2. Theoretical Development
2.1. Structural Features in Mediated Messages
2.2. (In)formality of Language
2.3. Network-Mediated Human Interactivity
3.1. Research Design
3.2. Independent Variables
3.3. Dependent Variables
5. Conclusion and Discussion
Conflicts of Interest
- Choi, H. Broadcasting and telecommunications industries in the convergence age: Toward a sustainable public-centric public interest. Sustainability 2018, 10, 544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Culnan, M.J.; McHugh, P.J.; Zubillaga, J.I. How large US companies can use Twitter and other social media to gain business value. MIS Q. Exec. 2010, 9, 243–259. [Google Scholar]
- Feng, C.; Yang, N. Twitter adoption in congress. Rev. Netw. Econ. 2011, 10, 52–95. [Google Scholar]
- Hawn, C. Take two aspirin and tweet me in the morning: How Twitter, Facebook, and other social media are reshaping health care. Health Aff. 2009, 28, 361–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobson, G.C. The effects of campaign spending in congressional elections. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 1978, 72, 469–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobson, G.C. The effects of campaign spending in house elections: New evidence for old arguments. Am. J. Political Sci. 1990, 34, 334–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Welch, W.P. The economics of campaign funds. Public Choice 1974, 20, 83–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levitt, S.D. Using repeat challengers to estimate the effect of campaign spending on election outcomes in the U.S. House. J. Political Econ. 1994, 102, 777–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reis, A.; Reis, L. The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR; Harper Collins Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Wellman, B. Physical place and cyber place: The rise of personalized networking. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2001, 25, 227–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abroms, L.; Lefebvre, R. Obama’s wired campaign: Lessons for public health communication. J. Health Commun. 2009, 14, 415–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Talbot, D. How Obama really did it. Technol. Rev. 2008, 111, 78–83. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, A. 22% of Online Americans Used Social Networking or Twitter for Politics in 2010 Campaign. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. 2010. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2011/01/27/22-of-online-americans-used-social-networking-or-twitter-for-politics-in-2010-campaign/ (accessed on 24 June 2020).
- Sharma, H. Obama Election Tweet Most Repeated but Olympics Tops on Twitter. Available online: https://business.financialpost.com/technology/twitters-top-tweets-of-2012 (accessed on 24 June 2020).
- AFP. Kuwait Poll Closes, Hit by Opposition Boycott. Available online: https://sandtonchronicle.co.za/afp/229204/kuwait-votes-as-opposition-ends-boycott/ (accessed on 24 June 2020).
- Frimpong, K. Social Media & Election 2020. Available online: https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/Social-media-and-election-2020-975226 (accessed on 24 June 2020).
- Yonhap News. Twitter to Focus on Localization, Partnerships in Korea. Available online: http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2012/10/11/0200000000AEN20121011008200320.HTML (accessed on 24 June 2020).
- Haberman, M.; Karni, A. Does Trump Want to Fight for a Second Term? His Self-Sabotage Worries Aides. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/17/us/politics/trump-2020-election.html (accessed on 24 June 2020).
- Lee, H. Twitter Electioneering Ruled Constitutional. Available online: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/02/113_101864.html (accessed on 24 June 2020).
