How partisan social identity shapes evaluations of candidate brand elements on campaign websites

References

• Achen, C. A., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arceneaux, K. (2008). Can partisan cues diminish democratic accountability? Political Behavior, 30(2), 139–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-007-9044-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J., & Verser, R. M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 70(4), 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363775032000179133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bramlett, J. C. (2021). Battles for branding: A political marketing approach to studying televised candidate debates. Communication Quarterly, 69(3), 280–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2021.1944889
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clavio, G., & Vooris, R. (2017). ESPN and the hostile media effect. Communication & Sport, 6(6), 728–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479517739835
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Debusmann, B., Jr. (2023, June 21). If US companies ‘go woke’, do they really go broke? BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65918155
   Google Scholar
• Dodd, M. D., & Supa, D. W. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring “corporate social advocacy” communication: Examining the impact on corporate financial performance. Public Relations Journal, 8(3), 1–23. http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/Vol8/No3/
   Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., Kifer, M. J., Parkin, M., & Montes, I. (2018). An inside view of congressional campaigning on the web. Journal of Political Marketing, 17(4), 442–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2016.1274279
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2017). Social cognition: From brains to culture (3rd ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, S. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20(2), 393–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00150
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, S. (2004). Social identity theory and party identification. Social Science Quarterly, 85(1), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.08501010.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hermans, L., & Vergeer, M. (2012). Personalization in e-campaigning: A cross-national comparison of personalization strategies used on candidate websites of 17 countries in EP elections 2009. New Media & Society, 15(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812457333
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrick, R. (2016). Gender themes in state legislative candidates’ websites. The Social Science Journal, 53(3), 282–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2016.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hetherington, M., & Weiler, J. (2018). Prius or pickup? How the answers to four simple questions explain America’s great divide. Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Hong, C., & Li, C. (2020). To support or to boycott: a public segmentation model in corporate social advocacy. Journal of Public Relations Research, 32(5–6), 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2020.1848841
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopkins, D. J. (2018). The increasingly United States: How and why American political behavior nationalized. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., & Krupenkin, M. (2018). The strengthening of partisan affect. Political Psychology, 39(S1), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12487
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarman, J. W. (2016). Motivated reasoning and viewer’s reactions to the first 2012 presidential debate. Speaker & Gavel, 53, 83–101. http://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/speaker-gavel/vol53/iss1/8
   Google Scholar
• Jennings, F. J. (2019). An uninformed electorate: Identity-motivated elaboration, partisan cues, and learning. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 47(5), 527–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2019.1679385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jennings, F. J., Bramlett, J. C., McKinney, M. S., & Hardy, M. M. (2020). Tweeting along partisan lines: Identity-motivated elaboration and presidential debates. Social Media & Society, 6(4), 205630512096551. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120965518
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jennings, F. J., & Coker, C. R. (2020). “I just don’t think she has a presidential look:” the influence of sexism on candidate image. Information, Communication and Society, 23(9), 1353–1367. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1566488
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalmoe, N. P., & Mason, L. (2022). Radical American partisanship: Mapping violent hostility, its causes, and the consequences for democracy. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kang, T., Franklin Fowler, E., Franz, M. M., & Ridout, T. N. (2018). Issue consistency? Comparing television advertising, tweets, and e-mail in the 2014 senate campaigns. Political Communication, 35(1), 32–49. https://doi.org/10.1090/10584609.2017.1334729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlsen, R. (2013). Obama’s online success and European party organizations: Adoption and adaptation of U.S. online practices in the Norwegian Labor party. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10(2), 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.749822
   Google Scholar
• Kaylor, B. (2008). A Burkean poetic frames analysis of the 2004 presidential ads. Communication Quarterly, 56(2), 168–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370802026976
   Google Scholar
• Kreiss, D. (2016). Prototype politics: Technology-intensive campaigning and the data of democracy. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ku, G., Kaid, L., & Pfau, M. (2003). The impact of web site campaigning on traditional news media and public information processing. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(3), 528–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900308000304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lane, D. S., Do, K., & Molina-Rogers, N. (2022). What is political expression on social media anyway? A systematic review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 19(3), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2021.1985031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669334
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mason, L. (2018). Ideologues without issues: The polarizing consequences of ideological identities. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(S1), 866–887. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGregor, S. C. (2018). Personalization, social media, and voting: Effects on candidate self-personalization on vote intention. New Media & Society, 20(3), 1139–1160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816686103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, P. R., & Conover, P. J. (2015). Red and blue states of mind: Partisan hostility and voting in the United states. Political Research Quarterly, 68(2), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912915577208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external validity. American Psychologist, 38(4), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics: Thinking the world politically. Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Muddiman, A., Warner, B. R., & Schumacher-Rutherford, A. (2021). Losers, villains,and violence: Political attacks, incivility, and political violence support. International Journal of Communication, 25, 1489–1512. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/11499/3395
   Google Scholar
• Mudrick, M., Sauder, M. H., & Davies, M. (2019). When athletes don’t “stick to sports”: The relationship between athlete political activism and sport consumer behavior. Journal of Sport Behavior, 42(2), 177–199.
