtml. 13. See www.cookpolitical.com/charts/house/competitive_2008-11-03_17-12-33.php. 14. These data are from the 2000 Census and were obtained from the US Bureau of the Census. Because the two candidates in the same congressional district will have the same values on these four variables, the observations are not fully independent. Thus, a hierarchical linear model or other multi-level model may have been more appropriate than the regression models that we estimated. We did not believe that estimating a more complex model and losing some of the coefficients interpretive value was warranted, given the presence of only one additional observation with the same district-level variables. Moreover, estimating logistic and OLS regression models allow for better direct comparisons with previous studies of the adoption of campaign websites and Facebook. 15. While this seems a low bar, alternative measures (employing mobilization features on their websites in 2006 and having both a campaign website and a YouTube channel in 2008) only marginally increased the explained variance and only marginally altered the coefficients and their significance levels. We did not have campaign website mobilization features data for 2008 and no House candidates had YouTube channels in 2006. To be consistent in how we operationalized this independent variable across the two election cycles, we used only the website presence measure in our predictive models. 16. Substituting percentage of residents under 18 in 2000 (hence under 24 or 26 in 2006 and 2008, respectively) for over age 64 in our models makes negligible difference in the coefficients or their level of significance, and decreases the variance explained by the models. 17. Ryan Alexander, staff of Senator Evan Bayh, telephone interview, 18 October 2006.

References
Anstead N and Chadwick A (2009) Parties, election campaigning, and the Internet: toward a comparative institutional approach. In: Chadwick A and Howard PN (eds) Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics. New York: Routledge, pp. 5671. Carey JM and Shugart MS (1995) Incentive to cultivate a personal vote: a rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies 14(4): 417439. Chadwick A (2006) Internet Politics: States, Citizens and New Communication Technologies. New York: Oxford University Press. Druckman JN, Kifer MJ and Parkin M (2009) Campaign communications in US congressional elections. American Political Science Review 103(3): 343366.

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on March 26, 2013

Williams and Gulati

69

Fairbanks E (2006) The YouTube election: candid camera. The New Republic, 2 November. Available at: www.tnr.com/doc.mhtm?i=w06103030&;s=fairbanks110206 (accessed 5 August 2007). Fichman RG (1992) Information technology diffusion: a review of empirical research. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Information Systems, pp. 195206. Fichman RG (2004) Going beyond the dominant paradigm for information technology innovation research: emerging concepts and methods. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 5(8): Article 11. Foot KA and Schneider SM (2006) Web Campaigning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Frambach RT and Schillewaert N (2002) Organizational innovation adoption: a multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. Journal of Business Research 55(2): 163176. Gibson RK, Margolis M, Resnick D, et al. (2003) Election campaigning on the WWW in the USA and UK: a comparative analysis. Party Politics 9(1): 4775. Gray V (1973) Innovation in the states: a diffusion study. American Political Science Review 67(4): 11741185. Grynbaum MM (2006) Likes: ice cream, war on terror; campaigns court young, get personal on web site. Boston Globe, 20 August, A1. Gulati GJ and Williams CB (2007) Closing gaps, moving hurdles: candidate web site communication in the 2006 campaigns for Congress. Social Science Computer Review 25(4): 443465. Gulati GJ and Williams CB (2010) Congressional candidates use of YouTube in 2008: its frequency and rationale. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7(2/3): 93109. Hage J and Aiken M (1967) Program change and organizational properties: a comparative analysis. American Journal of Sociology 72(5): 503516. Herrnson PS, Stokes-Brown AK and Hindman M (2007) Campaign politics and the digital divide: constituency characteristics, strategic considerations, and candidate Internet use in state legislative elections. Political Research Quarterly 60(1): 3142. Horrigan J (2009) Pew Internet & American Life Project. Home broadband adoption 2009: broadband adoption increases, but monthly prices do too. Available at: www.pewinternet.org/~/ media/files/reports/2009/home-broadband-adoption-2009.pdf. Howard PN (2006) New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen. New York: Cambridge University Press. Johnson CA (1976) Political culture in American states: Elazars formulation examined. American Journal of Political Science 20(3): 491509. Kamarck EC (2002) Political campaigning on the Internet: business as usual? In: Kamarck EC and Nye J (eds) governance.com: Democracy in the Information Age. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, pp. 81103. Keen J (2006) Politicians campaigns invade MySpace. USA Today, 17 October, 1A. Kelly R (2006) Politicians are the new generation of MySpace invaders. CQ Weekly Report, 7 August, 2155. Klotz RJ (2004) The Politics of Internet Communication. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Kwon TH and Zmud RW (1987) Unifying the fragmented models of information systems implementation. In: Boland JR and Hirshheim R (eds) Critical Issues in Information Systems Research. New York: John Wiley, pp. 227251. Lovley E (2006) Politicians try out MySpace. Wall Street Journal, 14 October, A4. Manzano S and Sanchez GR (2010) Take one for the team? Limits of shared ethnicity and candidate preferences. Political Research Quarterly 63(3): 568580. Marriott M (2006) Blacks turn to internet highway, and digital divide starts to close. New York Times, 31 March, A1.