- Kaida, L.L. Political advertising as political marketing: A retro-forward perspective. J. Political Mark. 2000, 11, 29–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, C.R. Back to the future: Some topics we should not forget about in advertising research. Int. J. Advert. 2012, 31, 699–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lang, A. The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. J. Commun. 2012, 50, 46–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lang, A. Using the limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing (LC4MP) to design effective cancer communication messages. J. Commun. 2006, 56, 57–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lang, A.; Bolls, P.; Potter, R.F.; Kawahara, K. The effects of production pacing and arousing content on the information processing of television messages. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 1999, 43, 451–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lang, A.; Geiger, S.; Strickwerda, M.; Sumner, J. The effects of related and unrelated cuts on viewers’ memory for television: A limited capacity theory of television viewing. Commun. Res. 1993, 20, 4–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lang, A.; Schwartz, N.; Chung, Y.; Lee, S. Processing substance abuse messages: Production pacing, arousing content, and age. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 2004, 48, 61–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Potter, R.F. The effects of voice changes on orienting and immediate cognitive overload in radio listeners. Media Psychol. 2000, 2, 147–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Potter, R.F.; Choi, J. The effects of auditory structural complexity on attitudes, attention, arousal, and memory. Media Psychol. 2006, 8, 395–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, E.F.; Lang, A.; Shin, M.; Bradley, S.D. Death with a story: How story impacts emotional, motivational, and physiological responses to first-person shooter video games. Hum. Commun. Res. 2004, 30, 361–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lang, A.; Borse, J.; Wise, K.; David, P. Captured by the World Wide Web: Orienting to structural and content features of computer-presented information. Commun. Res. 2002, 29, 215–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, A. Language Style as Audience Design in Sociolinguistics. In Sociolinguistics: A Reader and Course Book; Coupland, N., Jaworski, A., Eds.; St. Martin’s Press: New York, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 240–250. [Google Scholar]
- Park, J. Linguistic politeness and face-work in computer mediated communication, Part 2: An application of the theoretical framework. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2008, 59, 2199–2209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westbrook, L. Chat reference communication patterns and implications: Applying politeness theory. J. Doc. 2007, 63, 638–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michell, P.; Reast, J.; Lynch, J. Exploring the foundations of trust. J. Mark. Manag. 1998, 14, 159–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sally, D. Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis of experiments from 1958 to 1992. Ration. Soc. 1995, 7, 58–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schienker, B.R.; Helm, R.; Tedeschi, J.T. The effects of personality and situational variables of behavioural trust. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1973, 25, 419–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hawes, J.M.; Mast, K.E.; Swan, J.E. Trust Earning Perceptions of Sellers and Buyers. J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manag. 1989, 9, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Rempel, J.K.; Holmes, J.G. How do I Trust Thee? Psychol. Today 1986, 20, 28–34. [Google Scholar]
- Rafaeli, S. Interactivity: From new media to communication. In Annual Review of Communication Research: Advancing Communication Science; Hawkins, R.P., Wiemann, J.M., Pingree, S., Eds.; Sage: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1988; pp. 110–134. [Google Scholar]
- Stromer-Galley, J. Online interaction and why candidates avoid it. J. Commum. 2000, 50, 111–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stromer-Galley, J. Interactivity-as-product and interactivity-as-process. Inf. Soc. 2004, 20, 391–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ha, L.; James, E.L. Interactivity reexamined: A baseline analysis of early business Web sites. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 1998, 42, 457–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sundar, S.S.; Kalyanaraman, S.; Brown, J. Explicating website interactivity: Impression-formation effects in political campaign sites. Commun. Res. 2003, 30, 30–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Dijk, J. The Network Society: Social Aspects of New Media; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Rogers, E.M. Communication Technology: The New Media in Society; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Argyle, M.; Dean, J. Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry 1965, 28, 289–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wilson, J.M.; Straus, S.G.; McEvily, B. All in due time: The development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2006, 99, 16–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bright, J.; Ganesh, B.; Margetts, H. Does campaigning on social media make a difference? Evidence from candidate use of Twitter during the 2015 and 2017 U.K. elections. Commun. Res. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Labov, W. Sociolinguistic Patterns; University of Philadelphia Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1972. [Google Scholar]
- Eom, K. A Study on the speech level of listeners-honorific for modern Korean language. J. Lang. Lit. 2002, 30, 79–98. [Google Scholar]
- Vitak, J.; Zube, P.; Smock, A.; Carr, C.T.; Ellison, N.; Lampe, C. It’s complicated: Facebook users’ political participation in the 2008 election. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2011, 14, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, M.Y.; Park, B. Sustainable corporate social media marketing based on message structural features: Firm size plays a significant role as a moderator. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).