   Google Scholar
• Munro, G. D., Ditto, P. H., Lockhart, L. K., Fagerlin, A., Gready, M., & Peterson, E. (2002). Biased assimilation of sociopolitical arguments: Evaluating the 1996 U.S. presidential debate. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 24(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2401_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray, C. (2023, November 13). ‘The marvels’ faces anti-‘woke’ backlash after box office flop – echoing ‘captain marvel’ attacks. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/11/13/the-marvels-faces-anti-woke-backlash-after-box-office-flop-echoing-captain-marvel-attacks/?sh=401cf03611d4
   Google Scholar
• Neville-Shepard, M. (2021). Masks and emasculation: Populist crisis rhetoric and the 2020 presidential election. American Behavioral Scientist, https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642211011223
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicholson, S. P., Coe, C. M., Emory, J., & Song, A. V. (2016). The politics of beauty: The effects of partisan bias on physical attractiveness. Political Behavior, 38(4), 883–898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9339-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, S. W. (2017). On political brands: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Political Marketing, 16(2), 118–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2014.959694
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, S. W., & Larsen, M. V. (2014). Party brands and voting. Electoral Studies, 33, 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2013.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D. J. (2013). Elaboration likelihood model. The International Encyclopedia of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiece011.pub2
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, E., & Muñoz, M. (2022). “Stick to sports”: Evidence from sports media on the origins and consequences of newly politicized attitudes. Political Communication, 39(4), 454–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2022.2039979
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ranjit, Y. S., Shin, H., First, J., & Houston, J. B. (2021). Covid-19 protective model: The role of threat perceptions and informational cues in influencing behavior. Journal of Risk Research, 24(3–4), 449–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2021.1887328
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rey, R. T., & Capra, J. (2023). “Shut up and dribble”: Fans’ perceptions of professional athletes’ role in standing up against racial injustices. Communication Research Reports, 40(1), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2023.2165488
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, A. (2021). Tweeting is leading: How senators communicate in the age of twitter. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scacco, J. M., & Coe, K. (2021). The ubiquitous presidency: Presidential communication and digital democracy in tumultuous times. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Settle, J. E. (2018). Frenemies: How social media polarizes America. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1999). Commitment and the context of social perception. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity context, commitment, content (pp. 59–83). Blackwell Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Speed, R., Butler, P., & Collins, N. (2015). Human branding in political marketing: Applying contemporary branding thought to political parties and their leaders. Journal of Political Marketing, 14(1–2), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2014.990833
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J. (2019). Presidential campaigning in the internet age (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J., Rossini, P., Hemsley, J., Bolden, S. E., & McKernan, B. (2021). Political messaging over time: A comparison of US presidential candidate facebook posts and tweets in 2016 and 2020. Social Media + Society, 7(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211063465
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sudulich, M. L., & Wall, M. (2010). “Every little helps:” cyber-campaigning in the 2007 Irish general election. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7(4), 340–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331680903473485
   Google Scholar
• Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2016). The illusion of choice in democratic politics: The unconscious impact of motivated political reasoning. Political Psychology, 37(S1), 61–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12321
   Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Brooks/Cole.
   Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In W. G. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Warner, B. R., & Banwart, M. C. (2016). A multifactor approach to candidate image. Communication Studies, 67(3), 259–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2016.1156005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warner, B. R., Hoeun, S., Bramlett, J. C., Galarza, R., Manik, D. I., Hase, G. E., & Engen, R. (2019). The effects of debate viewing on candidate image perceptions in the 2016 televised presidential general election debates. In E. A. Hinck (Ed.), Presidential debates in a changing media environment (Vol. 1, pp. 292–318). Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Warner, B. R., Jennings, F. J., Bramlett, J. C., Coker, C. R., Reed, J. L., & Bolton, J. P. (2018). A multi-media analysis of persuasion in the 2016 presidential election: Comparing the unique and complementary effects of political comedy and political advertising. Mass Communication and Society, 21(6), 720–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2018.1472283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warner, B. R., McKinney, M. S., Bramlett, J. C., Jennings, F. J., & Funk, M. E. (2020). Reconsidering partisanship as a constraint on the persuasive effects of debates. Communication Monographs, 87(2), 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2019.1641731
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wasif, A. (2010). Red sox fans are from Mars, Yankees fans are from uranus: Why Red Sox fans are smarter, funnier, and better looking. Triumph Books.
   Google Scholar
• Xenos, M. A., & Foot, K. F. (2005). Politics as usual, or politics unusual? Position taking and dialogue on campaign websites in the 2002 U.S. elections. Journal of Communication, 55(1), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02665.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, H., Lee, E., & Rim, H. (2022). Should businesses take a stand? Effects of perceived psychological distance on consumers’ expectation and evaluation of corporate social advocacy. Journal of Marketing Communications, 28(8), 840–863. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2021.1969588
   Google Scholar