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on March 26, 2013

70

new media & society 15(1)

Mohr LB (1969) Determinants of innovation in organizations. American Political Science Review 63(1): 111126. Mossberger K, Tolbert CJ and Stansbury M (2003) Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Ragsdale L (1980) The fiction of congressional elections as presidential events. American Politics Research 8(4): 375398. Rasiej A and Sifry M (2008) GOP lags on the Internet frontier. The Politico, 13 August. Available at: www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5359.html (accessed 10 January 2011). Robertson TS and Gatignon H (1986) Competitive effects on technology diffusion. Journal of Marketing 50(1): 112. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edn. New York: Free Press. Sifry ML (2006) RNC vs. DNC online: precinct-walking or social-networking? Personal Democracy Forum, 9 October. Available at: www.personaldemocracy.com/node/1036 (accessed 5 August 2007). Smith A and Rainie L (2008) Pew Internet & American Life Project. The Internet and the 2008 election, 15 June. Available at: http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2008/PIP_2008_ election.pdf.pdf. Stirland SL (2007) New wave of strategists tap web to transform GOP. Wired.com, 23 August. Available at: www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/08/rove (accessed 10 January 2011). Strandberg K (2009) Online campaigning: an opening for the outsiders? An analysis of Finnish parliamentary candidates websites in the 2003 election campaign. New Media & Society 11(5): 835854. Swanson DL and Mancini P (1996) Politics, Media, and Modern Democracy. Westport, CT: Praeger. Thompson K (2008) Election 2008: measuring the power of netroots. Popular Science, 3 January. Available at: www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-01/election-2008measuring-power-netroots (accessed 11 August 2009). Tornatzky LG and Klein KJ (1982) Innovation characteristics and innovation adoptionimplementation: a meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 29(1): 2845. Vascellaro J (2006) Campaign 2006 online: new sites aim to capitalize on social-networking craze spark political involvement. Wall Street Journal, 21 September, D1. Walker JL (1969) The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review 63(3): 880899. Ward S and Gibson R (2009) European political organisations and the Internet: mobilisation, participation, and change. In: Chadwick A and Howard PN (eds) Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics. New York: Routledge, pp. 2539. Wasserman E (2006) Media: candid camera campaign. CQ Weekly Report, 18 September, 2444. Wattenberg M (1991) The Rise of Candidate-Centered Politics: Presidential Elections of the 1980s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Welch S and Thompson K (1980) The impact of federal incentives on state policy innovation. American Journal of Political Science 24(4): 715729. Williams CB and Gulati GJ (2007) Social networks in political campaigns: Facebook and the 2006 midterm elections. Paper presented at the 103rd annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, 30 August 2 September. Xenos M and Foot K (2005) Politics as usual or politics unusual? Position-taking and dialogue on campaign web sites in the 2002 U.S. elections. Journal of Communication 55(1): 169185. Yahr E (2006) Politics new ploy: in your Facebook. Lexington Herald-Leader, 14 August, 1.

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on March 26, 2013

Williams and Gulati

71

Christine B. Williams is Professor of Political Science in the Global Studies Department at Bentley University, and received her MA and PhD degrees from Indiana University. She currently serves as North American Managing Editor of the Journal of Political Marketing, and she is Associate Editor and on the senior editorial board of the Journal of Information Technology and Politics, among others. Her research area is political communication, with emphasis on new and emerging technologies and e-government. Her work has appeared in academic journals and conference proceedings, trade and professional association publications, and news media outlets worldwide. Girish J. Jeff Gulati is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Bentley University and he earned his PhD from the University of Virginia. His research areas are telecommunications policy, e-government, political communication and the news media, campaigns and elections, and representation in theory and practice. He is also a member of the Regional Working Group on Modern-Day Slavery and Human Trafficking at the Carr Center for Human Rights at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Information Technology & Politics and the Journal of Political Marketing.

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on March 26, 2013